Ever been spanked by God?

“Uh, Jesus, that better be your knee.”

Yeah, this one’s a bit outdated. It’s made the internet rounds for several years, but I haven’t seen it in a while. You’d think Jesus would have known that this was going to look bad by around the turn of the millenium. I’m not exactly sure if the little girl is being punished with sickness because she fooled with the bee’s nest or because she was fantasizing about being spanked by the son of God, but I’d like to believe there are scarce few who would think this petty disciplinary scheme is a viable scenario.  I’m not talking about the use of a ‘spanking’ metaphor but rather the idea in general that the misfortune we tend to run into now and then (missing keys, speeding ticket, genital wart, whatever) has something to do with a pavlovian punishment/reward system established by the almighty.

Even here the girl seems to be suffering from bee stings to the face. The cause and effect seem to be pretty clear and occam’s razor can fairly easily slice a pedophile savior right out of the picture. Additionally, man skeptics have brought up the point that there are some pretty rotten folks who seem to rarely get their spankings and some pretty decent ones who seem to not only get spanked, but regularly punched in the face. In fact, in reality, with this hypothesis Jesus starts to seem like that cliched drunken father who grabs the switch and beats his kid raw while he reasons, “I’m sure you’ve done something bad today.”

But, seriously, there’s not many left who really think they still get spanked by Jesus, right?

jk

39 Comments to “Ever been spanked by God?”

  1. Kelly 1 March 2011 at 1:25 am #

    Sick and warped:-( I get the defense mechanisms,though. Truly sorry.

  2. Kelly 1 March 2011 at 12:04 pm #

    I don’t want to be condemning here, should of thought better of doing so. I would like to show you a side of God that you tend to overlook. He is LOVE and he gave the Egyptians plenty of warning, nine plagues to be exact, prior to the death of firstborn children. Wonder how many families actually chose to stick around for the final plague? Pharoah was the jerk who wouldn’t submit until something as terrible as loosing his first born son happened.

    Anyway, here’s a video that more rightly demonstrates who God is to those who will allow Him to be. This is a female perspective, yet the I AM is fitting for the topic of Exodus and Who God Is.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeUuF3fE9iQ

  3. Jon K 1 March 2011 at 10:18 pm #

    Well, plagues aren’t acts of love either. Haven’t watched the video yet, but I cannot think of a scenario where the just, loving act is to start offing the kiddies. I’ve heard the argument, of course, that they were lovingly swept up in the arms of God, but that’s simply a reflex from the dissonance caused by such an intolerable act of vengeance. That’s what mafia dons do – “I’ll kill your wife and your kids and your family…” Whether the mechanism be angels of death or floods or conquering tribes or end of times, it’s always a bloodbath for the kiddies. Not love, no how, no way.

  4. Kelly 2 March 2011 at 3:06 pm #

    Could you please tell me what “infallible” scientific method you are using to make such a proclaimation concerning the true character of God?

  5. Jon K 2 March 2011 at 3:47 pm #

    As I don’t think there’s evidence enough to claim God exists in the first place, your question doesn’t make sense. Any discussion of God’ character from my perspective is purely hypothetical. (i.e. To demonstrate if such a being existed that fit the biblical description, he would not be a thing of love.) I take it from your objection that you are saying that loving gods can do whatever they like (there’s probably few things worse than destroying entire populations of children) and call it love? Truth is what the bible says and love is what the God in it does? If that’s your position then you’ve certainly entirely abandoned a meaningful perspctive of reason, morality, and love.

  6. Kelly 2 March 2011 at 5:10 pm #

    My point is to show you that you are making hypothetical comments. Math and Physics are not the only areas where the scientific method can and should be applied. Apply the scientific method to the history of mankind and see if you still come up with “not enough evidence” for God.

    I’m just asking how it is you conclude that “love doesn’t look like that”, “no how, no way”, and you know you’re right? What “infallible method” are you using to test that? conclusion?

  7. Jon K 2 March 2011 at 9:31 pm #

    Well, the scientific method has already been applied to the history of mankind (biology, geology, paleontology, archeology, genetics, evolution) and has yet to identify any god evidence whatsoever. They certainly discredit many biblical claims (global floods, magical creation 6000-10000 years ago of Adam and Eve, Joshua stopping the sun and moon in the sky) and in fact just about every scientific implication the bible makes, as well as a great deal of the historical claims, are demonstrably false.

    Love describes an emotive state of strong affection and attachment. Although it is quite complex and can be used in countless contexts there are certain properties that cannot be separated from love. This is by definition. Love for an object would preclude the desire or will to annihilate that object or bring to that object a state of intense suffering. This is why we can say with comfortable certainty that Hitler did not love the Jews. You seem to be looking for a scientific explanation for what fails at the logical level. My “infallible method” is reason.

    Now let me hear you explain why it is reasonable to identify a being who sets the bizarre laws and carries out the horrible deeds reported by the old testament as ‘love.’ As I explained several posts ago – truth cannot be a contradiction. “God is love” used all by itself might not be a contradiction; however, combined with oh yeah and he also directed/endorsed/blessed revenge on Israel’s enemies with an uplifting “Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” (Psalm 137:9) This of course, is a contradiction. You don’t need physics to measure contradictions – just logic.

  8. Kelly 3 March 2011 at 1:06 am #

    Your first paragraph is BS. This video clip is a short answer to a big question, but Ravi does a great job answering how the scientific method has been thorougly applied to the Bible on countless levels. How in the world does a book receive so much esteem as well as hate, if there were no truth in it? He also answers your what about “other holy book” questions.

    It’s very reasonable to see and expect that God is not one dimensional. Does He or does He not have the power and authority to judge sin? This is what you don’t like about the OT God. This same God has made a Way of escape first for the Jews, then the Gentiles. His name is Jesus Christ.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHRP0I2SrVs

  9. Jon K 3 March 2011 at 9:23 pm #

    Ravi specifically says, if you have a systemic breakdown, you must question the legitamacy of the bible. The god of love vs the cruel god of the old testament contradiction is about as big a breakdown as you can get. But feel free to keep on dancing around it.

  10. Kelly 4 March 2011 at 1:43 am #

    Ravi doesn’t have a problem with a loving God being Just. In your world view, there will be no justice for crimes gone unpunished here. You can dance around that one.

    One thing, I also caught from Ravi, is what the Bible is and isn’t, and it’s not a scientific book, to be attacked by pure scientific naturalists who have no room for the supernatural.

    It stands strong on history, law, morality, philosophical and systematical thinking, poetic beauty, and the Supernatural with incredible unity, given the span of time of which is was written.

  11. Jon K 5 March 2011 at 12:44 pm #

    For the millionth time. Justice is not served when a non-criminal is punished in place of a criminal. Another complete contridiction, yet the very basis of Christian salvation.

    Nor is justice served when punishment is out of proportion with the offense. It is absurd to say a lie is just as condemnable as an act of murder. To say the bible is strong on law (stoning just about everything stonable), morality (baby killing and genocide), philosophical (abandonment of reason), etc. is laughable. It’s history is highly questionable with regard to accuracy – that’s simply the position of biblical scholars and archeologists, (whose methods are somewhat more scientific than theologians.)

    Incredible unity? It’s a cobbled together assembly – as I’ve pointed out before, even the very first part of Genesis is clearly two different creation stories awkwardly joined together. Many other books that that were important to early Christians were villainized, banned, and burned by a church hell-bent on forming their own message. (These were bishops and popes with a ravenous thirst for power – not benevolent, humble servants of a god.) Like I said, if you want to put your faith in their dogmatic product, that’s your buisness. But when you set that wobbly pedestal up in front of me, I feel obliged to knock it down.

  12. Kelly 5 March 2011 at 7:43 pm #

    I saw “Collision” last night and Christopher Hitchens has spent almost his entire life attacking God claims. His library is full of opposing books on the subject, given the subject matter of “mistakes were made but not by me,” he’s come to believe what’s false as opposed to what’s actually true. I’m done arguing because you two are in the same boat. I won’t spoil the movie if you haven’t seen it, but his last remarks give me the slightest reason to still hope for hime.

  13. Kelly 5 March 2011 at 7:49 pm #

    Sorry one last thing, God says justice is met this way, and you are not Him.

  14. LeeS 5 March 2011 at 8:11 pm #

    Two things Kelly. I just added Collision to my netflix list. I wish it were streamed.

    Also, one thing that I continue to see in these exchanges is that you do not seem to address the things that Jon says directly. One problem is that he may bring up to much stuff, which provokes a longer response, thus increasing the chance of getting off on a tangent. So if you look at the first thing Jon said up above.

    “Justice is not served when a non-criminal is punished in place of a criminal.” Just address that.

    You have to agree with Jon, from a human perspective. It makes no sense to punish the child for the crimes of a parent. Ie, lets make it real clear. If a man commits murder, how does putting his son in the electric chair justice? I will leave it at that one thing, so there is no way to get off of that question. Is this an act of justice in your opinion?

  15. Kelly 5 March 2011 at 8:26 pm #

    God was on the cross, taking the sins of the world upon Himself. He came and took on the form of man in the person of Jesus Christ. Out of love He does this to satisfy justice. God is three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

  16. LeeS 5 March 2011 at 10:39 pm #

    Kelly,

    This does not answer the question. I was not talking about Jesus and the crucifixion. We can talk about that in a different thread of if you like.

    So I will ask again, If a man commits murder, how does putting his son in the electric chair justice?

    You see, I think we have to start here, in a place where there should be common ground, before we attempt to try to cross the canyon that exists between us.

  17. Kelly 6 March 2011 at 12:58 pm #

    It doesn’t start there, Lee. I’m giving you how and why it happened from God’s perspective. God is HOLY, neither of the two characters you pose are. There is a huge difference. If you want to insist on trying to make sense of it from a “human perspective”: two sinful human beings deciding their own fate, making the same substitution, then no, it will not make sense.

    Jesus Christ is the bridge to cross the canyon that exists between you and God. Until you want to walk that bridge, “trusting in Jesus” to get you to God, striking some common ground argument from a human perspective won’t bring you to understand what God has done and why.

  18. Jon K 6 March 2011 at 3:15 pm #

    “I’m giving you how and why it happened from God’s perspective”
    We call that a delusion of grandeur. By your own admission you could not possibly have a god’s perspective on it.

    The problem with the scheme you defend is that it rests on a huge contradiction; therefore, you must be a long way from truth. Your final claim seems to be that while of course it wouldn’t be justice for an innocent imperfect person to be punished for a guilty imperfect person, but it is completely sensible that justice is served if a perfect (thus innocent) person is punished for a guilty person. (Or perhaps it cannot be merely a perfect person, but some kind of supernaturally perfect person?) Yet, you have not explained (using reason) why this divine loophole in the scheme of justice makes rational sense.

    Why, in other words, is it perfectly consistent for some supernatural being to essentially punish itself for the crimes of another while at the same time it is a violation of justice to simply issue a pardon? What about the arbitrary infliction of pain (regardless of who is feeling it) is so imperative in this divine cycle of justice?

  19. LeeS 6 March 2011 at 6:38 pm #

    Great questions, but as you have alluded to above Jon, there is no answer that anyone could possibly have.

  20. LeeS 6 March 2011 at 7:02 pm #

    I just thought of more.

    Kelly you make these kind of statements as if they were obtained using the rigor of science but that is just not the case. I think this is another of those stumbling blocks. Since your faith is so strong and deep, you attribute even more credibility to the faith based stuff then is given to knowledge which is rooted out in science.

    Jon when one deeply believes in a personal God that is capable of anything, then even the illogical appears completely possible. I am starting to think that must be why these things are stated in the way that they are. This is why it is so frustrating to us, and probably to her. She states the things that she does as if they are a slam dunk, and we see it as anything but. Hence the frustration on both ends.

  21. Kelly 6 March 2011 at 11:30 pm #

    God’s perspective is clearly documented, so no, you don’t have to take my word for it.

    Lee, these things are a slam dunk for me; one they are recorded and two I have experienced the Grace and Lordship of Jesus Christ in my life. The two go together. Why does Jesus command repentence? How can He forgive sin? He forgave the woman caught in adultery, and He told her to go and sin no more. There is a cost to following Christ. Read the Gospels for yourselves and tell me what Jesus is all about? Blood sacrifice is significant, why? The Bible speaks a lot about it,read it.

    I don’t really care if you guys understand me or not it is the Person of Christ that you need to confront. Is He God or not? If He is then heed what He has to say.

    Hitchens stated that he is leary of anyone claiming truth, he prefers the unending search for it, and then maybe hopefully at the end of life he could fall off the ledge of a majestic and beautiful black hole. If you’d like to follow him into that black hole someday then trust his assumption that we can not find truth. As for me, I’m following Christ. He is Truth and so much more!

  22. Kelly 7 March 2011 at 12:47 pm #

    See if this helps you both arrive at a logical conclusion of what only God has been able to accomplish through Christ as mediator.

    http://www.rzim.org/resources/read/asliceofinfinity/todaysslice.aspx?aid=10400

  23. Jon K 7 March 2011 at 12:53 pm #

    “God’s perspective is clearly documented, so no, you don’t have to take my word for it.”

    We’ve been here before…so say the Muslims, so say the Hindus, etc. “Clearly” would necessarily imply that it makes coherent sense, which as I’ve repeatedly demonstrated, it does not.

    Blood sacrifice is signficant because ancient people who understood very little about the natural world thought they needed to appease gods to prevent droughts, storms, floods, famine, disease, etc. We understand now that putting a dead calf on an altar isn’t going to make going to make it rain. To infer that the salvation of mankind relies on some universe balancing function within a system of antiquated rituals that are completely inconsistent with the way we know reality works is pure nonsense. This alone is enough to call a book which emphasizes the importance of such a thing into question.

    Don’t misunderstand, I can certainly understand why ancient people killed stuff for their gods. They thought they understand the cause/effect relationship of worldly events. I even understand how this evolved to a society’s practice of a sacrificial goat, and how they thought they could ritualistically manage guilt for their collective misdoings by somehow transforming it to the goat. Modern people no longer kill stuff for their gods for reasons that have nothing to do with a guy hanging on a cross 2000 years ago, but because we know we can’t affect reality with by a blood offering and we understand that we can’t expunge our misdeeds in such a primitive manner. The idea that if someone wrongs me, the only one they are obliged to make things right with is their God is insulting and immoral.

  24. Kelly 7 March 2011 at 2:53 pm #

    And you know what you stated above because someone laid it all out for you neatly in a book and because “he” said God had nothing to do with why these people (OT people) brought temple sacrifices, oh really?!

    Read the article I posted and let’s see if we can’t focus on the original dilemma posed, how can justice and mercy both be met, that is the question, correct?:-)

  25. Kelly 7 March 2011 at 3:06 pm #

    To your last “idea”, Jesus says (paraphrase) in Matthew 5:22, to go and make things right with your brother before you try and leave a gift at the alter for me. So no, again your thinking is wrong regarding what God requires and you shouldn’t be insulted.

  26. Jon K 7 March 2011 at 4:03 pm #

    “And you know what you stated above because someone laid it all out for you neatly in a book…”
    Are you seriously asking if mere faith in what I’ve read is how I know that killing a goat won’t make it rain? I’m starting to feel like I’m trying to explain differential equations to “Nell.” I can say with about as much certainty as I can say the earth revolves around the sun in an elliptical orbit that killing goats neither has nor ever had any effect on natural phenomenon.

    I apologize for veering off on tangents, but if you go back and look, I’m only following your lead – (e.g. “Blood sacrifice is significant, why? The Bible speaks a lot about it,read it.”)

    Note, I’ve read the Njoroge article and can only say I’m mystified as to what you felt might be englightening about it. It is loaded with regurgitations of the same claim – “The perfect, sinless, infinitely just God devised the means whereby sinful, guilty human beings could be justly reconciled to God without an ounce of guilt being swept under the carpet.” That is pure nonsense – a claim that essentially desires more than anything else immunity from the rules of reason which demand “EXPLAIN YOURSELF!”

    The strategy is familiar among the apologists – let me give you a scenario that demonstrates where you might be concerned – why do we think of justice in different terms seem consistent with this salvation scheme? The believer’s interest is piqued…ah, this has fueled those sinful doubts within me. Then the apologists unleashes a load of complete jibberish that sounds good, but lacks any type of systemic coherence that can be related to an explanation that makes rational sense.

    In this paragraph, the author aims to scare his readers back into submission –
    “Unfortunately, some stumble over the gospel of Christ even while incessantly seeking either justice or mercy in matters they deem themselves entitled to judge. When our sense of justice is threatened, we rarely hesitate to demand answers, whether the object of our wrath is a mere child or a perfect God. This is nowhere more evident than in attacks on the character of God based on his administration of justice, especially in the Old Testament. But at the root of this reaction lies the failure to appreciate the full implications of what one really asks for when one demands justice. If justice is to be absolutely served, the guilty cannot go unpunished. The only recourse for the guilty is to seek mercy, and mercy cannot be demanded.”

    In other words “How dare you insist that mercy must make sense and that mercy has anything at all to do with justice.” Furthermore, this goes nowhere with regard to explaining why the entire “blood sacrifice” is “needed because of justice.” The author says “the only recourse for the guilty (all of us) is mercy.” Thus implicity claims mercy doesn’t have to conform to justice. Thus the claims that got us here in the discussion to begin with (that Jesus had to die to take away are sins because justice demands it) are completely bogus – that is, God doesn’t break any rules by just saying “Ah fuck it, you’re forgiven.” But you cannot have it both ways – that would be a contradiction and as we’ve established contradictions cannot be truths.

  27. Kelly 7 March 2011 at 5:29 pm #

    I’m saying what you take as “truth” in regard to human history comes from books like: “The Evolution of God”, all laid out in extravagant detail. Just don’t tell me I can’t use the Bible.

    I’m talking to “Nell” if you think that sacrifices were required to make it rain! The laws were given to prepare the way for Christ.

    Your tone and anger is about as far away from humility as a person can get. Am I right to say that you don’t plan on pleading for mercy with God anytime soon over your own sins? Where’s the justice for the ones you’ve committed and continue to commit? If you expect sheer justice, you might want to brace yourself when you die. Because apart from Christ, it will be all that you get.

    Romans 3:20) The Law was given to teach us that we can’t meet its requirements and need a Savior to redeem us from its penalty. We can’t do it ourselves.

  28. Jon K 8 March 2011 at 12:12 pm #

    You seem to continue to think that I do not understand the Bible’s claims. I understand its claims. What you seem to be completely unable to address is why the claims are reasonable (which, to my main point, is because they are not.) When one reads a book, the ultimate evaluation of its value has nothing to do with authority, but with the reasons that are used to defend the claims it makes and accuracy of the information it conveys. In the case of books like The Evolution of God, (which contains plenty that I disagree with) you will not only find reasoned arguments, but footnotes that point to references that have previously been rigorously studied, critiqued, challenged, and improved. It is a building up of knowledge that is all required to be consistent, or it must be rejected. (Don’t misunderstand, lots of turns out to be contradictory on deeper analysis – and it is thereby rejected once the contradiction is identified, but that’s the way science and the pursuit of understanding work.)

    Books of real knowledge build upon each other over time as we come to understand more and more about the universe. They are not magic books that have cryptic truths supernaturally revealed to us. They do not completely ignore criticism and contradiction and make pointless statements like “The Law was given to teach us that we can’t meet its requirements and need a Savior to redeem us from its penalty. We can’t do it ourselves,” that offer no reasons for its claims, that don’t care if they make sense or are inconsistent with previous laws and rules, but only demand blind obedience to an imagined authority.

    “Your tone and anger is about as far away from humility as a person can get. Am I right to say that you don’t plan on pleading for mercy with God anytime soon over your own sins? Where’s the justice for the ones you’ve committed and continue to commit? If you expect sheer justice, you might want to brace yourself when you die. Because apart from Christ, it will be all that you get.”
    And that, I’m to believe, is the essence of humility? This is the very ‘tone’ that started this entire discussion – that Awkward Impasse. “If you don’t accept MY way which is God’s way because I have faith and a book, then you’re going to burn in a terrible hell that was justly constructed by my all-loving god!! Nya, nya, nya.” Sounds pretty goddamn judgmental to me. Really, though, what could possibly demonstrate humility any less than the position of “I know the truth of God and you better abide by it!”

    So once again, you avoid anything remotely resembling reasonable discussion and now, finally, resort to the tactics of the pulpit-pounding fire-and-brimstone preacher. Certainly, you don’t think such a tirade is going to bring me running into the folds of Christ’s robes. I’m sure you realize from everything I’ve presented that such words (although they nicely prove my initial points of this entire discussion, so kudos for that) certainly do not scare me, in fact I’m somewhat amused to hear them, but the only real effect such statements could possibly serve would be to amplify the distaste I already have for your flawed code (or, were it possible, to take your humble claims to know truth even less seriously), but I will admit that your impotent tactics certainly beg the question of why you would write the very kind of garbage I was knocking to begin with.

  29. Kelly 8 March 2011 at 2:37 pm #

    Answer this from the article, which crowd showed love, the crowd that called for the death penalty or the crowd who called for mercy? It is God’s love for us that is not rational, your argument is with Him. As Lee pointed out is there really anyway to know why the death of Christ would suffice, other than what the Bible explains as why; He lived a sinless life and bore our penalty. So because you see it all as garbage, my chances of convincing you are next to nill. I’m done wasting both our time:-) I do pray that you come to know the awesome love of God!

  30. Kelly 8 March 2011 at 5:59 pm #

    Sorry, I usually give some quick off the cuff response, but I can’t let your finite little truth claim on what constitutes “real knowledge” slide. You and the numerous authors you read tout that “real knowledge” can only be based upon the rigors of scientific study and reason, and of course you and the anti-theists authors you read are the authorities on such “truth” knowing claims:-) Good one, but not buying.

  31. LeeS 8 March 2011 at 8:18 pm #

    Kelly,

    I known the truth that you get from your faith is very real to you, however the truth which is revealed by science is completely different. Jon and I cannot understand how you cannot see that.

    For one, truth, as uncovered by science can be enjoyed by all, regardless of ones beliefs, customs or background. That is a characteristic of understanding based on evidence and reason. It is not contingent on belief or popular opinion. The electron flows though the junction of a transistor not because someone believes it does. It does so because man has achieved an accurate enough (true) understanding of physics at the quantum mechanics level to control when this happens. The understanding does not stop there. It is understood so well, and the depth (the truth) of the understanding is so comprehensive that the computer you are reading this on would not be possible if it were not so, no faith necessary on anybodies part. No softening of the heart, or acceptance of ancient miracles or revealed prophecies. Satan has no influence on this purely naturalistic behavior.

    When you have understanding like this, which is in conflict with understandings which come from revelation and authority, it is very hard for someone like Jon or I to accept the story of legends as being the ultimate truth, when we are surrounded by the conflicts.

    You do not accept evolution as the most accurate understanding of the diversity of life (to date) on this planet (did not want to say believe here) for one reason. Because the bible does not say it is so. There is no scientific reason for you to believe otherwise. Think about that for a second. The same process and rigor (science), which allows us to communicate like this, is selectively not being acknowledged by you, and millions of others, simply because God revealed the creation of the universe differently to Moses.

    Don’t tell me about Behe, or Ross, or any of the others. They have not created or uncovered anything that I am aware of which has benefited or could be leveraged by humanity.

    There is good money to be made selling books, which is really all the motivation most people need to do or say just about anything. (Note though that no amount of money can buy scientific truth. It does pay for the ongoing research I agree, but the result, ie the control of the electron through the transistor is all about a true understanding.)

  32. Kelly 8 March 2011 at 9:39 pm #

    My question for you Lee, would be the philosophy behind the science. Micro-evolution is very well documented, but macro-evolution has yet to be observed. Of course given the nature and awesomeness of science, let’s be true to science and discovery and say that Michael Behe could prove that macro-evolution is impossible, for Darwin himself admitted he assummed that the cell had to be something very simple to start with. Why not give room for error to be found with the theory, because for many it is their creation story. Real science doesn’t look for ways to discredit those with opposing theories. Given how new and better theories come to replace old and imperfect ones, let’s
    not limit the process, because surely better answers await, as science has proven again and again. “Don’t mention Behe”, well I did, what about the fine tuning arguments that also point to an intelligent designer, do we have to throw those out too?

    My main point for Jon is that he is relying on the “authority” of others to tell him that there is no truth apart from science and reason, and that is not true. He tries desparately to squeeze an infinite God into his finite rational brain and it cannot be done. Some things such as the purpose of life and how we are to live our lives are not eeked out of a test
    tube.

  33. LeeS 8 March 2011 at 10:26 pm #

    I disagree with your macro evolution statement. To keep it brief, there is the fossil record, and lets not forget the recent discovery of DNA. We would not know that we are 98% similar to chimps without DNA. Macro evolution completely predicts this 100 years before Watson & Crick found it.

    Behe could not disprove evolution. He is not even up to date with the latest science is his field. This was pretty convincingly shown during the Dover trials.

    While I will cannot guarantee that Evolution will not be disproved some day, it is more likely to change similar to how the understanding of the earth’s orbit around the sun has changed. It has been refined. It never went back to the Bible’s geocentric definition while going through the number of refinements that have happened. Therefore even if evolution is somehow disproved, it is not going to migrate into a 6 day creation event, I am even more sure of that.

    As for the fine tuning argument, this argument really does not hold water. The values have not been tuned to some perfect value, any more than PI is tuned to describe the ratio of the radius to the circumference of a circle. It has precisely the value it has, because that is the observed value in the equations that we use and the number system that of this is based on.

    Lets face it, we are tied with respect to God. There has yet to be any scientific evidence (or any other kind) for one or against one. Of course we can same the same thing about elves, leprechauns, ferries, etc. We can therefore stop comparing that with the kinds of stuff we are talking about above. They are not equivalent.

    Still thinking about the meaning thing. Jon will probably respond before me.

  34. Kelly 8 March 2011 at 11:14 pm #

    Keeping it short, macro-evolution could be proven false. There are already significant issues regarding the ability to gain new information.

    http://www.gotquestions.org/microevolution-macroevolution.html

    Keep thinking about meaning thing:-)

  35. LeeS 9 March 2011 at 5:42 am #

    Traced the link. Like I said. The problems come from a religious perspective. Keep in mind that outside of Judeo Christian Muslim doctrine, evolution is excepted as the dominate theory which explains the planets diversity of life. Ie there is no other scientific theory that is it’s rival, just religious ones. I’ll stick to the theories that are based on evidence and reason and reap the rewards the continued understanding reveals.

  36. LeeS 9 March 2011 at 6:21 am #

    Thought I would add one more observation.

    I personally am thankful that Darwin put together his observations and penned them in such a comprehensive way. It has been said that nothing in biology makes sense outside the light of evolution.

    I can’t imagine what the superstitious would think about a virus’ ability to adapt to the presence of medicine without this fundamental understanding of life. I can readily see demonstrations in the streets saying that man should not take medicine as it is a direct affront to the will of God. Thankfully we only have a small majority who think that way today.

  37. Kelly 9 March 2011 at 11:18 am #

    Lee, it only takes one dissenter to disprove a theory whether the person is “religious” or not. It’s not fair to put “religious” people in a category with the superstitious, because if you look back honestly at the history of science a good majority of them were Christians who wanted to have explainations to illness in order to prolong life. Dawkins and other authors like him, have a way of stacking the deck in their favor and ridiculing the rest.

    I’m glad Darwin penned his stuff too, yet what he struggled with most was the leap that some would take with his theory, which is why he said it could be proven wrong that all life started from a single cell, if the cell is not simple. Given the discovery of DNA and the engines of a single cell, it is far from simple.

    His testable theory of microbiology is what is being used on great levels today, honestly. This is the “light”you are referring to, not the assumption that all life began from a single cell with no known reason as to why, it just “magically” did, or higher life forms dropped it off, which sheds very little light on the purpose and meaning of it all. Jesus is the true “Light” of the world. Those who follow Him no longer walk in darkness.

  38. LeeS 9 March 2011 at 1:03 pm #

    Takes a little more than a single dissenter. It would take something that is concrete and is supported by observable evidence and such. As you stated, Darwin outlined many problems with his theory. All someone has to do is prove one of them. Simple dissent is not enough. His theory has gotten stronger since it’s inception, not weaker. The very DNA you speak of strengthens it even further.

    The high level statement of the cell being complex is not an issue. I think Jon’s video with Feynman is a good example of the kinds of layers of understanding I am talking about.

    Keep in mind that the creation of life, hence the creation of the cell is not something that Evolution attempts to address.

    The light, evolution is the foundation to the understanding of how the living world behaves.

    The light of Jesus provides little benefit in the understanding of how life struggles on this planet.

  39. Kelly 9 March 2011 at 1:58 pm #

    P.h.d. Lee M. Spetner is challenging Dawkins alright and coming at him from a purely scientific standpoint. Here’s one of his books if you want to check it out. He’s not the only dissenter out there, either.

    http://www.amazon.com/Not-Chance-Shattering-Modern-Evolution/dp/1880582244

    DNA can prove that all living things are made of basically the same building blocks, too. I’ll have to look at what exactly Crick and Watson were saying 100 years ago, yet I won’t pull it from a Dawkins book, too biased:-)

    How does evolution even come close to explaining why people behave as they do, really?

    Goethe, the famous German poet and antagonist of Christianity said this: “The human mind, no matter how far it may advance in every other department, will never transcend the height and moral culture of Christianity as it is shown in the Gospels.”

    You should seriously read them for yourself and refuse to take the hateful twists of others “word” for it. His Light has the power to enlighten far more than the theory of evolution.


Leave a Reply