Divine rain vs. meteorological precipitation

[Dannager]

Kerr,

We, the undereducated of the christian world, are stumbling our way towards the truth. Instead of tripping us, why not lend a hand?

To be honest, oldwiseguy, a lot of us get rather cynical after enough time here. Creationists cycle in and out of this forum, usually spouting the same PRATTs we've heard, literally, hundreds of times before. Every time that happens we have to provide the refutation, because if no refutation is provided it makes it look like a hole is present, and any perceived hole in evolutionary theory could become the start of a huge tear when creationists start exploiting it in arenas where evolutionary theory doesn't have people to defend it.

Then, after we've done the refutation, I'd say roughly 50% of the time the OP just leaves and never returns. This alone can be rather disheartening. To top it off, the thread then gets pounded by a couple of the same old creationists either using their homemade ideas of what the world was once like (a certain three-letter poster in the CvE board comes to mind) or relatively uneducated but friendly creationists who figure it's best to just give the OP a pat on the back and a nasty glare to the evolutionary theory supporters.

Add to all of this the eternal argument over semantics and the lack of progress we seem to make with some posting creationists (defining "kind" or "information" for example) and you get one heck of an unfulfilling experience here. Every once in a while we have to remind ourselves that this is for the lurkers, and once every blue moon one such lurker will appear and thank us.

Forgive us our cynicism. We mean well.

 

[Dannager]

It was not that long ago that bad storms were blamed on evil spirits and lightning rods were evil, all proclaimed by the church. The curches use to ring their bells durring storms to ward off the evil spirits. Sadly this only lead to the deathes of countless bell boys wwhen the church spire was struck by lightning. This is why ID then and now is a bad thing. Its intent is to stop us from asking questions that some find uncomfortable and leads to unneeded suffering and death for inoccents because if IDs forced ignorance.

Haha, I'm not sure if ID will be directly responsible for deaths in the future, but I am worried that if ID prevails our biological sciences will degrade in progress to the point where we will miss out on important life-saving or life-prolonging discoveries we would have made were our science standards more strenuous.

EDIT: Fortunately the last year's events indicate that ID actually won't develop into much of a threat. It's lost legal and legislative ground over the past few months so at this point I think we're in the "hearts and minds" stage.

 

[Shalia]

You just demonstrated the very reason why scientists don't want Creationism taught in the science classroom. It has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with pushing a religion on children.
Thanks for being so honest, though. Most Creationists would never attempt to make a sale that way.

I recently took Bio in college <as in Fall Semester> and he taught it really well. He mentioned the fact that there are literally thousands of beliefs about how life may have started, but that as of right now, this was the best scientific explanation we have, and we went from there. He invited people to disagree with him if we wanted to, but we had to back it up with something scientific, not something religious. <It was generally easier to just do his papers his way, but it was *refreshing* to have the option!>

This was a public institution <although since I live in Utah, it's *really* hard to claim anything is secular here... > so he's probably breaking some law, but it was an excellent way to teach.

 

[Shalia]

Except God's hand in creating life or the world isn't scientific in any way. You're free to teach a supernatural origins outlook in your home or in church, but it can't be taught in a science classroom because it isn't science.

For the record, I loved how my science class was taught, but I think that is best at a college level, it avoids confusing people. It seems like there's some antagonism to the resident scientist Kerr, but he has a very good point... if you cloud a child's mind with all the intricate details, they'll never get the basics, you have to go in the opposite order.

For people who have *major* issues with evolution benig taught to their children, I wish they had the option of pulling their child from the classroom, just as a parent has the right to exclude their child from sex ed in health class, and a Jehovah's Witness can have their kid sit in the hall during all holiday celebrations.

Creation, intelligent design, what have you, should be in philosophy of religion courses. Or as a really cool blend in college, like I got.

 

[Willtor]

To be honest, oldwiseguy, a lot of us get rather cynical after enough time here. Creationists cycle in and out of this forum, usually spouting the same PRATTs we've heard, literally, hundreds of times before. Every time that happens we have to provide the refutation, because if no refutation is provided it makes it look like a hole is present, and any perceived hole in evolutionary theory could become the start of a huge tear when creationists start exploiting it in arenas where evolutionary theory doesn't have people to defend it.

Then, after we've done the refutation, I'd say roughly 50% of the time the OP just leaves and never returns. This alone can be rather disheartening. To top it off, the thread then gets pounded by a couple of the same old creationists either using their homemade ideas of what the world was once like (a certain three-letter poster in the CvE board comes to mind) or relatively uneducated but friendly creationists who figure it's best to just give the OP a pat on the back and a nasty glare to the evolutionary theory supporters.

Add to all of this the eternal argument over semantics and the lack of progress we seem to make with some posting creationists (defining "kind" or "information" for example) and you get one heck of an unfulfilling experience here. Every once in a while we have to remind ourselves that this is for the lurkers, and once every blue moon one such lurker will appear and thank us.

Forgive us our cynicism. We mean well.

To be fair, that three-letter poster in CvE is almost certainly a parody. I think most people argue with him for giggles.

That said, I'm feeling something of the same. I don't want to get jaded about these things. If only for the sake of the lurkers and people who pose honest questions. The problem is that talkorigins is out there, but nobody wants to read it. Or they can't tell the difference between its content and that of AiG. It was the same sort of rhetoric (as AiG puts out) that helped to make me agnostic on the subject of cre/evo, but AiG really tickles a person's ears and I haven't seen a lot of frustration with AiG from the YEC community.

 

[shernren]

I didn't say you implied anything. I said your wording indicated....

Maybe it's my English quibbling, but "indicated" probably has a weightier meaning than even "implied". When a text "indicates" something the indicated can be read out without much interpretation; when a text "implies" something the implied needs some interpretation to be extracted. Another (more accurate) word for what we call "literal" reading is "indicative" reading.

But that's just my INTJ linguistic fixation speaking.

You are including a homegrown version of evolution in God's creative process that still smacks of atheistic evolution i.e. those darned 'new life forms' you speak of.

Hmm, is my understanding of evolution wrong? Can you correct me if I'm wrong?

The whole point of this thread was that there is really no methodical difference between atheistic science and theistic science (except where certain experimental options carry significant ethical ramifications, e.g. some theistic positions disallow embryonic research - what is denied is the research method, not the researched knowledge itself).

"Atheistic meteorology" would say that certain scientific laws explain weather, and therefore that God is not needed for weather.
"Theistic meteorology" would say that certain scientific laws explain weather, and since God is in control of weather, it pleases Him for weather to behave in such an orderly manner that its behaviour can be quantified as scientific laws.

The only difference is metaphysical. Both atheistic and theistic meteorology would arrive at the same predictions, with the same recommendations. Both would warn people "go inside, there's a storm coming".

In the same way, I don't see why there should be any scientific difference between "atheistic evolution" and "theistic evolution", save perhaps in the matter of the origin of sapience, which anyway is something that cannot be fossilized. There is a world of metaphysical difference, but no scientific difference. That's the whole point of science: to a certain extent people of all beliefs observe common patterns in nature regardless of metaphysical positions.

And what do you find objectionable in the Gap theory. It makes more sense than any other model out there? My version agrees with everything you believe, with just a few exceptions, including evolution of course.

That's like asking "What do you find objectionable in ether theory? It agrees with everything relativity predicts, with just a few exceptions, including the existence of ether of course ... "

My position on Gap Theory:

In my mental taxonomy of creationist beliefs Gap Theory is really close to Apparent Age-ism. Apparent Age-ism says that God created the universe 6,000 years ago and offers no coherent explanation for the apparent 4.5 billion years between creation and present. Gap Theory says that God re-created the universe 6,000 years ago and offers no coherent explanation for the apparent 4.5 billion years before creation. Yawn.

-from http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=22766931#post22766931
My problems with Gap Theory stem from what I learned of it from a vocal Gapper who used to post here, genez. Basically to me Gap Theory is caught between a rock and a hard place: on the one hand scientific evidence predates 6,000 years, and on the other hand biblical evidence (taken indicative-historically) says nothing about anything predating 6,000 years. At least YECs have some idea what a young creation would imply. Gap Theory really has no biblical data on what the creation looked like before God recreated it - "formless and void" doesn't amount to anything scientifically quantifiable. Gap Theory seems to read a lot into the activity and nature of angels, demons, and Lucifer - far more than the Bible seems to warrant and far more than should be the emphasis of a balanced theology.

 

[Dannager]

For the record, I loved how my science class was taught, but I think that is best at a college level, it avoids confusing people. It seems like there's some antagonism to the resident scientist Kerr, but he has a very good point... if you cloud a child's mind with all the intricate details, they'll never get the basics, you have to go in the opposite order.

For people who have *major* issues with evolution benig taught to their children, I wish they had the option of pulling their child from the classroom, just as a parent has the right to exclude their child from sex ed in health class, and a Jehovah's Witness can have their kid sit in the hall during all holiday celebrations.

Creation, intelligent design, what have you, should be in philosophy of religion courses. Or as a really cool blend in college, like I got.

I agree with your last statement, but I don't think the option should exist to remove your children from classes involving evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory is rather crucial to an understanding of basic biology, and is covered on most state-mandated science exams. Since nearly every college accepts evolutionary theory as the best explanation in their science department, this would really be a disservice to the children were they to miss it. Frankly, I wouldn't want my parents (were they uneducated in science) to determine what valid science I will and will not be able to learn.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Maybe it's my English quibbling, but "indicated" probably has a weightier meaning than even "implied". When a text "indicates" something the indicated can be read out without much interpretation; when a text "implies" something the implied needs some interpretation to be extracted. Another (more accurate) word for what we call "literal" reading is "indicative" reading.

But that's just my INTJ linguistic fixation speaking.



Hmm, is my understanding of evolution wrong? Can you correct me if I'm wrong?

The whole point of this thread was that there is really no methodical difference between atheistic science and theistic science (except where certain experimental options carry significant ethical ramifications, e.g. some theistic positions disallow embryonic research - what is denied is the research method, not the researched knowledge itself).

"Atheistic meteorology" would say that certain scientific laws explain weather, and therefore that God is not needed for weather.
"Theistic meteorology" would say that certain scientific laws explain weather, and since God is in control of weather, it pleases Him for weather to behave in such an orderly manner that its behaviour can be quantified as scientific laws.

The only difference is metaphysical. Both atheistic and theistic meteorology would arrive at the same predictions, with the same recommendations. Both would warn people "go inside, there's a storm coming".

In the same way, I don't see why there should be any scientific difference between "atheistic evolution" and "theistic evolution", save perhaps in the matter of the origin of sapience, which anyway is something that cannot be fossilized. There is a world of metaphysical difference, but no scientific difference. That's the whole point of science: to a certain extent people of all beliefs observe common patterns in nature regardless of metaphysical positions.



That's like asking "What do you find objectionable in ether theory? It agrees with everything relativity predicts, with just a few exceptions, including the existence of ether of course ... "

My position on Gap Theory:

In my mental taxonomy of creationist beliefs Gap Theory is really close to Apparent Age-ism. Apparent Age-ism says that God created the universe 6,000 years ago and offers no coherent explanation for the apparent 4.5 billion years between creation and present. Gap Theory says that God re-created the universe 6,000 years ago and offers no coherent explanation for the apparent 4.5 billion years before creation. Yawn.

-from http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=22766931#post22766931
My problems with Gap Theory stem from what I learned of it from a vocal Gapper who used to post here, genez. Basically to me Gap Theory is caught between a rock and a hard place: on the one hand scientific evidence predates 6,000 years, and on the other hand biblical evidence (taken indicative-historically) says nothing about anything predating 6,000 years. At least YECs have some idea what a young creation would imply. Gap Theory really has no biblical data on what the creation looked like before God recreated it - "formless and void" doesn't amount to anything scientifically quantifiable. Gap Theory seems to read a lot into the activity and nature of angels, demons, and Lucifer - far more than the Bible seems to warrant and far more than should be the emphasis of a balanced theology.

Without a rich and (somewhat) detailed prehistory, the bible just doesn't make much sense. I believe that prehistory can be understood using patterns and types found in bible history beginning with Genesis, as well as contemporary history. That would lead to a more balanced theology than we have now. Peter alludes to the world that 'was'. It is this world that I refer to in my personal version of Gap theory.

Perhaps I should change the title, as I seem to be confusing folks.

 

[Pats]

To be honest, oldwiseguy, a lot of us get rather cynical after enough time here. Creationists cycle in and out of this forum, usually spouting the same PRATTs we've heard, literally, hundreds of times before. Every time that happens we have to provide the refutation, because if no refutation is provided it makes it look like a hole is present, and any perceived hole in evolutionary theory could become the start of a huge tear when creationists start exploiting it in arenas where evolutionary theory doesn't have people to defend it.

Then, after we've done the refutation, I'd say roughly 50% of the time the OP just leaves and never returns. This alone can be rather disheartening. To top it off, the thread then gets pounded by a couple of the same old creationists either using their homemade ideas of what the world was once like (a certain three-letter poster in the CvE board comes to mind) or relatively uneducated but friendly creationists who figure it's best to just give the OP a pat on the back and a nasty glare to the evolutionary theory supporters.

Add to all of this the eternal argument over semantics and the lack of progress we seem to make with some posting creationists (defining "kind" or "information" for example) and you get one heck of an unfulfilling experience here. Every once in a while we have to remind ourselves that this is for the lurkers, and once every blue moon one such lurker will appear and thank us.

Forgive us our cynicism. We mean well.

I honestly can see that you do mean well, Dannager. And seeing that I am here to learn, I truly appreciate your attitude and posts.

But you should speak for yourself here and others can observe wether they are speaking to someone who makes hit and runs or not.

Oldwiseguy and I asked fair questions and this was our response:

I really do wonder what makes you stick around when you sound so sick of the debate and forums. Some people might be honestly evaluating their beliefs, but to heck with them? You've already decided what I'm after based on most people you've talked to before?

I like to view how idiotic some amongst society are. Sorry but it is that simple at times.

I think that speaks for volumes for itself.

Admitedly, I have probably judged KerrMetric for not being a people person, and for this I appologize. But, in the fairest assesment I can make, some people are slamming others for asking questions about their posts and taking enjoyment in the uninformed opinions of others rather than adding to the discussion.

At this point in the discussion, I feel my adding any more to this thread will only draw comments that insinuate I'm not smart enough to have an opinion on the subject.

 

[gluadys]

At this point in the discussion, I feel my adding any more to this thread will only draw comments that insinuate I'm not smart enough to have an opinion on the subject.

You are probably smart enough. But you may not always be informed enough.

I often wonder why people take offence when told they don't know enough to form an opinion. It's not like any of us know everything. All of us have spheres of knowledge in which we are competent, and spheres in which we are not competent and spheres where we are woefully ignorant.

If someone tells me I don't know something, I can either bring out my credentials to show I do know it, or admit that I need to learn more about the subject before coming to a conclusion. I don't see any shame in the latter case, nor do I see it as an admission of stupidity. If I can learn and want to learn, that is the smart thing to do.

 

[Willtor]

To be honest, Pats, when I first started posting here, I thought KerrMetric was a TE parody (sorry, Kerr ). But given my own inner struggles with repeatedly having to allay fears of (and sometimes direct accusations of) implicit philosophical naturalism, it is easy to see how one might become cynical. I am personally devoted to the pursuit of apprehension of God in Christ, and this is largely what has led me to my current position. Now, if I am mistaken, then I am gravely mistaken. But it is almost impossible for me not to take it personally when I am accused of "favoring the wisdom of men over that of God." My guess is that other TE's feel the same way. I cannot, of course, speak to their motives, but it is easy for me to see the possibility that theirs are not unlike my own.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You are probably smart enough. But you may not always be informed enough.

I often wonder why people take offence when told they don't know enough to form an opinion. It's not like any of us know everything. All of us have spheres of knowledge in which we are competent, and spheres in which we are not competent and spheres where we are woefully ignorant.

If someone tells me I don't know something, I can either bring out my credentials to show I do know it, or admit that I need to learn more about the subject before coming to a conclusion. I don't see any shame in the latter case, nor do I see it as an admission of stupidity. If I can learn and want to learn, that is the smart thing to do.

Glaudys,

Meditation is spiritual brainstorming. The best educated people in the world have to meditate-think outside the box- of orthodox beliefs, or, secular knowledge. The bible must be meditated upon for understanding, as it is very ambiguous about some subjects, and just absent of information on others. In other words it is spiritually discerned, or, understood by principle, or by common sense, or by person experience. When you require physical evidence to validate something discerned in this way you're asking the impossible. People asked Jesus the time, and he often told them the weather (figuratively speaking). Many questions you pose would illicit the same kind of response, and would be most unsatisfactory for you.

For example: the good Samaritan had to possess the ability, knowledge, resources, and reputation to do what he did for the injured Jew. But those things are not recorded in the bible. One infers these additional details based on the recorded events, because they most certainly obtained. This is 'filling in the blanks' and can be done with any bible story. Many of my theories are builded on simply filling in the story with what just 'must be' in order for the story to be fully comprehensive.

 

[gluadys]

Glaudys,

Meditation is spiritual brainstorming. The best educated people in the world have to meditate-think outside the box- of orthodox beliefs, or, secular knowledge. The bible must be meditated upon for understanding, as it is very ambiguous about some subjects, and just absent of information on others. In other words it is spiritually discerned, or, understood by principle, or by common sense, or by person experience. When you require physical evidence to validate something discerned in this way you're asking the impossible.

When the topic is the age of the earth or the evolution of species, the evidence is physical. I would not ask for physical evidence of what can only be spiritually discerned.

For example: the good Samaritan had to possess the ability, knowledge, resources, and reputation to do what he did for the injured Jew. But those things are not recorded in the bible. One infers these additional details based on the recorded events, because they most certainly obtained. This is 'filling in the blanks' and can be done with any bible story. Many of my theories are builded on simply filling in the story with what just 'must be' in order for the story to be fully comprehensive.

One can fill in the blanks with reasonable inferences or with wild imagination. The parable says the Samaritan used wine and oil, and study of the culture tells us these were common "first aid" treatments of the time, so it is a reasonable inference the Samaritan a) had these materials with him, and b)knew they could be used medicinally.

As for your theories, that is exactly what I am asking for--some evidence that they are reasonable inferences from the context, not just imaginative ideas pulled from a hat.

What reasoning led you to believe these things "must be"? How do they make the story fully comprehensive? Or more fully comprehensive than a different interpretation?

 

[shernren]

The best educated people in the world have to meditate-think outside the box- of orthodox beliefs, or, secular knowledge. The bible must be meditated upon for understanding, as it is very ambiguous about some subjects, and just absent of information on others.

Is your idea of Biblical meditation - "thinking outside the box" - is scripturally supportable? Biblical meditation is almost never thinking outside the box. It may be thinking oneself deeper into the box, or taking things from outside into the box (the box being scriptural revelation and consensually recognized orthodoxy), but never thinking outside the box. We are rarely (never, IIRC) told to simply "meditate" in the Bible. Whenever we meditate we are to meditate on the Bible. You will agree with me with words, but the wild theories you come up with have little to no scriptural support, and I deeply suspect that whatever you have been meditating upon - Greek ideals of perfection? personal whims and fancies? - have smuggled themselves into your mind under a cloak of pretending to be written in the Bible when they are demonstrably not.

The Bible does not expect to be meditated upon in subjects where it says nothing at all. God gave us brains for a reason.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

When the topic is the age of the earth or the evolution of species, the evidence is physical. I would not ask for physical evidence of what can only be spiritually discerned.




One can fill in the blanks with reasonable inferences or with wild imagination. The parable says the Samaritan used wine and oil, and study of the culture tells us these were common "first aid" treatments of the time, so it is a reasonable inference the Samaritan a) had these materials with him, and b)knew they could be used medicinally.

As for your theories, that is exactly what I am asking for--some evidence that they are reasonable inferences from the context, not just imaginative ideas pulled from a hat.

What reasoning led you to believe these things "must be"? How do they make the story fully comprehensive? Or more fully comprehensive than a different interpretation?

The earth is obviously old, and obviously has been seriously damaged. However, there is no evidence of the kind of evolution lurking just behind the door that still has men coming from apes. The softselling of mutation, and natural selection is a ruse.

My theories are just new and improved versions of older ones that pop up every now and then. I just add my own twists to them. Many great theories start this way.

Using the good Samaritan story as an example (I need to correct myself here. The 'man' was not identified as a Jew, and, the story was not a parable. Jesus presented it as an actual account):

I expand on the character of the Samaritan. Clearly he was a business person travelling a regular business cycle. He probably stayed at the inn often and knew the owner. He was respected enough to cause the owner to do what he asked, even accepting the promise of later payment for any costs. He was probably an older man, and being a Samaritan had experienced discrimination at the hands of most Jews, who looked down on them, referring to them as 'dogs'. (The owner of the inn was probably a Jew as well.)

Jesus used him as an example of one who would show mercy to any regardless of any differences, and in any place and time where mercy was needed. The oil and wine are symbolic of the fullness of God's spirit, carried within the truly righteous person and available to any and all who would need it, and in any form needed.

The story is also connected to the beginning verses in the same chapter where the disciples are commissioned to not only preach the gospel but to heal the sick, and cast out demons, as they went.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Is your idea of Biblical meditation - "thinking outside the box" - is scripturally supportable? Biblical meditation is almost never thinking outside the box. It may be thinking oneself deeper into the box, or taking things from outside into the box (the box being scriptural revelation and consensually recognized orthodoxy), but never thinking outside the box. We are rarely (never, IIRC) told to simply "meditate" in the Bible. Whenever we meditate we are to meditate on the Bible. You will agree with me with words, but the wild theories you come up with have little to no scriptural support, and I deeply suspect that whatever you have been meditating upon - Greek ideals of perfection? personal whims and fancies? - have smuggled themselves into your mind under a cloak of pretending to be written in the Bible when they are demonstrably not.

The Bible does not expect to be meditated upon in subjects where it says nothing at all. God gave us brains for a reason.

Meditate within the constraints of 'consensually recognized orthodoxy'? YOU MUST BE JOKING. How would one even begin to know God, when orthodoxy refuses to accept the God revealed in scripture? I might as well cross my legs and go Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

 

[Willtor]

Meditate within the constraints of 'consensually recognized orthodoxy'? YOU MUST BE JOKING. How would one even begin to know God, when orthodoxy refuses to accept the God revealed in scripture? I might as well cross my legs and go Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

The orthodoxy wrote the Creed with which you agreed when you put a Christian symbol on your account. What makes you say that orthodoxy has rejected God?

 

[shernren]

I expand on the character of the Samaritan. Clearly he was a business person travelling a regular business cycle. He probably stayed at the inn often and knew the owner. He was respected enough to cause the owner to do what he asked, even accepting the promise of later payment for any costs. He was probably an older man, and being a Samaritan had experienced discrimination at the hands of most Jews, who looked down on them, referring to them as 'dogs'. (The owner of the inn was probably a Jew as well.)

Fine by me - as long as you know where the Bible stops and your wild speculations begin.

 

[Willtor]

Fine by me - as long as you know where the Bible stops and your wild speculations begin.

Wild and anachronistic. oldwiseguy, the notion of a businessman is a pretty recent idea.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The orthodoxy wrote the Creed with which you agreed when you put a Christian symbol on your account. What makes you say that orthodoxy has rejected God?

I accepted no creed.

I didn't say orthodoxy rejected God. I said that orthodox christianity doesn't accept the angry, vengeful aspect of God's nature, and sweeps it under the rug.