What is Truth? | Creation Today

Our Websites

What is Truth?

I recently received a question in one of our online communities regarding the lack of credit given to creation by the majority of scientists.

Doesn’t it follow that we also shouldn’t accept your arguments? After all, the views of CSE aren’t accepted by authorities in biology, geology, history, anthropology, or physics.

I beg to differ. There are hundreds—even thousands—of scientists who accept the biblical worldview and see it in no way contrary to real science. In Six Days responds to the late Stephen Gould’s assertion that no legitimate scientist believes in the Genesis account of creation. Gould’s entire argument is a red haring. Truth is never decided by “majority opinion.”

Truth

Truth is not relative nor is it subjective. Truth is that which conforms to reality as perceived by God. The good news is that you can come to know the truth, and the truth will set you free (John 8: 32)! All you have to do is continue in God’s word (v. 31). Here is a quick video to explain “truth.”

Search the Scriptures

The very idea of truth implies a standard. The fact that something can be false logically leads to the idea that there is some standard of truth. Jesus declares that He is the standard of truth. Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the father, but by me” (John 14:6). Search the Scriptures and know the truth for yourself.

,

59 Responses to What is Truth?

  1. Mike Ayala November 1, 2010 at 7:21 am #

    Hi Eric,

    Amen! Amen! And Amen! Jesus is the truth. The Bible says that those who perish in the last days at the coming of the Anti-Christ perish because they did not receive the love of the truth:

    2 Thessalonians 2:9-10

    “The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders,

    And with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved…”

    Thank you for pointing out that being set free by the truth is conditional upon abiding in God’s word:

    “Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are my disciples indeed.

    And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free”.”

    God bless you all.

    Mike Ayala

  2. Mike Ayala November 1, 2010 at 7:36 am #

    Hi Jennifer,

    Sorry for the delay. I wanted to raise these specific questions because they are at the heart of some of the great misconceptions about Relativity and humanity’s collective understanding of the universe. Currently, science is trying to make sense of the universe without a reliable absolute reference standard – kind of like trying to navigate through life without the word of God illuminated by the Holy Spirit in one’s heart or like trying to drive straightly through London during morning rush hours traffic without a map (or a GPS these days). We need the truth, that absolute standard of reference of reality, in all areas of life.

    I still want to do a point by point response to your posts on the http://www.drdino.com/response-to-senate-candidate-christine-o%e2%80%99donnell blog page because you raised some really great issues which illustrate some of the fairly recent observations and changes of understanding about constants across the board. In the mean time here’s just a quick response to your answers of the four questions I asked you at the end of the same page. I have been extremely stretched for time with inescapable responsibilities (no, that’s not a relativistic pun).

    ____________________________________________

    Four Questions for Jennifer Preston:

    In the mean time, please allow me to pose just a few questions:

    1. Who told you that the speed of light is a constant, and how do you know?

    2. How do you define a vacuum?

    3. What is the standard of reference of time in E=mc^2?

    4. Who has precisely verified mass consumed and energy released in a nuclear conversion to test the accuracy of E=mc^2?

    _____________________________________________

    Firstly, for all that modern science has accomplished – especially in the last few decades – it still has not produced a plausible explanation and understanding of light or energy. We know much about how to manipulate light and energy through the employment of fantastic technologies, but corporately mankind’s understanding of light is in its infancy: the best it can offer is an indecisive schizophrenic black box which those who dare to open it are called crazy, heretical or liars.

    Secondly, without a decaying velocity of light, evolutionary cosmology has three fatal problems, Horizon, Lambda, and Flatness, which show that the universe cannot be a fraction as old as evolutionary cosmologists claim it is. Each is a problem of such magnitude that each one is evidence why Big Bang cosmology is false. That is why blow-up-the-balloon cosmologists have had to come up with even stranger ideas to try to overcome the deficits of evolutionary cosmology in order to maintain an old age for the universe: They propose a balloon that does not exist; They propose someone or something that does not exist to decide to inflate the balloon that does not exist with energy and a pump that do not exist; Then they get someone or something that does not exist to turn off the pump that does not exist before the balloon that did not exist pops; and then Wha-la… we magically appear and call it home. This is the best they have to offer, and it does not work. So, to make a fuss about creationists demonstrating a decaying c is to be either disingenuously hypocritical or naively ignorant particularly when evolutionists are finally catching up with creationists who had proposed a decaying c decades ago, and the evolutionists are now proposing a decaying c to solve their insurmountable fatal flaws.

    Furthermore, to state that Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity proclaims c as a constant is flat-out wrong: What it actually states is that the velocity of light is unaffected by the speed of it’s source. That is a vastly different statement than saying that its velocity is a constant.

    Moreover, in v=d/t, the time component is meaningless unless it is according to some sort of reference. Now, today we have two basic choices: Orbital time or atomic time. Which clock do you choose? Atomic time is very precise, but it is not accurate. If atomic time is found to be accurate, then we have a surprising problem in that the orbits of Venus and Mercury are increasing in speed which means they are gaining energy from some unknown somewhere and converting that energy into motion in order to increase their velocity in their orbits around the Sun.

    It turns out that orbital time remains accurate in relation to atomic time which is decaying. The implications of this are staggering and wholly destructive to historical paradigms of science and science fiction. It also means that atomic time is useless when measuring other phenomena which are also affected by what ever it is that is causing the decay of the atomic constants. This is a major source of confusion because atomic time has been used to measure other constants, and then theories have been built on those observations. You might say that constants are only constant in like company.

    Your definition of the vacuum of space is a few years behind the times. Observations suggest variations in the permeability of space. Zero Point Energy was proposed back in the 1920’s. It is safe to say that there is a lot more occurring in the fabric of the universe about which we do not yet know than what we do presently know.

    No one has precisely verified mass consumed and energy released in a nuclear conversion to confirm if in fact E=mc^2 is truly accurate. We do not have the technology capable of containing and measuring such a conversion. We do know very well through observation that a lot of energy is released. Just ask the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Our instruments are just not up to the job. Consequently, although E=mc^2 makes for a nice mathematical representation, it has yet to be verified to the exclusion of other simpler explanations which also make the same predictions that resulted from Einstein’s Theories of Relativity.

    There is no shortage of examples of evidence showing that the speed of light as an inviolable constant is false. Pulsars caused quite a bone in the throat for cosmologists years ago when they realized the implication that sound was traveling faster than the speed of light. They had to do some revising there. Recent papers by Paul Davies, John D. Barrow, V.S. Troitskill are readily available for your viewing at Lambert Dolphin’s webpage “On The Constancy Of The Speed Of Light” discussing anomalies with c as a fixed constant, and remember, these guys are hardly young earth creationists. Even more so, Scientific American, that bastion of young earth creationist literature, recently published “Faster-than-light electric currents could explain pulsars” By George Musser Jun 18, 2010 07:27 PM. It is easy to find. John D. Barrow’s “Unusual Features of Varying Speed of Light Cosmologies” from February 5, 2008 is a nice read.

    .

    The whole point is to falsify evolutionary cosmology by evolutionists themselves: Evolutionary cosmology is based on flawed and shifting presuppositions because of a seriously flawed understanding of the nature of our universe and the basic phenomena through which we experience it. The evolutionary scenarios do not make sense in the light (pun intended) of recognized observation, and they fall apart with the slightest of scrutiny (just ask an evolutionary cosmologist with a competing theory and model), and even more so, they are ridiculous to the point of becoming an object of humor.

    .

    My point to you is, please do not be holding on to c as a constant while the cutting edge of physics is trying to conveniently and quietly shelve it, and please recognize the serious flaws of evolutionary cosmology: It is unsupportable and even more so if all available observation is taken into consideration. Human derived mathematical constants are a poor substitute for reality.

    Geno brought up the work of Barry Setterfield. I suggest you actually read and examine Barry Setterfield’s writings such as Atomic Constants, Time, and Light, or read his later papers on Redshift rather than accept or perpetuate heresay as some of his critics (both evolutionists and progressive creationists) had done. His work is not undermined by spurious accusations. His critics either refused to hear and accept his answer as an answer, or they did not understand it. The very nature of Barry’s work called into question many foundational truths of his critics upon which they based their criticism. Rather, many evolutionists are finally coming to similar conclusions as Barry (better late than never) although from a different perspective. In fact, Barry’s conclusions are rather tame compared to some of the evolutionists such as Paul Davies or that of V.S. Troitskill.

    Please check out the writings of these guys – especially Barry Setterfield. I think you will find them captivating if not just amazing if you are hungry to learn about new discoveries in these fields.

    Grace & blessings to you.

    Mike Ayala

  3. Jay Liemowitz November 1, 2010 at 9:43 am #

    Eric,

    I’ve mentioned this in a previous blog post dated August 30th (under the name Jay Liverstitch), but I’ll summarize here.

    Nobody is disputing that there is, to use your phrase, a “standard of truth”. Reality exists, and it’s inter-workings can be discovered and understood, we all agree on this. Even that person you cite who says “well how do you know that the pencil won’t fly up next time” will no doubt agree that we as a people can discover how gravity operates. The question is, can we be absolutely certain that we’ve gotten the right answer, even if we do in fact have it.

    To use an example from your video… We can go through the investigation, use DNA evidence to place a person at a crime scene, ask eye-witnesses what they saw and have them describe the assailant. We can then catch and incarcerate the actual person who committed the crime, but as you point out, we can’t know for certain that we’ve caught the right person. (I would even dispute that the video would be absolute proof as well. Video can be faked with increasingly convincing technology. Granted, video would be very powerful convincing evidence, but ultimately, we could have video and still come to the wrong conclusions, for various reasons. This is, I concede, not the point).

    Ultimately, someone being certain of a thing is relatively meaningless to me. We can be certain and wrong, and we can be uncertain and right.

    As I stated in the cited post, I can see that you are certain, but I’ve yet to see that you’re right. You need to demonstrate it to me, the same way a prosecutor has to demonstrate that they caught the actual criminal. To use your analogy, I need to see the video tape. If I were to accept your analogue, the Bible, then how would I then treat the hundreds of other accounts of creation, who also have their own “video” of the events? Without something that I can witness and examine myself, I have no reason to believe that just because you’re certain, that you’re also right.

  4. Kenneth Tyner November 1, 2010 at 9:53 am #

    1. Who told you that the speed of light is a constant, and how do you know?

    2. How do you define a vacuum?

    3. What is the standard of reference of time in E=mc^2?

    4. Who has precisely verified mass consumed and energy released in a nuclear conversion to test the accuracy of E=mc^2?

    Light is the accumulation in the density of thermal energy. The speed of light is not constant. As light decreases in density traveling away from the source, the waves increase as frequency decreases, which proves that light is slowing down. There are also thermal images of stars showing the wave fields and the decrease in density in accordance to Newtons law of inverse square.

    Thermal waves prove that light is transported through space in the medium of gasses or fluids in accordance with thermal convection. This is consistent with God separating the waters above from the waters beneath. Water being a clear fluid substance.

    E=MC2 is falsified by the speed of light not being a constant. Also, it is not required that two particles collide at maximum speeds for the maximum release of energy, or total annihilation.

    The vacuum of space is non-existent. Furthermore, the space vacuum and constant speed of light would result in the convergence of radiation, from trillions of stars, on the earth resulting in earth death. Radiation from distant stars would never reach the earth.

  5. Kenneth Tyner November 1, 2010 at 10:04 am #

    E=MC2 is falsified by the speed of light not being a constant. Also, it is not required that two particles collide at maximum speeds for the maximum release of energy, or total annihilation.

    Sorry, it is not required that two particles collide at the constant.

  6. Jay Liemowitz November 1, 2010 at 11:47 am #

    Stephen Holshouser this next post applies to Eric’s post as well as a question you posed to me a few days ago. “What do I need to hear to believe…”

    So far, what I’ve gotten from Eric and other pressuppers is the argument that they know what they know because an omnipotent being told them and that basically, I should just take their word for it.

    What is so interesting to me about this is that when challenged to differentiate their claim against other similar claims, whether it be some other main-line religion like Islam, or whether it be some ridiculous fantasy like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, they always retreat into some diversionary tactic like “If that’s not the position you hold then there’s no need to talk about it”. If I were to claim, lets say, the FSM as my belief, then the presupper quickly claims victory saying that I have just admitted that I am no longer an atheist, yet never attempts to differentiate why their claim to knowledge is any more substantial than that of the Pastafarian.

    So this is the best we get from you guys; arguments that at their best, are exactly on par with what we know to be fantasy. To use a chess analogy, you are employing a strategy that when played perfectly, can only force a stale mate with others who use the same strategy. And a strategy that can achieve only stale-mate, is a losing one. So I’ll ask you (Eric and Stephen) again, why should I accept your strategy, when you tacitly admit that the best you can do is compete toe to toe with complete hokum?

    What I would need to hear (or see) to believe that what Eric says is true, is a strategy that can be shown to actually win the chess match. Simply professing that you have the exact same claim to knowledge as those who profess Islam, isn’t going to convince me. Show me that your understanding of reality is more accurate than that of a Muslim.

    This is similar to another tactic I see employed by Eric, where instead of demonstrating his claim or knowledge to be superior, he attempts to make his opponents claims seem equal to his own. In the video on the main page, he claims that evolution as well as creation are both faith positions. I fail to see why this should support his stance. You’re trying to get me to reject a competing position based on the assertion that it’s exactly on par with yours. So by that logic, shouldn’t I reject yours as well?

    Regular men and women make up elaborate fantasies like the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn that employ the same claims to knowledge that all religions on the planet employ, but regular men and women are not omniscient. Am I that wrong to expect more from Someone who claims to be?

    Jay

  7. Kenneth Tyner November 1, 2010 at 2:27 pm #

    Jay, I hope you do not mind if I jump in on this conversation? Do you trust in logic? Do you agree with the law of non-contradiction?

    Let me propose a logical argument for you.

    Inductive argument

    Man made systems are functioning systems.
    Man made systems are intelligently designed.
    There, functioning systems are intelligently designed.

    Deductive argument

    Functioning systems are intelligently designed.
    Living systems are functioning systems.
    Therefore, living systems are intelligently designed.

    The only alternative is the spontaneous formation of functioning systems which is a myth.

    Myth; an imaginary or unverifiable person or thing.

    Now is your concern with the claim that God created or are you concerned with Jesus being the Christ or not?

    Do you agree with the law of non-contradiction, whereby, Jesus is the Christ or is not the Christ?

    Do you agree that Jesus being the Christ proves that all other religions are false? Considering that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, and claimed to be the only way to God.

    Do you agree that such truth claims are absolute truth or absolute lie?

  8. Jeff Brace November 1, 2010 at 3:52 pm #

    @Jay What would you have us show you Jay that you have not alreay held in complete contempt? The Word of God tells us just looking at the world is enough to know and believe in creation and God. You have decided already and are not looking for any proof. So why waste your time here trying to convince us there is no creation and no God? Oh, I know. You feel the need to belittle and mock those whom you hold in contempt. I think that about spells it out.
    What’s wonderful is how everyone here has tolerated your hate for God and has tried to simplify things so you might understand. It’s sad watching otherwise intelligent people make complete and utter fools of themsleves trying to convince us of their wisdom. Comparing pink unicorns and flying spagetti monsters to the Living God and Creator of the universe makes complete sense, right?

  9. Kenneth Tyner November 1, 2010 at 4:35 pm #

    Christianity Empirically provable

    Of all the religions in the world, Christianity is the only empirically provable one. Some would say that Christianity is just another man made religion and equal to all others. But that is easily dispelled.

    Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. All other religions in the world claim that Jesus is not the Son of God. Therefore, based on the law of non-contradiction they cannot all be right.

    If Jesus is the Son of God then all other religious are a lie, because the reject Jesus. If Jesus is not the Son of God then Christianity is a lie and all other religions are correct in claiming that Jesus is not the Son of God.

    So what about that empirical evidence. Christianity is also the only religion in the world that promises empirical evidence that Jesus is the Christ, the only begotten Son of God. Let me show you how which further empirically proves that the King James translation of the bible is the correct English translation.

    Jesus said:

    John 14:15If ye love me, keep my commandments. 16And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.18I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. 19Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. 20At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. 21He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. 22Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? 23Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.25These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. 26But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. 27Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

    John stated:

    1 John 2:3And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is aliar, and the truth is not in him. 5But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. 6He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

    Paul stated:

    Hebrews 5:9And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

    Romans 16:26But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: 27To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.

    Peter stated:

    Acts 5:29Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. 30The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. 31Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

    Acts 2:37Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

    Here we see that multiple witnesses, in addition to Jesus, promised the baptism of the Holy Ghost to all that obey the Lord. Therefore, if you will love the Lord and repent to obey him and be baptized in his name, then you too will receive the promise of the baptism of the Holy Ghost giving empirical evidence that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that the scriptures are absolutely true rather than the imaginations of delusional men.

  10. Michael Fisher November 1, 2010 at 6:28 pm #

    “Truth is not relative nor is it subjective.”

    Okay.

    Let’s try a few truth’s and see how you do with them:

    There were no placental animals in Australia until men brought them. There are no FOSSILS of placental animals in Australia. None. Zero Zip. Nada.

    There are no native marsupials in Europe or Africa or Asia. There are no FOSSILS of marsupials in Europe or Africa or Asia. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

    There were no land ANIMALS of ANY kind in Hawaii — until humans got there. When the Polynesians arrived they brought themselves — and, as stowaways, rats.

    Interestingly, also in Hawaii, are blind cave spiders. Different species on each Island. Unlike the other insects that have made it to Hawaii – they can’t fly. Now, you might say that spiders of any kind don’t fly, but that’s not quite true. A very common method of dispersal for baby spiders is for them to extrude a filament of silk which will then get picked up by the wind and carry the young spiders for hundreds of miles. Young spiders have been collected at 40,000 feet, so many species of spiders can spread via aerial dispersion. —– But not the blind cave spiders of Hawaii. Aside from living inside lava caves — they don’t have spinnerets. They can’t, even as babies, spin silk.

    There are no native mammals of any kind in New Zealand. There are a handful of Fossils, but no descendants.Plenty of amphibians and reptiles and infamously, birds.

    Fig trees come in some 800 living species. In well over 700 of those species there exists a symbiosis between THAT PARTICULAR species of fig and a SINGLE species of fig wasp it utterly relies on for the fertilization of its fruit. A handfull of species of figs and wasps are capable of interacting with more than one species of each, but for by far the majority of fig trees the elimination of their symbiotic wasp species would be the end of that species of fig tree.

    The wasps themselves have very short life cycles, on the order of a couple of weeks, and after hatching and escaping from there parent fig tree, have to travel miles to find another with fruit ready for the females to lay eggs in.

    It’s a fascinating life cycle and example of symbiosis. It also means that if, for example, you drowned all the fig trees in the world under water for several months, that the fig trees would be unable to recover. Even if a few grew from seeds, their symbiotic wasps would be extinct, so the trees would be the last of their species.

    And a final fact for you.

    There is NO creationist natural history that accounts for all those facts.

  11. Stephen Holshouser November 1, 2010 at 9:14 pm #

    Jay Liemowich,

    You said;
    “[Eric] claims that evolution as well as creation are both faith positions. I fail to see why this should support his stance.”

    When creationist point out that both creation and evolution are both religious, it is not so you will chose one over the other, it is to simply show that evolution is not proven scientifically of factually, but is based on untestable, unobservable assumptions. Evolutionists would have you believe their view is purely scientific and creation is only faith-based.

    You said;
    “Regular men and women make up elaborate fantasies like the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn that employ the same claims to knowledge that all religions on the planet employ, but regular men and women are not omniscient. Am I that wrong to expect more from Someone who claims to be?”

    He has given you more proofs and witnesses than you can sort through, Open your eyes man! But may I point out that He does not owe you ANYTHING, whether that be your next breath, a proof that He exists, or eternal salvation.

    You said;
    “So far, what I’ve gotten from Eric and other pressuppers is the argument that they know what they know because an omnipotent being told them and that basically, I should just take their word for it.”

    You are thinking of Islam or the Catholic Church, not Christianity. The Bible says to “prove all things,” “be fully persuaded in your own mind,” and it commends those that search the scriptures and weigh the evidence for themselves (Acts 17:11).

    I still have a few more responses for you hopefully…

  12. Stephen Holshouser November 1, 2010 at 9:25 pm #

    Jay Liemostitch,

    I’m going to cut and paste from http://www.drdino.com/stephen-hawking-cant-be-serious#comments which is a previous entry that was directed to someone else. I’m just trying to help you see the reason and logic behind believing on Jesus Christ, as opposed to anything else.

    Me from Oct 1;
    “Here’s your evidence, seriously consider it, my friend; Fulfilled Biblical prophecy. Take a few of the Messianic prophecies for instance” Hundreds of years before it happened, Jesus Christ was prophesied to; be born in Bethlehem, be born of the lineage of David of the Tribe of Judah, be hung on a tree (before crucifixion existed), be called out of Egypt, be born of a virgin, be perfectly sinless, be rejected by His own people, betrayed by a friend, have His garments divided up by casting lots for them, be numbered with the transgressors, die for the sins of many, have the wrath of God poured out upon Him, not have any bones broken, be buried with the wealthy, die the exact year He died (Dan 9), just to name a few. The odds were no less than impossible that anyone could fulfill these things except God Himself purpose it to happen. These writings are also confirmed by the secular world to be written well before Jesus came.

    Jesus Himself prophesied that; Peter would find a piece of money in the mouth of the first fish he caught, He would be betrayed by Judas, all His faithful disciples would forsake Him, Peter would deny Him thrice, He would be killed and rise again the third day, Lazarus would rise again (and raised him from the dead), Peter would be killed for Him, armies would encompass Jerusalem and destroy it and the temple before that very generation passed (70AD), there is an hour coming in which all that in the graves will hear His voice and come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation (John 5:28-29), when He returns again in glory with all the holy angels that all people will gathered before Him and be finally judged (Matt 25:31-46).

    No one can predict the future like this except God Himself be with them. Has any other religion or atheism done that? What other religion’s leader or founder is not dead and buried? God’s Word is amazing and far surpasses any other work. If you are still unable to believe, John 10:25-26 might apply to you, though I hope not for your sake.”

    To continue; Jesus’ resurrection is one of the best reasons I can give you to believe. And let me cut and paste again from another date and give you the reason why I believe the testimony of the eyewitnesses.

    Me from Oct 19th;
    “God’s proof to YOU that the Lord Jesus Christ rose from the dead was that the disciples, who had just forsaken Him for fear of their lives a few days before He rose, gave their lives after personally, physically meeting with the resurrected Son of God. It is sealed by their blood and testimony.

    Would anyone you know be tortured and/or die for something they knew to be a lie? Of course not.”

    This is no “stale-mate” with other religions, this is “check-mate!”

  13. Stephen Holshouser November 1, 2010 at 10:24 pm #

    Jay Livertwitch,

    Regarding being “certain” and knowing truth;
    It seems that you know there is absolute truth, but you also believe we are unable to know for certain if we have it or not. You are correct, people can be certain, but wrong. Reality is independent of anyone’s beliefs… that is why you must base you beliefs on reality… and you will ask, “what is reality?” Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life… He is the author of reality, and we must adhere to what the Judge says is reality. If there is a Sovereign Judge (and there is), His opinion is the only one that matters, wouldn’t you agree? Ultimately, who else do you need to please? God Himself, being the Creator, Sustainer, Law-Giver, and Final Judge gets to tell us what reality and truth are… that is His sovereign prerogative, like it or not. If God wills it, then you can be certain of it.

    Jay, No one here can make you believe… if we continued to lay out proof after proof of special creation and proofs of Jesus being the Savior of the world, you still would not believe… many people who listened to Jesus preach and saw His miracles in person did not believe. If someone that you knew came back from the dead and told you of the 2 very different after-life destinations, you would not believe (Luke 16:19-31).

    Why do I believe and you do not? Is it because I am smarter than you or vice versa? No, because there are highly intelligent atheists and highly intelligent young earth creationists. Is it because one of us was raised in church with Christian parents and the other wasn’t? No, because thousands raised in Christian homes grow up and reject Christianity, yet thousands of people who are from other religions or who haven’t heard of God at all have become devout Christians later in life. Because of the fall, Man’s default setting is unbelief (Romans 3:10-12), so we all start on an equal playing field.

    So what makes a believer out of an unbeliever? It is a person being given spiritual life by the Holy Spirit (I’m not talking about a simple intellectual acceptance of the Creator). Jesus spoke of this to Nicodemus in John 3. Ephesians 2:1-10 describes our spiritually dead condition before we were given life and tells us that faith is a gift of God that only comes by grace.

    If you really desire to be on the side of truth, ask the Author of truth to help you. We all depend on him for everything! The key to everything lies with the One who’s existence you are unsure of. You need His regenerating power to give you spiritual life. You say, “I do not believe that,” then ask Him, “Lord, help thou mine unbelief!”

    Know this; if you ever see your need to be forgiven of you sin and be made right with God, there is mercy to be found with Him. He only saves those that really need it. Repent of your sin and offer to God the work of Jesus alone (the sinless Lamb of God). Jesus Christ is your way to be reconciled to the God that you have wronged. He fulfilled the law and then paid for sin. He willingly and joyfully accepts all that come to Him, through faith in Christ.

    “ Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.”
    John 20:29-31

    PS; sorry, I couldn’t resist having fun with your name, I know, I know; people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. : )

  14. David Ray November 2, 2010 at 5:44 am #

    CSE:
    “I beg to differ. There are hundreds, even thousands, of scientists who accept the biblical worldview and see it in no way contrary to real science. ”

    This may be true. I suspect that it is more in the area of “tens”, possibly “hundreds” but doesn’t come close to the number of scientists who accept evolution. As my evidence I present “Project Steve” from the National Center for Science Education. As of October 17, 2008, 1146 scientists named Steve had electronically signed the statement that:

    Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to “intelligent design,” to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation’s public schools.

    People named Steve represent about 1% of the population. This means that approximately 114,600 scientists support the the validity of the theory of evolution. And this is just Biologists. It doesn’t even count the other sciences.

    How does this compare to your hundreds or thousands? My original comment was in response to your assertion that Wiki articles shouldn’t be taken as evidence because Wiki articles are not accepted by colleges as references. Thus, my original point stands. Reputable experts in the sciences reject your claims, CSE. Using your own logic, we should not accept your claims either.

  15. Jon Richt November 2, 2010 at 9:07 am #

    Truth is not relative nor is it subjective.

    Bzzzzt. Wrong.

    “My pants are green” is true, relative and subjective. All at the same time! It’s true in the sense that other people will look at them and agree that the statement is correct; it’s relative in the sense that a blind cave fish can’t possibly agree; it’s subjective in the sense that a color-blind person would think they’re gray.

    Creationists really need to start paying more attention to what they say. In their eagerness to proclaim their belief in a creator, they often say things that are demonstrably false.

  16. Kenneth Tyner November 2, 2010 at 12:05 pm #

    “My pants are green” is true, relative and subjective. All at the same time! It’s true in the sense that other people will look at them and agree that the statement is correct; it’s relative in the sense that a blind cave fish can’t possibly agree; it’s subjective in the sense that a color-blind person would think they’re gray.

    ROFL, It’s true and objective that your pants are green. It’s not at all relative to a blind cave fish. And why would a color blind person care or even guess what color your pants are? You are the one being subjective here, Jon.

  17. Kenneth Tyner November 2, 2010 at 12:09 pm #

    David Ray, Reputable experts in the sciences reject your claims, CSE. Using your own logic, we should not accept your claims either.

    You pantheists are too funny. These reputable experts you refer to are also pantheists. Evolution is based on the religion of pantheism, not on science. How subjective of you.

  18. Jay Liemowitz November 2, 2010 at 3:32 pm #

    Kenneth, of course I don’t mind, join in freely. :-)

    You proposed the following inductive argument:


    Man made systems are functioning systems.
    Man made systems are intelligently designed.
    There, functioning systems are intelligently designed.

    You’ve employed a fallacy here called hasty generalization. Yes, man made systems are functioning systems, but they are only a subset of all known functioning systems, so it is not logical to assume that all functioning systems follow the same pattern as that of man made ones.

    Here’s another example:

    Office workers are people
    All of the workers in my office are male
    Therefore, all people are male

    And yes, I agree with the law of non-contradiction. I just don’t see any evidence that God created, that God exists, or that Jesus was/is his Christ.

  19. Duane November 2, 2010 at 9:54 pm #

    @Kenneth Tyner November 1st at 4:35 pm

    “Christianity Empirically provable

    Of all the religions in the world, Christianity is the only empirically provable one. Some would say that Christianity is just another man made religion and equal to all others. But that is easily dispelled.

    Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. All other religions in the world claim that Jesus is not the Son of God. Therefore, based on the law of non-contradiction they cannot all be right.

    If Jesus is the Son of God then all other religious are a lie, because the reject Jesus. If Jesus is not the Son of God then Christianity is a lie and all other religions are correct in claiming that Jesus is not the Son of God.”

    Ah, the old false dichotomy. They can’t all be right, but they CAN all be wrong.

  20. Mark James November 3, 2010 at 3:32 am #

    Hi Jon,

    The truth that your pants are green does not change. The blind cave fish lacks knowledge and the colour-blind person is deceived.

  21. Jay Liemowitz November 3, 2010 at 7:34 am #

    Hi Stephen Holshouser,

    You said “When creationist point out that both creation and evolution are both religious, it is not so you will chose one over the other, it is to simply show that evolution is not proven scientifically of factually, but is based on untestable, unobservable assumptions. Evolutionists would have you believe their view is purely scientific and creation is only faith-based.”

    Isn’t this a tacit admission that creationism is based on “untestable, unobservable assumptions”? You assert that they’re both religions, and then undermine beliefs that are based on religion. Can you see why this argument is lost on me?

    CSE and other groups go through painstaking hours and multiple videos and seminars to convince us that they’re “tests” and “observations” are more accurate and that the conclusions they draw are better than that of mainstream scientists. Isn’t the fact that CSE exists at all a contradiction in one of their founding tenants (that origins cannot be scientific)?

  22. Jay Liemowitz November 3, 2010 at 6:41 am #

    Jeff Brace,

    I have not intended to belittle or mock anyone here. If I’ve something said that you have taken as being intentionally insulting or hostile, I apologize.

    You said “Comparing pink unicorns and flying spagetti monsters to the Living God and Creator of the universe makes complete sense, right?”

    I want you and others to understand that I don’t draw such comparisons purely to insult. I’m simply describing my own point of view in hopes that you can see it from my perspective and better understand why I believe what I do. I think a lot of misunderstandings and disagreements stem entirely from not understanding other’s points of view, and as a result, we often try to attack and/or pusuade people off points of view that they really don’t hold.

    For example, in this thread and others, it seems that Eric is attributing postmodern relativism (that is, that there is no such thing as objective truth) to non-believers, when I highly doubt that any of the people he encounters in his life actually accept this form of relativsm. I can certainly say I’ve never seen anyone on his blogs express these views.

    I would venture a guess that you would take very little issue comparing Krishna or Allah to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You see all of them as fantasy, correct? So our two points of view actually converge here. There are people, however, that would find such comparison equally as absurd and offensive as you find the comparison to Christianity. But you didn’t compare them purely to be offensive, or because you hate Krishna. In essense, other world religions make the most sense to you and I when we understand them to be false and/or made up (by men, or the devil or whatever). I see Christianity in the same light.

    With all the questions that arise out of the myirad of world religions (why can’t we see God? Why does he, or they, seem to not answer everyone of his followers prayers? Why are there so many religions? Why does everyone percieve God slightly differently from everyone else? Why is it that most people follow the religion that is dominant in their region of birth?), the best answer, the one that answers all those questions in one sentence is “because they are fantasy”. What I find most poignant, is that out of hundreds or thousands of religions, you would agree with me on all but one.

    With sincere respect,
    Jay

  23. Jay Liemowitz November 3, 2010 at 7:09 am #

    Kenneth said “If Jesus is the Son of God then all other religious are a lie, because the reject Jesus. If Jesus is not the Son of God then Christianity is a lie and all other religions are correct in claiming that Jesus is not the Son of God.”

    This is technically true, or at least partially true (there are some religions that would claim it to be possible that Jesus is both the son of God, and that some other religion were also true. Eastern religions like Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism often find themselves accepting relativism in the way Eric seems to believe most atheists do.)

    My objection here is that the above statement might be true, but it leaves out another possibility: that all religions are false.

    The rest of your post cites bible verses that claim that once I believe these verses, I will be convinced that Christianity is the one true religion. Hopefully you can see the problem here.

    If I already believed what the bible said, then I wouldn’t need to be convinced that Christianity was true. Essentially what I hear you saying is that in order to believe the bible, I must first believe the bible.

    Jay

  24. Julie Collins November 3, 2010 at 9:18 am #

    i do not understand evolutionist… they believe that majority vote overpowers and decides the truth, and they believe that the earth is billions of years old, despite the evidence to the contrary. and then when we debate them, they do not want to listen to us, but bash us for not listening to them after we refute them.

    not to mention that most scientist nowadays are starting to go into parallel universes and other nonsense, white holes, etc.

  25. Kenneth Tyner November 3, 2010 at 11:29 am #

    Duane: Ah, the old false dichotomy. They can’t all be right, but they CAN all be wrong.

    Duane that is not possible. Nor is it a false dichotomy. Either Jesus is the Christ or he is not. There are no other choices.

  26. Kenneth Tyner November 3, 2010 at 11:36 am #

    Man made systems are functioning systems.
    Man made systems are intelligently designed.
    There, functioning systems are intelligently designed.

    You’ve employed a fallacy here called hasty generalization. Yes, man made systems are functioning systems, but they are only a subset of all known functioning systems, so it is not logical to assume that all functioning systems follow the same pattern as that of man made ones.

    Here’s another example:

    Office workers are people
    All of the workers in my office are male
    Therefore, all people are male

    Jay, first of all logical fallacies do not apply to formal logic, but rather informal. Your argument is informal. In the inductive argument I presented, follows from specific observations to a general conclusion; probability. There is no qualification to “all” functioning systems in my argument. Inductive arguments aren’t assumptions, they are inferences from observations. It was a good try though. You just need to study formal arguments.

  27. Kenneth Tyner November 3, 2010 at 11:49 am #

    Jay Liemowitz November 3rd at 7:09 am

    Kenneth said “If Jesus is the Son of God then all other religious are a lie, because the reject Jesus. If Jesus is not the Son of God then Christianity is a lie and all other religions are correct in claiming that Jesus is not the Son of God.”

    This is technically true, or at least partially true (there are some religions that would claim it to be possible that Jesus is both the son of God, and that some other religion were also true. Eastern religions like Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism often find themselves accepting relativism in the way Eric seems to believe most atheists do.)

    My objection here is that the above statement might be true, but it leaves out another possibility: that all religions are false.

    The rest of your post cites bible verses that claim that once I believe these verses, I will be convinced that Christianity is the one true religion. Hopefully you can see the problem here.

    If I already believed what the bible said, then I wouldn’t need to be convinced that Christianity was true. Essentially what I hear you saying is that in order to believe the bible, I must first believe the bible.

    Jay

    Jay, why do you feel the necessity to avoid the proposition and change it, in order to argue it? You are transitioning the argument from absolute to relative. Either Jesus is the Christ or he is not. These are absolutes. If another religion claims that he is not the Christ, when he is, then how can they also be correct; clearly being wrong through false assertions?

    Furthermore, there is no claim that you must believe the bible in order to believe the bible. I would enjoy seeing you learn formal logic.

  28. Jon Richt November 3, 2010 at 2:18 pm #

    Kenneth Tyner’s responses to me are bolded: It’s not at all relative to a blind cave fish.
    It sure is. Blind cave fish can’t see the color green, but they CAN see. Do they see green? Nope – they can’t – the wavelengths they’re capable of seeing in do not include that color. As such“green” is relative to human eyesight.

    And why would a color blind person care or even guess what color your pants are?
    That’s a non-sequitur; the point stands whether a color-blind person cares about the color or not. And, if you don’t like that answer, consider the fact that green is a very important color to a color blind person who drives a car…

    Truth is relative and subjective. None of your objections actually refuted my claim.

    —-

    Mark James responded to me similarly, his comments here are bolded: The truth that your pants are green does not change.If a person views those pants while wearing red sunglasses, they will not see green. If that’s a bit too subtle, consider viewing those same pants when worn during sensory analysis (which often employs red light to change how things are perceived). You and I see “green” because we’re capable of it, and because the kind of light we’re used to seeing things in reflects at just the right wavelength. Change the quality of that light, and we will no longer perceive green.

    Change the kind of sun the planet Earth revolves around, and humans will *never* see the green we associate with trees/plants.

    The blind cave fish lacks knowledge
    That might be a good point. I should have chosen a human blinded as an adult from some accident.

    and the colour-blind person is deceived.
    Nope. The colour-blinded person’s sight is incapable of perceiving the specified wavelength. If human beings all had this eye sight, “green” wouldn’t even exist.

    The point is that “green” is relative to human beings, no matter how you qualify or quantify it. Something being green can be true only if the thing perceiving it is capable of seeing those wavelengths, and only if he/she/it knows what the word “green” means.

  29. Geno Castagnoli November 3, 2010 at 3:05 pm #

    Stephen Holshouser wrote:
    “When creationist point out that both creation and evolution are both religious, it is not so you will chose one over the other, it is to simply show that evolution is not proven scientifically of factually,
    #####
    Geno replies:
    It isn’t?

    According to who? Those most qualified to make a scientific judgement? Or to those who have openly declared their ANTI-scientific mindset by a stated refusal to even attempt approaching the evidence objectively?

    I guess those with a complete lack of scientific training, and who base their complaints on their religious objections should be making the call about what is, or is not, scientific.

    As it happens, those most qualified to make scientific judgements ….. scientists…. say evolution is a valid scientific theory by a margin of around 99-1. Every mainstream scientific organization says so. Every educational organization says so. Every court in which the issue has been examined has said so. The ONLY ones who seem to claim evolution is a religion are the extreme religionists.

    Now, is it possible the scientific community and the educational community and the courts are all wrong? Yes. Of course.

    Is it likely? Nope.
    #####

    Stephen wrote:
    but is based on untestable, unobservable assumptions.
    #####
    Geno points out:
    Every time I evaluate YEC claims using testable, observable, empirical data and measurement, YEC fails…. miserably. If YEC claims can’t even survive the simple tests that I know and understand well, why should I trust them on matters I haven’t studied much?
    #####

    Steven wrote:
    Evolutionists would have you believe their view is purely scientific and creation is only faith-based.
    #####
    Geno points out:
    Not quite. I would have you believe creationists do NOT make an effort to approach the evidence objectively and their minds have been made up before they even examine the evidence. On the other hand, scientists make a serious effort to examine evidence without preconditions.

    Are scientists perfect about that? Of course not. But at least they try.

  30. Jon Richt November 3, 2010 at 2:21 pm #

    As such, all ‘truths” are relative. In the case of Christianity, truths are relative to the Christian God; whatever he says, goes. If it were otherwise, God would be bound by rules that existed outside of himself, and I’m pretty sure the faithful readetrs here will say that’s not possible.

  31. David Ray November 3, 2010 at 6:29 pm #

    Kenneth,

    “You pantheists are too funny. These reputable experts you refer to are also pantheists. Evolution is based on the religion of pantheism, not on science. How subjective of you.”

    What in the great googly-moogly are you talking about. As usual, I will ask you to bring evidence of your claim. Where is your evidence that evolution is based on pan theism? I AM one of the reputable experts (PhD in Biology with a specialization in molecular evolution), I am not a pantheist. I can assure you that none of my colleagues are either. Evidence to support your claim please. We’ll all be waiting.

  32. Stephen Holshouser November 3, 2010 at 9:32 pm #

    Jay

    as far as I know, no one (except maybe Hugh Ross) has claimed to be able to observe the creation event. Of course, you can’t test or observe it directly. But the scientific facts support Genesis, not evolution. Sure, tons of scientists make assumptions that don’t support Genesis… but assumptions are exactly that… assumptions. Assumptions could be right or could be wrong. Evolutionary assumptions just happen to be fatally flawed.

    Based on the evidence, do you believe in Jesus’ resurrection?

    Regarding your question about why there are so many different opinions about God; It is the same reason there are so many flood legends… because there was an actual one. Sure, they’re not all right. Keep in mind your religion of evolution is just one of the many… no matter what you believe, it will ultimately be faith-based.

  33. andrew Ryan November 4, 2010 at 6:08 am #

    Ken:

    “Man made systems are functioning systems.
    Man made systems are intelligently designed.
    There, functioning systems are intelligently designed.”

    How’s about this:

    Roses require water
    Roses are living things
    Therefore, everything that requires water is living
    Therefore my car battery is alive

    Or this:

    Man-made systems are non supernatural
    Man-made systems are intelligently designed
    Therefore, intelligently deigned systems are not supernatural.

  34. Kenneth Tyner November 4, 2010 at 9:24 am #

    Andrew:

    How’s about this:

    Roses require water
    Roses are living things
    Therefore, everything that requires water is living
    Therefore my car battery is alive

    Or this:

    Man-made systems are non supernatural
    Man-made systems are intelligently designed
    Therefore, intelligently deigned systems are not supernatural.

    First point Andrew, is that you did not disprove the conclusion that functioning systems are intelligently designed. In your first argument;

    Roses require water
    Roses are living things
    Therefore, everything that requires water is living
    Therefore my car battery is alive

    There is no correlation in your premises to car batteries, therefore cannot be asserted from the premises. Also, the proper conclusion would be “living things require water”. Batteries are not living things even though they require water. You need to study formal logic.

    Man-made systems are non supernatural
    Man-made systems are intelligently designed
    Therefore, intelligently deigned systems are not supernatural.

    This one makes no sense at all. The conclusion would read “non supernatural are intelligently designed”. Or “intelligently designed are non supernatural”. You can’t insert systems into the conclusion since “systems” are stated in both premises.
    Regardless, neither of your attempts disprove that “functioning systems are intelligently designed”, nor can you disprove formal arguments by the insertions of non-valid arguments. What you have to present is a formal argument which proves that functioning systems can be derived by non-intelligent means.

    Thank you for playing!

  35. Geno Castagnoli November 4, 2010 at 10:08 am #

    Stephen Holshouser wrote:
    “It is the same reason there are so many flood legends, because there was an actual one. ”
    #####
    Geno comments:
    It’s far more likely there are so many flood legends because there have been many floods.

    Humans tend to settle near bodies of water. Bodies of water flood. Sometimes those floods are of …. well… Biblical proportions. There are enough differences between and among those flood legends to make it clear they are all talking about a single global event. AIG has a table listing flood legends of something like 20 cultures and about the best correlation I could find between them was less than 50%…. and this doesn’t even address the fact that many of these legends take place at vastly different times.

    The fact is that all of the creation “science” proposals offered as an explanation for the flood suffer from the same flaw. A flood would have been the least of Noah’s problems as each of them would cook every living thing on the planet.

  36. Kenneth Tyner November 4, 2010 at 10:59 am #

    Andrew, you gave me a good idea. I appreciate it.

    Roses are living systems.
    Roses require water to live.
    Therefore, living systems require water to live.

    This is consistent with the creation account of Genesis 1, whereby creation begins with the waters.

  37. Stephen Holshouser November 4, 2010 at 1:16 pm #

    Geno,

    When I ask you direct questions you are strapped for time (to answer me anyway, not to comment to others), yet if I’m not writing specifically to you, you’ve got plenty of time to comment on my stuff. I’m just sayin’….

    Geno replies:
    It isn’t? According to who?
    ######
    Stephen counters:
    Okay, without using ANY unverifiable assumptions, prove any ONE of the following; Feel free to contact any scientist you wish if you need help… it’s an open book test!

    1. The earth is more than 10,000 years old
    2. Radiometric dating is accurate
    3. Life came from non-living matter without God
    4. You and a rutabaga share a common ancestor
    5. Stars can still form
    6. The Big Bad Bang happened
    7. Jesus was confused when He said, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.” Mark 6:10

    Somethin’ tells me you won’t try #4… : )

    SH

  38. Kenneth Tyner November 4, 2010 at 1:36 pm #

    Geno Castagnoli:
    The fact is that all of the creation “science” proposals offered as an explanation for the flood suffer from the same flaw. A flood would have been the least of Noah’s problems as each of them would cook every living thing on the planet.

    Geno, local floods do not account for the global mass extinction event evidenced by fossils. Local floods do not account for marine fossils found atop mountains around the world. Local floods do not account for polystrate fossils running through multiple layers of strata. The only account of flooding consistent with the observable evidence is a global flooding.

  39. Geno Castagnoli November 4, 2010 at 1:37 pm #

    Julie Collins wrote:
    i do not understand evolutionist, they believe that majority vote overpowers and decides the truth,
    #####
    Geno comments:
    Not quite. We prefer to evaluate the evidence as objectively as possible and THEN form our conclusions as opposed to FIRST deciding (our interpretation of) the Bible is true and any evidence in conflict with that interpretation is invalid.
    #####

    Julie claims:
    and they believe that the earth is billions of years old, despite the evidence to the contrary.
    #####
    Geno points out:
    I’m sorry to be so unreasonable as to reject your “evidence” when it would sterilize the planet.

    Julie complains:
    and then when we debate them, they do not want to listen to us, but bash us for not listening to them after we refute them.
    #####
    Geno comments:
    Yeah…. well, that might be because some of us tend to ignore arguments and “refutations” presented at the 4th grade level. For some reason, I tend to think a higher level of understanding and knowledge will (more likely) lead to a correct conclusion than grade school material.
    #####

  40. Kenneth Tyner November 4, 2010 at 1:48 pm #

    David Ray:
    What in the great googly-moogly are you talking about. As usual, I will ask you to bring evidence of your claim. Where is your evidence that evolution is based on pan theism? I AM one of the reputable experts (PhD in Biology with a specialization in molecular evolution), I am not a pantheist. I can assure you that none of my colleagues are either. Evidence to support your claim please. We’ll all be waiting.

    David, I was able to trace the theory of evolution back to Anaximander of Greece in 524 BC. During my research, I found out that he was a pantheist. I researched out pantheism and found it to reject an intelligent creator for naturalistic origins. Furthermore, Erasmus Darwin was also a Pantheist and wrote on the theory of evolution prior to Charles Darwins origin of the species. There are currently several self professing pantheist groups that deny an intelligent designer for naturalistic claims in support of the theory of evolution. Pantheism is a religion and is registered as such with the federal government. You may not realize that you are a pantheist, but if you follow after naturalism or naturalistic causes for existence, then you are a pantheist.
    Evolution is not science but rather religious myth. The common ancestor of evolution is a myth, an imaginary or unverifiable person or thing. Anything supposedly evolving from a myth is also myth. Observations in reality are not consistent with the myth of evolution, proposed by pantheist.
    The truth never changes, but lies evolve!

  41. Kenneth Tyner November 4, 2010 at 2:10 pm #

    Jon,

    The point is that “green” is relative to human beings, no matter how you qualify or quantify it. Something being green can be true only if the thing perceiving it is capable of seeing those wavelengths, and only if he/she/it knows what the word “green” means.

    Have mercy Jon, you are now professing the intromission theory of vision to be valid, even after a thousand years of evidence to the contrary. Light scatters Jon. In order for the intromission theory of vision to be valid would require light to converge, and equally in both eyes, which doesn’t happen.
    Furthermore, all objects in motion continue to follow the path or direction of motion. Light is emitted from above us following a downward path. All light hitting objects in a downward path would scatter in a downward path to the ground. It would never scatter back to converge into your eyes.

  42. andrew Ryan November 4, 2010 at 1:16 pm #

    Ken, I have studied formal logic, which is why I was able to point out the flaw in your syllogism. And so were you – when I replaced the objects in you syllogism with others you immediately could see that it was wrong, even though the format was identical.
    X is part of group 1, X has property Y, therefore anything in group 1 must also have property Y. It’s flawed logic whether we’re talking about roses, car batteries, intelligent design, men or whatever.

    The test of a syllogism is not whether you already agree with the conclusion. The only thing you showed was that if a man designs a system then that system is designed by an intelligence. This tells us nothing about whether or not all systems are intelligently designed. You may already believe they are, but that does not make your syllogism any more logically sound.

  43. Kenneth Tyner November 4, 2010 at 1:54 pm #

    David Ray,

    Furthermore, transitional kinds are common place among the ancient Greek mythology. The Greek God pan was half man and half goat. Transitional kinds were common among the Greeks and even earlier among the Egyptians. All based on religious myth.

  44. Jay Liemowitz November 4, 2010 at 3:46 pm #

    Stephen Holshouser,

    I won’t address each of the supposed prophecies you cite, but I will address what I see are the couple of major flaws in them.

    On the majority of the prophecies you mention, while you are correct that the secular world confirms at least most of them to be written before the supposed event occurred, secular scholars by and large don’t agree that the actual events took place. The only reference to Jesus being born in Bethlehem is 2 of the 4 gospels, which most scholars believe to be derived from a single earlier document and even these two accounts are difficult to reconcile on certain points. Luke claims that Jesus was born while Quirinius was governor of Syria, yet Matthew claims he was born when Herod ruled Judea. These two times do not correspond; they’re separated by about 10 years. Furthermore, how do we know that Mary was a virgin; is this even something that could be confirmed after the fact at all? How can we verify that Lazarus was raised from the dead or that Peter found a coin in a fish’s mouth? I can agree that the prophecies were written before the bible tells of the events, but it’s the fulfillment of the prophecies that I largely dispute and for which you offer no corroborating evidence.

    Jesus’ prophecy on the destruction of the temple is problematic and inconsistently interpreted. The passages (Matthew 24 and others) where Jesus speaks of the temple destruction as occurring before “this generation” passes, are the same passages and same phrases used to describe his second coming, which I assume you believe has not yet occurred. Most Christians I encounter, when probed on this issue, claim that he was referring to the generation present when the events he describes begin, as in “when these events begin, the present generation will not pass until…”. His words “this generation” can’t both refer to the company that was present with him (as you just used it), and the end times generation (as it’s often interpreted). If you do try to use it as both, as some do, in the sense that there was foreshadowing of future events that occurred during that generation, then the prophecy becomes too vague and rather meaningless. I can make such prophecies for that matter. I prophecy that a meteor will strike the earth in either this generation, or a future generation, mark my words.

    This leads us to the second major objection I have with these prophecies: the fact that they are rarely interpreted consistently between bible scholars and fundamentalists, and often not even among different fundamentalist groups themselves. Many of them are not clearly prophecies about the coming of the messiah, or prophecies about anything at all, but they are retrofitted after the event transpires to be interpreted as such. The prophecy in Isaiah about the virgin birth is a good example. In context, Isaiah 7 is discussing the potential destruction of Israel by the Assyrians. This text was taken out of context and assigned to birth of Jesus when there is no indication if read plainly that this was the intent of the author of Isaiah.

    The same statement I made to Kenneth applies here, if I already thought that there was sufficient reason to believe that all the events in the bible actually occurred in the manner described, then I wouldn’t be here asking to be convinced; I would be here trying to convince others. I need some corresponding documents or evidence that support that the claims of the bible are accurate. I’ve never been given any. Using the Bible as evidence for Christianity is as lost on me as someone quoting the Quran as evidence for Islam would be for you (and for myself as well for that matter).

    I’ll note here that this same tactic can be, and often is utilized by followers of other faiths. As evidence that the Quran is inspired by Allah, many followers will cite passages like “He will surely grant them in the land inheritance of power as He granted it to those before them” as having been fulfilled when Islam replaced the native deities that had previous been being worshiped all over the Arabian Peninsula. Or, the passage that reads “Their multitude will be defeated, and they shall turn their backs” as a prophecy of the battle of Badr where Muslims were victorious. There are many more examples that a simple web search will reveal. I have no doubt that you will dismiss these prophecies as either vague, coincidence, or a retrospective reinterpretation. Interestingly, we would both agree that these would be the best explanations for these supposed prophecies. This leads me to ask the question: Why would you treat Biblical prophecies differently? I’d hypothesize that you treat them differently for the same reason a Muslim would treat his differently; because you arrived at the discussion with your mind already made up. So I’ll ask a follow-up question, if prophesy is not what convinced you to follow Christianity, why would you think it would convince me?

  45. Duane November 4, 2010 at 4:23 pm #

    @Kenneth Tyner November 3rd at 11:29 am

    “Duane: Ah, the old false dichotomy. They can’t all be right, but they CAN all be wrong.

    Duane that is not possible. Nor is it a false dichotomy. Either Jesus is the Christ or he is not. There are no other choices.”

    You know what? I may have misread your wording or read too much into them. I was going more along the line that while it’s obvious not all religions can be correct, they can all be wrong in a general way. As far as I can tell, only Judaism and Islam even make claims about Christ. For the rest, they go about their merry way with nary a thought of Jesus. They have their own things to be concerned about. But going with your premise, it still doesn’t make Christianity empirically provable. It is still just an assertion. You are saying either the assertion is true, or it isn’t. Since it can’t be proven by experiment or observation. then that makes it non-empirical. It’s still an extraordinary claim without extraordinary evidence.

    I was looking up those “prophecies” and most seem to be lines in the Old Test taken out of context that vaguely correspond to lines in the New Test. Some aren’t even prophecies at all but are general rules, like the non-breaking of bones for passover and how to hang someone on a tree. Some are misattributions, like being called out of Egypt (it’s about Israel, itself, and the Exodus). Regardless, the writers of the New Test were familiar with the Old Test, so it isn’t much of a stretch that they can spin their stories to match what they want to match. Some are even give-aways that it was the case, like the virgin birth prophecy, which is obvious that the writer was familiar with the Septuagint Greek and its mistranslation of virgin rather than maiden in the original Hebrew. Also, the context isn’t even referring to a messiah, but a specific event to be witnessed in that time. Plus, the messiah was foreseen to be a king of Israel and conquer neighboring tribes, and Jesus did not fulfill this requirement. Ever watch Wizard of Oz while listening to Dark Side of the Moon? Most of the supposed coincidences are examples of extreme reaching. It’s the same thing. As to the prophecies Jesus says himself, color me unimpressed. It’s like saying the 7th Harry Potter book fulfilled the prophecies of the first 6 books. It’s not the slam dunk you think it is.

  46. Geno Castagnoli November 4, 2010 at 3:44 pm #

    Correction:

    I had said: “There are enough differences between and among those flood legends to make it clear they are all talking about a single global event. ”

    That should have been “they are NOT talking about a single global event.”

  47. Jay Liemowitz November 4, 2010 at 3:45 pm #

    Kenneth Tyner

    I don’t claim to be a philosopher or a logician and I’m sure there is much for me to learn. But I think perhaps you need to study formal (and informal) logic as well. Let’s learn together. :-)

    Let me rephrase my objection above. Your inductive argument is weak. The conclusion is far too broad to lend any likelihood to it’s truth, based solely on the very narrow premises.

    The purpose of inductive argument is to support the likelihood of a given conclusion, even though inductive arguments by their nature are not enough to “prove” their own conclusion. This is what philosophers have dubbed “the problem of induction” (I’m sure you’re aware of this, I write it here for the benefit of others).

    Strong inductive arguments, like the one Eric proposed in the above video about the pencil falling, are said to be strong if their conclusions are known to be the most likely outcome based on the arguments limited observations. Example:

    A pencil has never been observed falling upwards when dropped.

    Therefore, all pencils fall toward the earth when dropped.

    This is a strong inductive argument because our subset of all observations of pencils, while limited, is quite extensive.

    To contrast with your inductive argument, most functioning systems are NOT man made; the vast majority occur in nature, with no sign of intelligent design. It is therefore a weak argument to assume that because a very small fraction of functioning systems are intelligently designed, that the all must be as well.

  48. Mike Ayala November 4, 2010 at 7:08 pm #

    David Ray November 3rd at 6:29 pm

    Hi David,

    I saw your note in which you shared that you have a PhD in Biology and you specialize in molecular evolution which I can only suppose is essentially microbiology with an emphasis in developing evolutionary scenarios to explain the origin of the biological world around us. Is that a correct assessment? I do not know what capacity you fulfill in your work, but do you involve yourself with anything to do with the human interactome?

    How does the evolutionary world propose that the proteins evolved in the presence of mixed racemates? Also, how does the evolutionary world propose that the vast store of information on the DNA molecule evolved so that it is stored on the DNA molecule and is also accessible for transcription? Also, how does the evolutionary world propose that the whole transcription process evolved, and what does the evolutionary world identify as that which orchestrates the whole process of transcription?

    I find these all as mind-bogglingly complex processes. Does anyone informed in microbiology honestly believe these all evolved through dirty mass action chemistry through random processes?

    Thank you for your consideration.

    God bless you.

    Mike Ayala

  49. Mark James November 4, 2010 at 10:40 pm #

    Hi Jon,

    You state…

    “The point is that “green” is relative to human beings, no matter how you qualify or quantify it. Something being green can be true only if the thing perceiving it is capable of seeing those wavelengths, and only if he/she/it knows what the word “green” means.”

    I would suggest that you are confusing truth with perception of truth. Your argument is that truth is affected by our knowledge but this is not the case. The pants will continue to absorb / reflect the same wavelengths, so the ‘truth’ hasn’t changed.

    In the past, scientists believed that the sun rotated around the earth. Was this true? A natural extension of your argument would say that it was but now it’s not.

    Any truth that is subject to our knowledge is not truth at all.

  50. Kenneth Tyner November 5, 2010 at 8:48 am #

    Andrew, your comment is riddled with confusion:

    Ken, I have studied formal logic, which is why I was able to point out the flaw in your syllogism. And so were you – when I replaced the objects in you syllogism with others you immediately could see that it was wrong, even though the format was identical.
    X is part of group 1, X has property Y, therefore anything in group 1 must also have property Y. It’s flawed logic whether we’re talking about roses, car batteries, intelligent design, men or whatever.

    The test of a syllogism is not whether you already agree with the conclusion. The only thing you showed was that if a man designs a system then that system is designed by an intelligence. This tells us nothing about whether or not all systems are intelligently designed. You may already believe they are, but that does not make your syllogism any more logically sound.

    The format you used was not identical to mine. You showed no correlation between the premises and derived conclusions that did not follow from the premises. There is no assumption of the conclusion in the inductive argument I presented.
    My premises were based on known empirical observations of intelligently designed systems. The conclusion was inferred directly from the premises. The inductive argument followed from specific observation to general conclusion, which is also confirmed by empirical observation. “Functioning systems are intelligently designed”. To reject this argument is to reject logic altogether, and to be confused about what empirical evidence is.
    The application of this conclusion as a premise to the deductive argument is a separate argument, which appears that you are attempting to merge the two into one.

    1.Functioning systems are intelligently designed. This is empirically observed.
    2. Living systems are functioning systems. You should notice the difference between the two arguments. The focus of the inductive argument was on man made systems. The focus on the deductive argument is functioning systems.
    3. Therefore, living systems are intelligently designed. Here, the conclusion follows as a necessity from the premises, not a probability. Even though there is no empirical evidence to support this conclusion directly, it is nevertheless derived from empirical observations.

    There are only two options pertaining to the origin of functioning systems.
    1. Intelligent design of functioning systems.
    2. Spontaneous formation of functioning systems.

    Which of the two are consistent with observations in the real world? That would be intelligent design. If you intend to argue this, then you must provide observable evidence for the spontaneous formation of functioning systems.
    Spontaneous formation of functioning systems is a myth; an imaginary or unverifiable person or thing.
    The common ancestor of evolution is a myth. Therefore, anything evolving from this myth is also myth.
    The theory of evolution is not scientific but religious myth, based on Greek mythology.