Virginia troopers resign over no-Jesus prayer policy
Six Virginia troopers who serve as chaplains stepped down from their jobs to protest a policy banning references to Jesus Christ in public prayers.
The policy is supported by Democrat Va. Gov. Tim Kaine.
Via CBN:
“There were several of us who felt that because of our convictions. about what the Bible says, we couldn’t agree to go along with a generic prayer policy,” said 13-year trooper Rex Carter, who works in Southwest Virginia.
Republican lawmakers in the state concurred, arguing that the new restrictions are a violation of the First Amendment and an attack on Christianity.
“For those of us who understand the importance of religion in American life and value the free expression of religion as one of our essential rights, the Kaine administration’s directive is disappointing and disheartening,” House Majority Leader H. Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, said.
“Censoring what these chaplains can say is a violation of their First Amendment right to freedom of expression,” Del. Charles W. Carrico Sr., said.
The former state trooper is currently putting together an online petition to get the police department to rescind the new rule.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Virginia Troopers Quit Over Rules Restricting Free Expression : Stop The ACLU
- State troopers resign over ban on praying in Jesus’ name — Cranach: The Blog of Veith
- ScoopThis.Org » Six Virginia State Police chaplains resign over new prayer rules.
- State troopers resign over praying in Jesus’ name « Reformation Faith Today
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Political Correctness
Right Pundits
» Joe Lieberman: Fort Hood Shooter Is ‘Home-Grown Terrorist’Legal Insurrection
» Bruni de la Motte for Health Care CzarRiehl World View
» Obama: No Military Death Shall Go UnexploitedLegal Insurrection
» In The End: No Public Option, No Abortions, No Pelosi, No ReidThe Other McCain
» Paralysis by analysisThe Powers That Be
» Obama: ‘Don’t Jump to Conclusions’ About Ft. Hood; Immediately Jumps to ConclusionsLegal Insurrection
» NY Times Names Names
right4life,
Uh, I have to claim ignorance here. Didn’t know I was doing that. What did I say that made you say that?
I was admiring Trollman’s post, not agreeing with it.
Was there something else I said? You’ve got me curious, because I’ve never given evolution (or most any specific scientific discipline) much deep thought.
I’m just a dude with opinions. I abide my lack of knowledge on these subjects.
doug: that was the interviewer who was talking to Gould, it wasn’t directed at you.
but you earlier said:
because evolution is atheism. it denies God. it is a religion, and it is in conflict with the christian view of God, salvation, etc. and there is no middle ground.
according to the synthesis, by Mayr et al, it is mutations that drive evolution. the problem is that no one has even seen a sequence of mutations that ‘add up’ to new forms, types of animals, etc. This is why the ID argument of irreducable complexity is so compelling. evolution comes down to a just-so story.
Send_Me, I don’t want to get into the specifics about evolution. My area of expertise is in the Bible, and to a lesser extent, philosophy. I studied evolution in depth a few years ago, and I studied the subject not to prove to others evolution was true or not, but to determine if there was anything to it or not for myself (to determine if the time investment would be worthwhile).
Weekends are the busiest time of the week for me, and I will be traveling after the weekend, so I am a bit pressed for time at the moment.
Send_Me said:
I’m not saying that you were misrepresenting the Cambrian explosion, but that many of the “professional” Creationists and IDers have. Many of their arguments that I found so convincing I later found to be misleading – misrepresenting the facts. Laymen can get these things wrongs, but experts who make their living discussing these things have no such excuse. Are there problems with evolution? Yes, there are. But on balance, where does it point?
Send_Me said:
I don’t have the time to do the interpretation (Genesis Unbound) justice right now. When I first heard the gist of this interpretation, I thought it sounded ridiculous. I had studied Genesis for years and couldn’t see how he could possibly defend this interpretation. But then I read the book. I can’t guarantee you’ll agree with him, but it will make you rethink what you thought you knew. I wrestled with it for a few months, and over all, I believe of all the many, many interpretations of Genesis, it is in my opinion (Biblically speaking) the best.
Dr. Sailhammer argues that Genesis 1 says that the “land” (he interprets as the Holy Land) was a swampy, desolate wasteland not fit for human habitation (1:2).
In the 4th day, God isn’t creating the Sun, Moon, and stars (after all, you already have light and darkness, day and night, and plants have survived for a whole day – without the warmth of the sun?), but that God is giving them a purpose – to serve as “signs for seasons and for days and years.” This is important, because you had to keep track of seasons, days, and years in order to keep the Law of Moses (the various festivals and ceremonies).
What Genesis tells us is that God takes a worthless land, and transforms it into the Beautiful Land (it is argued that the area of Jerusalem and Israel is the location of the Garden of Eden). God places Adam in the Land, and gives him a Law. When Adam breaks the Law, he is driven from the Land to the East (towards the direction of what would later be Babylon).
This foreshadows how God would place the Hebrew people in the Land, and give them a Law. Eventually, they would break the Law, and be driven from the Land – to the East, to Babylon, the land of captivity.
Again, there is far more in support of this interpretation than I have the time to get into right now.
Send_Me said:
There are two major interpretations of this passage:
1. The sons of God refer to the descendants of Seth, and the daughters of men refer to the descendants of Cain.
2. The sons of God are angels, and the daughters of men are humans.
I do not argue that my current interpretation must be correct, simply that, in my estimation, it has the most explanatory power while creating the fewest problems – I may full well be wrong about all this.
I think it is possible that the sons of God refer to those who were descended from those created through special creation (Adam & Eve). Likewise, the daughters of men could refer to mankind that wasn’t descended from the specially created man & woman (their origin is not addressed, but presumably evolved).
Whatever it means, notice that you have the intermingling of two groups. Right after this, you see the gradual decline in the LONG lifespans to the point where they come down to normal lifespans. Something is going on here that the Bible does not explain. Exactly what is going on here? Since I have to go, I’m going to copy and paste my brief synopsis on the Biblical evidence for my view in my next post.
The Interpretation
Suppose mankind already existed before God created Adam. Suppose that man had already arrived on the Earth as a result of some natural process that God had set in motion, like evolution. For some reason, perhaps God decides to then engineer a special human being. God works under the restraint of making a man that is fully compatible to evolved man (”natural man” henceforth), and genetically engineers a person that has a lifespan of about 1000 years. The genetically engineered human has such a long life span because God has designed him to be resistant to heart disease, cancer, to age well, etc. Unlike natural man, Adam and Eve are genetically perfect. But why suppose this?
Cain
Biblical Support for this Interpretation
It would make sense out of Cain’s fear of being driven out – for there would already be plenty of people out there. It would explain how he could move far away from his family, and yet found a city. It would also help explain how his offspring could go into various industries, as if they had already existed (Genesis 4:17-22).
Noah
From Adam to Noah, with only a couple of anomalies, everyone listed lives 900+ years. What is especially significant is when the lifespans begin to gradually decline – the children of Noah. It was during the life of Noah that “the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose” Gen. 6:2. It might be that the sons of God refers to Adam’s descendants (genetically engineered man), and that the daughters of men refer to natural man. This is noted in Noah’s generation, and notice that in the next generation, the lifespan of Noah’s children are less than the 900+ that had previously been the case. Perhaps Noah’s wife is from natural man, or mixed, explaining why Noah’s sons do not live as long.
Children of Noah
Shem, Noah’s son, only lived 600 years. The lifespans would gradually decline until all lifespans are similar to what we see today. Notice that in Gen. 10:32 even seems to suggest that these descendants became part of peoples that already existed. If you plot the lifespans of these people, it creates a mathematical curve – clearly something is going on here. The decrease in lifespan makes sense if you have the continued mingling of Adam’s genes with natural man. Over successive generations, the weaker genetics of natural man begin to dominate, slowly watering down the “pure” genes.
Early Marriage
This would also explain why it was so important to marry close kin early on, but after Adam’s genes were sufficiently diluted, close marriage was forbidden. Close marriages are only harmful due to genetic problems. If one had perfect genes, that would not be a problem.
Sarah
Consider the odd fact that Abraham is concerned that his wife, who was then around 90 years old, was so attractive that men might kill him to take her. This is very bizarre, no? Abraham lived to be 175. Sarah died at 127, but perhaps she had a similar concentration of Adamic genes as Abraham (they were closely related). Perhaps Sarah died prematurely for whatever reason, and had a life expectancy similar to her husband, around 200 years or so. If this is true, and if she aged well (like all those closely related to Adam), even at 90, she may have only appeared to be 30-40 at the time, thus explaining how she was still very attractive.
Jacob
One more point, and I think this is key. Consider when Jacob meets Pharaoh in Gen. 47:7-10. The Bible only records one thing that Pharaoh said to Jacob – he asks Jacob “How many years have you lived?” Reading between the lines, Jacob has probably told Pharaoh about his life, prompting Pharaoh to ask “Just how old are you?!” Look at Jacob’s response.
Jacob says he is 130 years old, which is pretty impressive, considering he wouldn’t die until he was 147. When Jacob says his years are “few,” he is using the humility that was customary at that time, indicating that he realized that 130 was a lot of years compared to other people. Jacob also realizes that, even though his lifespan is greater than that of normal people, it is nothing compared to the lifespans of his ancestors! In this passage, Jacob seems to be aware that he has a much longer lifespan than normal folks, and that his family’s lifespan is gradually getting shorter, but he doesn’t appear to understand why.
Normal Lifespans
After Jacob, you only see a couple more people that have special aging – like Moses and Caleb. But after that, you don’t see it again. At that point, presumably the genetics have become so diluted that there is no distinguishable difference between those who are descended from Adam and those who are not.
Why Isn’t the Bible Clearer?
If this hypothesis is correct, then why didn’t God simply say so in the Bible? Well, considering we didn’t even have a basic knowledge of evolution or genetics until relatively recently, it wouldn’t have made any sense to anyone until the present time anyway. So it would make sense of the fact that the Bible records some very odd things (the life spans) which are obviously noteworthy, but never tries to explain them. These things could be figured out thousands of years later when man came to understand how genetics works.
I admit, this hypothesis is very weird and very strange. But it also makes a lot of sense out of a number of things that otherwise are very, very hard to explain. Maybe I am completely wrong, but this is my current thinking on what is admittedly a very difficult and complex subject.
I suppose this would be a difficult task since we find evidence that supposed ancestors (habilus and eructus) lived together on earth for half a million years, among other examples. That whole “gradual” change thing is really not showing up in the fossil record.
I don’t think you realize how different man and chimps are. Do you realize how many base pairs a 6% difference is when comparing the two? Somewhere on the order of 120 million. Each change in a base pair (adenine-thymine and guanine-cytosine) would require a mutation. Think about how many mutations it would take to change all of them. Then think about how many of those mutations would have to occur in order for the changes to be positive versus negative. This is a classic example of the Haldane’s dilemma.
looks the you sent the darwiniacs scurrying like cockroaches when the light hits them.
you know Dawkins is a brilliant guy, but he has been made to look foolish by people like ben stein, because he’s trying to defend the indefensible.
Send_Me said:
I’m not sure I understand your point. There is a great deal unknown about the evolution of human beings – in large part due to the scarcity of fossils (due to their living patterns). So yes, our understanding of the precise path of evolution will change over time, but the overall picture doesn’t change.
You only start seeing critters that resemble humans from millions of years ago. Show me anything that resembles humans or apes from billions of years ago. Show me any fossil from the Cambrian explosion that resembles a human. Again, you see the gradual change and development of lifeforms.
The oldest lifeforms are small, relatively simple critters. Today you have a wide variety of complex critters.
It wouldn’t matter even if you could prove that 2 ancestors of human beings lived on the Earth at the same time. This isn’t a problem for evolution. Part of the population could break off from the rest (by migrating to a different area, etc.) and evolve into something different, while the “parent” species still remains. How is this supposed to refute human evolution?
This is the problem with those who would “refute” evolution. All it amounts to is rock throwing. You can criticize a few things here and there, but how else are we going to interpret the fossil record? Why do humans and chimps have a striking similarity in their protein structures, when you could have any number of proteins that accomplish the very same task? There is no functional requirement for them to share the same protein sequences. The same could be repeated with other animals that are believed to be closely related on the tree of life.
How is it that, long ago, there weren’t any critters resembling humans or monkeys, but as you get closer to our time, you find animals that are gradually closer to us and the apes? The fossil shows us a pattern to life. A messy pattern, full of twists and turns, but a pattern. The rare anomaly does not change the overall picture.
Explain then why we find trilobites and other multicellular organisms from the Cambrian explosion.
I can’t show you that. The missing link is still missing. Show me the steps that occurred that were responsible for the mutations needed to overcome the 120+ million (that’s just the difference between man and chimp) base pair differences between man and supposed hominids. We see set, established species/kinds, not gradual change.
It’s not just one or two species, but most of them. If they all live during the same time for such long periods of time, then how can you claim a gradual change from one to another? Also, all of the supposed hominids have been refuted as either fully human with rickets or other ailments (e.g. neanderthals), a primate (e.g. Lucy), or as a hoax (e.g. Piltdown man).
There are quite a few other anomalies: polystrate fossils, upside-down trees, fossilized fish with half-swallowed fish in their mouths, among others. An evolutionist view would expect gradual change from simple to complex throughout the geologic column. We should not see polystrate fossiles, nor evidence of rapid deposition (like the fish). We should also not expect to see such vivid detail in the fossil record. If the organisms were buried slowly, then why can we see so vividly the wings of dragonflies and eyes of trilobites? Also, sedimentary rock, which covers 70% of the land on earth, is laid down by water. A creationist, believing in a worldwide flood would expect evidence of millions of dead things laid down by water all over the earth. We see this. As we saw after the Mt. St. Helen’s eruption, rapid deposition is a very good explanation for the polystrate fossils and fish example I listed. This would explain the fossil forests found all over the world as well. If creation were true, we’d expect to see fully-developed, distinct kinds of animals throughout the fossil record. If the layers were laid down slowly over millions of years, then why are the lines so distinct between them? We’d only expect this if there were a worldwide flood where the sediments settled over a short period of time. If the layers were laid down slowly over millions of years, then why haven’t oil deposits leached into the surrounding soil? How did the oil form in the first place? Most dead things rot and disintegrate prior to fossilizing or turning into oil or coal. Rapid deposition from a worldwide flood would explain this. Evolution claims mutation as a mechanism, but we see that the vast majority of mutations are detrimental to the organism. A creationist, Edward Blyth, actually came up with natural selection before any naturalist did. Natural selection actually supports creation: natural selection states how a species survived. That’s it. That’s all it does. It explains that a creature can change within the limits of its inherent genetic information, but that is its limit. No human will grow wings, for example, because such a thing is not within our preexisting genetic information.
Think about it this way: if there were a worldwide flood, and you were a person seeing it rain for week after week, then wouldn’t you run to higher ground? The more intelligent and more mobile creatures were the ones that got washed up and buried last, hence the reason for humans, apes, most birds, etc. towards the top. This is a generalization, but would certainly explain why we see such diversity throughout the fossil record without a great deal of uniformity throughout the world. It would also explain the large groups of buried mammoths, fossil forests, polystrate fossils, etc.
Some books I’d recommend:
Bones of Contention by Marvin L. Lubenow
Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome by John C Sanford
Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe
Explain then why we find trilobites and other multicellular organisms from the Cambrian explosion.
I can’t show you that. The missing link is still missing. Show me the steps that occurred that were responsible for the mutations needed to overcome the 120+ million (that’s just the difference between man and chimp) base pair differences between man and supposed hominids. We see set, established species/kinds, not gradual change.
It’s not just one or two species, but most of them. If they all live during the same time for such long periods of time, then how can you claim a gradual change from one to another? Also, all of the supposed hominids have been refuted as either fully human with rickets or other ailments (e.g. neanderthals), a primate (e.g. Lucy), or as a hoax (e.g. Piltdown man).
There are quite a few other anomalies: polystrate fossils, upside-down trees, fossilized fish with half-swallowed fish in their mouths, among others. An evolutionist view would expect gradual change from simple to complex throughout the geologic column. We should not see polystrate fossiles, nor evidence of rapid deposition (like the fish). We should also not expect to see such vivid detail in the fossil record. If the organisms were buried slowly, then why can we see so vividly the wings of dragonflies and eyes of trilobites? Also, sedimentary rock, which covers 70% of the land on earth, is laid down by water. A creationist, believing in a worldwide flood would expect evidence of millions of dead things laid down by water all over the earth. We see this. As we saw after the Mt. St. Helen’s eruption, rapid deposition is a very good explanation for the polystrate fossils and fish example I listed. This would explain the fossil forests found all over the world as well. If creation were true, we’d expect to see fully-developed, distinct kinds of animals throughout the fossil record. If the layers were laid down slowly over millions of years, then why are the lines so distinct between them? We’d only expect this if there were a worldwide flood where the sediments settled over a short period of time. If the layers were laid down slowly over millions of years, then why haven’t oil deposits leached into the surrounding soil? How did the oil form in the first place? Most dead things rot and disintegrate prior to fossilizing or turning into oil or coal. Rapid deposition from a worldwide flood would explain this. Evolution claims mutation as a mechanism, but we see that the vast majority of mutations are detrimental to the organism. A creationist, Edward Blyth, actually came up with natural selection before any naturalist did. Natural selection actually supports creation: natural selection states how a species survived. That’s it. That’s all it does. It explains that a creature can change within the limits of its inherent genetic information, but that is its limit. No human will grow wings, for example, because such a thing is not within our preexisting genetic information.
Think about it this way: if there were a worldwide flood, and you were a person seeing it rain for week after week, then wouldn’t you run to higher ground? The more intelligent and more mobile creatures were the ones that got washed up and buried last, hence the reason for humans, apes, most birds, etc. towards the top. This is a generalization, but would certainly explain why we see such diversity throughout the fossil record without a great deal of uniformity throughout the world. It would also explain the large groups of buried mammoths, fossil forests, polystrate fossils, etc.
Some books I’d recommend:
Bones of Contention by Marvin L. Lubenow
Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome by John C Sanford
Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe
I’ve Read Darwin’s Black Box. In fact, at one time, it had such an influence on my thinking, I thought it clearly undermined the theory of evolution.
Another book I read a while later was The Case for the Creator by Lee Strobel. I went from rejecting evolution to becoming convinced evolution was a great scam that was being perpetrated against the scientific community and the general public. Which is what stoked my passion for refuting evolution.
And then I started reading college level science text books. Books that weren’t written to prove a point, but to teach science and biology. I realized that, while some of the information in the Case for the Creator book was good, much of it was misleading at best. I was really disillusioned with the ID movement.
I also managed to find detailed explanations that attempted to refute Behe’s claims. Did they succeed? I don’t know, they were very detailed and I suppose I would need an advanced degree in order to be able to form an informed opinion. But notice that even Behe does not deny evolution or common ancestry.
Given that you are a YEC (Young Earth Creationist), the global flood (the Bible suggests it was a regional flood), Mt. St. Helens, etc., I guess we have come to an end. Those arguments are untenable. If you truly believe they are the real deal, I encourage you to enroll in a respected, non-Christian university, and pursue advanced degrees in biology and geology. Refute evolution. Refute the old Earth.
If you could, as a Christian apologist, it would make my life that much easier. I don’t need to disprove evolution in order to establish Christianity (evolution doesn’t get the atheist off the hook, it only pushes the question back a step), but if there is no evolution, then my job would be that much easier.
If you want to make a name for yourself, get your degrees and kill the theory. Academia loves it when the old standard is destroyed by the evidence. They love the new. I changed my views about evolution because I tried to do just that. Now it is your turn. If you believe it, take that step of faith. Stop taking cheap shots, put your money where your mouth is, and do it.
I don’t need evolution to be true or false. I reject the YEC interpretation of Genesis because there are real Biblical problems with that interpretation. Some things just didn’t make sense. It was as if there was something missing, something that, if we could figure out what it was, might make it all come together.
Forget science, let’s argue the Bible, since this is what it is really all about. There are many possible ways to interpret Genesis, all of which have some difficulties. There is nothing particularly special about the YEC’s interpretation.
“Cheap shots”? Like what? Show me, don’t tell me, that I’m wrong.
Ok, no more science, I guess. How is the young earth view of creation and a worldwide flood view not Biblical?
Send_Me said:
I’m talking about how YECs go around attacking evolution with rock throwing. Anyone can sit back and try to poke holes here or there. Why not do something productive and refute it? Anyone can sit back and criticize. Don’t just sit there posting on random internet sites, get into academia and do it. I was passionately against evolution at one point. I was preparing to go back to college to take it on. I wasn’t content just to sit back and complain about evolution.
Send_Me said:
Tell me, according to your interpretation, why is there a decrease in lifespans?
Was there death before the fall?
What is the death mentioned in Gen. 2:17?
How can you have days and nights before the Sun, Moon, and stars, which were created “to separate the day from the night”?
How did the plants survive for a day without the warmth of the Sun?
On which day did God create the Earth?
How do you reconcile a global flood with Psalm 104:9?
I mean seriously how naive are you? you must think MSNBC is fair and balanced….ok here is a quote from one of those college textbooks:
this says evolution is atheism. and you think they’re just teaching ’science’? please. and you think christianity is compatible with this?
but his version of evolution is micro-evolution, and even YECs believe in that.
you really don’t understand academia, now do you? people have their beliefs, their worldview, their faith, to defend in academia, and if you haven’t noticed, they sue, silence, harass, and intimidate anyone who dares disagree with their faith (evolution). this is a battle of worldviews, not ’science’ if you think ’science’ is some great unbiased observer, you’re just dreaming.
I see you guys are still here.
It’s the weekend, and like Trollman, I am busy.
Surprisingly, Trollman is doing a handy job of defending evolution.
I have a new found respect for you, Trollman. It seems I may have unfairly judged you as an enemy of science. For that, I apologize.
We may disagree on meta-physics and some politics, but, so what? On this particular issue of education in America I am glad we agree.
One thing I did want to mention reference the “something from nothing” argument:
While I agree with you that it’s impossible to observe the meta-physical complete lack of anything at all we described earlier, I must then say, how do we really know something doesn’t come from nothing, or that nothing can even “exist?”
We can’t, and thus, Aquinas’s proofs are not “proofs” at all, since they start with faulty assumptions. This is precisely why I don’t bother with these useless definitions.
Send_Me: to paraphrase Sagan: “millions and millions of years.”
We now return you to your regularly scheduled pseudo-science.
Oh, and when I say “surprisingly” its not meant to be a cheap shot at you, Trollman. I was just saying that I was surprised since I unfairly categorized you. Take care!
we’ve had 150 years of that racist eugenics trash from your hairygod darwin, don’t you think its enough?
whats amusing is that your rousing defense of darwinism is an obama-like ‘uhhhhhh ummmmmmm errrrr it evolved!!’ but keep your faith in your hairygod, its all ya got!
yeah by making false claims like the following:
lying for Darwin, its the one area that darwniacs are highly ‘evolved’ in…
right4life:
It is out of the sheerest morbid curiosity that I must ask, what exactly is your advanced degree in?
I have a MS degree. I don’t like giving out too many details though, you can believe me or not.
right4life:
I meant in what field.
computers
Computer Science? Business Computing? What was your undergrad?
we’re not talking about computers, why is this relevent? do you want to debate the merits of Java v. C#?
As I said, I was curious. You can share as little or as much as you like, but you did bring it up orignally.
yeah I mentioned I have an advanced degree, which people like you don’t think I should be able to get because I don’t bow at the alter of darwin. I’ve run into professors like that, intolerant little tin-horned dictators.
hate to tell you, but science doesn’t rely on evolution, and neither does medicine or biology
You certainlly shouldn’t get a degree in biology, but obviously computers is completely different. If you are a skilled coder I have no problem with you holding a degree in computers.
So, are you willing to share or not? Was it Business Computing or Comp Sci or otherwise?
next you’ll say I shouldn’t be allowed to speak, then allowed to live, all because I don’t bow at the alter of your hairygod darwin.
you really are a nazi. as are most evolutionists. and people deny the connection between Hitler and darwin…amazing.
as I said, evolution is useless in biology, even if you think its true, you cannot predict what will happen next, so what good is it? for example, no one can predict how a flu virus will change…even if you think thats evolution…so? it has no predictive powers, not can it be duplicated in a lab…its useless.
you really should look in the mirror.
even Coyne admits this:
To some extent these excesses are not Mindell’s fault, for, if truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of `like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.
As Conrad E. Johanson, Ph.D. (Professor of Clinical Neurosciences and Physiology and Director of Neurosurgery Research at Brown Medical School in Rhode Island) noted, in the world of science research on a day-to-day basis, scientists
rarely deal directly with macroevolutionary theory, be it biological or physical. For example, in my 25 years of neuroscience teaching and research I have only VERY rarely had to deal with natural selection, origins, macroevolution, etc. My professional work in science stems from rigorous training in biology, chemistry, physics, and math, not from world views about evolution. I suspect that such is the case for most scientists in academia, industry, and elsewhere (2003, p. 1).
Next you will be saying a flat-earther should be given a degree in geography.
If you don’t want to give further details about your degree that’s fine.
Good day.
your inability to respond in an any sort of way, much less an intelligent way, speaks volumes.
zeroangel said:
It is a metaphysical assumption. But it is one that has been universally accepted (until the present time, and only rejected by some now out of desperation, as it seems to me).
Suppose you hear a loud BANG! sound come from behind you. You ask me “What caused that noise?” “It came from nothing.” Would you accept that? I don’t think reasonable people would.
All logical proofs start with assumptions. As long as the form is valid, then if you agree with the assumptions, you must agree with the conclusion (or be irrational). If we really thought something could come from nothing, it would be destructive of science and reason itself.
It is an assumption that we continually see confirmed by our experiences. When have we ever seen an effect without a cause? At the very least, this assumption is more probable than the alternative.
right4life said:
I said that because, if he followed my advice, he would learn the evidence for such things. Look, in the Biology text books, yes, there are quotes that go beyond science. There were statements that attacked God. There were leaps of logic. I promise, I noticed them. I wish I had written them down (the book is way too long and dry to reread it again), so I could point them out.
But even with all of that, there were still many legitimate points that were made. There is a lot of error taught about the philosophical ramifications of evolution on both sides of the aisle. But just because someone makes some errors doesn’t invalidate all of their points.
right4life said:
Dr. Behe accepts common descent – that humans, monkeys, and kitty cats come from the same biological ancestor. Dr. Behe accepts much of the theory of evolution. I think where Behe differs from most of his peers is in the area that he believes random mutation is not sufficient for explaining some evolutionary developments. If I recall correctly, he believes evolution needs a few “helping hands” at various times along the way.
I don’t doubt that there will be many surprising twists and turns in evolution in the future. I even wonder if there might some day be discovered that there are some additional natural laws that somehow makes life more probable. We still have no idea how life first developed, and the more we learn, the more improbable it seems.
But that doesn’t take away from the fact that, for a long time, life was very simple. And that over time, life gradually changes. Billions of years ago, nothing resembles a kitty cat, or a dog, or an ape. But as you approach the present era, you get critters that resemble rats and other mammals. Then you get various apes and hominids. Finally, you see humans. That is an unmistakable, gradual change in life on Earth.
I’m not married to evolution. It has a number of holes. But it is the best explanation we have so far. Until something better comes along, it is the best we have.
A great flood isn’t going to arrange the fossils just so. If people truly believed this kind of stuff, you could, for example, examine fossilized dinosaur dung – to determine the contents. If you found plant or animal material from a different period of time, then you could turn our understanding of the history of life on its head.
you mean like the fossil record shows gradual evolution? it does not. all evidence is interpreted in light of theory. the fossil record does not show evolution, nor can it be shown in the lab. its a story, to support an atheistic worldview.
the philosphical ramifications are clear, and the evolutionists admit it, as I have posted. I don’t know what else to tell you. where do you think the eugenics movement came from?
yeah thats why they treat him like a heretic and refuse to publish his papers.
its a bit more than that…you should read the edge of evolution…basically evolution cannot produce any novel forms, or functions, but only tinker at the edges of existing systems.
yes, the faith of the evolutionist…no matter the question, evolution is always the answer.
the fundamental forces of the universe are already known, magnetism, gravity, strong and weak force. this is a ‘darwin of the gaps’ hope.
you’re an ideologue. even the evolutionists admit the lack of transitional fossils. you see evolution because it is what you wish to see. these animals appeared FULLY FORMED. we could argue about the dating, and interpreting the geologic column, but it would be a waste of time
you do realize that fossils are not the norm. when something dies, it decays to dust, it doesn’t become fossilized. the great number of fossils all over the world should give you a hint, but it does not, obviously.
how about this?
ok just did, what do you say now?
but let me guess: this shines more light on evolution!! whats a few hundred million years to evolution, right? please…
or this…whats a few hundred million years to evolution, right?
Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic News
March 24, 2005
A Tyrannosaurus rex fossil has yielded what appear to be the only preserved soft tissues ever recovered from a dinosaur. Taken from a 70-million-year-old thighbone, the structures look like the blood vessels, cells, and proteins involved in bone formation.
as if soft tissue can last 70 million year…
The effects of the Flood on the world, hence humanity. After the Flood, lifespans started to drastically decrease. Many theories as to how this happened, including many environmental reasons as well as genetic reasons. Here’s an interesting article on the topic. Consider the bottleneck effect on the human gene pool as well. The entire gene pool was whittled down to eight people. The genetic predisposition towards long life could very well have been reduced due to the limited genetic information left.
There was no death of animals and humans before the fall. This is in no way claiming that the 2nd law of thermodynamics was not in effect prior to the fall, but only that the death, dying and suffering of man and animals didn’t come until the fall.
Physical and spiritual death for Adam, Eve and their descendants (Romans 5:12, Romans 6:23, same word as used in Deuteronomy 30:19).
Regardless of what put off the light, whether it be the sun or the light that God created, if this light is at one point and the earth is spinning and orbiting this source of light, then it’s only natural that there are periods of light and dark.
God created light on the first day (Genesis 1:3). This light was sufficient (Revelation 22:5).
Day 1 (Genesis 1:1).
I don’t see a problem here. The psalmist references a global flood.
“He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter forever and ever. You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters were standing above the mountains. At Your rebuke they fled, at the sound of Your thunder they hurried away. The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place which You established for them. You set a boundary that they may not pass over, so that they will not return to cover the earth.” (Psalm 104:5-9) The “boundary” to which the psalmist refers is that of the final resting place for the waters, such as the rivers, streams and oceans (Psalm 104:10,25). Also, when you read Genesis 9:11,15 we see that God makes a covenant with Noah never to destroy the earth through a flood again. There have been many regional floods since then. If Noah’s flood was a regional flood, then that would be a problem.
You’re welcome to critique any of my arguments at any time. So far, you have yet to do so.
Send_Me:
As I said, it’s about as productive as arguing with a Flat-Earther. I have addressed your points time and time again on this forum in this or other threads when they were regurgitated by right4life or another Flat-Earther. I am tired of repeating myself. I suggest you follow Trollman’s advice and actually learn about what you are trying to dispute before “throwing rocks at it.” I will say the thing to you that I have said to “right4life”: feel free to believe this constitutes an inability to respond on my part.
A Flat-Earther might be able to make seemingly elaborate and convincing arguments that pictures of Earth from space are false, there are government conspiracies, and the continent of Antarctica is a wall of ice at the rim of the world. These arguments would be hard to refute when the Flat-Earther simply does not understand or ignores the evidence. This is exactly the case here. I can’t “argue” with you because you don’t understand what you are arguing about.
You are painfully ignorant on this topic (that is not meant to be ad-hominem, but the truth) and might loosely qualify as a sophist, though your arguments are undoubtedly not your own.
Besides, Trollman is doing just fine without my help.
Trollman:
Quantum mechanics has turned our “natural assumptions” upside down. Either way, first cause arguments lead to infinite regress. Just as easily you can say “God was first cause,” I can say “The Big Bang” was first cause.
I will leave you two to argue about how you can shoehorn an ancient text into modern science. I won’t be reading this thread anymore, it’s long since fulfilled Godwin’s Law.
P.S. Right4life:
I recall a Biblical passage about a plank in one’s eye…
I recall a bible passage where Satan quotes scripture…..
you’re delusional, you need professional help. you’re good for a few laughs anyway.
So, if I understand the your position: 1) any position that’s not a naturalist/materialist position must be inherently wrong, 2) any source not taken from an evolutionist/secular source must be inherently wrong. Let me know if at any point if I’m wrong. For your own edification: “secular” is not synonymous with “impartial”. (This is another of those things that falls under Antonio Gramsci’s cultural hegemony ideas.) Also, in case you weren’t aware, the Christian church never adopted or promoted the flat earth idea. This was done by some folks like Lactantius who was considered a heretic by the church. Here are two articles on the topic, one from a Christian source, the other by the late Stephen J. Gould. Also, you might be interested in the first part of the verse Isaiah 40:22: “It is He who sits above the circle of the earth…” (Not bad for a book that was completed around 700 B.C.)
Well, I have much to say, but my flight leaves early tomorrow morning, it’s late, and I still need to pack. I’ll be gone for some time, and I don’t think I’ll have access to the Internet where I’m going.
Please have this creation/evolution debate all resolved before I return.
Certainly, we shall do our best.
Well, I’m done packing and don’t feel like sleeping yet, so I’ve decided to respond to a couple of things (I’m gonna be dragging tomorrow).
Send_Me said:
This doesn’t make sense to me. Starting from a bottle neck of two (Adam & Eve), you have stable, long lifespans. But when starting from a bottle neck of 8, just a few generations later, it causes a gradual decrease in lifespans. Granted, I read through the article pretty fast, but how is that supposed to make sense?
Send_Me said:
The Bible doesn’t say there was no death in the animal kingdom before the fall. More on this later.
Send_Me said:
If it is referring to physical death, then it is not literally true (”in the day that you eat from it you will surely die”), which would argue against a literal interpretation.
It is talking about spiritual death, not physical death. As a result of spiritual death, he (and consequently, his descendants) is cast off, cut off from the tree of life. He died spiritually that very day, and later, he would die physically.
This contrasts very well with the other “Adam” – Jesus Christ. We are first made spiritually alive when we are born again. Later, as a consequence of being made spiritually alive, we receive physical life (our dead bodies will be raised on the day of resurrection, never to die again).
The idea of no physical death is based upon an assumption, and in my opinion, it is not a good assumption. Here is why.
In Genesis 3:22-24, it seems to imply that Adam had death built into him from the beginning. That is, he appears to need the “fruit of the tree of life” in order to stave off death. If man has death built into him (prior to the fall), then why shouldn’t we think animals have death built into them as well? If that is the case, on what basis should we read into the text that no animals had died?
Send_Me said:
But my point is this – it says God created the Sun & Moon in order to separate the day from the night. But you already have the separation between day and night.
Send_Me said:
There was light, but there was no mention of heat. If there was no heat, the plants would have frozen instantly. You can assume the light produced sufficient heat, but that has to be read into the text, it isn’t there.
Even before you have the light in day one, you have water. Not ice, but water – when there was no light, no Sun, no heat source. This doesn’t make sense.
Furthermore, why bother creating the Sun if you already have sufficient light? How can you have days before the Sun when days are based off of our relationship to the Sun? Why refer to that period of time as days?
In my mind, this raises all kinds of red flags concerning the YEC literal interpretation. Some of these things don’t make sense – as if there is something else going on here.
Send_Me said:
I think it is debatable that Genesis 1:1 refers to day one. Specifically, it refers to “in the beginning.” There are several possibilities:
God created the heavens and earth in the beginning.
God created the heavens and earth in day one.
God created the heavens on day two (1:6-8).
God created the earth on day three (1:9-10).
God created the heavens and earth on day 6 (the day He made man – 1:26-31 & 2:4-7).
God created man in the one? day of creation (2:4-7).
Again, I think this is a sign that there is more here than meets the YEC eye.
Send_Me said:
Psalm 104 is a Psalm about the glory of God displayed in the wonders of His creation. If you read the entire Psalm, the context is clearly referring to the waters in Genesis chapter 1, not chapter 7. If the waters later covered the entire earth in Noah’s Flood, that would contradict Psalm 104:9. Hugh Ross (an old earth, progressive creationist) has a book entitled The Genesis Question that contains more information about how the Biblical text points toward a regional flood, not a global one.
When Genesis 6-9 talks about destroying the whole world, it is talking about the known world (from Noah’s perspective). There are clear examples in the Bible where it talks about the whole world, but obviously doesn’t literally mean the whole world (Genesis 41:57, Col. 1:23, etc.). The purpose of the flood was to punish the wickedness of the people of Noah’s time. There would be no need to wipe out parts of the world that weren’t inhabited by these people, and where animals were not influenced by the wickedness of man.
The account of Noah’s Flood does not require a global flood, and I believe there are good Biblical reasons to think it wasn’t global (The Genesis Question).
zeroangel said:
Ah, but you see, you take for granted there is a reason for these quantum fluctuations – that there are laws of physics that govern it, and that these laws are ultimately intelligible (or why bother studying physics and working towards further discoveries?).
The first cause argument does not lead to an infinite regress. Every effect must have a cause. There is nothing that says that every cause must have a cause.
So why can’t we argue that the universe is the uncaused first cause? Historically, atheists have. The problem is, now we have good evidence that the universe began to exist. Thus, it is not a cause, but an effect. The Big Bang, is not a cause, it is an effect.
If time began to exist, then you need a timeless cause.
If space began to exist, you need a cause that is nonphysical (transcends space).
Using basic logic, you wind up with a timeless, nonphysical, powerful, personal, uncaused first cause – which just so happens to fit with the Biblical teaching of God.
right4life said:
I think you misunderstood my point. The ages in which various critters lived is constantly being refined as we make further discoveries (much like our critical study of the Biblical text is continuing to be refined – with the further discoveries of ancient manuscripts). That is not a problem for evolution anymore than it is a problem for textual criticism (determining the original text of the Biblical autographs).
If you could find evidence of a critter that can only be a late form of life (a mammal, for example) in the Pre-Cambrian era, then you would have something. Of course, if you only had one such example, it should probably be dismissed as a mere anomaly. If you start finding example after example of this, then the whole theory falls apart.
The reality is just the opposite. Overwhelmingly, our fossil finds continue to reinforce the general assumptions of evolution.
oh I understood your point perfectly.
look, NOTHING is a problem for evolution because it is made to fit any fact! evolution is all in all praise darwin!
see what I mean? thanks for comfirming it.
you say this, but I have posted 2 sources that disagree with you. you have posted nothing to show the opposite. I’ve noticed you darwiniacs aren’t big into doing actual research.
laughable.
As stated by leading 20th-century Darwinist Ernst Mayr, “The Darwinian revolution was not merely the replacement of one scientific theory by another, as had been the scientific revolutions in the physical sciences, but rather the replacement of a world view, in which the supernatural was accepted as a normal and relevant explanatory principle, by a new world view in which there was no room for supernatural forces.”
Darwinist professor William Provine insists: “Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.” Likewise, Niles Eldredge, co-developer with Stephen Jay Gould of punctuated equilibrium stated, “Darwin did more to secularize the Western world than any other single thinker in history.” And of course, everyone’s favorite contemporary atheist, Richard Dawkins, spewing bilious hatred of God like a burst sewage pipe, thanks Darwin for making “it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
Being an atheist, I can be tolerant of theists, and only muse at their ceremonial religious chants, their urges to proselyte, their dutiful commitment to rigorous, repetitive script and outlook on life. I thoroughly enjoy attending their weddings and observing the power of religious indoctrination as they perform in unison, adhering to ancient rituals.
Let the religious do what they want. Religion helps many people live good and happy lives. It’s entertaining to view this sort of thing and a waste of time to let it cause any distress. Let these Chaplains do what they do. Those who don’t like it don’t have to listen or believe it. Many are just entertained by it all.