Ray Comfort vs Dawkins.

[John]

We are done here

 

[animal]

I'm sorry but religious scientists obviously on a mission are not real scientists. I can't remember who it was but a biologist for the Discovery institute was quoted saying THE REASON he studied biology was so he could bring down evolution. Real scientists aren't on missions and they certainly don't start with conclusions and then search for the evidence. The first scientist to find a better explanation than natural selection would be grabbing boat loads of grant money for further research.

 

[John]

If you wish to continue there is a sister thread to this one in the science forum.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=36354

 

[animal]

I can't post there :gah

 

[John]

Pm on of the Admins, they will grant you permission.

Rick is online right now you should be able to catch him.

 

[lovely]

He is no different than any other real scientist. He studies the natural world. Many "faithful" scientists are no different than him when they are in the lab. Are you familiar with Kenneth Miller?

His "message of exclusion" is necessary for real science to work. I'm sorry.

And the only reason we can rely on real science is BECAUSE it is debated/argued over every single day.

animal,

Thanks for your reply. I stand by what I said based on the evidence. Mr Dawkins uses science to spread his message of exclusion pure and simple. He's good at it, has an audience who loves what he's selling, and he's getting rich from it. If anyone is pushing an agenda, it's him. He has made it clear that any belief in God at all...even if one agrees with evolution...disqualifies them for the study of science. Mr. Miller is a Catholic, and so under Mr. Dawkins plan, he is out, and he is insane if he agrees to ban himself.

Why would we deliberately choose to muzzle people and ideas or discourage them from questioning the powers that be for fear of being ridiculed or fired? Highly intelligent people of faith, who study things based on the idea of design, would be passed over because of their religion...unthinkable and illogical. I think the answer is that it furthers an atheistic agenda to remove God from people and culture and promotes government control in all areas.

I am sorry to hear that you agree with Mr. Dawkin's 'message of exclusion' and it's very revealing. It also makes my point...he's selling hatred under the header of 'only atheists practice 'real' science' and you are buying for whatever reason....your own words reveal this. I tell you the truth about it, the message is hateful and arrogant and it will lead to evil if it goes any further. History does repeat itself.

The truth is, inventors, scientists, educators, etc. who believe in design are practicing 'real' science, and they have furthered it, not harmed it. Many men of faith are doctors, nurses, scientists, inventors, professors etc., and they did not begin their careers to further any agenda. I would say, though, that many may have gone into that field to practice the love of Christ by healing and serving mankind. My father has been a biomedical engineer for over 35 years. He was an atheist when he began, but now he is a believer. I guess he would loose his job under Mr. Dawkins policies. He is extremely good at what he does, and understands that design is the foundation of the field of medicine. Of course, he's no longer practicing 'real' science now that his intelligence has oozed out his ears since coming to faith. <sigh>

A dangerous idea like this could lead to many idiotic and evil things, and I can't understand why anyone would agree that this should be the standard, especially when we take an honest look at history and the men of faith who have contributed so much to medicine and technology. No, it's not for the sake of science that this has come up. I don't know why people aren't rejecting this idea as bigoted and hateful, even if they are dogmatic atheistic evolutionists.

Like John, I don't think that I have much more to add to this topic, and so I leave off for now.

The Lord bless you

 

[animal]

He has made it clear that any belief in God at all...even if one agrees with evolution...disqualifies them for the study of science. Mr. Miller is a Catholic, and so under Mr. Dawkins plan, he is out, and he is insane if he agrees to ban himself.

I have listened to every lecture and every interview with the man that is possible for me to get my hands on. And don't think I have some obsession with Dawkins because the same goes for many other scientists, believers or not. I'm quite confident this isn't the same for you.

I chopped this part out of the quote because I'm heading to work and don't have time to respond to the rest. Anyway you could not be more wrong! He's quite fond of Miller and has even said how much he enjoys his books and if he is ever confronted by a Christian who's belief has turned them off science he suggests to them that they get their hands on Finding Darwin's God.

 

[Veritas]

Great post You obviously have the mind of a scientist. But to call something we accept that we do not understand and may never understand "God" is completely unecessary. Even things we do not understand are still apart of or are some extension of the natural world. Assuming they are bound by natural laws we currently understand we can assume one day we will be able to comprehend them. But who knows? We'll see. If they are not bound by the natural laws we currently understand then they are still bound by some law and are still apart of or an extension of the natural world. But in any case we cannot assume this thing can read our minds and answer our prayers. I'm not even going to get into it's ability to guide the hands of a few men and compose a few books.

Yeah.. a mind of a scientist or a nerd!
I understand your point about calling something we accept that we do not understand and may never understand "God". I've merged them in my mind and really think that by exploring our natural world we are exploring the mind of God... but, that's just me. I think we will understand all these things someday (but maybe not in this state we are now). My assumption that there is this "thing" that can read our minds and answer prayers is purely based on my faith (and yes, those books are a whole new realm to discuss). But, I do have to admit I have rather obsessive fascination with that man called Jesus that drives my beliefs.

 

[lovely]

animal,

Thanks for your reply. I'll look for the interview and send you the link. You are correct, I am NOT constantly looking for the writings and interviews of Mr. Dawkins, though I do come across him now and again, but I do not think that you are obsessed. In fact, I am always happy to hear when people love science...our family loves it too. The Lord bless you.

 

[animal]

You may be thinking of an interview when he commented on Francis Collins' faith. He still has respect for the man's work as a scientist he was just put off when he found out that he truly believed in things like the burning bush, resurrection, etc. Perhaps?

and Veritas, when discussing science with religious people I often refer to it as the study of God's creation

 

[lovely]

You may be thinking of an interview when he commented on Francis Collins' faith. He still has respect for the man's work as a scientist he was just put off when he found out that he truly believed in things like the burning bush, resurrection, etc. Perhaps?

I am still looking...no, it wasn't with a believer, but I know the one you're talking about too. I haven't found the exact one just yet.

I would like to offer this article by Mr. Orr, which is also a little old. It does speak to the idea that Mr. Dawkins is on a 'Mission to Covert'.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19775

 

[CatholicFirefighter]

[youtube:2aokdupu]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHaSZtf5I1k[/youtube:2aokdupu]

Ray Comfort's book:
"went from #69,572 to #38 in 24 hours ... even bumping out Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion".

AMEN!

Regarding the replies by those who oppose Intelligent Design by God, I've found that in my dealings with such people, they invariably seem to confuse Old Testament precepts ("abstain from pork and keep the sabbath") with those items that are irreversible mandates of God which have been clearly taught in both the Old and New Testament (i.e. "the sins of adultery, fornication, homosexuality, etc.").

Bottom line is, those people just don't know their Scripture very well/at all. Let their minds and hearts be enlightened by God!

EXAMPLE: Homosexuality

Old Testament Prohibition:

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination;
- Leviticus 20:13

Corroborating New Testament Prohibition:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
- 1 Corinthian 6:9-10

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.
- Romans 1:26-28

I dunno, seems pretty darn clear to me ... :nod

 

[RND]

Regarding the replies by those who oppose Intelligent Design by God, I've found that in my dealings with such people, they invariably seem to confuse Old Testament precepts ("abstain from pork and keep the sabbath") with those items that are irreversible mandates of God which have been clearly taught in both the Old and New Testament (i.e. "the sins of adultery, fornication, homosexuality, etc.").

Bottom line is, those people just don't know their Scripture very well/at all. Let their minds and hearts be enlightened by God!

Oh, I dunno "CatholicFirefighter" I'd say if God's advice was good then, it's good now.....wouldn't you? Have you seen the post "Pork: The Other White Meat®" It's a real eye-opener and only proves to me that nothing in God's word has changed.

There is nothing in the NT that says sex is bad between barnyard animals and man. Yet, it's in the Old Testament. Would you say that's OK then? Nothing in the NT says I can't marry my sister, but the OT says, "thou shalt not."

I think this major inconsistency with Christians fuels the fire quite frankly of the Atheist.

 

[CatholicFirefighter]

Oh, I dunno "CatholicFirefighter" I'd say if God's advice was good then, it's good now.....wouldn't you?

That would be a big NEGATORY sir.

Witness Matthew 19:

NOW WHEN Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee ... And the Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?"

He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female ... For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."

They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?" He said to them, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery."

As you see right there, Jesus Christ personally "updated" the Mosaic Law to say that (except for unchaste behavior) divorce is no longer permitted as it once was.

So that definitively clears up the mistake of "if it was ok then, then it must be ok now" question.

There is nothing in the NT that says sex is bad between barnyard animals and man. Yet, it's in the Old Testament. Would you say that's OK then? Nothing in the NT says I can't marry my sister, but the OT says, "thou shalt not."

I though I was clear enough before, but maybe I wasn't. So I'll state it again ...

If an OT teaching was not addressed in the NT, then the teaching remains. If it was altered in the NT, then it changes.

I think this major inconsistency with Christians fuels the fire quite frankly of the Atheist.

I think you can see now why no inconsistency actually exists. None whatsoever.

The supposed inconsistencies arise from when a person does not read/understand the Bible in it's entirety (either from gross personal negligence, or from their not desiring to know the Truth in the first place).

Pretty simple actually ...

 

[RND]

That would be a big NEGATORY sir.

Witness Matthew 19:

NOW WHEN Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee ... And the Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?"

He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female ... For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."

They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?" He said to them, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery."

As you see right there, Jesus Christ personally "updated" the Mosaic Law to say that (except for unchaste behavior) divorce is no longer permitted as it once was.

So that definitively clears up the mistake of "if it was ok then, then it must be ok now" question.

So, then, I would suppose Jesus made the law deeper and richer in meaning, and didn't remove the law.

Gotcha.

I though I was clear enough before, but maybe I wasn't. So I'll state it again ...

If an OT teaching was not addressed in the NT, then the teaching remains. If it was altered in the NT, then it changes.

Is there a verse, or series of verses....a teaching if you will that specifically states such a thing? Because when I see what Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 I have to assume that when he says "All scripture is good for doctrine, reproof, correction, etc., he is referring to the OT and not the NT.

But I think what confuses me more is what "laws" in the Ten Commandments were "altered" in the NT? If Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow and He wrote the law on stone then I would imagine only He has the authority to change the law.

So, I'd love to see what laws were "changed or altered" in the NT.

I think you can see now why no inconsistency actually exists. None whatsoever.

I see a great deal of inconsistency in Christian theology and specifically supposed Christian authority regarding the scriptures.

The supposed inconsistencies arise from when a person does not read/understand the Bible in it's entirety (either from gross personal negligence, or from their not desiring to know the Truth in the first place).

Pretty simple actually ...

Well, if we take the Bible in it's entirety then why are certain parts ignored? For example, I posted a video about a woman who had a brain eating worm lodged in her brain that at first doctor's thought was a brain tumor. Would she ever had gotten that brain worm had she never eaten the pork in which that worm was born? But God advice was never to eat these scavengers. Considering the fact that even in this modern age, with supposedly better feed, care and improved of processing pork these animals still infect people with deadly worms - and this is on the rise, it only further demonstrates that God's loving council and tender instruction was true.

If folks are content in believing that Christ died on the cross to free them from heeding the good council and loving instruction from God Himself that is certainly their right to believe such a thing but it seems to me to cheapen the work that Christ did on the cross.