Sunday School And A Worldwide Flood (Pt.3)

[Gray]

I did not make the claim that it was the only way of approaching these subjects.  I stated in one post that some people place theories from academia over scriptures.  I was then asked why I insisted on that false dichotomy.  I replied "Because it exists". 

 

The only way you can eliminate that dichotomy is to eliminate academic theories or eliminate scripture as a source of credible information.  My original comment was that some people have done this.  Some judge the credibility of scripture by academic theories and some judge the credibility of academic theory by scripture and to some of us it becomes a balancing act.

 

The other way to eliminate the dichotomy is to take a more nuanced and I dare say realistic perspective, and let the best of both inform your world view.

[ERayR]

The other way to eliminate the dichotomy is to take a more nuanced and I dare say realistic perspective, and let the best of both inform your world view.

 

That's fine as long as everybody agrees with you.  But then neither you nor I get to decide what is realistic for anybody other than ourselves.

[thesometimesaint]

I did not make the claim that it was the only way of approaching these subjects.  I stated in one post that some people place theories from academia over scriptures.  I was then asked why I insisted on that false dichotomy.  I replied "Because it exists". 

 

The only way you can eliminate that dichotomy is to eliminate academic theories or eliminate scripture as a source of credible information.  My original comment was that some people have done this.  Some judge the credibility of scripture by academic theories and some judge the credibility of academic theory by scripture and to some of us it becomes a balancing act.

 

For me it always a bit of a balancing act. How do I handle the interplay of both with out contradicting either.

[Gray]

That's fine as long as everybody agrees with you.  But then neither you nor I get to decide what is realistic for anybody other than ourselves.

 

Yes, everyone must come to their own conclusions. It's always satisfying to get someone to agree with me, but it's probably because it pleases the ego. Really everyone must do what works best for them. 

Edited February 28, 2014 by Gray

[emarkp]

When Behe's book "Darwins Black Box" first came out I was one of the first to go out and buy it. I read it and at that point whole-heartedly placed all my chips in with Intelligent Design. It was the first time I had seen where someone applied real science to the problems associated with Darwinian evolution. I do not agree with everything in his book nor sone of his ideas but nevertheless I wouldnt give kudos to him if I didnt generally hink he is right in the most important areas. If you havent read his book I mentioned, you should. He basically buries Darwinian evolution principle. An BTW, he is pretty much against every aspect of Darwinian evolution.

 

Behe was exposed as a liar in the Dover trial.  I read all 700 pages of his testimony, and he was lying in many places or simply wrong.  There was plenty of evidence at the time shooting down his "irreducible complexity" in blood clotting, and we've since found examples of precursors of the bacterial flagellum, proving him wrong there too.

 

Read his testimony in front of a judge and jury, with cross examination, and you'll see he's nothing more than smoke and mirrors.  Or not, if you don't care about the whole story.

[bcuzbcuz]

When Behe's book "Darwins Black Box" first came out I was one of the first to go out and buy it. I read it and at that point whole-heartedly placed all my chips in with Intelligent Design. It was the first time I had seen where someone applied real science to the problems associated with Darwinian evolution. I do not agree with everything in his book nor sone of his ideas but nevertheless I wouldnt give kudos to him if I didnt generally hink he is right in the most important areas. If you havent read his book I mentioned, you should. He basically buries Darwinian evolution principle. An BTW, he is pretty much against every aspect of Darwinian evolution.

Behe, in "Darwin's Black Box" states the following:

"For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world." (Darwin's Black Box p. 5-6)

That seems to clarify his position on the age of the earth and man evolving from apes. Are those the ideas from Behe that you endorse?

[thesometimesaint]

When Behe's book "Darwins Black Box" first came out I was one of the first to go out and buy it. I read it and at that point whole-heartedly placed all my chips in with Intelligent Design. It was the first time I had seen where someone applied real science to the problems associated with Darwinian evolution. I do not agree with everything in his book nor sone of his ideas but nevertheless I wouldnt give kudos to him if I didnt generally hink he is right in the most important areas. If you havent read his book I mentioned, you should. He basically buries Darwinian evolution principle. An BTW, he is pretty much against every aspect of Darwinian evolution.

SEE

[Rob Osborn]

Behe, in "Darwin's Black Box" states the following:

"For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world." (Darwin's Black Box p. 5-6)

That seems to clarify his position on the age of the earth and man evolving from apes. Are those the ideas from Behe that you endorse?

Like I said, I do not agree with everything Behe believes in. I also happen to not agree with creationists on everything. Whats your point?

I endorse pretty much all his views regarding intelligent design.

[Rob Osborn]

Behe was exposed as a liar in the Dover trial.  I read all 700 pages of his testimony, and he was lying in many places or simply wrong.  There was plenty of evidence at the time shooting down his "irreducible complexity" in blood clotting, and we've since found examples of precursors of the bacterial flagellum, proving him wrong there too.

 

Read his testimony in front of a judge and jury, with cross examination, and you'll see he's nothing more than smoke and mirrors.  Or not, if you don't care about the whole story.

Smoke and mirrors eh? Speak to the evolutionists- its all smoke and mirrors.

[bcuzbcuz]

Smoke and mirrors eh? Speak to the evolutionists- its all smoke and mirrors.

Well, I'm an evolutionist and don't smoke, never have. When I look in the mirror, all I see is an educated ape.

[bcuzbcuz]

Like I said, I do not agree with everything Behe believes in. I also happen to not agree with creationists on everything. Whats your point?

Point? No point. I thought I was being pretty blunt. Behe published a book that brought down a storm of criticism about his trying to give an "ID" cover to a creationist scheme......and he had to do some awful fast talking and backtracking to maintain any credence in his chosen field of work. Maybe you can pick and chose which of his ideas bear any fruits, but, in my view, if a person's convictions need to be concealed or disguised, and an appropriate front maintained, that is in complete opposition to those convictions, I'd call the man a liar. I'd rather read works by people who follow the WYSIWYG motto.

[Rob Osborn]

Point? No point. I thought I was being pretty blunt. Behe published a book that brought down a storm of criticism about his trying to give an "ID" cover to a creationist scheme......and he had to do some awful fast talking and backtracking to maintain any credence in his chosen field of work. Maybe you can pick and chose which of his ideas bear any fruits, but, in my view, if a person's convictions need to be concealed or disguised, and an appropriate front maintained, that is in complete opposition to those convictions, I'd call the man a liar. I'd rather read works by people who follow the WYSIWYG motto.

Well then, feel free to follow after whatever floats your boat but don't condemn me because I agree with a fellow brother in a certain thing.

[thesometimesaint]

Well then, feel free to follow after whatever floats your boat but don't condemn me because I agree with a fellow brother in a certain thing.

Unfortunately for you your fellow brother has been proven wrong on multiple occasions. 

[The Nehor]

Well then, feel free to follow after whatever floats your boat but don't condemn me because I agree with a fellow brother in a certain thing.

 

Please don't condemn me for thinking that makes you quite dumb. You are backing someone who only agrees with you in a few very minor particulars and those particulars have been largely discredited.

[thesometimesaint]

Please don't condemn me for thinking that makes you quite dumb. You are backing someone who only agrees with you in a few very minor particulars and those particulars have been largely discredited.

 

I don't believe Rob is dumb. But he sure has some strange ideas as to what science really is.

[bcuzbcuz]

Well then, feel free to follow after whatever floats your boat but don't condemn me because I agree with a fellow brother in a certain thing.

You misunderstand. my comments weren't meant as condemnation of your thoughts.. I truly think Behe is a false prophet. He sells ideas/books/talk circuit/tv appearances to one crowd, while condemning those very same ideas in order to maintain his job. That's a man who lacks conviction. I wouldn't follow him merely because he's kind to his pets or espouses ideas that have a familiar ring.

[Rob Osborn]

You misunderstand. my comments weren't meant as condemnation of your thoughts.. I truly think Behe is a false prophet. He sells ideas/books/talk circuit/tv appearances to one crowd, while condemning those very same ideas in order to maintain his job. That's a man who lacks conviction. I wouldn't follow him merely because he's kind to his pets or espouses ideas that have a familiar ring.

Whatever floats your boat.

[bcuzbcuz]

Whatever floats your boat.

You've repeated "whatever floats your boat" several times. Is that a hidden reference to the topic of the worldwide flood? "Yeah, right, Noah. Whatever flloats your boat."

[Rob Osborn]

You've repeated "whatever floats your boat" several times. Is that a hidden reference to the topic of the worldwide flood? "Yeah, right, Noah. Whatever flloats your boat."

Just don't want to debate the whole "Behe" thing. I brought him up to show a point. I made that point, end of discussion.

[The Nehor]

Just don't want to debate the whole "Behe" thing. I brought him up to show a point. I made that point, end of discussion.

 

You wanted to show that a reputable scientist agreed with you. Turns out he mostly did not and is not that reputable. Not sure the point was made.

[Rob Osborn]

You wanted to show that a reputable scientist agreed with you. Turns out he mostly did not and is not that reputable. Not sure the point was made.

You just dont get it. Its like talking to a brick wall.

[The Nehor]

You just dont get it. Its like talking to a brick wall.

 

Well, talking to you is like talking to someone who has denied reason itself and changes their irrational positions regularly. I would rather talk to a brick wall. At least I might get an echo effect and something intelligent will bounce back.

[bcuzbcuz]

You just dont get it. Its like talking to a brick wall.

Some of my best friends are bricks.

[Rob Osborn]

Well, talking to you is like talking to someone who has denied reason itself and changes their irrational positions regularly. I would rather talk to a brick wall. At least I might get an echo effect and something intelligent will bounce back.

I never changed an irratitional position. CFR please.

[thesometimesaint]

Your main advocate for ID, Michael Behe, has been shown to be wrong. Do you really want to stick with someone proven to be wrong?