A Supersession discussion on CNBC?

Ann Coulter discussed theological issues on TV that isn't easily understood by the masses. I don't want to make an indictment on people's intelligence, but not too many are educated in theology with its different terminology and its definitions. In an interview with Donny Deutsch on CNBC, she did not do well in defending the Biblical position on the Jewish-Christian relationship. She sounded so ill-informed about Christianity and it was clear to me that she was also influenced by more liberal theologians. I'm a fan of Coulter so to hear her fumble like this is disappointing. Here are some parts:

(Emphases by Foxnews.com. Parentheses mine.)

COULTER: Well, OK, take the Republican National Convention. People were happy. They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America, they —

DEUTSCH: Christian — so we should be Christian? It would be better if we were all Christian?

COULTER: Yes.

DEUTSCH: We should all be Christian?

COULTER: Yes. Would you like to come to church with me, Donny?

DEUTSCH: So I should not be a Jew, I should be a Christian, and this would be a better place?

(And that is one example of how NOT to invite someone to church!)
...
COULTER: No, we think — we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.

DEUTSCH: That isn't what I said, but you said I should not — we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians, then, or —

COULTER: Yeah.

(I admire people who are direct and I'm glad she answered succinctly, but she should have been more specific. She should have said, "No, we don't throw Judaism away, Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not abolish it. And besides, Judaism and Jewishness is cultural and does not have anything to do with how a person becomes a Christian."

...

DEUTSCH: Wow, you didn't really say that, did you?

COULTER: Yes. That is what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws. We know we're all sinners —

DEUTSCH: In my old days, I would have argued — when you say something absurd like that, there's no —

COULTER: What's absurd?

DEUTSCH: Jews are going to be perfected. I'm going to go off and try to perfect myself —

COULTER: Well, that's what the New Testament says.

(Ooh, ouch, never say "Jews need to be perfected" in a post-Holocaust world. The exact theological term is "fulfilled" or "completed." And even then, she had to make a huge qualifying explanation of what fulfilled means or else it would also be misunderstood. And she had to say that the NT talks about all mankind, including Jews, needing the perfection of Christ because we can't be perfect on our own. And then she would've had to say that Christ is the perfect one, not us.)
...

COULTER: No. I'm sorry. It is not intended to be. I don't think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to, you know, live up to all the laws. What Christians believe — this is just a statement of what the New Testament is — is that that's why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don't believe our testament.

DEUTSCH: You said — your exact words were, "Jews need to be perfected." Those are the words out of your mouth.

COULTER: No, I'm saying that's what a Christian is.

DEUTSCH: But that's what you said — don't you see how hateful, how anti-Semitic —

COULTER: No!

DEUTSCH: How do you not see? You're an educated woman. How do you not see that?

COULTER: That isn't hateful at all.

DEUTSCH: But that's even a scarier thought. OK —

COULTER: No, no, no, no, no. I don't want you being offended by this. This is what Christians consider themselves, because our testament is the continuation of your testament. You know that. So we think Jews go to heaven. I mean (Jerry) Falwell himself said that, but you have to follow laws. Ours is "Christ died for our sins." We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected Christian is not offensive at all.

(Ugh, once again she should have made the distinction between Judaism as being a culture and Christianity as being a decision regardless of culture. No, I'm not a perfected Jew. I have the inheritance of Abraham, the promise of Jesus, given to both the Jews and Gentiles, but the majority of Christians are Gentiles, not Jews. Fulfilled in Christ, yes, but Jewish, no. Jews who believe in Christ, now those are the fulfilled Jews. And following the Law isn't what God asks from anyone in order to get into heaven. As far as I can tell, Falwell wouldn't make the boneheaded error of saying that Jew or Gentile would go to heaven by following the Law. I'm sure he was a better theologian than that. If Coulter was so upfront about her Christianity, she should have said that it is only through faith in Jesus, His atoning sacrifice and victorious resurrection, that God sees as acceptable, nothing else. She seriously needs better training.)

...

As Christians, we have a message that is already a stumblingblock to the Jews. We have to communicate it well enough so that we don't give them a reason to reject our message. What we do, who we are, our attitude, our behavior, our bad misunderstanding of Biblical principles should take a backseat. If they are to reject at all, they should reject only Jesus Christ, not Jesus plus newbie Christian with a bad attitude. The Christian should be loving and truthful, that's it. Coulter did not represent Christ nor the Christian perspective well in the interview. We've all made the mistake of not representing Christ well, I know I have on several occasions. But because she's a public figure, she bears a greater responsibility for her words. I can only hope she makes up for it in some way in the future.

Sneaky Usurpations

"Are you willing to spend time studying the issues, making yourself aware, and then conveying that information to family and friends? Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? Realize that the doctor's fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can't socialize the doctors without socializing the patients. Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your own business. If some among you fear taking a stand because you are afraid of reprisals from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he'll eat you last."
- Ronald Reagan, October 27, 1964

I'll let Ronald "The Great Communicator" answer the question on Healthcare. This was done in 1961, supported by the American Medical Association.



A few quotes from the recording:

"Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people would adopt every fragment of the socialist program..."

"One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project..."

"All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man's working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it's a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay. And pretty soon your son won't decide, when he's in school, where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do."

A few of his specific examples were old school, but the principles are still sound. Now compare those principles with the healthcare plans of McCain and Obama and see whose is less sneaky. Research quickly! There're only 11 days left.

PMABM Newsletter #9

Weigh in on this:
Fight Club for Geeks
The video is just below the article.

Some things to think about: Where do you draw the line between realistic training and animalistic brawling? Is there a line? How do you train for reality as safely as possible without taking away the "reality"? And it's good to train with improvised weapons, but is there a line to that as well, as in, when does it get just plain silly? Magazines are understandable, but toilet seats? Baking pans? Keyboards even?

Compare their group to the Dog Brothers. Here's the video from PMABM Newsletter #2. Which group do you prefer? Is one better than the other? What are some aspects that both share? This is a little harder: what are their differences? And is this truly reality training? When two (or more) fighters face each other for planned, ritualistic combat, does it prepare them for the surprise attack, which is what happens in real-life? Is it possible to blend the two in some kind of training exercise? Will self-defense training and sport training always be on two totally different worlds? Can you even consider their training as sport? And as I already stated: is it even self-defense?

Here are more videos from the Silicon Valley fight club.

12 Days till the Election!

This takes some time to watch, but I'll list it all down. Also, comments in parentheses by kathy of Conservative Thoughts.

On the twelfth day of Christmas, the liberals gave to me:

* Twelve senators failing (12 Democrats up for re-election in 2008)
* Eleven percent approval (Lowest rating ever)
* Ten paychecks burning (Because of Democrat record tax hike)
* Ninety thousand freezing (Amount of money found in Rep. William Jefferson’s (D-La.) freezer)
* No more secret ballots (Big Labor payback for union bosses)
* $700 billion in new spending (Paid for with the largest tax hike in history)
* Six troop funding cuts (Playing political theater with the safety and security of our nation and our troops)
* Hillary’s Woodstock Museum! (What better way to spend a million dollars?)
* Four bucks a gallon (Not a single energy bill passed to help lower gas prices)
* Al Franken ranting (Angry Hollywood liberal)
* Two liberal Udalls (Mark in Colorado and Tom in New Mexico)
* And a tax hike for every family! (Thanks Democrats)

I'll have a few of my own 12 Days as well.

And in the darkness, bind them

I have now crowned The History channel as the new Discredit the Bible channel. Earlier this week I saw a documentary on the Lost Books of the Bible. The main book in question was the Testament of Solomon. In it, the narrator referred to the account of Jesus casting out a demon from a man.

A few scholars interviewed attested that, while in the middle of an exorcism, Jesus said, "One greater than Solomon is now here," talking about himself. The narrator asked, "Why did Jesus say this while in the middle of an excorcism?" Both scholar and theologian then began to answer the question. They believed that Jesus was referencing the Testament of Solomon, a rejected book of the Bible. Even though the Testament was a Christian era book, its story was accepted in Jewish culture in Jesus' time. The Testament told the story of King Solomon when he fashioned a spiritually empowered ring and forced Beelzebub and his demons to build the Temple in Jerusalem. In the documentary, there was this cheesy scene with a Middle-eastern looking king commanding these demons with a bright ring on his finger. One of the scholars recited the Elvish poem from Lord of the Rings, so that it sounded like the Testament story was some proto-Tolkien Jewish myth. Scholar and narrator proceeded to say that Jesus was referring to this story about Solomon and that Jesus himself believed it to be true. "So why was it taken out of the Bible?" they asked. At that point, I turned off the TV because it was just that dumb.

I read the passage in question found in Matthew12:22 - 42 and Luke 11:14 -32 and I chuckled. There was a whole documentary, including a book, that was based on a misreading of Scripture? I guess that's typical of what the world has to offer. In the passage, Jesus exorcised a demon and the Pharisees condemned him for it, saying Jesus was using Beelzebub to cast out demons. Guess what? The Pharisees were the ones who believed the Testament of Solomon was true, not Jesus! Jesus responds with the "house divided against itself cannot stand" answer. And even after Jesus performs the exorcism miracle and gives an intellectual answer, they had the audacity to ask him to perform more miracles for them. It's at that point when Jesus spoke of Solomon (and Jonah), but in context he was talking about the Pharisees' lack of belief that he was the prophesied Messiah. He said "the queen of Sheba herself will condemn this generation for not believing." But he said this in the same conversation after the exorcism, so when Jesus said that he was "greater than Solomon," he was most likely playing on the Pharisees' stronger belief in cultural folklore than in the Messianic prophecies found in the Tanakh.

Nobody *Messes* with John McCain!

Hi, I'm Hayden Panettiere and I'm hot enough to say anything and have dumb-schmucks believe me. In all my 19 years on this Earth, I know all that there is to know about American politics. My home-schooling has trained me for the intellectual rigors of commenting on the Presidential race. I'm well-versed in international politics also, having fought those evil Japanese fishermen and their dolphin hunting. I was even awarded by those wonderful animal freaks from PETA.

Now that we've established my credibility, I'd like to say that I will only vote for a Presidential candidate who will treat his position as on-the-job training, so he could develop to his full potential. I hope you would vote for a man who has a questionable U.S. citizenship status because that only means he'll do well in international relations. I mean, I would be very diplomatic with foreign world leaders as well who want to destroy whole countries! I'd pander to their needs any day!

I want a leader who allows me to suck on the teats of government as it carries me from the cradle to the grave. Since I am a citizen, it is my right to be told by the government what I can or can't do and I want my new President to afford me more of those rights. Change is what we truly need in this country. Over time, I can only hope that this change would take as much money from me as possible so that there will be no more rich people and everyone will be middle-class. As citizens, we should be entitled to the best that the rich have to offer and give it to anyone making less than $50,000, including dead-beat dads who don't like to work because they get too much unemployment.

I know my choice for President will do his best to change America. And we will be there to unite with him as he runs it into the ground!

A Nice Proposal

Here's a common-sense approach to taking care of this whole bail-out debacle.

I don't usually like posting e-mail forwards, especially when the math is wrong, but I thought this was quite an interesting proposal for the bail-out. I wish it was this much. Hey, if the gov is going socialist, why not go for broke (like every other socialist country)? Really, if the entire $700 billion was used, it would come out to about $5,900 per fed tax payer. May not be half a mil, but it's better than a grand that a certain Presidential candidate is proposing:

A Better Bail-out Plan
by Troy LaMana

I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.

Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a 'We Deserve It Dividend'. To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bon-a-fide U.S. Citizens 18+. Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up. So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.00...

What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your
family?...

(Or $3,000 to $6,000 out of the $700 billion if the math was done correctly. Or, assuming they give to those who pay their taxes, which is about 59% of the entire population, then it would be about $5,900 for a single person, $11,800 for married.)

Interesting thought, but I know it wouldn't happen.

King and Crisis

Who caused this mortgage mess?

People like to play the blame game, especially in a crisis. I'm not into playing blame games, I'm into investigating the truth. Several factors come into effect in incidents like these. No one side, no one person, is the cause. To think that any one person (or Administration in many people's minds) caused this mess is to betray petty, narrow-minded thinking. There were a number of significant nudges and pushes that inevitably brought down the house.

Someone recently noted that "the single biggest piece of legislation that has led to the financial collapse we're seeing now is the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. It was rushed onto Bush's desk a few days after the Supreme Court appointed that clown to the Oval office." Once again, petty, narrow-minded thinking. The person who said this has such hatred for Bush that he can't even see past his psychosis. A little fact check goes a long way in not sounding like a wild-eyed liberal doofus: President Clinton was the one who signed CFMA 2000 into law, not Bush. And even then, CFMA 2000 was merely icing, not the cause of the problem. We can go all the way back to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, but that was only the nudge. We'll have to find something recent and more directly connected to the crisis.

An article by Steven A. Holmes from September 1999 entitled "Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending" mentioned several key ideas to the origins of this crisis. The New York Times is not the most conservative newspaper, so for it to have mentioned a Democrat party connection to the mess is at least being truthful and fair to the issue.

Some of the more interesting parts (emphases mine):

"In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits...

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry...

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants."

(Side note: the economic boom of the 1990s was the result of Reaganomics. Politics 101 - Each Presidential administration receives the blessings or the curses of a previous administration's actions. The Clinton admin boom years were merely the result of Reagan admin's actions.)

So, really, the question is: What caused this mortgage mess? The cause was the culture of the time, an overcorrection if you will, of people's behavior, otherwise known as political correctness. Because of the strong desire for racial equality, especially after Rodney King and the L.A. riots, there seemed to be this nationwide need to be respectful to your fellow man. Racial discrimination is evil and being disrespectful to others is never good, but the response going the opposite direction was so extreme that the nation fell off the other side of the horse. Too much kumbaya, not enough common sense. In ignorance, government followed suit and equated risky lending with racial equality. Note to government: It's good to work on racial equality, bad to be stupid with money. Too little too late, unfortunately.

Now about the bailout: Do I agree with it? No. Is it necessary? Maybe. I absolutely hate it when government meddles with private sector business, even quasi-private like the FMs. But both parties took the chance nearly ten years ago and now we're all paying for it. As McCain said, this is only a tourniquet. Who would've known that government wasn't sure what would happen if it pointed a loaded gun at its foot then pulled the trigger. We'll see if Adam Smith's principles work even with massive government intervention like this. Can the invisible hand of a free market be led by the folly of statesmen? Ready to roll-over, Mr. Smith?

I guess it's time to sit back and see how another invisible hand will guide this process along.

Palin for President!

At first, I thought, What? An Alaskan governor? A virtual unknown? John really blew it this time! And who's he trying to pick up, Hillary voters? That will definitely make me not want to vote this time around.

I was disappointed enough that McCain was chosen as the GOP pick, I lost hope when I heard the announcement for his VP pick. I even told my wife how disappointed I was in how this was all turning out. Just before Palin got up for her acceptance speech, I was really skeptical and was ready to critique every line. A brunette Hillary the way McCain is a wannabe Democrat, wonderful!

After a ho-hum introduction about her life, she started to give a number of zingers against Obama. That got my attention! And then she kept going! This is definitely not Hillary! Instead of criticizing her, I found myself cheering her on! Not only that, but I started to see why McCain chose her. Hm, open-mouth-insert-foot time. Talk about a good first impression! I've always been for people who do what's right and go against the world's culture, or in this case, who go against power-hungry, money-grubbing politicians. I'm glad she didn't make many promises. What I got from her speech was an attitude of defiance against the status quo, who would take back America from those who think that greater government involvement is the answer.

Forget McCain! I'm voting for Palin.

Now with my new found energy for the election, I've been following it more closely. What got me was when Katie Couric interviewed Palin a few days ago. Couric asked Palin which Supreme Court decisions she disagreed with besides Roe vs. Wade. Palin began to work her way through an answer, but she started to fumble and then regained her composure by focusing on those decisions that supported the power of the States rather than the Federal government. She didn't bring up an example, which I can understand. Who keeps a list of Supreme Court decisions in their mind anyway? And even then, the only one I could think of off the top of my head was Brown vs. Board of Education, and that's one I agree with! (Given a little time, I recalled a couple more, but I was hazy on what they specifically talked about.) When I looked at Couric's face, I knew she wanted to make a fool out of Palin. This was most likely Couric's way to get back at Republicans after the whole Biden fiasco when he said that people saw Roosevelt on TV during the Great Depression. Now that was an actual mistake on his part, he volunteered to look like an idiot! Couric simply had it in for Palin and got her back. Cheap shot!

If I was in Palin's position, I would've responded like this:
"Hm, at this moment, I can't recall any, although I do remember studying many cases in high school and college. I've been busy as a mother and as a governor, I haven't had time to refresh my memory. Since I'm not one to play trivia games especially in interviews, I'll just have to get back to you on those. What I do know is that I disagreed with those decisions, like Roe vs. Wade, that gave more power to the Federal government and took away the power of the States and the people, a clear violation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments..."

I can only hope Palin keeps up that tough yet classy attitude.

What I felt like saying

I've stopped debating with the evolutionist because he was not the challenge that he made himself out to be. Also, I don't have much time to do email debates at this point in my life. I didn't send my response because it seemed too obnoxious and I didn't want to lower myself to his level. But sometimes it's fun to get down and dirty. This blog will be the only place I will put this response.

The evolutionist:

Here is a quick write up on fossil formation. I think it goes a long way on explaining the shortage of certain types of life in the fossil record.
http://www.scienceviews.com/dinosaurs/fossilformation.html

What I wanted to send, but thought was best not to:

I used to read this kind of information when I was nine years old! If you were serious about this link, then you've just betrayed your lack of scientific training. This is not the kind of information that you'd give to serious, science-oriented adults. Yes, it's easy to fool children with the idea that decomposing bodies in the water are buried over a period of time and then become fossilized. If you didn't catch it earlier, there is no shortage of fossils, just a shortage of fossils that support evolutionary theory.

I've come to the conclusion that you don't seem to read too well, that you don't catch context and details. You assume too much or at worst, twist things irrationally. To debaters, that's usually a sign of desperation. At this point, I won't continue on the grounds that you are plugging your ears and saying lalala, intellectually speaking that is, and I also have to lay off from this discussion indefinitely because of my busy schedule. I'm not conceding, of course. Believe me, I enjoy this stuff. I just find it frustrating to seriously discuss matters, not because you stump me. Far from it. I find that you are uninformed of the issues and intricacies involved in this debate and I'm not one to teach the basics to my opponent. You've proven to me that you're a neophyte and, sadly, one that's totally indoctrinated by an emaciated public education system.

Once again, I have nothing against you. I'll play games with you, I just won't discuss serious scientific issues with you.

Let's get ready to rumble! (Part 4)

The evolutionist:

If you want specific replys to some of the issues raised here, we will need to break it up some. But I will try to address the items below. Intelligent design and creationism are one in the same. The same people are involved in the same organizations. The only difference is that some of them shy away from saying God when they reference an 'intelligent designer'. Find me one of these 'scientists' who would be comfortable with the the 'intelligent designer' being called Allah, and I will believe you. In fact, I think I would be much closer to believing that you believe in 'intelligent design' if we agreed from on use the term Allah whenever we reference the 'intelligent designer'.

I have re-read every e-mail you have sent me, and there was no link to anything, so I don't know what you mean when you say I have not looked into 'the resource' you suggested. Unless you want me to read entire book you mentioned. Which I have not done. As to the two websites. The Discovery Institute and AllAboutGod. And guess what, two of the three links you sent me lead right back there. The third one was PBS. Which was very useful (I read all three). It exactly coincides with what I was saying about punctuated evolution, and how it is perfectly compatible with Darwin's thought, and with current evolutionary thought. Thank you, I hope Peter read it too.

I am confused at your conclusion since this article clearly reinforces my original statement. In fact, it says that speciation can occur in a matter of tens of thousands of years, which thought anyway but didn't want to freak you out with that suggestion. The 1 million years was enough to get you foaming at the mouth. I will get back to you on how fossils are formed. I need to find some good articles on the subject, because my memory of stuff I have read before isn't specific enough to tell you right where to go. Although I think it would be as easy for you to find as me. I am just going to go to some scientific organzation websites and some science journals and see what turns up from a general search.

Imperfect fossil record. Let me get this right, you will only accept evolution when we have a 'perfect' fossil record? That is what you require? Because if you can accept only perfect historical evidence, than we might have all kinds of problems here with the bible. There are many, many transitional forms of fossils. I will find some articles about that too.

Please don't pull up the same Darwin quote that Pete did. That only makes it so obvious that the objections come from the same small self-referencial community. Again, that quote is a rhetorical question that he answers in the book. For confimation, please refer to the same article you just sent me on punctuated evolution.

Me:

Thank you for your response, it was slightly more courteous and I appreciate it. I was almost finished writing my response when I began to read some of your exchanges with the others from this past week. I think I may be repeating some things. Hope you all don't mind. Warning: this one's long:

G. Simpson's phrase "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind" is not merely one man's thought, but the very basis for your naturalist materialistic presupposition. I'm in the middle of writing a comment to your "Viewpoints" response to Pete which should help us get down to the root issue.

The Discovery Institute and AllAboutGod. That's funny, I don't normally use those two websites when I debate. I didn't know about AllaboutGod until I started following this thread. I simply wanted to show you there are scientists who believe in Intelligent Design. But it's understandable that DI pops up: it's because they're the lead organization of this movement. And if you're still not convinced there are credible scientists who believe in ID, here's an official list (and I doubt all are creationist Christians):
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
Sorry to use DI's website, but just wanted to show you that there is an actual growing list and there are many more scientists being added as we speak. Even from the Muslim world. Here are a couple of Muslim scientists who believe in Intelligent Design:

Dr. Iqbal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzaffar_Iqbal - unfortunately, you may see his name on the dissenters list on DI, a site you don't like. But you wanted ID from the Islamic world, so here's one. More will be added soon by the way.
Dr. Torla Hassan http://research.iiu.edu.my/cluster/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=27 and I'm sure most of the professors at that Islamic school are ID supporters/creationists. As a default, Muslims are creationists.

Intelligent design and creationism are one in the same. The same people are involved in the same organizations.

Now you're simply being obstinate. It seems you're not very careful with what you read. In your stubborness and haste to defend evolution, you get a little sloppy. Once again, you make it obvious you don't see the differences between ID and Creationism. Please read more about these differences. To start you off, I'll give you a website, not related to DI or AllaboutGod, just to be fair to you:

The definitions are to the middle of the page to the right under the title Who's What? http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/evolution.htm

Let me make this as simple as possible: just because some websites have links to DI and use each other's information, does not make them the same entity. And also, it seems you haven't read into the biography of at least one of those two ID scientists. Dr. Sternberg is an evolutionist who believes there was an intelligent first cause, and that's it. I didn't check to see if he is a Christian or even a creationist, you can help me with that if you want. But I know he is open to the idea that Nous began all things. As far as I can tell, that's not all too Christian, because there's more to God than just the Great Mind. Dr. Sternberg is a fellow with ISCID and a signatory for DI's dissent from random-chance evolution but is not affiliated with creationists and still considers himself an old Earth biological evolutionist. From your statements, you have programmed yourself to believe ID is a cover for creationism or at least that it's a variant called neo-creationism. It may have been started by a Christian, but it is definitely not Christian. Many people are confused about it because there are so many different ways to go about intelligent design. A Hindu can be an ID supporter as easily as a Christian. Or, agnostics like Darwin and Berlinski. And just because a PA court defined ID as a progeny of creationism, doesn't mean it's true. Just shows state courts aren't the most reliable places to define movements of scientific thought. If you can't make sense of it yet, please accept it for now. As we continue to dialogue, I hope it will click for you. Let's continue with more important points.

Constantly varying speciation is true below the order level, that's observable, a reason why most creationists will say microevolution is science-based theory, since Darwin was mostly talking about his observation of change in species. I can't agree on what he couldn't observe or find in the fossil record of a major phylum shift, which was more of a guess on his part. But then again, the term "species" (and sometimes genus and family) isn't even agreed on among evolutionists. I hate using wikipedia, but this sums it up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

And here's another from the American Scientist:
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2005/7/attacks-on-taxonomy

Please make sure to carefully read the links I send because you seem to be missing out on certain details which doesn't help your argument. I'm even willing to place the excerpt in this message if that will help. I just wanted you to read it in context.

It exactly coincides with what I was saying about punctuated evolution, and how it is perfectly compatible with Darwin's thought, and with current evolutionary thought.

Well, yeah, no kidding it's not going to be drastically different from evolution because punc eq is still evolution! I was pointing out the differences of emphasis from Darwin to today, which you didn't catch. Remember, the link I gave you about punc eq was only a short summary, not the complete explanation. Punc Eq is a change or improvement from Darwin's assertion, "of slow and gradual modification, through variation and natural selection. New species have appeared very slowly, one after another, both on the land and in the waters." It's the assertion "slow gradual change" vs. "rapid burst" that you missed. You may have missed this part: "In many cases, scientists have been unable to find most of these intermediate forms. Darwin himself was shaken by their absence. His conclusion was that the fossil record has lacked these transitional stages, because it was so incomplete (aka imperfect, Darwin's term). That is certainly true in many cases, because the chances of each of those critical changing forms having been preserved as fossils are small (this sentence is an assumption and a cop out that Darwin made, although he was hoping for more evidence). But in 1972, evolutionary scientists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge proposed another explanation (emphasis mine), which they called "punctuated equilibrium." That is, species are generally stable, changing little for millions of years. This leisurely pace is "punctuated" by a rapid burst of change that results in a new species and that leaves few fossils behind."

And 150 years later, there is still a lack of a fossil record. Unlike most evolutionists, Gould at least questions the theory when it's challenged by the evidence, which is why he and Eldredge presented punc eq. One of the many disadvantages to their theory is that higher percentages of deleterious mutations occur within a smaller population. (For reference please see M. E. Soulé, et al, "No Need to Isolate Genetics," Science, Vol. 282 (1998), p. 1658, who points out the grad/punc difference by saying "No real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Some of Soule's ideas runs counter to other evolutionists, though, and that's a whole other issue I'm not about to get into.)

More from other scientists: Todd's article "Evolution of the Lung and the Origin of Bony Fishes: A Casual Relationship," American Zoologist, vol. 26, no. 4, 1980, p. 757

"All three subdivisions of bony fishes first appear in the fossil record at approximately the same time. They are already widely divergent morphologically, and are heavily armored. How did they originate? What allowed them to diverge so widely? How did they all come to have heavy armor? And why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms?"

From Wesson's Beyond Natural Selection (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991) p. 45.

"The gaps in the fossil record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt."

I'm sorry to disappoint you on the Darwin quote, it was from a chapter in OotS. I must have missed Pete's email on that. I'll give you another one if you'd like:

"If then, there be some degree of truth in these remarks, we have no right to expect to find in our geological formations, an infinite number of those fine transitional forms, which on my theory assuredly have connected all the past and present species of the same group into one long and branching chain of life. We ought only to look for a few links, some more closely, some more distantly related to each other; and these links, let them be ever so close, if found in different stages of the same formation, would, by most palaeontologists, be ranked as distinct species. But I do not pretend that I should ever have suspected how poor a record of the mutations of life, the best preserved geological section presented, had not the difficulty of our not discovering innumerable transitional links between the species which appeared at the commencement and close of each formation, pressed so hardly on my theory." (emphases mine)

Your comment about his statement being a rhetorical question is not accurate. In OotS, you will see that Darwin was being open about the possibility of a lack of evidence to alter his theory, what a good scientist should do. Of course, Darwin tried his best to reason away this lack in the two or so chapters after, and does something very unscientific: because the evidence doesn't clearly support his theory, he says the evidence must not be correct or is imperfect. He makes the mistake that evolutionists today tend to do - they place theory above observation (or wait indefinitely for the right evidence to come along, which may not. "But evolution must be true" and the circular reasoning goes round and round). As G. Simpson said, "It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really about anything...or at the very least, they are not science." And that's one of many reasons why I don't believe in evolution - it is not science but a worldview.

Here is an even better quote. I made sure not to look at DI, AllaboutGod and my sources for this one, but from the book itself: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." These days, Darwin, who was an agnostic, could be technically labeled as an ID theorist, and some of them are agnostics and atheists.

And I gave you five links last time, not just three. The two links on fossilization are not connected to those dreaded "two websites." You may look for others if you'd like, but you will most likely find similar results. Don't worry, I don't freak out at suggestions, I merely respond with good reasoning.

I have re-read every e-mail you have sent me, and there was no link to anything, so I don't know what you mean when you say I have not looked into 'the resource' you suggested. Unless you want me to read entire book you mentioned. Which I have not done.

I wasn't talking about a link, I was talking about the Journal of Paleontology, which I mentioned in a previous email, but didn't specifically point out which issue. But thank you for being honest about not reading Darwin's book, if that was what you were referring to.

In fact, I think I would be much closer to believing that you believe in 'intelligent design' if we agreed from on use the term Allah whenever we reference the 'intelligent designer'.

Harty har! Cute phrase. But if you're serious, then you assume too much. I'm a creationist. ID is a different entity. No, the term God will suffice. If you knew the differences, the nuances, and the connotations, you'll understand.

In summary:
1) ID is different from Creationism.
2) There are legitimate and credentialed scientists in all three camps with their own journals.
3) Darwinism is still without good transition forms between phyla.

Let's get ready to rumble! (Part 3)

The evolutionist:

The whole business about fossilization.Flora and fauna occur at radically different densities and of radically different types in different age rocks. Exactly as predicted in the evolutionary model. The part you left out about your evalution was the nature of the rock itself. Some types of rock are formed through creative destruction. It is broken up, remelted, puverized or otherwise completely reformed through geological processes. Other rock layers, formed through other processes, then presearved in its original state through shear luck, are presented to us intact. Sometimes we are lucky enough to have the right condition for fossilization to have occured millions of years ago when they were formed. These layers are indeed dense with life, while others, those that come to us through a destructive process, contain no traces. Just as would be predicted. I do not agree with the scenario you laid out before for fossilization, because it does not take into account this geological process.

Me:

Finally, I get the chance to do this again. Whoa, didn't realize you guys kept going, but here's my response to what Erich wrote last week. Hope you don't mind:

Geomorphism is good and fine, it's observable and can be tested (with the exception of age, which both camps differ). As I stated, though: How did the fossils get there? Not, how was it "preserved through the eons," but how did it get fossilized in the first place. There are so many fossils that were caused by permineralization and compression that "shear luck" can't really account for it. Besides, the "radically different" sentence about rocks is a given for both models (once again, with the exception of age). Geomorphism is a given. Please account for how the remains got there and instantiate your claims. And don't say that dinosaurs buried their dead!

And here's an excerpt from Raup's 'Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology' (and just in case you think this is from Creationist literature this is from Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History: Chicago IL, January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp.22-29, pp.24-25)

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information - what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic."

I'll include this train of thought in the next email.

Define discipline

About a week ago, I heard a complaint made by a student from another school about my martial arts school. He said that our school is not the place to learn discipline and that it's best to go to his school instead. I'm not one to jump at every complaint made about me, especially if it's not legitimate. I'll take it into account, but I don't let those things bother me. But just in case my students need an idea of how to respond to people who make those comments, this entry gives an answer. Apparently, whoever made the complaint wasn't practicing discipline with his words:

My school does not teach traditional martial arts so it will not have the same formalities. Bowing and lining up in rank order is a fine practice. It's a good visual aid to a form of discipline, but it is not the discipline itself. One major philosophy in our school is practicality, so you will not see these forms like you see in traditional schools. Instead, there is more of an emphasis on personal responsibility. The teacher motivates the students to take initiative for their martial arts training and have the students pursue their own personal goals while maintaining the attitude of mutual respect. Both the teacher and the student work together to reach those goals and concurrently learn how to work with others to reach their goals.

Through the martial arts, students learn to abide by a code of conduct based on respect for the teacher, fellow students, and the art form. This is done through consistent direct communication of what is expected of them, which is all good and fine. But from my experience and observation, when the sensei or coach tells students what to do, and they do it, it's only discipline for that particular activity. The student did not necessarily transfer that discipline to other areas of life. The hope of "do what you're told" is that the habit of doing that activity would transfer to other areas, but that isn't always the case. In fact, for the most part, students become dependent on someone to tell them what to do rather than take initiative to do what's needed for them personally.
(There are those who come to resent the more demanding authority, also.)

"Over-reliance on extrinsic motivation leads to learned helplessness and learned dependence. Learned helplessness is a state in which the individual does not believe that she is capable of influencing important outcomes in her life. The more students’ behavior is determined by others’ directions and external inducements, the more the students will lose their sense of self-determination and self-efficacy" (Ylvisikar, Hibbard, and Feeney, Online).

Only few actually learn to internalize those discipline concepts and transfer them to other areas of life. I guide students to what they need to do and from there, they choose to do it. Instead of just telling them what to do, I take the extra step of letting them know how it applies to other life activities and to persistently persuade them to be more intrinsically motivated. They will choose to do what is demanded of them.

A second point to our method of discipline is that our school does not adhere to Confucian-influenced hierarchy. We do teach discipline, just not in the traditional Asian martial arts sense of the word. We respect the instructor because he is willing to give his knowledge and time to train the student and he is the authority in matters of coaching in the martial arts and various parts of life. In Confucian philosophy, the basis for respecting the instructor has more to do with filial piety, or ancestor worship. People are intuitively aware of a spiritual reality and most if not all cultures are naturally inclined to be superstitious. This means that "spirit" to the Confucian is not just the ideals, essence of philosophy, and personality of a dead person, but "spirit" means the soul, the very life-force of the person that continues on after death. Instead of submitting to authority out of simply respecting them because you seek their knowledge and experience, in Confucian-influenced societies, submitting to authority has more to do with respecting those "spirits", thus keeping order in a collective or else incur the wrath of your ancestors and the government. I have endeavored not to include any hint of Eastern spirituality or even hierarchy structure based on Eastern spirituality in my martial arts philosophy.

The best answer, of course, was made by one of my students:
"You've never practiced with us, so how would you know?"

Let's get ready to rumble! (Part 2)

The evolutionist:

Intelligent Design is just a stupid cover term for Creationism. There is no scientific 'Intelligent Design' movement. Look into it, and it all leads back to the same two web sites run by non-sicentist Christians organizations pushing literal interpretation of the bible. And they are not "growing". The "many articles" again all lead back to the same place. Punctuated equilibrium is the idea that a jump in evolution can occur relatively rapidly. But relatively rapidly, in the time frame of Paleontology, could be 1 million years. In the context of the age of the earth, this a mere blink of the eye. This is well within the current theory of evolution and in no way negates or contradicts the theory.

Your whole dissertation of the fossilization of life forms has serious problems. The conditions that are required for fossilization and the numbers and densities of fossils found in rock strata are entirely consistant. Or wait! Maybe the THOUSANDS of scientists that looked at this issue have all missed the explaination you have given below. Yeah, that;s it! That's the ticket! You have a grasp of the requirements for fossilization that TENS OF THOUSANDS of scientists who spend their whole lives studying this issue have not figured out! I strongly suggest you write an article for a real sicence journal (i.e. one that is not published by the same two web sites run by the same non-scientist Cristian organization pushing literal interpretation of the bible). This kind of new insight into the truth is exactly what the science world is always looking for. Except for the Satanists in the scientific world, who will work undercover to squash your ideas to keep their minions in line.

Look, if what you describe about fossilization were true (and I have read some articles about fossilization, so I can say with confidence that they are not), you would have to create some sort of massive conspiracy to explain why this would be some big secret that no scientist accepts as right. That would, indeed, require supernatural intervention of the Satanic kind.

Me:

Ah, it seems you've been listening to the National Center for Science Education who are on the defensive these days.

No, ID isn't a cover term. I had hoped you wouldn't say that because it would tell me you aren't knowledgeable of the intricacies involved in this hotly debated issue. If you've ever read anything from them, you'll see that not all are creationists. They have a variety of views and not all even acknowledge the God of the Bible. So unfortunately your statement disappointed me there. And yes, there are scientists in the intelligent design movement, but are just branded by the media as ignorant and vilified by the evolutionary dogmatists, who have a loud voice but no real evidential support. I guess you like to listen to good marketing. (My favorite evolutionary sales pitches are found on the Discovery channel.) It seems you really haven't taken the time to look into the resource I suggested. Don't worry, they're not the "two websites" that you keep harping on. What are those websites anyway? Yes, I use "two websites," but I also use several other websites and sources. Once again you have no backing to your claim that those "two websites" only employ "non-scientists." Your argument is weak. Please take the time to buttress your statements like I do mine.

Your whole dissertation of the fossilization of life forms has serious problems. The conditions that are required for fossilization and the numbers and densities of fossils found in rock strata are entirely consistant.

Please explain because you begin with an assertion but fail to give good follow-up reasoning. Your statement is incomplete. I know we're only having email discussions, but you can still provide examples like I did. My reasoning is based on scientific logic and observable phenomena. Yours? Sounds like parroted statements made by the more militant evolutionary dogmatists who, like you, say that evolution is true without good enough support to their statements. I'm also disappointed because you didn't honor me by responding with an example using scientific methodology, no matter how small, or even a good counterargument without resorting to unnecessary diatribe. And if you want credibility, here are a couple of Intelligent Design scientists, not to be confused with "non-scientist Christians" Jonathan Wells http://www.iconsofevolution.com/author/ and Richard Sternberg http://www.richardsternberg.org/biography.php

Punctuated equilibrium is the idea that a jump in evolution can occur relatively rapidly. But relatively rapidly, in the time frame of Paleontology, could be 1 million years.

This is another unsubstantiated statement. And yes I'm aware that evolutionists think it could be up to 1 million years, but not too much longer. They don't have the fossil record for it, which is why some even think it's much faster, even down to the tens of thousands of years. I don't usually like using websites like these as a resource, but make sure you look into this quick summary of punctuated equilibrium.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/5/l_035_01.html
Or if you've read anything by Gould you'll recognize this phrase when talking about punctuated equilibrium and the "imperfect fossil record" statement that Darwin had to fall back on in the 19th century: the imperfect record statement "still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly." I know he said that in the 1970s but it's still relevant today. Even though he was coming from an evolutionary standpoint and, in context, wanted to explain punctuated equilibrium, the fact remains, even by evolutionist standards: there are no good transition forms.

This is well within the current theory of evolution and in no way negates or contradicts the theory.

Darwin proposed gradualism and uniformitarianism, well-informed evolutionists these days accept otherwise (although that side is varied and a few try to synthesize). Darwin himself wrote in The Origin of the Species: "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." For those who compare the fossil record and Darwin's theory, the record wins and Darwin's theory needs changing. It has been changed and revised since the 19th century by the way.

Look, if what you describe about fossilization were true (and I have read some articles about fossilization, so I can say with confidence that they are not), you would have to create some sort of massive conspiracy to explain why this would be some big secret that no scientist accepts as right.

Concerning my fossilization example, here are two sources to counter your not-too-well-cited and albeit, overgeneralized and weak statements: (No, they're not from those "two websites" and bold words are mine.)

From the New World Encyclopedia: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Fossil
"Permineralization fossilization - for permineralization to occur, the organism must become covered by sediment soon after death or soon after the initial decaying process...Most dinosaur fossils that are found are permineralized."

From UCMP at Berkeley: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/paleo/fossils/
"There are many conditions that contribute to the formation of fossils. The most common include the possession of hard parts, such as a skeleton or shell, and a rapid burial after death. Besides being tough and hard, the organism must come to rest in a place where it can be buried before it decays or disintegrates. If the organism is not buried deeply and quickly, aerobic bacteria will reduce it to rubble."

I used to go to NYC's Museum of Natural History quite often and they display lots of fossils in a chaotic jumble. You will either accept that there was a massive burial of many different flora and fauna over "several geologic eras" or you will accept that there was only a small and limited amount of fossilized remains. The evidence of course points to the former. And no, not too many evolutionists will accept the simple fact that fossils with complex structures are found in all strata.

Oh, and I have both The Origin of the Species and The Descent of Man in my personal library. I've read both (absolutely dull). Have you? From what I've read of your comments so far, it seems you have not. And it's disappointing that you haven't kept up with the most recent research, in the evolution camp, in the intelligent design camp, and in the creation camp.

And please, try not to get upset. I have nothing against you and I hope you have nothing against me. I'm having fun with this and I'm sure you are, too. I mean, it's highly entertaining to hear you talk of Satan and conspiracy theories, but it doesn't have any bearing on our discussion right now. We'll talk about spiritual issues, too, no doubt about that. But if you think this discussion is a joke and you'd rather not share in serious scientific inquiry, then I would have to bow out, since I can't waste my time. I need you to be a professional, science-minded adult while we discuss.

Let's get ready to rumble!

This is a continuation of an email debate in the entry "Into the fray." I was in the middle of their conversation when I started to contribute my thoughts and arguments. I'll try my best to include previous emails, but I'm starting at the most recent conversation where the evolutionist was responding to Pete:

I addressed this in the other e-mail. Darwin's theory AS HE PROPOSED IT is valid. It is the working theory of all biology, as he proposed it. Nowhere will you find a repudiation of Darwin's original theory as he proposed it other than amoung the Creationists. Who don't believe it the original or what they imagine to be its modern version. Find me a real article saying that the theory has changed in any significant way from what Darwin said, and I will gladly chuck my 'faith' in what I have just said into the deep blue sea.

There is this one difference. If I find you reams of evidence repudiating the Creationist/Young Earth view, you would not give it up. The entire Scientific community stands against this idea, and you reject it. Tell me again who is clinging with a death grip to their irrational beliefs?

Me:

Hello all!

I guess I have a little time to respond to the most recent exchange. Once again, these are notes I made specifically to Erich's comments:

I addressed this in the other e-mail. Darwin's theory AS HE PROPOSED IT is valid. It is the working theory of all biology, as he proposed it. Nowhere will you find a repudiation of Darwin's original theory as he proposed it other than amoung the Creationists. Who don't believe it the original or what they imagine to be its modern version. Find me a real article saying that the theory has changed in any significant way from what Darwin said, and I will gladly chuck my 'faith' in what I have just said into the deep blue sea.

There is this one difference. If I find you reams of evidence repudiating the Creationist/Young Earth view, you would not give it up. The entire Scientific community stands against this idea, and you reject it. Tell me again who is clinging with a death grip to their irrational beliefs?

Yes, Darwin's theory is still being used today by evolutionist scientists. It is a working theory of those biologists who believe in it and would like to prove it (some researchers) or who are in the taxonomy related areas, not of the entire field of biology. It's in paleontology where evolution is used. For the most part, biologists in the field and in different industries don't deal with how something originated, just how something works at present. Darwin's original theory is now being repudiated among non-creationist scientists. You may have heard of the Intelligent Design movement - they are a growing number of scientists looking deeply into the mechanism of evolution and realizing the dearth in the theory's scientific plausibility. There are many articles showing that the theory has evolved to varying branches. Just look up articles in the Journal of Paleontology; I read those in place of sleeping pills. The most noteworthy is punctuated equilibrium, which is a departure from Darwin's original idea of phyletic gradualism, or slow, gradual change. The reason why this developed is because of a severe lack of transitionary forms in the fossil record. In fact, this development in evolutionary thought of rapid change in animal morphology is merely a step closer to help disprove evolution altogether. And I know there are people who have written reams of articles repudiating the creationist view, starting with Huxley. They simply don't want to accept it mainly because of pride but also of the ramifications if creationism true. They will deny the evidence even if it leads to the creationist or, at least, intelligence model.

Evolution I take on faith as much as I take just about any scientific theory. So if you want to say I have 'faith' in gravity, than yes I have 'faith' in evolution. As to it being "proven", the case is never closed on any scientific theory. That is the whole point of science. So, no, the case is not "proven" for evolution....or for gravity. And yes, information is forever changing and shifting, and damn glad of it. And yes, evolution is a theory to explain the workings of God. But God didn't write the Origin of the Species. So you can call evolution the creation of man, much as gravity is. Gravity existed before Newton identified its workings, mathmatetical underpinnings, and named it, but we have no proof that it existed before Newton, we just assume it.

I have faith that gravity exists because it's verifiable through repeated experimentation, as I mentioned in a previous email. The theory is law. I have faith that electromagnetism exists because it's verifiable through repeated experimentation. The theories proposed, mostly by Faraday, is law. I cannot physically see gravity nor electromagnetic forces, but they exist. But I don't have faith in evolution because it is not verifiable. Much like trying to prove the authenticity of historical papers, you have to use circumstantial evidence and deduction. Dating methods can give you an idea of when it was written, but you can only bring it down to a range and it can be unreliable. At least with historical documents, sometimes the writer mentions something that gives a good hint for the date. With evolution, there's more guesswork than science so the evidence does not prove the theory. What both creationists and evolutionists have to do is make an inference on what happened in the past using the scientific method, which includes observation and experimentation of present day processes to achieve consistent results. I know that's a very basic foundation and was mentioned in previous emails, but it bears repeating.

And evolutionary thought goes back to antiquity in ancient Greece, when a philospher proposed the idea that man came from animals. If anything, he could have been easily influenced by some Asian origins myths of animals becoming humans over a period of time, which are just as ubiquitous as origins myths with a creation theme. And if you're familiar with world myths, they are quite different from the Creation account of the Bible.

Your standard of proof is unreasonable. Evolutionary Theory predicts a certain set of evidence should exist. Evolutionary Theory predicts that certain processes should be in evidence today. Evolutionary Theory predicts that a certain set of parameters must exist and have existed in the past. All three of these conditions are met. There is abundant evidence about the abundance, variety, and transitory features organisims that existed in the past, there is abundant evidence of the workings of the processes in todays world, there is abundant evidence that the set of circumstances that are required exist and existed. I don't understand. WHAT KIND OF "PROOF" ARE YOU DEMANDING?

This is certainly far, far more rigourous than what "proof" you are demanding for the existance of the truth of a literal interpretation of the bible. In fact, it is clear that the events of the bible can only be explained by 'supernatural intervention'. If that is your idea of "proof", than you are right. Evolution cannot produce proof of 'supernatural intervention'. so it does not meet your standard or your concept of just what the Scientific Method is.

So far, you've not given at least one piece of evidence to support the statements in your first paragraph. You'll need to substantiate it with examples. From my understanding of your dialogue with Pete, I think he means specifics and good evidence.

Let's try this example using your statements and a compressed version of the scientific method. For example, from the creationist model: processes evident today - flora and fauna buried quickly are more likely to be fossilized than those left to decompose in the open, flora and fauna have complex structures from tiny bacteria to large animals; prediction - there are billions of fossilized flora and fauna through compaction in a chaotic mess because of a major catastrophe, flora and fauna with complex structures are in all levels of geological strata.

From the evolution model: processes evident today - after a period of time, death and decay of flora and fauna with some burial amounts to a limited number of fossilized remains, flora and fauna are in its completed or nearly completed form (with the assumption that there were previous less complex versions); prediction - a limited number of fossilized flora and fauna captured in pits or buried accidentally, flora and fauna gradually or punctually increasing in complexity with each successive geological strata as per Lyell and Darwin.

Find - billions of fossilized flora and fauna compacted in a chaotic mess, flora and fauna with complex structures in all levels of geological strata.

Conclusion: the evidence leads to a creation/intelligence model. Yes, this is a simplified version, but this kind of comparison reasoning with the available evidence is growing among open-minded scientists and they are causing quite a maelstrom in the scientific community; it's evolutionary dogmatists versus open-minded evidentialists, scientist vs. scientist - a glorious battle!

Into the fray

Haven't been in a debate in a long time! My friend Jay games with a few people who are evolutionists. For the past month, his gaming friend Pete, a fellow creationist, has been doing well keeping up a good dialogue with the evolutionists. After following their discussions for a couple of weeks, I asked both Jay and Pete if I could contribute. When they said it was ok, I jumped in! It's exciting! It's the same feeling I get when I spar. I just love a good fight! Haven't sparred in a few months, so might as well go at it on an intellectual level. Of course, like sparring, this debate has a purpose - to bring my opponent to the truth. (Regular font is my response, italics is the evolutionist.)

Hello gentlemen!

I've enjoyed your lively discussion so far and would like to contribute as well. Here are some notes I took while catching up on the exchange. And to Erich or anyone else who doesn't hold to the Christian worldview, please understand that I like to be courteous in debate and discussion, and if anything I write sounds rude, I seriously don't intend it to be. These notes are all responses to Megahurtz's comments, all in italics. I have nothing against you, although you did bring some interesting opposing thoughts to the table. I hope I get the chance to dialogue more with all of you:

I read these articles, and also looked up the sources. It's not very convincing. They all appear to come from the Creation Science Institute. Further, the reseach papers referenced in the articles are either taken out of context, impossible to verify, or lead back to the Creation Science Institute. The authors, and for that matter the members of the board of the Creation Science Institute also do not appear to be scientists. Some of them are PhD's, but PhD's in what? The "degree's" of these people all are impossible to trace. Having an advanced degree is all well and good, but one can have a PhD in Underwater Basket Weaving, and I don't know that qualifies you to comment on the dating of fossils. The main thrust of all the articles was debunking Carbon 14 dating. Well, duh. I know about the problems with Carbon 14 dating from just my general reading in science articles. There is also a passage in there that seems to claim that we should discount all the other scientific methods because God put some kind of 'burst of radiation' into the rock at some point or another. Come on, guys, this is akin to believing in Magic. If is BS to change the rules of the physical world just because the facts are inconvenient. And what about ice core samples from the poles, in which a person can COUNT the number of years in snow layers that go back hundreds of thousands of years. Did God just change the rules of snow fall, too? This is just skimming the surface of the problems in the articles you sent here.

I don't know of the Creation Science Institute, never heard of it. I know that the Institute for Creation Research have scientists with PhDs in the hard sciences. If I remember correctly, you can't be a teacher or a writer in their organization without at least a Masters in some hard science. And, no, I'm not one to rely on articles if I can't find their sources. Ice core samples aren't reliable in dating the Earth's age. I've seen a Discovery channel show oversimplifying this "evidence" for Evolution. Snow falls more than once a year, water freezes over more than once a year, and compaction occurs with each passing year, and it's also dependent on which part of the Earth as well. (I'm aware you said Antartica, but some of those factors are still applicable.) Also, WW2 planes have been found under 200 ft of ice in Greenland that, through the evolutionary model and layer counting, should be several thousand years old.

Doesn't your chain of reasoning lead us right back to what Viper said? "The bible says that all who seek God will find Him". Therefore, anyone who hasn't found Him, isn't seeking Him. Therefore, they are Non-God-Seekers. So we can bomb the s*** out of them, or burn them at the stake, whichever is more convenient. If you doubt that this is how this chain of reasoning goes, just read todays news, or look at your history books. There are no shortage of Demgogues who follow this line to the conclusion above, I have no wish to tacidly support them.

Yes, they are non-God-seekers. But you've jumped to a nonsensical conclusion, or simply a violent exclusivist conclusion, which is not of the Bible and not of God. This is why it's important to find the Truth in answering the question: which one is the true God? Hope we already established that God exists, of course. After thinking about it more and working through it, I hope you find that the God of the Bible is the one true God. And after searching the Scriptures you'll find that God is love and the only thing we can do with those who don't want to believe is to shake the dust off our feet and go to the next town, or come back and show God's love through service. God will deal with those who do not believe, I simply show and tell of Jesus.

I'm just following the line of reasoning you laid out. To me, it doesn't matter how that line of reasoning was arrived at, whether through literal reading or metaphorical reading. I'm sorry if I have a tough time believing that the people who have carried out evil in the name of God were all in the metaphorical camp. I strongly suspect they would all think they are taking the bible about as literally as it can be. I suspect that the fanatics of the Inquision would gladly kill me for my views as 'not pure enough'. I don't think they would say, "Huh, I guess you are right, the earth is billions of years old, despite the whole 6 day thing in Genesis. Thanks for pointing that out, Accused Heretic ".

When it comes to "religious fanaticism" it's not so much an issue of literal/metaphorical, but political. The political leaders of the Holy Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church used their authority and religious traditions and superstitions over the course of 1,000 years as a means to subjugate people. If some of those leaders of the past actually read their Bibles, they would find that the true kingdom of God is a spiritual one, not of this world. There is a very complex and rich history of church/state relationship and to lump it all as "religion/religious institutions = evil" betrays a lack of understanding, or at least overgeneralization through lack of information. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, it's not the Bible, but sinful people who don't read the Bible and who don't understand the message of Jesus Christ. Justification for the Inquisition is not found in the Bible. As the Bible points out, ex-communication is the harshest way we should deal with heretics.

And if you are a religious fanatic, the next step is - Its perfectly fine to help 'not good' people see the error of their ways, even if that involves a Grand Inquisitor. See? This road leads to categorizing people, which leads to (as in all of history) persecuting people. Remind me to never, ever vote for an Evangelical Christian. And I don't want to be part of a church that advocates this line of reasoning. I don't believe you are a religious fanatic, I just believe your line of reasoning leads to rationalization of religious fanaticism.

There is a difference between the Bible's message and political authority using religion to control people. I suggest you read Chuck Colson's God and Government, one of the best books on church and state relationship through history. Also, there is a tremendous difference between the Bible and the Koran. I've read many parts of the Koran and the overall message is drastically different from what the Bible teaches. One section I like pointing out is Surah 8:12, where Muhammed suggests that the best way to deal with an infidel is to lop off his head. Now that is religious fanaticism taken to a deadly extreme. In fact, if you read more of the Koran, you begin to get the message that it's not extreme or fanatic to kill the infidel - it's expected! How's that for evil! The Bible of course reads otherwise - love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. Nowhere in the Bible will you ever see the phrase "Kill infidels wherever you find them, and drive them out wherever they drove you out" in response to persecution. That's Surah 2:191 by the way. So really, the question is: where is the person's foundation? Is it based on the sacrificial love of the one true God? Or is it based on murderous hate from a false god (not just Allah, but also self-centeredness, pride, and power - the triune godhead many people bow to)? That's the issue concerning "fanaticism," what is the root?

As to the Pitdown man thing. Are you saying there have been no frauds in math, chemistry, engineering or computer science? Oh please. Because some people present a fraud in a certain field does not invalidate the whole field. Check your Logic on that one.

When the majority of the "evidence" for gradual change in human evolution are frauds, yes, it invalidates Macroevolution. And since there has never been good evidence for transitional forms between species, then yes, it invalidates the theory. Not the field of biology, just the theory of Evolution. Usually the frauds in the sciences are among the theorists, but 2+2 will always equal 4, the water molecule will always have two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen, gear ratio is predictable, and I'm on a usable computer.

This is not sarcasim. These people all had to be trained in the theories of Darwin, or at the very least have to believe that the earth is billions of years old to do their job. Just try to find a Geologist who thinks the world is 10,000 years old. As to Professors, I mean those who are teaching either Life Sciences, Earth Sciences, Astronomy, Astro-Physics......The list goes on. You can certainly do the Geologist job believing in young earth, it's just that it would be your dirty little secret that you wouldn't dare tell anyone. Why? Because the next question from their fellow Geologists would be "Why do you believe that". Now you would be trying to explain the 'flaws' of dating of rock to people who really know what they are talking about. And that's when the laughter would start. Again, if the article you sent could convince anyone who knows what the hell they are talking about, it would. Scientists, by nature, are sceptical, questioning, open-minded people who believe in facts, believe in truth and are perfectly willing to rock the boat to make a name for themselves. Science, perhaps more than any other human pursuit, is built on the supplanting of the old and imperfect with something that fits the facts better. This is why I take the articles you sent with a huge boulder of salt. And frankly, even I saw problems with those articles, I just didn't see any point in bringing that up.I am not trying to question anyone's intelligence. And that seems to be the problem I have encounted before when discussing this with young earth believers. People get all huffy, instead of keeping it on a debate plane.

I've met geologists who believe in Creation. One was my youth leader at church when I was 14, around the time I discovered that Creation is true and Evolution is false. He worked with other geologists who believed in one or the other and they were professional enough to respect each other's views, although the majority were Evolutionists. I met more Creationist geologists in college. Interestingly, I believed in Evolution by faith when I was 8, and then I was shown that Evolution had an incredible lack of evidence, not to mention that it's paltry science, at 14. There are thousands of scientists who believe in Creation and do their jobs well. They are growing especially because scientists these days question Evolution and take a good look into its mechanism and have correctly concluded that it is not science nor is it a good base to their scientific work. They just don't get media coverage. In fact, there were a few hundred Creation scientists at a convention in Pittsburgh this past week presenting even more evidence for a young Earth. I suggest you watch the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and follow the research of a few Intelligent Design scientists interviewed in that film. Not all are Christians or Creationists, by the way. They just go to where the evidence leads, even if it's a 180 from Evolution.

I believe there is a problem with some understandings here.Gravity is a theory. There is no 'proof' that it exists. All there is is a prediction of what should happen in a given experiment that corresponds with what occurs in the world. If I set up an experiment where I drop a ball, and predict that it will fall, and it does - all this does not 'prove' gravity. It only reinforces that my theory is good at predicting events.Now evolution predicts certain outcomes, and that certain evidence should exist. And, indeed, both of these requirements are fulfilled. As you pointed out, 'micro' evolution is easily demostrated. All that is required for 'macro' evolution is a few million years. Since it is impractical for us to set up an experiment that lasts a few million years, we look for evidence that nature has already done this for us. And we have found vast, vast examples of all types, including plenty of transitional species, fulfilling the prediction of what kind of evidence we should find.This, in a nutshell, is why Evolution is on the same footing as Gravity in the scientific world. If someone has a better theory (other than "magic"), than let them have at it. Until that time, all serious scientists will continue to work with the most workable tool around for interpreting the physical evidence that exists and the workings of the biology we see around us......Evolution.

First, gravity is a phenomenon. There is a theory of gravity and through simple repeatable experiments you can demonstrate its existence. By doing so, theory becomes law. Not so with Evolution. And Evolution needs more than just "a million years." It needs good evidence like transitional forms. And there are no transitional forms. The ones Evolutionists use are questionable at best. They are not definitive evidence. Evolution is as highly regarded as it is because of propaganda and marketing, and through a series of events, caused it to be accepted by the elite scientists of the past century (not the majority mind you, but those with power and/or a big mouth). The majority of the great scientists of the past were Creationists like Kepler, Mendel, Carver, and Pasteur. Since they believed the world was created, they concluded that things would work in reasonable and fairly predictable ways. And scientists these days looking into the workings of biology and biochemistry are finding a growing amount of evidence disproving Evolution. A good book for this is Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe. That's it for now.

Comment Wars

I was looking through Youtube videos and I lingered at one of an apologist defending the faith. In the comments area, there were a number of people who kept mocking the teacher on the video and also mocked Jesus. There were only a few who tried to defend the teacher and rose up to challenge the mockers. For the most part, the Christians responded with reasoning that the unbelievers definitely did not understand. The more intellectually inclined unbelievers waved them off as ignorant, religious indoctrinated sheep.

Only one or two Christians responded with good step by step reasoning to help the unbelievers, or outsiders, understand. But the mockery continued. I started to make comments of my own. After submitting a few, I soon realized that it's a waste of time debating with mockers and outsiders on Youtube. The verse, "there will be mockers in the last days who will walk after their own lust" rang loudly in my head. I simply stopped making any more comments. It's better to speak with an outsider on a more personal level, anyway.

PMABM Newsletter #8

Next up in our study of different styles - Tai Chi Chuan. In Chinese, Tai Chi Chuan means "supreme ultimate fist." The progenitors of the style were Taoists who used the idea of opposing forces working in harmony as the philosophical basis for their art. As Taoists, they incorporated the idea of chi, an indefinable energy flow of the universe. The reason they believe it was the supreme is because the movements were the manifestation of yin and yang and the practice was a representation of the universe's workings.

I don't subscribe to the idea of chi and, no, you're not at one with the universe when you practice tai chi chuan. But there is good use of physics and strategy in this approach to martial arts. In our practice of contact flow, I emphasize yielding and rooting. Those ideas come directly from tai chi chuan. In being sensitive to incoming energy in the form of a strike, you give way, yield, and use that energy to counterattack. In the book, Tao te Ching, one phrase sums this up: "The soft and pliable will defeat the hard and strong." Only by consistent practice can you truly come to understand how to be more sensitive, and know when to yield and when to strike.

Watch for what I'm talking about in these vids:

This guy does a different style of tai chi chuan, but the underlying theory is the same. Also, interesting contrast between the solo form and the partner sets:


A few more applications to traditional tai chi chuan moves:


I like the two on one set in this:

The "D" Word

"Like in The Karate Kid, where Miyagi forces Ralph Macchio to wash his cars and paint his fence and sand his deck. Miyagi gets everything fixed-up, ship-shape, and sparkling like a new penny. Ralph Macchio learns some new moves the only way you ever truly learn anything on this earth: through endless, moronic repetition."
- from the article "Mom's Home" by David Eddie of Mack Daddy AOL Canada Life and Style, July 1, 2008

"More often than not, excuses are simply lies that we tell to ourselves to abate the sharp sting of acknowledging our own shortcomings." - Damian Ross

I've been teaching the youth group kids about spiritual discipline. Discipline in general, with a focus on the spiritual aspect. The reason why the kids don't make it a priority to live a holy life is because they simply haven't disciplined themselves to doing so. Understandable, they're kids, it's rare to find a truly spiritually disciplined teen. Hey, even adults have a tough time trying to discipline themselves. But we're all working on it. And that's why it's always best to start when you're young, when bad habits aren't totally ingrained yet. Much harder for an adult to change habits. And that's where I started off, with bad habits, moral and amoral. Only by God's grace and His strength can bad habits be changed. Yes, there's will-power, but I'd rather depend on God's power - works much better than just weak old me doing the work. And besides, it'll count for eternity if I give it up to God.

To the left of the whiteboard, I wrote "bad habits" and in the middle I wrote "good habits." Between those two phrases, I drew an arrow pointing to the right and underneath I wrote "DISCIPLINE." It takes discipline and a whole lot of work to go from one to the other, and I emphasized God's strength referencing Philippians. Bad habits are both the immoral and amoral but unproductive. Good habits can be both moral and amoral but productive. The discipline will take them out of their comfort zone, which is the only way to get better. From there, to the right of the whiteboard, I wrote "better habits," which are more aligned with spiritual habits. I then extended the arrow of discipline and told them to keep growing and the way to do so is to read God's word, be mindful of their thoughts and actions, and to be around fellow believers as often as possible.