Creationist Truth

Agreed, Dan! Really, just how clear is it that God made the world at all, let alone for us? We have no concrete evidence of God's existence, just the belief that God exists because as humans we are unable to comprehend that the universe could come into existence in any other way, except for a divine Creator.

What is clear to me is that science has proved, quite thoroughly, that evolution is the process through which our universe has come to be.

Dan - what are we going to evolve into? Since evolution is always happening, what's the next step for humans?

When does that happen?

Do we risk upsetting the process of evolution by messing with DNA, cloning and other related scientific work?

If so, then should we stop all that work?

Dale The answers I have for your questions are posted in a new article, called Evolving

Been here, now back to the new article.

For some of you, we've been through this before...the proof of God's existence appears to be a matter of personal revelation...Science has never disproving God's existence...it just tells us to go further and further and further and ask and discover more...There's something mentioned above about how beautiful the Universe and/or Earth is...What about the pain, the great pain that much of had in store for many of us?.....Why such a contrast?...That's hard to poetically explain without some-sort of God explanation.....& The DNA and evolution stuff? Won't much matter unless we change so much of our human culture and behavior, will it?

Clifford, There is no 'proof' of god's existence! There is no 'proof' that god is non-existent! The question of god's existence is 'unscientific'. There is no conceivable test that could disprove the existence of god! However; I refuse to believe that god broke my leg. I refuse to believe that god caused my father and mother to die. I refuse to believe that god causes the sun to shine or blue birds to fly either. I refuse to believe this because there is no evidence of any god having anything to do with anything at all. Faith is by definition belief without evidence. Faith is a weakness to which humans (and perhaps other creatures, how would we know) are prone. There are explanations of why we are prone to faith but they boil down to simply 'Faith is more comfortable than admitting uncertainty.'

How about this scenario: Somewhere out beyond the farthest star is a force with a power that is connected to every living thing, and some that humans don't regard as living, but that still reflect radiation. This connection, or filament, or power path is a two way path so the force has ready access to our every prayer or thought. I, even as a non-believer or sceptic, know prayer works for me.

Or, how about this - We are born with our destiny instilled in us, with the possible variations that occur because of our genes and DNA. Certain factors and actions have certain reactions or consequences, and we get to think we can chose the actions. I guess you could call this fatalism. Spiritual questioning is a murky business.

Ruth , Prayer for you, fasting for someone else, snake charming for the next guy, LSD for Leary, flagellation or self-mutilation for others; nothing is totally beyond the pale in man's search for comfort against the uncertainty of reality. 'Faith', like 'hate' is simply a common human reaction to fear.

And whats this 'destiny' thing and the 'choice is an illusion' thing? More items of 'faith' for which there is no evidence but which have the advantage assuaging the fear of uncertainty. "I may not know what is going to happen but at least it is not my fault."

I have read that prayer, especially collective intense prayer shows results. I think of as a form of energy that when concentrated is a force that causes consequences not far afield from what the prayers were for. It has worked a lot of times for me, but maybe it just concentrates my own built in power to get things done. Just because I can't explain some mysteries of life doesn't mean they are not real to be explained when people are smarter. Things that seem supernatural now may be ordinary science later. We don't know it all, yet.

Ruth us correct in my view. I was an agnostic until Spirit actually became known to me on a personal level that could NOT be refuted by an experience. I allow that most others can easily and rationally refute just such. But I now need not faith because I have actual gnosis ... that is good enough for me and I can even make a very rational case out of it as I have done in my own BOOK about it all.

Jerry I am glad you know. It is not god I mind, it is faith. Faith is a weakness, a crutch that should be discouraged not celebrated. If you know god exists good for you. Some people know the world is flat, too. Good for them. Just don't offer me faith as a virtue. It is not!

Jerry I went to look at your BOOK. At $15.99 a pop I am tempted to say I know too.! The excerpt is well,.... verbose and confusing. Makes me wonder about the rest. Not enough to spring for 16 bucks though.

Actually, Dr Leary's association with LSD was professional and the success rate treating a wide range of psycological disfunction was remarkable. The recent test of the ability for prayer to effect infirmity indicated no benefit. Ayurvedic and shamanic healers have found and documented cures with botanicals and minerals based often on a vision or some communication with something. Faith as a guide or for the formulation of hypothesis can be a good thing. If you had no faith in your powers of observation, where would you be? Thank you for your observations, I'll have a little faith in them even if you don't.

Faith that is "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." is a weakness. I do not have "faith" in my powers of observation because I have material evidence that they are reasonably reliable. I also have evidence that they can be very wrong, so I am careful and when the result is vital I check and recheck, but 'faith' has no reason to enter into it.

Dan,

I have a lot of "faith" in mankind and his eventual finding the right way to perpetuate the species as the enviornment actually becomes more challenging! That is "faith" because I've seen no real manifestation of this capacity! I don't believe that weakens me in any way and is something over which I have no control.

You may have a big problem with such "faith" but I do not. You've got to have some faith to get on an airplane, bus, train or car. Faith that the operator wants and intends to arrive at the destination safely. If you buy food you've got to have faith that it has not been contaminated.

And if someone wishes to believe in something or someone for whom there is no logical evidence, that is that person's right and doesn't affect me so it doesn't bother me. Now if his "faith" causes him to harm me or others, then I do have a problem with that faith!

I do not have or need 'faith' in the safety of an airplane because I have tons of evidence. I do not have or need 'faith' in the safety of my food, because I have years of experience. I do not have or need 'faith' "in mankind and his eventual finding the right way to perpetuate the species as the environment actually becomes more challenging!" because I have thousands of years of history that tells me they very well might. 'Faith' is a weakness to be avoided.

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1

I agree that faith means you are trusting in something that is not totally 'known.' But that doesn't mean that there is NO evidence when people are exercising 'faith.' You are making your decisions about food and flying based on past experiences, but you don't know that your food is safe or that the plane you board is going to make the flight without problems.

There is also evidence for God; people are not just blindly believing. There is evidence in creation and also inward evidence that people have mentioned above. What fascinates me is that the most basic part of human relationships is trust. You cannot have a good friendship or marriage without trust. Trust and faith are giving a person the benefit of the doubt, and also giving yourself to them, without always 'knowing' what will happen. Faith is not a weakness; it's actually a great character quality. You cannot love others without faith; sometimes you will get burned in relationships, sometimes you will be wronged, but that's part of learning to love others.

I fail to see any evidence of God, good, bad or mediocre, anywhere. Of course you do things without 'knowing' what will happen, but you do them expecting from past experience that certain things will happen, hoping that the good possibilities will be the ones manifest this time. No 'faith' required. Of course you can love others without faith! What do you need faith to love for? Do you only love because you have faith it will be returned? Do you only love because you have faith that the object of your love will be 'worth it'? Faith and trust are not really related either. I trust most people because experience has taught me that most people can be trusted. It is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of the facts as they are known to me at this point. I trust them because the alternative is unwarranted by the facts as I know them. I can see no good character quality in be able to believe things for which there is no evidence. 'Faith' is a problem not a solution. Faith is a weakness like any other form of irrationality.

Dan,

The definitions below are directly from dictionary.com According to these definitions, faith and trust are related. And according to these definitions, 'faith' is even exercised in the realm of science.
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

here are your words above:

"I trust most people because experience has taught me that most people can be trusted. It is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of the facts as they are known to me at this point. I trust them because the alternative is unwarranted by the facts as I know them."

And these lines you wrote above are exactly why I trust God: experience has taught me He can be trusted. It is a matter of the facts as they are known to me at this point. I trust them because the alternative is unwarranted by the facts as I know them.

It's interesting to me that I know of several people who set out to 'disprove' or at least 'question' the validity of the facts surrounding God and Jesus, and they ended up becoming Christians. The three I can think of right off the top of my head are Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, and Gary Habermas. These men researched the facts, and the facts led them to faith. I understand if the facts do not lead you to faith; however, it seems that we should not say that there is no factual basis for faith in God.

The 'faith' I have been talking about all along and have clearly stated as such is " Faith that is "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." Now if you have confidence in a person or thing with no material evidence then I say that is pretty silly and I have never known anyone to do that except perhaps a child who has not yet had reason to learn better and even they operate on the basis of the 'facts as they know them' They simply do not yet have experience with the concept of innocent looking danger. The truth is of course that the experience of most of us is that most of us can be trusted, at least up to reasonable limits. I do not have faith in your basic decency, I have material evidence of the likelihood of your basic decency.
And if there are facts that show that God exists then faith is not a requirement. in fact, 'faith' is not even present. It would be a belief based on material evidence and that is not 'faith'. As they said in "Jerry McGuire" ' Show me the money!' and quit praising people for believing with no material evidence. That is not a virtue, it is a failure.

And what 'facts' do these three (Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, and Gary Habermas) offer? I could find none. They did however all ask me for money. Mostly for 'NAMESTAN' which it turns out is code for 'them thar heathen places over yonder'. Can you give me one fact they discovered?

Of course there are a lot of facts, but I can mention a few: biblical manucscript numbers (vastly large compared to other ancient manuscripts), dates (much closer in date to originals than other ancient documents. Archaeological support of manuscripts. Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in Jesus life. The method of copying biblical texts. Historical verification of Jesus. There is a lot of specific evidence in all these areas.

There is the fact that there were hundreds of eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection, many of whom died for their faith in a risen Christ (the disciples were afraid and not 'believing' until they saw Jesus with their own eyes, according to the Bible.)

It's interesting that the 'proof' idea is part of the debate in evolution/creation. The scientist who wrote the forward to the 100th Anniversary edition of Origin of Species wrote that evolution is unproved and unprovable (Sir Arthur Keith). Evolution is taught everywhere, but it is unprovable. Another evidence for creation would be the fact that there are all of these 'missing links' in the fossil record. The fossil record actually points to creation.

There are many manuscripts yes. The earliest written 15 or 20 years after the fact at the very best and no known copies of any significant quanitiy earlier that a few decades after the fact and most a few centuries. They are remarkably consistent within the the copies though there are some differences of significance. There are what are to me very significant differences between the accounts of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John who were supposedly eye witnesses describing what really happened. But consistency within various manuscripts only means dedicated copiers and says nothing whatsoever about the actual truth of the story, as much as many folks would like to say it does.
The Gospels only mention about a dozen witnesses to Jesus's life after death. Where did you get the idea there were hundreds?
As for evolution ..yes there are 'missing links' but there are many that are not missing. And while it may be impossible to prove that it did account for all the species today, I can assure that it is provable as a process that does exist. I myself have directed evolution as has any animal breeder. And it is utterly impossible to even make a good case for, much less prove, the proposition that any God did anything at all.

Dan: I left you a message somewhere else...I suspect you found it by now----......---(Bees) (Seas) (Trees) (Breeze) (Degrees) (Leaves) (Freeze) ----;;;;......Now Some Fiction: Test: ........Yes....Ship coded owirhqpow8pq n Seek...JUst having fun...just having fun shake ......May be the Chinesse wheather satiltiey tha twent tow foouty finve thousand p eoices effected the weather all over the United States...Just have fiction fun. shi[kljljlj creat rain at X

Dan,

Agreed, the Gospels present different perspectives. But we do know that the manuscripts we have are very accurate to the originals. It's much like witnesses at the scene of an accident...they may share what they saw from a different perspective, not the same but not necessarily in conflict.

It's the same with 'evidence' or 'facts', really; consider a court case. 'Facts' can sometimes lead to the wrong conclusion, especially if all of the evidence isn't in yet. I don't know if you'll like this :), but I really think we are more on the same page about the idea of 'faith' and 'facts' than you think. You believe in evolution, but I say you can't prove it. I believe in creation and God, but you say I can't prove it. I would even be willing to say there are 'facts' or 'evidence' that might lead one to consider evolution. I'm only saying that my faith in God has rational facts to back it up.

Also, there is a difference between macro and micro evolution. The evolution you have observed is not the type of apes changing into men. I don't typically discuss evolution with people, but thought I would since we are on the topic of creation.

And the reference in the Bible to Jesus appearing to 500 is in 1 Corinthians 15, I believe. In my mind, the whole issue of creation/God comes down to Jesus and who He is. In this reference, Paul is saying that there were lots of people still alive who saw Jesus risen from the dead. That's an important fact. Also, it seems if there were a body to produce, the Romans and Jewish leaders surely would have produced it. There were many people that were not happy with Jesus and His message to begin with, so it seems illogical to allow that 'myth' to continue if there were a body and no empty tomb.