- Jul 5, 2005
- 46,775
- 19,959
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
They're first-hand accounts.Oh, I agree 100%. Jesus doesn't mention them at all directly. But the argument has been made elsewhere that by referring to Genesis 1&2 that Jesus was somehow rubber-stamping the story. Of course, highly biased 3rd or 4th hand accounts of what Jesus is claimed to have said are hardly going to be the most reliable sources, are they?
Lol. No, they're not and I don't think any serious scholar makes that claim.They're first-hand accounts.
Yes, they are. They are written by people who literally witnessed these events. They are written as such. Like John mentioning how he outran Peter to the tomb. That's a personal touch. In 1st John and 2nd Peter, they identify themselves as eyewitnesses to the events. While Mark's writings were not from Mark, he recorded first-hand accounts from Peter. So, even if some of them did not actually do the writing, they provided first-hand knowledge of their experiences.Lol. No, they're not and I don't think any serious scholar makes that claim.
Years ago I was fighting the good fight of creation on the Internet. I argued that evolution was impossible, for it required that the genetic code had to be changed to make new kinds of animals. It did not seem feasible to me that evolution could do this. I argued in the CompuServe debate forum, basing my arguments on Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crises.
My favorite illustration was the difference between mammals and reptiles. The differences between living mammals and reptiles are substantial. Mammals all have hair, mammary glands, a four-chambered heart, and the distinct mammalian ear, with three little bones inside. These features are found in no living reptiles. I argued that this is because there is no viable intermediate between the two, that an animal could have either the reptile genetic code or the mammal code but could not be in the middle.
An evolutionist disagreed with me. He told me that in the past there had been many intermediates. He said that there were animals that, for instance, had jaw and ear bones that were intermediate between reptiles and mammals. How did he know this? He gave a reference to an essay in Stephen Gould’s Ten Little Piggies. I wrote back that since the local library had a large collection of children’s book, I should be able to find that book. (I thought that was quite a zinger.)
I borrowed the book, and found an interesting account of how bones in the reptile jaw evolved and changed through millions of years to become the mammals’ ear. That sounded like such a clever tale. How could Gould believe it? Perhaps he made it up. But there was one little footnote, a footnote that would change my life. It said simply, “Allin, E. F. 1975. Evolution of the Mammalian Middle Ear. Journal of Morphology 147:403-38.” That’s it. That’s all it said. But it was about to make a huge impact on me.
You see, I had developed this habit of looking things up, and had been making regular trips to a university library. I was getting involved in some serious discussions on the Internet, and was finding the scientific journals to be a reliable source of information. Well, I couldn’t believe that a real scientific journal would take such a tale seriously. But wait. Before I would declare victory, I needed to check it out.
On my next trip to the library, I found my way to the biomedical journal archive. I retrieved the specified journal, and started to read. I could not believe my eyes. There were detailed descriptions of many intermediate fossils. The article described in detail how the bones evolved from reptiles to mammals through a long series of mammal-like reptiles.
I paged through the volume in my hand. There were hundreds of pages, all loaded with information. I looked at other journals. I found page after page describing transitional fossils. More significantly, there were all of those troublesome dates. If one arranged the fossils according to date, one could see how the bones changed with time. Each fossil species was dated at a specific time range. It all fit together.
I didn’t know what to think. Could all of these fossil drawings be fakes? Could all of these dates be pulled out of a hat? Did these articles consist of thousands of lies? All seemed to indicate that life evolved over many millions of years. Were all of these thousands of “facts” actually guesses?
I looked around me. The room was filled with many bookshelves; each was filled with hundreds of bound journals. Were all of these journals drenched with lies?
Several medical students were doing research there. Perhaps some day they would need to operate on my heart or fight some disease. Was I to believe that these medical students were in this room filled with misinformation, and that they were diligently sorting out the evolutionist lies while learning medical knowledge? How could so much error have entered this room? It made no sense.
How can you explain those mysterious mammal-like reptiles? Reptiles and mammals today are quite distinct from each other. Mammalian features include differentiated teeth (incisors, canines, premolars, molars), double rooted teeth, a distinct jaw joint, three bones in the ear (stapes, incus, malleus), the diaphragm, limbs under the body, a different arrangement of toe bones, and a braincase that is firmly attached to the skull. No reptile has these features. But when we look at ancient fossils, we find a strange series of animals with features in the middle.
They begin 300 Ma (million years ago) in the Pennsylvanian. It was a different world. There were no mammals, flowering plants, or even dinosaurs. According to the fossil record, these would all come later. The world belonged to amphibians and reptiles. Early Synapsids such as Haptodus appeared. Their dentary jaw bones rose in the place where later animals would have a new jaw joint–the mammalian joint.
Then advanced pelycosaurs (270 Ma) like the Dimetrodon had signs of a bony prong for the eardrum. Later, cynodonts like the Procynosuchus (236 Ma) had jawbones more similar to mammals, but they still had the reptile’s jaw hinge.
The Probainognathus (238 Ma) and the Thrinaxodons (227 Ma) have signs of two distinct jaw joints, the reptilian and the mammalian. This allowed some of the bones that had been part of the reptile’s jaw to transmit vibrations to the ear. This was the beginning of the special mammalian ear bones.
By the time the Sinoconodon appears (208 Ma) the mammalian jaw joint predominates, and the reptilian jaw joint is small.
The Morganucodon (205 Ma) has teeth like a mammal, a distinct mammalian jaw joint, and only a tiny remnant of the reptile’s jaw. It’s malleus and incus ear bones remain attached to the jaw.
By the late Cretaceous period (80 Ma) early placental mammals like the Asioryctes had jaws and ears that were transformed to the mammalian type. Two of the reptile’s jaw bones, the quadrate and the articular were no longer part of the jaw. Instead they had become parts of the middle ear, the malleus and incus.
This is only a brief overview of these strange creatures. In reality, there are thousands of species that span many millions of years, with many intermediate stages of many different features.
Now what on earth was God doing? Why was he slowly introducing mammalian features into the fossil record? Why did he progressively change the design of the jaw, ear, teeth, and limbs until the animals look more and more like mammals? Should I just shrug my shoulders? “God moves in mysterious ways.” Problem resolved? No, I shall ask why.
Did God learn from past experience and introduce new creatures with improvement every several thousand years or so? Creationists would cringe at that suggestion. Then why do we find this progression? It is difficult to escape the all-too-obvious conclusion: God must have allowed the first mammal to evolve from reptiles through a process involving many millions of years.
As a Creationist, I finally came to the point where I considered that possibility. It instantly become apparent that this would be a huge change in worldview. For if the first mammal evolved from reptiles, then where did the second mammal come from? If God used thousands of transitions to evolve the first mammal, did he then just copy that design to create the second and third mammals? That makes no sense. These mammals must have evolved also.
In fact, we would need to conclude that all mammals have evolved from these mammal-like reptiles. Think for a minute of all of the varieties of mammals that you know–elephants, tigers, mice, dogs, and whales, to name a few. Did all of these descend from a sequence of mammal-like reptiles? Is there any other way to explain all of these intermediates?
The impact of that day in the library was truly stunning. I didn’t know what to say. I could not argue against the overwhelming evidence for mammal evolution. That was hopeless. But neither could I imagine believing it. Something had happened to me. My mind had begun to think. It was becoming free. And it was not about to be stopped. Oh no. There is no stopping the mind set free.
I went to the library and borrowed a few books on evolution and creation–diligently studying both sides of the argument. I started to read the evolutionist books with amazement. I had thought that evolutionists taught that floating cows had somehow turned into whales; that hopeful monsters had suddenly evolved without transitions; that one must have blind faith since transitional fossils did not exist; that one must simply guess at the dates for the fossils; and that one must ignore all of the evidence for young-earth creation. I was surprised to learn what these scientist actually knew about the Creationist teachings of flood geology, of the proposed young-earth proofs, and of the reported problems of evolution.
And I was surprised at the convincing answers that they had for these Creationist arguments. I was surprised to see all the arguments they had for evolution. I read with enthusiasm. I learned about isochrons, intermediate fossils, the geologic column, and much, much more.
I would never see the world in the same light. Several weeks later I found myself staring at the fossil of a large dinosaur in a museum. I stared with amazement. I looked at the details of every bone in the back. I wondered if a design so marvelous could really have evolved. But I knew that someone could show me other animals that had lived earlier that had transitional features to this dinosaur. And I knew that one could trace bones back through the fossil record to illustrate the broad path through which this creature had evolved. I stared and I pondered. And then I pondered some more.
Within days, I had lost interest in fighting evolution. I began to read more and write less. When I did debate, I confined my arguments to the issue of the origin of life. But I could no longer ignore what I had learned. Several months later I first sent out an email with probing questions to a creationist who had arrived on the scene. He never responded. I have not stopped questioning.
---------------------------
This is from my website: Did We Evolve?
Uh huh. We were talking about the gospels of Mark and Matthew, so well done trying to divert the conversation to another dispute - few scholars believe the gospel of John was written by the author of 1 John. So, as I said, no serious scholar makes those claims.Yes, they are. They are written by people who literally witnessed these events. They are written as such. Like John mentioning how he outran Peter to the tomb. That's a personal touch. In 1st John and 2nd Peter, they identify themselves as eyewitnesses to the events. While Mark's writings were not from Mark, he recorded first-hand accounts from Peter. So, even if some of them did not actually do the writing, they provided first-hand knowledge of their experiences.
In 1st John and 2nd Peter, they identify themselves as eyewitnesses to the events.
I wasn't raised on atheism. I didn't even realize it was a thing until I was older. I studied what was offered in school and accepted what I was taught as facts. I took courses in oceanography and earth science. I had no perspective from any religious ideas or teaching at all. I watched Bill Nye and Beakman's World. I knew I wanted to be a geologist. To this day, I still pay attention to earthquake and volcano data. I lived in Bend, Oregon for a time and studied the Three Sisters volcano range in the Cascades. I still watch YouTube videos from Professor Nick Zentner of Central Washington University. (Check him out if you get a chance. He's brilliant). I really don't know what you want me to say to accept I was (and still am in many ways) a studied defender of science.Saucy, I am not mocking you. I am just pointing out that the story you gave here is in no way comparable with mine as written in the OP.
I was a studied Creationist making arguments in online forums. By contrast, you describe yourself as a former teenager that was apathetic toward religion. That is not comparable.
In the OP, I describe how the magnitude of the facts I was up against gave me pause. You can only tell us that once you heard a voice talking to you about life and death, a voice that nobody else heard. I tend to doubt you actually heard a voice, but I, of course, don't know. I suspect that you are in an environment where it is socially advantageous to tell such stories, and so your story grew with each telling. If, on the other hand, your story is true, then I was not joking or mocking when I suggested seeing a doctor. Hearing voices in your head talking to you about death accompanied by months of mental trauma is a serious concern. I would see a doctor if it happened to me.
Overwhelming facts can and should be a reason to change one's opinion. Hearing voices in your head? Not so much.
So far we have seen nothing to validate your claim of you being a former studied atheist evolutionist. I asked for a source you relied on, and an argument you found convincing when you were an atheist. You gave neither. Could it be you did not respond because you never knew strong arguments for atheism or evolution (and hence were never a studied evolution defender)?
You speak as though the mere fact that you converted must be evidence that the faith and the creationism you adopted are real. That simply is not a valid argument. People convert for many reasons. In America, for instance, there is often strong social benefits to going with the crowd and adopting the majority religion. That does not prove that this religion is right.
You posted a link to a site that claims a failed Isochron dating in Austrailia. I am not familiar with this particular case, but I am well aware of Creationist attempts to discredit radiometric dating. They find a case where a measurement technique did not apply, and conclude that radiometric dating is never accurate. That is just silly.
That is like saying you put a garden thermometer in the oven and it did not tell you the correct temperature of the oven. Therefore, garden thermometers are useless. That simply does not follow. Finding instances where a garden thermometer does not work does not discredit other uses of that thermometer.
You posted a link with a supposed hole in the evolutionary viewpoint. Are you qualified to judge whether the argument the writer makes is valid? Lots of people can make arguments that fool uninformed people. That does not prove that what they wrote is science. Rather, they need to be able to convince those who do understand the science.
And I can assure you, the link you gave did not convince those who understand radiometric dating to abandon radiometric dating.
For more on why we judge radiometric dating to be reliable see Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective .
11. Eyewitness Testimony in John's Gospel | Bible.org1st John does speak in the first person, but I had a quick look through and could find nothing where he claims to have been an eyewitness to the events described in any of the gospels. Of course, I might have missed it. Could you give me a specific chapter and verse please?
The New Testament authors repeatedly referred to themselves as eyewitnesses, even if they did not make overt statements including their names. In the last chapter of John’s Gospel, the author tells us he is testifying and his testimony is true. Language such as this presumes the author has seen something he can describe as eyewitness testimony. In addition, the authors of 1 John and 2 Peter identify themselves as eyewitnesses who directly observed Jesus, and were not inventing clever stories (1 John 1:1,3 and 2 Peter 1:16). While Luke clearly states he is not an eyewitness to the events in his gospel, he does tell us he is relying on the true eyewitnesses for his information (Luke 1:1). These cumulative statements are consistent with the notion the authors of the Gospels saw themselves as eyewitnesses who were recording history.
Cool! You have a voice inside that tells you beforehand that your girlfriend will break up with you and directs you to avoid road closures.As for the voice that spoke to me, I am not mentally ill. I know what I heard and there are gifts of the Holy Spirit that have allowed me to do things I could never do before. This voice told me things I could never know on my own. I will give an example. One time I was hanging out with my girlfriend. I thought we were having a great time. At the end of it, she kissed me goodbye and headed home. As I stood in the driveway watching her back out, I heard the voice say, "you will never see her again."
Literally the next day, she broke up with me. We spoke on the phone for a bit of time after that, but it became too painful and I literally have not seen her again. Another time I was driving to my sister's house. There are two ways through her neighborhood, a long way and a shorter way. Of course, I always take the shorter way. But as I was about to turn that way, the voice told me to go the longer way. It didn't make sense, so I went the shorter way. Well, come to find out, the road was blocked off as it was being repaired, so I had to back into someone's driveway to go out the other way. As I did so, I accidentally backed into someone's trashcans and ran over them.
So, yes, I believe in a higher power who guides me and teaches me and helps me. That's not a mental illness. I often feel His presence around me. My epiphany was that despite everything I ever knew and believed and studied, God made Himself known to me and it shattered my worldview to its core.
We definitely discover physics that exists outside and independently of us, as shown for example in General Relativity predicting stuff never seen or imagined before such as a not previously expected amount of gravitational deflection of starlight, and when searched for it was found.I don't think you quite got my point there(?) 'Discover' there, is a highly misleading term .. I deliberately didn't use it, namely because .. its misleading.
If anything, the only things science is ever 'discovering' are new meanings inferred from objective observations, for adding to its models of objective reality. These meanings then form additional, consistent bases for whenever 'reality' (or 'exists') becomes the primary focus of some topic/debate.
My point in raising this is that, in a sense, your usage of the term 'discover' is allegorical too.
I'm not sure you recognise that, yet you seem to be relying on posits of objects/things existing independently from our scientific concepts/meanings and therefore, must simply be awaiting our 'discovering' them. This idea comes directly from philosophical Realism .. not science. Its an objectively untestable inference that you're using to counter certain points being raised in these sub-conversations.
Sure physicists are humans and use common short-cut language expressions too, but that is beside the point.
The point is, there is no 'actual operation of nature' of reality in the literal sense, which actually exists independently from the meanings we assign to those behaviours. That phrase (in italics there), is allegorical too. I'm not sure you recognise that(?)
No .. see my above points. What physicists say, (in short-cut, common language expressions), does not form the basis for debates on matters concerning science, or its definitions of objective reality. Yet, you appear to be relying on these expression as being such, in this instance.
You can find something about him on Michael S. Heiser - Wikipedia . Although I agree with Heiser in rejecting ideas about ancient astronauts, I find the rest of the article disquieting.I never heard of Heiser,
More detail:I don't think you quite got my point there(?) 'Discover' there, is a highly misleading term .. I deliberately didn't use it, namely because .. its misleading.
If anything, the only things science is ever 'discovering' are new meanings inferred from objective observations, for adding to its models of objective reality. These meanings then form additional, consistent bases for whenever 'reality' (or 'exists') becomes the primary focus of some topic/debate.
My point in raising this is that, in a sense, your usage of the term 'discover' is allegorical too.
I'm not sure you recognise that, yet you seem to be relying on posits of objects/things existing independently from our scientific concepts/meanings and therefore, must simply be awaiting our 'discovering' them. This idea comes directly from philosophical Realism .. not science. Its an objectively untestable inference that you're using to counter certain points being raised in these sub-conversations.
Sure physicists are humans and use common short-cut language expressions too, but that is beside the point.
The point is, there is no 'actual operation of nature' of reality in the literal sense, which actually exists independently from the meanings we assign to those behaviours. That phrase (in italics there), is allegorical too. I'm not sure you recognise that(?)
No .. see my above points. What physicists say, (in short-cut, common language expressions), does not form the basis for debates on matters concerning science, or its definitions of objective reality. Yet, you appear to be relying on these expression as being such, in this instance.
I never grew up in church or in the faith. None of my family were believers (except for my departed grandma who was a passive Catholic and never talked about her faith). I had no concept of God. What I loved as a kid was science. I entered several science fairs, once being selected by my school as the top prize and going on to the next level (but was defeated there). I loved astronomy the most. I lived in Texas when comet Hale-Bopp came around. I made my dad take me to several dark-out events where I took my telescope to see the comet away from the city lights. Would often go to science museums and had a massive rock collection. I could go on and on.
Be nice now. Our friend is being sincere, which isCool! You have a voice inside that tells you beforehand that your girlfriend will break up with you and directs you to avoid road closures.
Can you ask that voice which way the stock market will go tomorrow, please?
Nope. The basis of your argument there, ie: 'The actual reality, that preexists', never gets tested. Its only ever our perceptions of that, expressed using language along with its shared-amongst-human-mind meanings, (ie: models), that we're testing there. There is overwhelming evidence for this, and exactly *zip* for 'a something', which 'preexists' independently from the mind perceiving and articulating those models.We definitely discover physics that exists outside and independently of us, as shown for example in General Relativity predicting stuff never seen or imagined before such as a not previously expected amount of gravitational deflection of starlight, and when searched for it was found.
Ergo, if we can discover by theorizing about that reality out there -- what we've learned and seen over in over in pure physics (without philosophy stuff you mentioned) -- the evidently already existing physics -- when we come up with a theory about it, then we can calculate effects/phenomena we've never yet seen or imagined, and then search for those, and see whether the theory is real: whether it aligns to the real thing, the actual reality, that preexists our theorizing.
I can theorize you are wearing a ring.Nope. The basis of your argument there, ie: 'The actual reality, that preexists', never gets tested. Its only ever our perceptions of that, expressed using language along with its shared-amongst-human-mind meanings, (ie: models), that we're testing there. There is overwhelming evidence for this, and exactly *zip* for 'a something', which 'preexists' independently from the mind perceiving and articulating those models.
SR/GR are a classic examples of a very human mind (Einstein's) pursuing his own various thought experiments in order to produce useful results. Tell me how he did any of that independently from his own mind, please? (The subsequently observations you mention, were also obviously conducted hy human observing minds, too).
Just as @doubtingmerle's OP experiences clearly described, it wasn't until he fully acknowledged the gross imbalance of evidence on either side of the questions his mind was posing, that his Epiphany occurred. I suggest you 'try on' that same process and see what happens for you, too(?)
Meanwhile let's get back to @doubtingmerle's OP context, eh? (We've drifted somewhat in this sub-conversation, in order to explore, hopefully briefly, what we mean by Reality/Existence .. which is never done independently from minds contemplating what that word means).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?