Good afternoon, KFC,

I am less inclined to consider understanding the stories in Genesis (Bereshit) as "attacked", than you are. My sense is that what is attacked or ridiculed in the suggestion that all of the stories therein are factual accounts. Ock makes excellent points regarding the physics of things. He is not necessarily attacking the stories. There is a deep and profound difference. Those, such as I believe, yourself, who hold a literal understanding will always be on the interpretive defensive and, I suspect, rightly so, as literalism is a poor foundation for a spiritual practice on the one hand, and a literal understanding of allegory loses the teaching power of the story itself, on the other hand. Worse, science and math will expose weaknesses or flaws in the logic of the meanings and facts of stories, at which point, those who base their faith on a literalist POV will have little to rest their faith upon. Hence the strong reaction by fundamentalists to scientific examination of scripture, especially when the stories do not square with the facts.

For example, if we were to locate a actual garden of Edan, it would in no way mean that there was truth to the story of an Adam and Eve, etc. A historical site is not a "fact" it is a place that has historicity. What we take this site to mean and the stories about it, is always interpretive, always. This is a good thing as it allows for growth and a dynamic relationship with the thing itself.

Be well.

Well that's not me...nor is it biblical.

Well, I'll let you take that up with St. Augustine. He's the one that said it.

There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity ... It is this which draws us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing, and which man should not wish to learn.

I do respect Augustine so I'd have to probably read this in context. I think I know where he may be leading to and that's not exactly what I was referring. I mean we can be curious about the demons or the occult but we shouldn't go there.

hahahahah Glad to see you reading Augustine tho....or are you just visiting a sight of objections?

Hey, did you catch my latest Ock?



I wasn't referring to Ock Sodaiho. I was speaking to you. You are the one that told me to drop the literal talk. So this remark was for your ears not Ock's.



oh I'm aware you feel this way. I'm sure if I could produce the ark you wouldn't believe it. Someone around here actually said that (forget who). In fact, the Pharisees wanted to have Lazarus killed because he was the topic of conversation. That's the mentality I see when you say such things.

Not about the "speed," just about how fast it gets from point A to point B. hmmmm.. Sounds like speed to me. All that we know about light travel, no matter how you talk about it, fits within the realm of a creationist worldview. How gold got here also fits within the creationist worldview. God didn't create by evolution or by starting with small simple things and eventually make bigger more complex things, so I get that this makes no sense to you.

This is from my son....hahahaha he's probably getting sick of me asking him questions, but I spent years answering his. Anyhow he answered my question with this:

there's too many problems with his astronomy paragraph for me to have time to really deal with it. Origins science isn't somewhere he wants to go with a creationist.. Tell him that Jason Lisle has covered these astronomy topics numerous times and creationists have no struggle with astronomy in a young earth model- Lisle is an astronomer and astrophysicist. I met him. He's a really smart and nice guy. He used to be an evolutionist but became a creationist when he started realizing that scientists aren't aware a lot of times about their presuppositions and how those presuppositions bias their interpretation of data. he's developing a model of astronomy based on a creationist worldview.

just in case your buddy (that would be you Ock) doubts his credentials:
PhD (astrophysics) Univ of Colorado Boulder
MS (astrophysics) Univ of Colorado Boulder
BS (double major physics and astronomy, minor math; summa cum laude)
Ohio Weslyan University

That guy is a freaking joke. He's just throwing around those credentials to be a creationist poster boy.

Read this for a good tear down of one of his articles. WWW Link This man claims to be a scientist yet disrespects the entire institution. It's sad and pathetic.

By the way, turns out that the Big Bang Theory idea was originally proposed by a Roman Catholic monk, Georges Lemaître in 1927...it's not a secular idea at all...it came from a monk of all people!

~Zoo

I read some of Lisle's words reprinted from interviews and articles here and there. Not enough to pronounce any judgments, but enough to get the impression that he's stretching and certainly enough to see that the scientific community considers him a nutwhack.

there's too many problems with his astronomy paragraph for me to have time to really deal with it.

I don't understand why you need to ask your son something you've spent years answering. But whatever. So your son didn't have time, and you've spent years answering this (and so won't go through the tribulation again?), and we have, for YOUR answer...nothing (again). Well let me just pick one thing. Either of you have time to answer (aka tell me what Jason Lisle says) one thing?

Explain, in clear language, your hypothesis (or any hypothesis that you've been told was fact if you wish) that explains how we've had light all through human history, but that history <= 10,000 years old and it takes light 10,000 years (the lowest possible number) to get to us from the center of the sun. It's so simple to prove me wrong. Just answer this question and we can put this matter to rest.

God didn't create by evolution or by starting with small simple things and eventually make bigger more complex things, so I get that this makes no sense to you.

Of course it makes no sense to me since we see small things turning into more complex things all the time. In the one second that passed between me typing one word and the next in this sentence, 700 million tons of hydrogen became 695 million tons of helium 93 million miles from us. It does so every second. Were I to believe in god, this mechanism by which the simple becomes more complex would be "exactly" how I would define the creation as occurring. In fact, I would posit that 6 days was too long for a god to take. I'd claim the whole thing was done in an instant - that the universe was set in motion with God knowing that it would result in many complex things. I would see this as the most elegant and intelligent way to do it. And I would see that THAT, at least, was in keeping with what we observe.

Not about the "speed," just about how fast it gets from point A to point B. hmmmm.. Sounds like speed to me.

Then your understanding of speed as it relates to how long an object takes to get from point A to B is limited to say the least. The speed of an object says one small part about how much time it takes to get from point A to point B. If it's a clear shot from point A to B, then speed is all you need to determine travel time. For light in the center of the sun, it's anything but a clear shot. Why am I explaining this - you know it.

PhD (astrophysics) Univ of Colorado Boulder MS (astrophysics) Univ of Colorado Boulder BS (double major physics and astronomy, minor math; summa cum laude) Ohio Weslyan University

That's nice. So let's catalog all the scientists in the world that have these same degrees. Then we'll count which ones agree with Creationism and which do not and we'll be able to prove which one of us is right. Hopefully that's as funny to you as it is to me.

because I'm not into astonomy. I know very little. Some, but not much.



you know, it doesn't really matter what I say Ock you've got it all covered. So go ahead...believe what you want...*shrugs shoulders* you ask and I give you answers but I'm a bit tired of your insulting every answer I give to you. We have different world views. I admit, I'm coming from a biblical worldview. It's not a surprise. I know you think I'm an idiot. Think what you want. It's the only view that I believe has the answers for those tough questions that the evolutionists can't answer.



of course they do. Anyone in the Science world that even slightly aludes to a Creator God is going to be hog-tied and tarred and feathered. Their career is over. It's long known that your career can die if someone higher than you gets wind of your belief in such things. It's ok to say the answer for this world being here is evolutionary theory with no God process but it's NOT okay to take that same evidence and put God in as a theory. Remember the Creation Scientists have the SAME and believe in the SAME evidence.

If you read more about Jason you'd see he was interviewed on CNN and he has no problem (as most Creationists) in teaching side by side the two in the school systems. It's the other side that are up in arms. Why so threatened? If they have it lock, stock and barrel it shouldn't alarm them.

There's much more than meets the eye here.

If I didn't give Jason's credentials you'd be asking me for them. I thought I covered it so you wouldn't have that to complain about but I can see it doesn't really matter what I say or don't say.

Time I picked on Zoo for a while? I know I've ignored some of your comments (sorry about that) but here's a few for you to think about.

Throwing around those credentials to be a creationist "poster boy?" That's not really a very smart thing to say...to be nice Zoo.

What type of credentials do you have? I'd like to read your articles in scientific peer-reviewed journals that discuss your novel research findings!

My son met Jason personally and said he's one of the most intelligent Scientists he's met thus far. He's met some of the smartest men in the field of Neuroscience yet he thinks Jason has some very interesting things to say. He designed an entire planetarium and is working on a very scientificly based creation model of the cosmos. Just because people don't believe you, doesn't mean you're wrong (history can prove that).

You'd probably say the same about my son even thou he's been educated at three diff secular universities with a 4.0 average in all three. He's also received a grant for his work which is not an easy thing to do being only one of 8% of the field to receive such a grant. I actually saw the grant letter to him and I was very impressed and proud of his accomplishments.

You said you like to learn Zoo. You're young. You've got a ways to go.

What type of credentials do you have?

We don't ask personal questions here.

Smart? It has nothing to do with intelligence, I'm just telling you what I see.



A well functioning brain and respect for the scientific process, unlike Dr. Lisle. However, I am currently working on a B.S. in Zoology which is farther along than our friend, Dr. Lisle is concerning biology.

His arguments are not scientific. You see, the thing with creationists is that they form a conclusion and then search for evidence. Science is about discovering evidence and finding conclusions. This guy has it all backwards. He's centered on God exists, let's find evidence not look at this, let's figure out what it means. He's already made up his mind and that's never good for scientific growth. I'd actually support creationism being taught as a legitimate scientific subject if they would just follow the rules that everyone else does...but they don't. They're going about it backwards and that's not good science. Never was, never will be.

Just because you have a Ph. D. doesn't mean you're a hero. It just means you've invested time and effort into a chosen field of study, written a few papers and earned it. Now if you decide to abandon all your scientific principles after you earn your Ph.D., well that's your decision...but people won't take you seriously anymore.

~Zoo

No, I've never said that...actually to me I could care less how many letters you have. Some are just intellectual idiots.



Nope. Like I said you have lettered people on both sides of the fence. And I haven't seen his political views actually. So I really don't know what he believes in that department.



It's my perogative. I give out some personal information as I deem not because someone demands to know.

Ha. It's funny if I don't say anything about my offspring than there would be something wrong with me (aka Gid) and if I do, I'm a braggart. It's all context LW. I've been on here more than two years and I've said very little about this particular offspring as he doesn't want me to share things about him here. There's a lot I can't say for fear of jeopardizing his career.

Never fear LW is here eh LW? Feel better?



Like I said you have a long way to go to fill Dr. Lisle's shoes. Maybe we'll see you on CNN someday as an expert in your field?



Of course they are. They're just interpreted with a different worldview. That's it.



Not true. Like I said you have a distorted view of creation science. But I undersand because you've followed your teachers..hook, line and sinker.



Like the theory of evolution?



well we are in agreement here Zoo.

Not really, if I as an undergrad can see the flaws in his argument, then he has some issues.



*sigh* That's not the way you do things in science. You don't have "worldviews" you have facts and evidence...then you develop hypotheses and test them. If you haven't thrown out a tested hypothesis, then it becomes a theory with thorough testing. It has nothing to do with seeing it two different ways. Of course that arises, but that's why we use peer reviewed papers so that everyone can evaluate something so that we can all agree on it. If not, then there would be a million variations of classification systems and no one would have any idea what anyone else was talking about. That's why we use one language when naming organisms- Latin. That's why we have a standardized periodic table...it's why science is an institution instead of a bordello of chaos.



Exactly like the theory of evolution. We have found evidence of linkages between organisms. Darwin saw this and made the connections. He did not say, "Evolution sounds cool, let's go make up some evidence." Evolution really wasn't an idea at that time, so I fail to see how one could take it and look for justification.

Science is about the means finding an end, not the end finding the means. A scientist looks at something and figures out what it is, what it does, where it came from. He does not assume it came from God and look for verification of that belief.

~Zoo

Honestly LW....I don't have a degree. I'm working on it tho. Instead I sacrificed my life and chance at a career for my kids. All three have graduated college and have done very well for themselves. So I know I did a good thing there. Do I regret going to school and getting my schooling over with? Sometimes. I know it's going to be harder for me now. But when I look at the boys, I know it was worth it.

But hey, I'm the same age as you. My kids are grown and fully functioning adults so now It's my time. I'm hoping to continue my education now they have all flown the coop.

Darwin said many things. One of the things he said to have his theory fully realized or proven is that transitional fossils would have to be found. They have not. All we have so far is like begetting like. This is backed up by the Genesis account not the evolutionary account.

Whatcha needin 'em learnings fer, KFC? Donchano dat us Christians don't need none of that intellectua junk?

Seriously though, Christian and Intellectual is not mutually exclusive. The problem with most intellectuals is they tried to replace the workings of the spirit with the workings of the brain. It doesn't work like that. But you just keep wondering why we don't use our brains, and keep using your hammer to put screws in the wall.