From: Walter Hicks (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Sep 28 2003 - 22:45:02 EDT
Jay Willingham wrote:
> I believe the Bible to be inerrant and our perceptions of its errors to be
Is it possible to have an interpretation that is other than 100% literal in your
estimation? The concept of "inerrancy" is great until people use the Old
Testament as a science text book instead of a pointer to Jesus Christ (IMO).
> I believe we each have to respond to the spirit as we are led through study
> and prayer and experience.
> I also believe the references to ID and YEC folks on this list has been a
> bit extreme.
> I was simply responding to those who denigrate the YEC position as
> "nonsense" by asking for examples of this claimed nonsense. these "lies"
The problem is that some things that are presented (by ICR) as science are
completely false. I will give you one example. Morris (Founder of ICR) presents
entropy as a reason that evolution cannot happen. In taking that position, he
teaches things about entropy that simply are not true. In fact, a laboratory
experiment can demonstrate it. I can see why some would call that a lie in that
Morris is supposedly a scientist who understand physical laws. To cite an
example, Morris says:
" The statement in integral form, namely that the entropy in an isolated
system cannot decrease, can be replaced by its corollary in differential form,
which asserts that the
quantity of entropy generated locally cannot he negative irrespective of
whether the system is isolated or not, and irrespective of whether the process
under consideration is
irreversible or not."
That is just plain incorrect. It is one thing to oppose evolution. It is quite
anther thing to fabricate false physical laws to support the notion. This is, I
think, the most blatant and it is repeated in many forums. It may not be a lie
but it certainly is a falsehood.
The change in entropy is simply given by dS=dQ/T, where T is the absolute
temperature (always positive), Q is heat and S is entropy.
Thus the entropy of any object decreases whenever heat is removed from it (by an
external source of energy) Therefore air conditioners work and the entropy of
the room decreases. If Morris were correct, then the notion of an air
conditioner (or a heat pump or a refrigerator) would be nonsense.
> Previous posts have stated that their God would never put "evidence" here to
> lead us astray or deceive us in our assumptions about origins and that
> therefore YEC is nonsense. This I can disagree with because I believe it is
> the height of pride to think we can figure everything God has done out until
> he is ready to reveal it. I have repeated this position many times.
That is one position I agree with and have said so.
> And Walt, I cannot remember whether you said YEC proponents were liars, and
> I have no problem understanding how you can posit evolution as being the
> hand of God over billions of years. I simply no longer believe that,
> although I did at one time. As we all have said from time to time, we need
> not fight over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or whether
> Jesus owned the clothes he wore. Who really cares. I just do not like the
> tone we have taken with ID and YEC.
I'll second it although I can't seem to grasp ID. I read a book called "Signs of
Intelligence" with articles by 15 proponents. I learned that they hate
"Darwinism" but the science eludes me.
> Yep, puny man, that's me.
"Puny man" was _your_ descriptor of others. Is that better than a liar?
> Jay Willingham
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Walter Hicks" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: "Jay Willingham" <email@example.com>
> Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 6:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Darwinian and non-Darwinian (was Re: RFEP & ID)
> > Jay Willingham wrote:
> > > I have every right, indeed, I have the obligation to "test every
> > >
> > And in what sprint do you falsely portray the beliefs of other Christians
> > calling God's creation "random"?
> > >
> > > The thing I use to test human theories about origins is scripture.
> > You must mean your human theory that _you_ stated, not the one I hear
> > on this list.
> > >
> > >
> > > If your rather shrill response indicates you think I question your
> > > then rest assured I do not. If you believe in the risen Christ and your
> > > absolute need for his saving grace, I do not care if you believe 7 says
> > > meant 70 million years, 10,000, or whatever. If it means you believe
> > > scripture must bend to meet the current interpretations of the present
> > > perceptive capacity of puny man,
> > Am I then allowed to refer to _you_ as a "puny man" who thinks he can
> > what the Spirit means in scripture? (And I could care less about your
> > of my faith)
> > > my original
> > > post in this string simply pointed out that evolutionary theory follows
> > > tortuous a course of reasoning as any.
> > My complaint is with _your_ definition of evolutionary theory. It
> > _is_ torturous when you when define it in such an atheistic manner, but it
> > not appear to be what people on this list believe. You create a false
> > and then "test it's spirits". That is pure, specious hogwash. It's not
> > good debatemanship, let alone good theology. The spirit of those like
> > does not need testing. Randomness is _his_ atheistic. idea, not what the
> > Christians on this list have presented.. Why you swallow that atheistic
> bait and
> > then critique the belief of other Christians is beyond reason and common
> > courtesy.
> > I did not say what my beliefs are nor how strongly I hold to them. In the
> past I
> > have called for respect to those with views like yours and I think it
> should be
> > a two way street -- not one you can present a ridiculous strawman, as if
> > brothers and sisters in Christ really believed that garbage. If you show
> > disrespect by misrepresenting their ideas then you certainly deserve to
> get it
> > thrown back.
> > IMO
> > Walt
> > --
> > ===================================
> > Walt Hicks <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > In any consistent theory, there must
> > exist true but not provable statements.
> > (Godel's Theorem)
> > You can only find the truth with logic
> > If you have already found the truth
> > without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
> > ===================================
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <email@example.com>
In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 28 2003 - 22:44:27 EDT