The Human ... Tail?

Faith & Science Conversation
127

Martin, the reason anybody fails to “straddle the fence” is because there is no fence to straddle. The Theory of Evolution is science. The Bible is theology. The only “fence” is pretending that theology and science are not both valid ways to view reality.

Based on your posts in this thread, you seem to keep repeating your conclusion: “Biologos is wrong and I’m right.” I think every reader understand that that is your point of view. However, repeating mantras and slogans does not really accomplish anything (unless you recite them in order to reassure yourself…and I suppose that there is nothing wrong with that.)

Wouldn’t it be more productive and informative if you were to instead provide EVIDENCE for why you think your TRADITIONAL view is more valid than the views of others? (And remember: many of us used to hold your traditional Young Earth Creationist positions. We left it behind after we found the contradictions and lack of scriptural support and scientific evidence overwhelming. So simply reminding us of the arguments we used to find convincing but later found deficient probably won’t be all that interesting.)

128

Please check p.128:
“A protein within the ribosome known as a peptidyl transferase then catalyzes a polymerization (linking) reaction involving the two (tRNA-borne) amino acids.”

Is peptidyltransferase a protein?

129

Me too. Meyer’s failure to respond speaks volumes.

130

In the 1800’s very devout Christians ALSO said that they “believed the bible 100%” …
and they actually argued that the earth was round like a table instead of round like an
apple.

So… obviously there is something “disconnected” or “fraudulent” to simply
“BELIEVE THE BIBLE”.

The question revolves around the question of how to “Believe the Bible” in the
most realistic and spiritually authentic way …

George Brooks

131

After the whole book has been written,it is kind of hard to change one little part! And even if he did, would it damage intelligent design? Not likely!

133

[quote=“martin, post:131, topic:3314, full:true”]
After the whole book has been written,it is kind of hard to change one little part![/quote]
Not at all. It’s even easier to admit an error–if it really was an error!

[quote]And even if he did, would it damage intelligent design? Not likely!
[/quote]How would you know? If you really think so, why don’t YOU explain it!

It’s just the most blatant of a group of falsehoods and elisions!

Do the exclamation points help?!!!

134

How can Meyer be knowledgeable about the RNA World hypothesis if he thinks that peptidyltransferase is a protein?

135

Hey, please respect my wishes. I don’t like that label. Heathen, Infidel, Heretic, non-believer, agnostic, secular humanist, naturalist, cultural Catholic, are all okay.

136

That is offensive. Who do you think you are offending people with your Bible thumping. You sound like the ISIS fanatics. What’s next suicide vests?

137

@Patrick

My bad. Though to be fair I do recall you disliking the term “non-believer” and specifically stating that you felt the term overly discriminatory … Soooo I was kinda left in the dark of what to say, short of sending Martin a PM. I’ll take your admission of “non-believer” as inoffensive, from now. It seems neutral enough.

@martin

Mr. Mayberry, if you are a FIRM (all cap) Creationist with no intention of changing (or even considering) other viewpoints … And also show signs of not even trying to convince others of your viewpoint … Might I ask what your motives on this site are? When I joined this site it was primarily to see other peoples viewpoints, particularly because I was interested in Scripture. And it’s only fairly recently that I’m starting an interest in science as well.

In other words I came to convince others AND to be convinced myself of what other people were saying. I come in an attempt to teach and be taught. Not meaning offense here … But I’m not really seeing that level of openness or willingness to investigate when I read your posts. Rather I see a lot of exclamation points, all capped words, and arguments that basically just say, “I believe evolution is stupid.” — I’m not sure what is the purpose of forming an argument in that fashion? It convinces no one on an intellectual or scientific basis. Why degrade another person’s viewpoint without, at the very least, coherently describing your own? And if you’re going to smash down another persons viewpoint, do so with sound and logical arguments … Not emotional-sounding tirades.

Their have been other people on this site that don’t believe in evolution. But they composed themselves in a much more down-to-earth fashion and didn’t resort to mere mockery. They were willing to engage and consider … Are you willing?

-Tim

138

Tim,
I like non-believer. I dislike being called an atheist because it is usually used as a derogatory term. Plus it is not very accurate term as you are 99% atheist as you are a-Zeus, a-Thor, etc.

139

I’ll respect your wishes then.

The common vernacular of the term would not include the likes of Zeus or Thor, but I concede your point … Perhaps a more technically accurate term would be “amonotheist” — but I don’t think that will catch on.

-Tim

140

Thanks Tim, your a real mensch.

1 Like
146

Martin — you’re frankly not making a lot sense to me. I’m not claiming that you of anyone else is “retreating from God” … I affirm completely that God did in FACT creature the Universe and everything in it. So why such animosity? You’re acting as if a person who thinks differently about HOW creation went down is somehow less of a Christian then those that hold “the only and true and correct viewpoint of Creation”. I don’t believe that. You’re just as Christian as anyone else that fervently claims that Jesus Christ is Savior … The amount of dogmatic importance you’re putting on an INTERPETATION is unwarranted.

“Evolution” is NOT at all talking about the origin of life and makes absolutely no comment about it somehow “replacing God” which is simply silly. Evolution is a theory that discuses the diversity of life … That’s it. It not a God to be worshipped.

The fact that you assume a scientific theory should materialize right in front of your eyes as you casually walk out the door is silly. We don’t perceive the vast distance of stars, just by glancing at the night sky. We don’t perceive the incredible speed of light, by flicking on a switch … Nor the neurons that are firing in our heads by merely thinking a thought. Science takes place by doing exhaustive experimentation by multitudes of people … Not by appearing on a silver platter.

Neither was Paul, talking about evolutionists, Martin. He was talking about unbelievers and atheists … But according to you, evolutionists are one in the same apparently … Never mind the fact, that it still, to this day is a scientific THEORY of EXPLANATION. It is not God nor can it replace him … God was not replaced when we started analyzing and discussing meteorology phenomen, and started making weather productions, even the book of Job, when read straightforwardlh. Implies God is DIRECTLY involved in the Hydrological Cycle. God was not replaced when we could reproduce lighting, even though credit was given to God. The distinction you’re making between Gods “supernatural activity” and “natural activity” is an unbiblical dichotomy.

After their kinds, needs to be understood in it’s broader context. It can mean a general category, like say carnivores. Or it can be rater specific on individual species: the night hawk, hawk, big owl, and small owl are all called different kinds in Deuteronomy. It all need to be understand that a bat is considerd of the bird kind … Even though today (special creationists an evolutionists alike) both agree that a bat is not a bird. But clearly the ancient definitions were different.

Also it says, “let the earth bring forth every living creature after it’s kind” … It does not say “reproduce after it’s kinds”. And even if it did that says nothing about what evolutionary theory teaches … Speciation does occur. Ken Ham pretty much said it when he declared that all members of the Canide family: dogs, wolves, foxes and coyotes. Were descend from a Common Ancestor, off of Noah’s Ark. The text gives no biological definition to “kinds”, nor does it say that kinds can’t deviate and change…

Do you agree with the biblical teaching that we should investigate things? Test all things, hold fast to that which is good? Do you agree with the proverb that says the simple believs every word but the prudent looks well to his going? Do you agree with Psalm 19 that the stars give forth knowledge and speech … And if so what knowledge does it teach?

Are you aware that many early Christian writers, who were reading the Bible, developed ideas such as God’s Two Books and the Unity of Truth? Based on what they read in Scripture?

What is your opinion of the fossil record?

I try my best to respond to most of your points but you seem to ignore most of mine. Are you aware that the attitude in which you write can be perceived by many as condescending? Jesus says to be as wise as serpents and yet as harmless as doves. Are you more interested in bolstering your traditions and interpretations as Scriptural Truth, or discussing the matter calmly, concisely and with gracious speech? I don’t get that when half of your words are in ALL CAP, and filled with exclamation points.

-Tim

147

@martin
@Eddie

Eddie is right. I should clarify. I don’t hold to the notion that nature is random … Everything is in God’s hand, even the things that we perceive as unpleasant.

When I say evolution all I’m saying is change over time … Not talking about mechanisms here.

-Tim

149

You remind me of the Church Fathers who patiently explained that there CANNOT be any humans on the other side of the earth … because if there was, then when Jesus returned, scripture would be wrong - - not everyone could see him.

You can have as much God as you want with your evolution - - the part that can’t be set aside is that God decided to do things the SLOOOOWWWWWWWW way .

George

150

“But my beloved brethren, be not ignorant of this one thing: that a day with The Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day.” — the Apostle Peter

Slow to us humans, but neither fast OR slow, in God’s eyes. Evidently His perception of time is not like ours.

-Tim

163

Hi everyone. Yeesh…took a while to clean up this mess. I’m closing this topic so fresh conversation can begin elsewhere. Thanks to those who did not return fire with fire. I’m grateful to have you here.

1 Like