Peyton Manning's faith

[jp1]

Christians are not soda machines: They are walking, talking people, many of whom quite obviously like to push their myths on other people. This is why Tebow made a fool of himself putting bible verse in his eye black--that is proselytizing. Christians love to proselytize, I guess because they know they are way out on a limb that is not made of logic. This is what missionaries have been doing for hundreds of years, what Mormons do. This is what the original poster here did--said he wasn't pushing religion but by the act of posting the link, he was. I don't care, but if he's going to push, however subtly, I can respond. Saying prayers in public places, 10 commandments, all of that silliness, is proselytizing.

What is most outrageous and absurd about religion and all this "god" stuff is that it has NO basis in fact--no logic. You are telling people in effect that you believe in a green elephant in the living room--and then many people in society and institutions think it is perfectly WONDERFUL and appropriate to promote the green elephant (or the white beaded old man, if that suits you or whatever) in the living room--and YET, and YET, people who look in the living room and say, "Wow, I hear a lot about this green elephant, but I'm looking and I don't see it." And guess who is thought odd and suspect--the people who don't see the green elephant that quite obviously ISN'T in the living room and quite obviously doesn't exist. Totally absurd. We have to listen to idiots like Pat Robertson tell us that earthquakes are caused by gays. And America is supposed to be a sophisticated society! We're the opposite.

What is also outrageous are Christians who want to cast doubt--in schools!--on evolution and other scientific realities because they put the lie to some of the silly stories in the bible. Creationism is myth; science is fact--and yet Christians try to link the two and pretend that they are the same. They are NOT. I can't wait for an atheist to run for president. America's many religious people will gasp and vote for the other candidate, but eventually our society may mature and we who have logic and reason on our side won't have to be oppressed by this...silliness.

I don't dislike religion or people who believe. But it should be kept in the church. If people want to believe in comforting myths, wonderful--but I can't accept pushing myths on others and the public at large.

The fact that you say that you are "oppressed" is foolish.

 

[jp1]

Really sad you believe this.

How do you explain dinosaurs? They roamed the earth some 200 million years ago. If god created the earth he had to have created the dinosaurs too right? But according to you the earth is only 6000 years old? So are dinosaurs not real? I just dont understand how you can believe everything geologists and scientists claim to be completely false and instead accept as fact something that can never be proven and all evidence says otherwise.

You are putting all your faith in carbon dating right?

 

[Slydell]

Silly science crap. Who believes in facts anymore. Certainly not superstitious people.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

You are putting all your faith in carbon dating right?

Carbon dating is not a viable radiometric method for dating fossils from that geological period. You would need an isotope with a much slower rate of decay, such as Potassium-40, which has a half life of 1.3 billion years (Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Carbon-14 has a half life of ca. 5700 yrs. So little of it is left after roughly 60,000 years that it can no longer be used to estimate the age of materials from the fossil record.

 

[Other_Guy]

Sw

 

[Other_Guy]

I'd just like to know why so many people dislike Tebow. What has he done? How about we hate on the media for giving us an update every time he uses the oval office.

People complain about the crappy role model athletes who do drugs or curse someone out or get in trouble with the law. Here comes along Tebow, a decent guy and no one can stand him.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

I don't believe that it is Tebow per se that so many people found offensive; it was, as you suggested, the utter obsession of the media with him, which, arguably, bordered on messianic worship. Perhaps the most egregious offender was Verne Lundquist, with his incessant tributes long after Tebow was no longer part of the Florida program.

 

[Other_Guy]

If you want to argue the "supernatural" subject of the Bible I understand. However, science has been wrong time and time again, while the Bible has not only never been proven scientifically or historically inaccurate, it has actually provided unbelievable mentions of scientific or historic things that was not known until well past the ancient days the manuscripts were written (not talking about the earth is round arguement).

 

[volprof]

My head hurts reading this thread.

 

[MikeVol44]

Really sad you believe this.

How do you explain dinosaurs? They roamed the earth some 200 million years ago. If god created the earth he had to have created the dinosaurs too right? But according to you the earth is only 6000 years old? So are dinosaurs not real? I just dont understand how you can believe everything geologists and scientists claim to be completely false and instead accept as fact something that can never be proven and all evidence says otherwise.

You do realize that dinosaurs are large Reptiles, don't you? Do you know that a reptile will grow as long as it lives and will only get bigger and bigger?

How do you also explain the fossil record of these same reptiles that have their heads thrown back with their mouths open and their tails between their legs--as if dying by SUDDEN suffocation. And just for the record, what must happen before a fossil may be formed in the earth's crust?

And what could have caused their sudden suffocation--maybe a world-wide flood? Just check the fossil record. And for the record--please tell me just what percentage of the fossil record exists as vertebrates? The answer may totally SHOCK you.

A few other questions--Why are most of the fossils in the world sea creatures? And, furthermore, why are most of these same fossils found on EVERY mountaintop in the world--in limestone? How is limestone formed, and how does it get up on top of the mountains? (read Psalm 104:5-9)

As a matter of fact, study what will happen to the US if and when the volcano blows that resides under Yellowstone National park!

The undeniable answer--from the Bible's perspective--is that there was a cataclysmic event in antiquity known as the world-wide flood of Genesis. It explains everything that I have just asked you and more. It happened, according to the Bible's time frame (Genesis 5-8), just 1656 years from Adam's Creation in the Garden of Eden.

Scientists know that Volcanic eruptions cause rapid mudslides and the tectonic plates to shift (earthquakes)--causing mountains to rise up and valleys to sink down.

Just check out what happened to Spirit lake near Mount St. Helens when the Volcano erupted back in 1980.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_Lake_(Washington)]

Then imagine what would happen to the entire world if all of the "Super" volcanoes erupted simultaneously--as described in Genesis 7 concerning the flood!

Also, according to the science of hydraulic flow--the presence of twists and bends, along with the obvious tumbling of petrified trees--some of which are frozen upside down in the sedimentary strata--give evidence for a sudden depositing of the layers--just like would happen when mud, trees, and animals were tumbling along in the deluge (like a mudslide, except horizontally) caused from the flood. There's plenty of information out there is you only seek it out to examine it's merits for yourself.

I asked a previous poster to look at Mt. Saint Helens to discover the deposition of sedimentary layers--that Geologists have claimed to only happen over millions of years--that happened in our lifetime (1980) in less than 30 days after the Volcano's eruption. Geologists are still trying to explain away what happened up there--albeit with a big--OOPS, we might have been wrong!

No, my friend, please don't feel sad for me. Feel sad for that majority of people in the world who choose to deny and suppress the TRUTH of God's existence that He has put in them and made evident to them through the Creation. (Romans 1:18-23)

I don't pretend to be able to answer all of your questions in a way that will convince you to believe--that is beyond my ability. But I will not sit still and be intimidated into silence when people attempt to claim that science disproves the validity of the Scriptural record! In fact, some of the most notable of all scientists through the years have been Christians with a rock-solid conviction that the Scriptures were true in every regard.

However, I do study, and continue to search out and read the wealth of information that disproves the religion of evolutionary naturalism!

Why, did you know that for CENTURIES the elite educated minds of the world claimed that the HITTITES in the Bible NEVER existed? But now, the University of Chicago offers a Ph.D. program in Hittitology.

eace2:

 

[MikeVol44]

I don't believe that it is Tebow per se that so many people found offensive; it was, as you suggested, the utter obsession of the media with him, which, arguably, bordered on messianic worship. Perhaps the most egregious offender was Verne Lundquist, with his incessant tributes long after Tebow was no longer part of the Florida program.

You mean kinda like the way ALL OF US Vol fans still carry on about how our beloved Peyton was robbed of the Heisman trophy?

By the way--the people back then were tired of hearing about all of the merits and excellencies of Peyton as the only player rightly deserving of the Heisman trophy. And indeed, Peyton was just that--most deserving of the Heisman. :salute:

 

[Volosaurus rex]

Did ESPN create an artificial challenger to Tebow's candidacy for the Heisman in the same fashion that they manufactured one in opposition to Peyton? The answer would be a resounding "No."

 

[Volosaurus rex]

You do realize that dinosaurs are large Reptiles, don't you? Do you know that a reptile will grow as long as it lives and will only get bigger and bigger?

How do you also explain the fossil record of these same reptiles that have their heads thrown back with their mouths open and their tails between their legs--as if dying by SUDDEN suffocation. And just for the record, what must happen before a fossil may be formed in the earth's crust?

And what could have caused their sudden suffocation--maybe a world-wide flood? Just check the fossil record. And for the record--please tell me just what percentage of the fossil record exists as vertebrates? The answer may totally SHOCK you.

A few other questions--Why are most of the fossils in the world sea creatures? And, furthermore, why are most of these same fossils found on EVERY mountaintop in the world--in limestone? How is limestone formed, and how does it get up on top of the mountains? (read Psalm 104:5-9)

As a matter of fact, study what will happen to the US if and when the volcano blows that resides under Yellowstone National park!

The undeniable answer--from the Bible's perspective--is that there was a cataclysmic event in antiquity known as the world-wide flood of Genesis. It explains everything that I have just asked you and more. It happened, according to the Bible's time frame (Genesis 5-8), just 1656 years from Adam's Creation in the Garden of Eden.

Scientists know that Volcanic eruptions cause rapid mudslides and the tectonic plates to shift (earthquakes)--causing mountains to rise up and valleys to sink down.

Just check out what happened to Spirit lake near Mount St. Helens when the Volcano erupted back in 1980.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_Lake_(Washington)]

Then imagine what would happen to the entire world if all of the "Super" volcanoes erupted simultaneously--as described in Genesis 7 concerning the flood!

Also, according to the science of hydraulic flow--the presence of twists and bends, along with the obvious tumbling of petrified trees--some of which are frozen upside down in the sedimentary strata--give evidence for a sudden depositing of the layers--just like would happen when mud, trees, and animals were tumbling along in the deluge (like a mudslide, except horizontally) caused from the flood. There's plenty of information out there is you only seek it out to examine it's merits for yourself.

I asked a previous poster to look at Mt. Saint Helens to discover the deposition of sedimentary layers--that Geologists have claimed to only happen over millions of years--that happened in our lifetime (1980) in less than 30 days after the Volcano's eruption. Geologists are still trying to explain away what happened up there--albeit with a big--OOPS, we might have been wrong!

No, my friend, please don't feel sad for me. Feel sad for that majority of people in the world who choose to deny and suppress the TRUTH of God's existence that He has put in them and made evident to them through the Creation. (Romans 1:18-23)

I don't pretend to be able to answer all of your questions in a way that will convince you to believe--that is beyond my ability. But I will not sit still and be intimidated into silence when people attempt to claim that science disproves the validity of the Scriptural record! In fact, some of the most notable of all scientists through the years have been Christians with a rock-solid conviction that the Scriptures were true in every regard.

However, I do study, and continue to search out and read the wealth of information that disproves the religion of evolutionary naturalism!

Why, did you know that for CENTURIES the elite educated minds of the world claimed that the HITTITES in the Bible NEVER existed? But now, the University of Chicago offers a Ph.D. program in Hittitology.

eace2:

Interesting perspective, Mike. As an anthropologist, I would contend, first and foremost, that creationism, whether you adhere strictly to the Biblical account or not, and evolutionary theory are not mutually exclusive constructs, particularly if you subscribe to notions such as “Intelligent Design” and a “finely-tuned universe.” Within this context, natural selection (and other evolutionary processes) can be viewed as analogous to natural laws, ones established by our Creator to regulate biological change, both on a genetic and morphological level.

On the most fundamental level, evolution can be defined as change over time in the statistical frequency of alleles, variant forms of a specific gene or gene locus. The cumulative effect of such change, as a result of differential survivorship rates in response to environment-specific selective pressures, can eventually differentiate breeding populations to such a degree that the emergence of taxonomically recognizable species can be seen in living populations or the fossil record. This is a highly simplified description of the process known as phyletic gradualism, perhaps the best known example of which is the progressive emergence of a host of equine species over the last 52-55 million years, beginning with Eohippus (see Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years).

Speciation models which rely exclusively on phyletic gradualism, however, do not adequately explain the variation we find in the fossil record. The “Cambrian Explosion” superbly illustrates another speciation mechanism known as Punctuated Equilibrium. Proponents of this model argue that stasis, a condition marked by relatively little evolutionary change over pronounced periods of time, characterizes much of the earth’s geological history. Rapid and dramatic environmental change, according to these theorists, triggers the series of genetic and morphological changes which culminate in the emergence of recognizable, new species in the fossil record.

Both speciation models serve well to explain portions of the fossil record, often with greatest accuracy on a regionally-specific basis. Neither one adequately explains the evolutionary impact of forces which occur literally on a planetary or even extraterrestrial level. For example, many paleoanthropologists conclude that, based on the relative antiquity of our species, a greater genetic diversity should be observable in living human populations that what we actually find. They contend that a population bottleneck occurred approximately 70,000 years ago, due to the eruption of the Toba supervolcano in Indonesia, which may have reduced the worldwide population of humans to no more than 10,000 (see Population bottleneck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

As for interpretation of the fossil record, it is important to realize that paleontologists face the daunting task of reconstructing the history of life on earth from the equivalent of a 1000-piece puzzle for which only 3 or 4 pieces have survived. In the course of decomposition, very few individual organisms encounter the specific conditions which favor their transformation and survival as fossils. When you further consider that the geological history of planet earth is literally pock-marked with evidence of catastrophism, whether it be in the form of asteroid/meteor strikes or massive volcanic eruptions, it is hardly surprising that we have a very fragmentary record of life on this precious globe.

 

[MikeVol44]

Did ESPN create an artificial challenger to Tebow's candidacy for the Heisman in the same fashion that they manufactured one in opposition to Peyton? The answer would be a resounding "No."

You're correct, I wasn't trying to argue with you...But, the same "media fatigue" that encircles Tebow did, in fact, encircle Peyton as people were completely tired of hearing about Peyton's merits--even though they were true, just like they are tired of Tebow and look for ANY and EVERY reason to say that he isn't qualified to play QB in the NFL.

Even though ESPN didn't manufacture someone who belittles Tebow, there were plenty of commentators on there (Hodge, to name just one) who went out of their way to criticize Tebow as a player--when all he's ever done is win.

Jacksonville is completely :crazy: for not at least giving Tebow a chance.....

 

[Volosaurus rex]

On that point, we most definitely agree. And, to their credit, neither Peyton nor Tebow sought the media attention that was foisted upon them. That quality is in distinct contrast to any host of college or pro athletes that readily come to mind. I remember some backlash to Peyton's Heisman candidacy that was ostensibly predicated upon the premise that they were tired of, or simply didn't want to see another "squeaky-clean white southern quarterback" receive the award in the immediate aftermath of Danny Wuerffel's selection the previous year. One of the most detestable aspects of the Heisman selection process, in my opinion, is the utterly whimsical and capricious criteria which are utilized from year to year.

 

[MikeVol44]

Interesting perspective, Mike. As an anthropologist, I would contend, first and foremost, that creationism, whether you adhere strictly to the Biblical account or not, and evolutionary theory are not mutually exclusive constructs, particularly if you subscribe to notions such as “Intelligent Design” and a “finely-tuned universe.” Within this context, natural selection (and other evolutionary processes) can be viewed as analogous to natural laws, ones established by our Creator to regulate biological change, both on a genetic and morphological level.

On the most fundamental level, evolution can be defined as change over time in the statistical frequency of alleles, variant forms of a specific gene or gene locus. The cumulative effect of such change, as a result of differential survivorship rates in response to environment-specific selective pressures, can eventually differentiate breeding populations to such a degree that the emergence of taxonomically recognizable species can be seen in living populations or the fossil record. This is a highly simplified description of the process known as phyletic gradualism, perhaps the best known example of which is the progressive emergence of a host of equine species over the last 52-55 million years, beginning with Eohippus (see Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years).

Speciation models which rely exclusively on phyletic gradualism, however, do not adequately explain the variation we find in the fossil record. The “Cambrian Explosion” superbly illustrates another speciation mechanism known as Punctuated Equilibrium. Proponents of this model argue that stasis, a condition marked by relatively little evolutionary change over pronounced periods of time, characterizes much of the earth’s geological history. Rapid and dramatic environmental change, according to these theorists, triggers the series of genetic and morphological changes which culminate in the emergence of recognizable, new species in the fossil record.

Both speciation models serve well to explain portions of the fossil record, often with greatest accuracy on a regionally-specific basis. Neither one adequately explains the evolutionary impact of forces which occur literally on a planetary or even extraterrestrial level. For example, many paleoanthropologists conclude that, based on the relative antiquity of our species, a greater genetic diversity should be observable in living human populations that what we actually find. They contend that a population bottleneck occurred approximately 70,000 years ago, due to the eruption of the Toba supervolcano in Indonesia, which may have reduced the worldwide population of humans to no more than 10,000 (see Population bottleneck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

As for interpretation of the fossil record, it is important to realize that paleontologists face the daunting task of reconstructing the history of life on earth from the equivalent of a 1000-piece puzzle for which only 3 or 4 pieces have survived. In the course of decomposition, very few individual organisms encounter the specific conditions which favor their transformation and survival as fossils. When you further consider that the geological history of planet earth is literally pock-marked with evidence of catastrophism, whether it be in the form of asteroid/meteor strikes or massive volcanic eruptions, it is hardly surprising that we have a very fragmentary record of life on this precious globe.

Very well written...However, what you describe is NOT evolutionary changes driven by chance mutations--it's called GENETIC DIVERSITY and the genes already reside in the genome and and await expression in the phenotype--there's nothing chance or evolutionary about it.

The expression of the phenotype from the genotype is specific and will be seen as groups of people stay together for long periods of time. And in fact, this is exactly what the Bible teaches--and explains the BROAD diversity in human beings we observe on the planet (see Genesis 10-11).

Furthermore,

Evolution is as irrational as it is amoral. In place of God as Creator, the evolutionist has substituted chance—sheer fortune, accident, happenstance, serendipity, coincidence, random events, and blind luck. Chance is the engine most evolutionists believe drives the evolutionary process. Naturalism essentially teaches that over time and out of sheer chaos, matter evolved into everything we see today by pure chance. And this all happened without any particular design. Given enough time and enough random events, the evolutionist says, anything is possible. And the evolution of our world with all its intricate ecosystems and complex organisms is therefore simply the inadvertent result of a very large number of indiscriminate but extremely fortuitous accidents of nature. Everything is the way it is simply by the luck of the draw. And thus chance itself has been elevated to the role of creator.
MacArthur, John (2005-03-22). The Battle for the Beginning (p. 5). Thomas Nelson. Kindle Edition.

I clearly see no way of claiming that a theory of evolution that elevates chance (simply mathematical probability) to the level of God can peacefully exist with the God of the Bible as the Creator. Evolutionary naturalism simply cannot peacefully coexist with a living, Eternal, and Supernatural God who created everything--and took the time to write it down in detail for our welfare.

Evolution theory has contributed nothing but pain, suffering, and delusion to the human race--See Nazi Germany under Hitler and the USSR under Joseph Stalin--both of whom ruled in accordance with evolutionary "theory" and its implications within society--known as a "social darwinism."

In fact, Thomas Huxley, a famous atheist from the 19th century--

argued that evolution and ethics are incompatible. He wrote that “the practice of that which is ethically best—what we call goodness or virtue—involves a course of conduct which, in all respects, is opposed to that which leads to success in the cosmic struggle for existence.”4 Philosophers who incorporated Darwin’s ideas were quick to see Huxley’s point, conceiving new philosophies that set the stage for the amorality and genocide that characterized so much of the twentieth century...MacArthur continues to point out that--

Karl Marx, for example, self-consciously followed Darwin in the devising of his economic and social theories. He inscribed a copy of his book Das Kapital to Darwin, “from a devoted admirer.” He referred to Darwin’s The Origin of Species as “the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.”

Herbert Spencer’s philosophy of “Social Darwinism” applied the doctrines of evolution and the survival of the fittest to human societies. Spencer argued that if nature itself has determined that the strong survive and the weak perish, this rule should govern society as well. Racial and class distinctions simply reflect nature’s way. There is therefore no transcendent moral reason to be sympathetic to the struggle of the disadvantaged classes. It is, after all, part of the natural evolutionary process and society will actually be improved by recognizing the superiority of the dominant classes and encouraging their ascendancy.

The racialism of such writers as Ernst Haeckel (who believed that the African races were incapable of culture or higher mental development) was also rooted in Darwinism. Friedrich Nietzsche’s whole philosophy was based on the doctrine of evolution. Nietzsche was bitterly hostile to religion, and particularly to Christianity. Christian morality embodied the essence of everything Nietzsche hated; he believed Christ’s teachings glorified human weakness and were detrimental to the development of the human race. He scoffed at Christian moral values such as humility, mercy, modesty, meekness, compassion for the powerless, and service to one another. He believed such ideals had bred weakness in society. Nietzsche saw two types of people: the “master-class,” an enlightened, dominant minority; and the “herd,” sheeplike followers who were easily led. And he concluded that the only hope for humanity would be when the master-class evolved into a race of Übermenschen (supermen), unencumbered by religious or social mores, who would take power and bring humanity to the next stage of its evolution.

It’s not surprising that Nietzsche’s philosophy laid the foundation for the Nazi movement in Germany. What is surprising is that at the dawn of the twenty-first century, Nietzsche’s reputation has been rehabilitated by philosophical spin-doctors, and his writings are once again trendy in the academic world. Indeed, his philosophy—or something very nearly like it—is what naturalism must inevitably return to. All of these philosophies are based on notions that are diametrically opposed to a biblical view of the nature of man, because they all start by embracing a Darwinian view of the origin of humanity.

MacArthur, John (2005-03-22). The Battle for the Beginning . Thomas Nelson. Kindle Edition.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

Very well written...However, what you describe is NOT evolutionary changes driven by chance mutations--it's called GENETIC DIVERSITY and the genes already reside in the genome and and await expression in the phenotype--there's nothing chance or evolutionary about it.

The expression of the phenotype from the genotype is specific and will be seen as groups of people stay together for long periods of time. And in fact, this is exactly what the Bible teaches--and explains the BROAD diversity in human beings we observe on the planet (see Genesis 10-11).

Furthermore,

Evolution is as irrational as it is amoral. In place of God as Creator, the evolutionist has substituted chance—sheer fortune, accident, happenstance, serendipity, coincidence, random events, and blind luck. Chance is the engine most evolutionists believe drives the evolutionary process. Naturalism essentially teaches that over time and out of sheer chaos, matter evolved into everything we see today by pure chance. And this all happened without any particular design. Given enough time and enough random events, the evolutionist says, anything is possible. And the evolution of our world with all its intricate ecosystems and complex organisms is therefore simply the inadvertent result of a very large number of indiscriminate but extremely fortuitous accidents of nature. Everything is the way it is simply by the luck of the draw. And thus chance itself has been elevated to the role of creator.
MacArthur, John (2005-03-22). The Battle for the Beginning (p. 5). Thomas Nelson. Kindle Edition.

I clearly see no way of claiming that a theory of evolution that elevates chance (simply mathematical probability) to the level of God can peacefully exist with the God of the Bible as the Creator. Evolutionary naturalism simply cannot peacefully coexist with a living, Eternal, and Supernatural God who created everything--and took the time to write it down in detail for our welfare.

Evolution theory has contributed nothing but pain, suffering, and delusion to the human race--See Nazi Germany under Hitler and the USSR under Joseph Stalin--both of whom ruled in accordance with evolutionary "theory" and its implications within society--known as a "social darwinism."

In fact, Thomas Huxley, a famous atheist from the 19th century--

argued that evolution and ethics are incompatible. He wrote that “the practice of that which is ethically best—what we call goodness or virtue—involves a course of conduct which, in all respects, is opposed to that which leads to success in the cosmic struggle for existence.”4 Philosophers who incorporated Darwin’s ideas were quick to see Huxley’s point, conceiving new philosophies that set the stage for the amorality and genocide that characterized so much of the twentieth century...MacArthur continues to point out that--

Karl Marx, for example, self-consciously followed Darwin in the devising of his economic and social theories. He inscribed a copy of his book Das Kapital to Darwin, “from a devoted admirer.” He referred to Darwin’s The Origin of Species as “the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.”

Herbert Spencer’s philosophy of “Social Darwinism” applied the doctrines of evolution and the survival of the fittest to human societies. Spencer argued that if nature itself has determined that the strong survive and the weak perish, this rule should govern society as well. Racial and class distinctions simply reflect nature’s way. There is therefore no transcendent moral reason to be sympathetic to the struggle of the disadvantaged classes. It is, after all, part of the natural evolutionary process and society will actually be improved by recognizing the superiority of the dominant classes and encouraging their ascendancy.

The racialism of such writers as Ernst Haeckel (who believed that the African races were incapable of culture or higher mental development) was also rooted in Darwinism. Friedrich Nietzsche’s whole philosophy was based on the doctrine of evolution. Nietzsche was bitterly hostile to religion, and particularly to Christianity. Christian morality embodied the essence of everything Nietzsche hated; he believed Christ’s teachings glorified human weakness and were detrimental to the development of the human race. He scoffed at Christian moral values such as humility, mercy, modesty, meekness, compassion for the powerless, and service to one another. He believed such ideals had bred weakness in society. Nietzsche saw two types of people: the “master-class,” an enlightened, dominant minority; and the “herd,” sheeplike followers who were easily led. And he concluded that the only hope for humanity would be when the master-class evolved into a race of Übermenschen (supermen), unencumbered by religious or social mores, who would take power and bring humanity to the next stage of its evolution.

It’s not surprising that Nietzsche’s philosophy laid the foundation for the Nazi movement in Germany. What is surprising is that at the dawn of the twenty-first century, Nietzsche’s reputation has been rehabilitated by philosophical spin-doctors, and his writings are once again trendy in the academic world. Indeed, his philosophy—or something very nearly like it—is what naturalism must inevitably return to. All of these philosophies are based on notions that are diametrically opposed to a biblical view of the nature of man, because they all start by embracing a Darwinian view of the origin of humanity.

MacArthur, John (2005-03-22). The Battle for the Beginning . Thomas Nelson. Kindle Edition.

Mike, I made no reference to chance mutation whatsoever. I believe that it is safe to say that, if you ask any biologist who believes in evolutionary theory, he/she will say that natural selection is by far the most pervasive of evolutionary processes, far more so than mutation, drift or gene flow. Yes, "genes already reside in the genome and await expression in the phenotype." They do so in response to environmentally specific selective pressures. I agree that there is nothing random about that whatsoever.

It is interesting to note, however, that you seized largely upon the evils of social Darwinism to discredit the entire concept of evolutionary theory. That legacy has left an enduring schism within my discipline. Many sociocultural anthropologists are very reluctant to embrace an evolutionary perspective in analysis of culture, simply because of the stigma associated with the Spencerian period of anthropology, not to mention the later perversion of the basic concept by ethnocentric powers who used it to justify their political agendas. On the other hand, I don't believe that you will find a biological/physical anthropologist, let alone a paleoanthropologist or paleontologist who doesn't believe in the fundamental premise of morphological change over time, i.e. evolution. With very few exceptions, scholars in the latter disciplines don't have the luxury of actually being able to assess change in the genetic frequencies of alleles, the most fundamental expression of evolution.

For the record, I categorically reject the extreme emphasis on random chance advocated by the passage that you cited from MacArthur. It would be far more accurate to speak in terms of environmental adaptationism as the broad-spectrum fuel for evolutionary change.

I realize that there is no middle ground for you on this issue, but I will reiterate that, in my opinion, creationism, whether you adhere strictly to the Biblical account or not, and evolutionary theory are not mutually exclusive constructs, particularly if you subscribe to notions such as “Intelligent Design” and a “finely-tuned universe.” Within this context, natural selection (and other evolutionary processes) can be viewed as analogous to natural laws, ones established by our Creator to regulate biological change, both on a genetic and morphological level. I believe in both premises and I find no logical inconsistency in that position.

 

[BigOrangeCrush32]

I have a question. After reading Mike and Volsaurus, is there going to be a test and do I get any college credits? I am only a few away from an Associates so this will help.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

I don't believe that it is Tebow per se that so many people found offensive; it was, as you suggested, the utter obsession of the media with him, which, arguably, bordered on messianic worship. Perhaps the most egregious offender was Verne Lundquist, with his incessant tributes long after Tebow was no longer part of the Florida program.

You could also put a lot of blame on Skip Bayless.

 

[VolFan4Life87]

So what does the bible say about dinosaurs?

 

[governmentmule]

My mom thinks he's sexy

bless my Moms dear departed heart she really liked him,but she was in love with Chipper Jones

 

[jp1]

So what does the bible say about dinosaurs?

The Bible references creatures that are decribed similar to dinosaurs yet doesn't call them "dinosaurs".

 

[WarMachine]

What Bible do consider the most accurate translation of the original works?

Hey Woodsman. I studied Hebrew and Greek in seminary; the translation question is difficult. Some translations say they are "word for word" but there are a lot of words in the original languages that don't directly translate word for word. The word "hessed" in Hebrew conveys an idea of loving-kindness and faithfulness and persistent resolve to pursue another person's best interests; try translating that in a sentence. I think the best way to understand the original languages is probably to consult multiple respected translations like the English Standard Version, the New Living Translation, the New American Standard Bible, and even the New International Version for a more "thought for thought" translation.

 

[Other_Guy]

Hey Woodsman. I studied Hebrew and Greek in seminary; the translation question is difficult. Some translations say they are "word for word" but there are a lot of words in the original languages that don't directly translate word for word. The word "hessed" in Hebrew conveys an idea of loving-kindness and faithfulness and persistent resolve to pursue another person's best interests; try translating that in a sentence. I think the best way to understand the original languages is probably to consult multiple respected translations like the English Standard Version, the New Living Translation, the New American Standard Bible, and even the New International Version for a more "thought for thought" translation.

I'm not going to claim to know a lot, but I do know that most of these new versions that come out take out entire verses and change meanings to what the KJV is. Some don't even include the trinity! That's why I stick with the KJV and ask God to show me the meaning if its confusing.

 

[WarMachine]

It's true, the newer translations take into account copies of the original that are considered more reliable than other copies. We continue to find more and more copies of Scripture in the original languages (I think there are more than 5000 complete copies?), and as scholars analyze the various copies, they find that some passages may have been a scribe's note or something. However, this affects a very, very small portion of the Bible, and most of these translations include the affected verses in a footnote. I truly believe the goal is to get to the most accurate understanding of what the original text included. It is an amazing testimony of the value of the Scriptures when we have so many copies that were so carefully translated. Other historical works have very, very few copies remaining by comparison.