Hello John! In response to the excerpts by Rev. West, there is a quote by the 18th century French philosopher, Voltaire, in which Voltaire states" If God were proven not to exist, would there still be morality"? My first thought on that is that I don’t believe God can really be proven to exist or not exist. Second, even if He could be proven not to exist, yes, there would still be morality. Why? Because morality works. It is beneficial for us as a complex race of beings, to get along with each other, for survival reasons. Look at atheistic societies such as the Soviet Union. They were once considered an "atheistic state, but their society still lived by strict laws and followed many of the so called Judaic/Christian principles set down by the ten commandments. Now that the Soviet Union has dissolved, look at all of the rampant crime, especially with the Russian Mafia and so forth. When they were under totalitarian law, there was very little crime and a very structured social order. The same goes for China also. Very strict laws against murder, etc. I am certainly not defending communism or atheism in the least. Just trying to make a point that Voltaire had once brought up about views on God and morality. I do personally believe, though, that the Deity or God or whoever He may be called, has not, as Rev. West put it ", written His law in our hearts". We are not necessarily subjects of the divine nature, but subjects of the law of order, a natural cosmic order, because deep down we all know what works and what doesn’t. And it is only thru selfishness and weakness that we do not adhere to these natural laws. I tend to believe that mankind, as well as all living creatures, follow a universal law and that all species, even if there are such things as intelligent extraterrestrials living on other planets, are all a part of this universal law, because it works! It is necessary for survival of the species, and we are not pawns on some chess board being manipulated or moved around, as some people I have known tend to believe. I am not saying that I do not believe in God or a higher power. I am saying that I don’t believe that people act the way do, because there is a God, or that God had necessarily something to do with our design as social beings. It is just a natural order of selection. Those who couldn’t conform and learn to cooperate and work together, died out. It is not just human beings that live by certain laws, but other species as well. There is social hierarchy in many other species, such as canines. They have a very structured social environment, and if one strays from that structure, they are reprimanded because of it. Chimpanzees, have also been noted to have a social state of awareness, much like humans. And,yes like humans, they have also been known to murder each other, as well as work together cooperatively. This I read from the years of work by the primatologist Jane Goodall and other anthropologists, and primatologists. I personally do believe in a higher power and in a moral state, but not that we are moral beings because God has instilled it in us or has created us that way. Deep down, we are not moral and law abiding because of our fear or love of God, but because it just plain works better for everyone that way. Talk to you later! Robin
John responds: I enjoy a good intellectually stimulating discussion and welcome dialogue but experience has taught me to propose a few "ground rules" so that egos are not bruised and the discussion does not degenerate into a brawl. After proposing the "rules", I will attempt to respond to your letter point -by-point. I hope that we may continue this discussion so I promise not to "beat you up" and I hope that you promise not to brutalize me either (I scar easily!) In our efforts to learn "TRUTH", we have at our disposal many tools: experience, intuition, emotion, science, history, religion, philosophy, and revelation, to name a few. None are foolproof and some are more reliable than others. Emotion is the lest reliable decision-making tool. Experience is a strong corroboration but is often too subjective to be a reliable tool by itself. The more that the above indicators are in concert, the stronger the supposition of truth. The strongest evidence in support of the truth would be a nexus of all of the above elements as relates to a given point. Rules of logic require that conclusions be based upon accepted premises. If the premise is in dispute, a conclusion is unreachable. (opinions are usually formed there!) Premises which are themselves supposition are never going to produce irrefutable conclusions. Some different conclusions may be reached from a premise NOT because the logic is flawed (internally inconsistent) but because there is a lack of critical information. EXAMPLE: Premise #1: My Father is my Parent Premise #2: My Mother is my Parent Conclusion: My Father is my Mother. There is nothing wrong with the above logic if an additional premise is true: that is, a person may only have one parent. Since we know that the third premise is untrue (a person must have two parents) we may challenge the conclusion. To arrive at the proper conclusion, one must have reliable information (two parents are required). Definitions are critical in any debate. Two people may be using the same words but applying different meanings. If it appears that we are deadlocked, it may be necessary to drop back to first principles and re-define the terms. Terms may be general or common usage, or may be terms of art (specific to a certain profession or group). A definition is in order here. An opinion is a strongly held belief which is not founded upon evidence (either actual or inferred) while a position is a belief which is based upon evidence. Even when the evidence is contradictory and can result in different conclusions by reasonable people, if it logically leads to a conclusion, it is more likely a "position" than an "opinion". I have many opinions but I try never to persuade others to accept my "mere opinions". I also have a position on many issues (theological, political, economic, social, etc.) which I have reached through some kind of rational process. Even when I embrace a position, I usually can be persuaded to at least consider an alternative if the opposing argument is based on evidence at least as credible as my own. Absent credible evidence (tangible, empirical, deductive, etc.) a conclusion is probably mere opinion and cannot be argued.
Surprising as it is to me, many people are content to challenge a conclusion that is based upon corroborating evidence from scripture, science, history, and intuition just because their experience (or their public school education) doesn’t fit the conclusion. Darwinian Evolution, is one example of a theory that has less historical, scientific corroborative evidence than the biblical account of creation, yet it is exclusively advanced in the public schools as the only "truth". World renowned scientists including archeologists, biologists, paleontologists, and other credible "experts" in the scientific community are in disagreement as to the evidence (and the interpretation thereof) so that there are different conclusions reached as to evolution. The point is that: 1. Science is limited as a means of "proving" certain things; and 2. Interpretation and understanding of "truth" is more a function of the underlying religious/philosophical foundations of the searcher; and 3. The popular (government approved) solution may or may not be valid and is almost certainly biased in favor of the world-view of the party advancing the argument.
Finally, how do we "weigh" the evidence in support of our arguments? Most people put great weight on "Science" without considering that scientific methodology is limited to repeatable and observable events in a controlled environment. If the variables cannot be controlled, or the event is neither observable or repeatable, then science, by its nature is an inappropriate tool. History is susceptible to manipulation by revisionists or writers with an "axe" to grind. Historical literature, closest to the source or object in question, taken in its preponderance, is generally weighed greater than something written in third person at a time far removed from the subject unless countervailing evidence is strong. Evidence is used here in its legal sense. Divine revelation (Holy Scripture) may be validated by the same process and given the same weight of evidence as in a criminal trial. (Scientific proof, expert testimony, agreement of witnesses, etc.)
Now, onto the objects of our discussion:
Robin writes:
John responds: If God must "prove" Himself to you, then by what standard? Scientific? This cannot be
so because the instrument of science is inapplicable. If God is spirit (a rebuttable presumption) then His
existence must be "repeatable" (impossible since something that is continuous is not capable of being
repeated) or "observable" (also impossible since the Spirit, if it exists, cannot be seen) and
"controllable" (also impossible for the very suppositions about the nature of God make it impossible
to control).
How about using the rules of evidence allowable in a court of law to determine "truth"? Are the
witnesses (who must have personal experience) credible? What if you ( the questioner) have not
had the same experience? Does that invalidate the experience of the other witnesses? Do we
accept the preponderance of evidence (more than mere possibility of occurrence) or the criminal
standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" (almost a sure-fire bet?)
Conclusion: A reasonable search for truth would not preclude the only reasonable standard of evidence
which would yield that result. Reference: Evidence that Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell.
Robin wrote: < Second, even if He could be proven not to exist, yes, there would still be morality. Why?
Because morality works. >
John responds: Your premise (restated) is that morality exists apart from God. A definition of morality is
needed here.
1. Merriam-Webser’s Desk Dictionary: MORAL- Of or relating to principles of right and wrong;
conforming to a standard of right behavior.
2. Black’s Law Dictionary: MORAL- pertaining or relating to the conscience or moral sense or to the
general princples of right conduct. PRINCIPLE- Fundamental truth or doctrine; a truth or proposition
so clear that it cannot be proved or contradicted unless by a proposition that is still clearer.
I offer a premise of my own. Behavior is the outward manifestation of the principles which anchor a
person’s internal belief system. Behavior is not, by itself, substantive proof of a person’s belief but
may be evidence of same absent other external controls.
Robin wrote:
The 2Otb century’s top nine mega-murderers, as estimated in "Death by Government’
Joseph Stalin (USSR) 42,672,000 1929-1936
Mao Tse-Tung (China) 37,828,000 1923-1976
Adolph Hitler (Germany) 20,946,000 1933-1945
Chiang Kaj-shek (China) 10,214,000 1921-1948
Vladimir Lenin (USSR) 4,017,000 1917-1924
Hideki Tojo (Japan) 3,990,000 1937-1945
Pot Pot (Cambodia) 2,397,000 1968-1987
Yayha Khan (Pakistan) 1,500,000 1971
Josip Tito (Yugoslavia) 1,172,000 1941-1987
A further point about Judeo-Christian values in "atheistic" countries: There is an observable
phenomenon known as "inertia" which explains why a force will continue under its own momentum
until acted upon by outside forces. It is true in physics as well as sociology. I have studied European
history (although American History is my favorite) and you can see changes for good whenever there
was a spiritual revival. The great Protestant Reformation was an example of the profound cultural
impact that a religious movement can have on a society; an impact which can last for generations
before it declines or is re-invigorated. The Second "Great Awakening" in American History is one
of the best know examples as it precluded the Revolutionary War. Many scholars posit that the great
revivals of the period were the single most unifying influence on the Colonies, without which no military
victory or constitutional convention could have been realized. These revivals shaped public education
and American jurisprudence for a hundred years!
On a related note: Our founders understood that insuring personal liberty was the end and design of
legitimate government. When a government has to use force to "control" the people, it is tyranny and
tyranny (criminal behavior by the state) is as morally wrong as criminal wrong committed by a private
individual. That was the point of West’s sermon.
Robin Wrote:
John responds: Absent evidence to support that position, it is merely a restatement of Darwin’s theory
of Evolution of the Species which has been disproved as matter of science.
Robin Wrote:
If God made us in His image, then God must be an intelligent and thinking and empirical being.
And therefore, would make mankind an empirical and thinking, often questioning, species.
As far as the behavior of animals in reference to morality, you made a good point. What I was
trying to point out, though, was that mankind as well as animals, are all part of a universal law and
order. Maybe it doesn’t look like it’s murder to us, but when a chimp kills another chimp for territorial
rights or food supply or mating rituals, isn’t this behavior alot like human behavior? Haven’t we, and
don’t many of us still kill or murder each other for these very same reasons? There is a natural or
universal connection here. Anyway, would like to continue this discussion some more, but have to
get back to work. Talk to you later!
Robin
****************************
Jul 02, 1998
John Continues---
Robin: Reference our discussion tonight and your last letter where you ask if God committed "murder"
by destroying Sodom and Gomorah. I hope the definition of "murder" (unlawful killing of a human being)
and the notion of judgment was helpful.
Without an evil influence (Satan) allowed to tempt us, we would have no options to choose from.
Since the bible teaches that God created us with a free will, if there is no choice to be made, then there
is no choice to be made. Ergo, we could not "choose" to worship God unless there were a countervailing
force to give us an option. If there is no choice to be made concerning our commitment and trust in God,
then we would be "mindless" automatons or robots.
God has created man in His image. This is a concept that we probably need to explore in some depth
over the next few days. It is the foundation principle upon which the discussions of morality, choice,
freedom etc. ultimately turn. Tonight, all I will say is this:
part of what it means to be made in the image of God is that our spirit ("nature" if that word is more
comfortable for you) has the attributes (on a small scale) of God’s Spirit. The qualities which you admire
in the human species are a reflection of the attributes of the character and nature of God. But all that is
good about the human spirit and intellect is but a minuscule fraction of God.
Here is something to sleep on: If God was so small that I could understand Him, then He would not be
worthy of my worship.
**************************
02Jul98
Hi John! Interesting message. I’m still not sure if there really exists an actual entity called Satan.
Perhaps, evil, as I stated earlier is just a product of humanity or the human mind. I know, you said,
that we have free will and so forth. But how do you really know this free will exists? I know, you’re
probably going to say it’s based on "faith". I still think that the human species harbors good and evil
innately. It is a product of our minds, and if other animals could think to our capacity, then perhaps
they would have similar attributes and I know you’ll probably think this statement is "off the wall", but,
they may even think that they too have a soul, or believe in an after life. After all, there most likely is
some existence after death, since, (I believe it was Einstein )who stated that energy cannot be created
nor destroyed, but just changes form. (Not an exact quote). But I think you get my meaning. And as far
as living within certain rules or laws set down by God, again I state that certain rules, laws, etc. work
best to our advantage for survival. We as a species learned this as we evolved. Also, I think that we
as a species are still evolving, and someday we will learn to put aside immoral acts, and those actions
that cause harm on society and to individuals and so forth. It is a process of learning. In some ways
this has already come about. At least we don’t torture people anymore for committing crimes. I’m not
saying this doesn’t happen at all anymore, I’m sure it does perhaps in some societies, but for the most
part we don’t go around cutting off people’s hands for stealing anymore. That to me speaks of some
progress.
Of course, on the flip side, I guess you could say that there are other means of torture and crimes against
humanity happening that didn’t happen in the past. Look at the threat of germ or biological warfare.
In some ways I see humans as more savage than when we first started building civilizations and
becoming so called civilized, and then at the same time, I see us as actually making some humane
progresses. Again, back to good and evil---- these are innate, and we are capable of getting past this
long phase of evolution.
As far as the scripture quote from Hebrews, "that which is not faith is sin", why? Why is it a sin not to have
faith in God? And as you stated "Can you trust emotion, or feeling or even human reasoning"? "All are
subject to false readings". Isn’t trusting or having faith in something based on some emotional level?
Faith and trust are very personal and subjective. I trusted in Eric’s opinion, because he was standing
right there examining my eye and therefore, giving me his personal and professional opinion. (Not that I
always listen to people’s opinions, professional or otherwise). Isn’t faith really just intuition? I guess,
I take intuition to mean a ‘gut feeling" about something. I think deep down, we all know what is right and
wrong or what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior, because, again, acceptable behavior works
better for the collective as well as the individual.
You stated a couple of days ago that God could be scientifically proven to exist or something like that.
Interesting. Would like to hear it. I hope you don’t think I am some sort of atheist. Maybe, I lean a little
bit toward the agnostic side, but deep down, I do believe in a higher power or even a creator if you want
to put it that way. However, perhaps it is thru an evolutionary process, that all species become "better" ,
or more efficient and that it is God’s plan, to have all creatures go thru an evolutionary process in order
to become better equipt for survival.
Robin
********************
02JUL98
Robin:
I have a process that I use to help me keep focused on the issues that are raised in debate. I start by
examining the NATURE of the question. Is it a question that can be answered? If no, then I categorize it
over in one corner somewhere as "interesting" but not knowable (at least not in light of present available
evidence). Then if a discussion ensues concerning that category of question, I can say about it, "Well, I
THINK . . ." or, "I FEEL. . ." , etc. This is the category of topics that are best labeled "OPINIONS" and
which, after have articulated, are interesting background but really do not form the basis for much of a
discussion.
If a question is one that is probably knowable but there is more research ; more analysis that needs to
be done, then I mentally file that question away in another category, determined by what standard of
evidence will be used to analyze it. Can it be proven empirically? Can it be proven logically by a
process of inductive or deductive reasoning? Is there more than one "angle" or facet to this question?
The question, "DOES GOD EXIST", is probably knowable but NOT by using scientific methodology
(as I discussed before). Rather, this question can be decided according to the legal standard of
presumption. A statement or position is "PRESUMED TRUE" based upon evidence which proves
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT . After determining the standard to be used in deciding the question
then the evidence may be weighed BASED UPON THAT STANDARD!
You asked: "But how do you really know this free will exists?"
We can start be assuming either that it does, or it does not. Then, depending upon which end of the
argument you start from, you examine the evidence ACCORDING TO THE LEGAL STANDARD.
1. I have experience in making choices. Therefore, I am a witness to the fact that choice exists.
2. I have talked to others who claim to have made choices and their testimony is believable to me.
Since they are credible witnesses, I accept their testimony as true.
3. I have read "expert" testimony from people who, although not known to me, convinces me of their
veracity and integrity. I accept their testimony as true.
4. I look for countervailing evidence. I find some testimony that seems to contradict the "experts".
This testimony purports to come from "experts" as well so I must look to their credentials and the context
of their evidence.
5. Then, weighing the evidence, applying the rules of logic and interpretation, I make a reasoned
analysis and reach a conclusion.
From that point on, when that particular question comes up for debate, I state the conclusion I have
reached and NOT SOME OPINION THAT CANNOT BE SUPPORTED!
You stated: " that certain rules, laws, etc. work best to our advantage for survival. We as a species
learned this as we evolved."
This is an example of a statement that draws a conclusion. If I accept it as true, then it is a PREMISE
that forms the BASIS for future conclusions. If I reject the premise, then there exists a BURDEN OF
PROOF on the claimant to produce evidence that would lead a reasonable person to agree with the
premise. OR AT THE VERY LEAST, evidence that might lead reasonable people to differing
conclusions.
Since I have already said that I reject evolution on the basis of scientific evidence (or the lack thereof)
then before you can base a claim of truth upon that premise, you BEAR THE BURDEN OF PROOF to
support the conclusion. Otherwise, we cannot build from that base to draw any other conclusions.
You said, "Also, I think that we as a species are still evolving, and someday we will learn to put aside
immoral acts, and those actions that cause harm on society and to individuals and so forth. It is a process of learning. In some ways this has already come about. At least we don’t torture people anymore for committing crimes. I’m not saying this doesn’t happen at all anymore, I’m sure it does perhaps in some societies, but for the most part we don’t go around cutting off people’s hands for stealing anymore. That to me speaks of some progress."
If your premise is correct (we will someday learn to put aside immoral acts) then it should be supportable.
Your "evidence" is that "we don’t torture people anymore for committing crimes". Your are absolutely,
positively right it still happens in some societies, but let’s look at the "evidence of your premise.
1. "WE" (Americans) NEVER DID cut off people’s hands for theft. So, you must mean OTHER
SOCIETIES. Those societies who did those things STILL DO THOSE THINGS because their belief
system says that is morally correct punishment. Their belief system, however is OPPOSITE of
Christianity because the bible teaches the law of proportionality (the punishment must fit the crime).
When the bible talks about "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, etc. it is talking about the
principle that punishment must be in equal VALUE to loss sustained. IT DOES NOT MEAN that if
someone pokes your eye out, justice demands their eye also but out. This is an example of poor
(extremely poor) biblical interpretation by pseudo-scholars who are ignorant of the Mosaic law.
Mosaic law (also called Rabbinical law) contains the principles that form the basis for our system
of jurisprudence in America. Mosaic law was believed to have been delivered by GOD to Moses.
If that is true, Mosaic law IS GOD’S LAW. If that is true, and to the extent that our AMERICAN LAW is
consistent with Mosaic Law, THEN AMERICA’S LAW IS GOD’S LAW!
2. If we look at "PROGRESS" as advancement of social equality, and abandonment of cruel practices,
then no nation or government or system of laws has advanced the cause of women and minorities as
much as Christianity. To the extent that we have been true to our founding principles, we have
acknowledged more liberty and more "rights of personhood" than any nation before in history. We are
the first nation to officially acknowledge that slavery was immoral (even though the acknowledgment
was denied for two hundred years by some powerful individuals in government). We are the first nation
to recognize universal suffrage for woman. We have (or had) the best criminal justice system in the
world in terms of forcing the government to "prove" beyond reasonable doubt it case against the
accused. We are the first nation in the world to give people the absolute right to follow God according
to the dictates of their conscience. We are the FIRST NATION IN HISTORY TO PURPOSEFULLY
BUILD OUR NATIONAL SYSTEM UPON THE PRINCIPLES OF THE BIBLE!!! It is no coincidence.
3. If your premise was correct, that "we will someday learn to put aside immoral acts" then you would be
able to point to other nations who have achieved our successes WITHOUT our MORAL FRAMEWORK!!
I daresay, you cannot. Because, the LAW OF GOD is the foundation that supports the system.
Without the LAW OF GOD, history proves beyond REASONABLE DOUBT that people WILL NOT
evolve to a high moral plane! In fact they DEVOLVE without the restraining influence of GOD’S MORAL
LAW.
Jul 5 98
Hi John!
You wrote to me on July 2nd a paragraph stating that A statement or position is Presumed True based
upon evidence which proves Beyond Reasonable Doubt. After determining the standard to be used
in deciding the question then the evidence may be weighed Baed Upon That Standard! How can
you say, then that Mosaic Law is God’s Law? In this paragraph, dated also July 2nd, you state that
Mosaic Law contains the principles that form the basis for our system of jurisprudence in America.
You also state that "Mosaic Law was believed to have been delivered by God to Moses.. I can
understand, somewhat anyway, the connection between Mosaic law and American laws. I’m not
denying the writings of Moses or the Bible. I see the connection between the laws of the Bible and
how America has at least tried to live by these laws. What I am pointing out here, is how can you make
the premise, then that God actually delivered these laws to Moses? How can this be proved?
Whereas, there is physical evidence that does prove some of the topics we skimmed over, such as
evolution of humans and the age of the earth and so forth. I am not exactly sure where you stand on
these issues. But, in my opinion, (which is based primarily on the scientific evidence I have read on
the topics of evolution), there has been an ongoing evolutionary process of the human species, dating
back millions of years. It is really ludicrous (please excuse the harshness for lack of a better word)
to believe that people have only been around for 5,000 or so years. If one is to say that, then you might
as well say that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny also exist. There is nothing to support these
accusations. For instance, "scientists managed for the first time to analyze mitochondral
DNA---(a DNA inherited only from the mother a particularly useful for determining ancient ancestral
relations)--- from a Neanderthal skull." The analysis showed that the lines leading to Neanderthals
and modern Homo sapiens began to diverge over 500,000 years ago and that Neanderthals and
modern humans did not interbreed". Contributed by Alan Mann. "Human Evolution" Encarta 98
Encyclopedia. Also it is stated that "comparisons of blood proteins and the DNA of the African
great apes with that of humans indicates that the line leading to modern people did not split off from
that of chimpanzees and gorillas until comparatively late in evolution." "Based on these comparisons,
many scientists say that a reasonable time for this evolutionary split is 6 to 8 million years ago".
Therefore, it is quite possible that the known hominae fossil record, which begins about 5 million
years ago, extends back virtually to the beginnings of the human line."
Also there have been various dating methods used to determine how old an organic specimen is,
whether it is anthropological in nature or geological. I will only mention a few techniques on this subject,
as I must leave to meet friends in a few minutes. But, If I get a chance before tomorrow evening to
further this piece, I will. There are the methods known as Carbon- 14 dating, which you’ve probably
heard of. "Upon the death of an organism, carbon 14 begins to disintegrate at a known rate, and
no further replacement of carbon from atmospheric carbon dioxide can take place." However, "
the rapid disintegration of carbon-14 generally limits the dating period to approximately 50--70,000
years" "Carbon 14 is frequently useful in deciphering time related problems in archeology, anthropology, oceanography, climatology, and geology". Contributed by Charles Finki, "Dating Methods" Encarta 98 Encyclopedia. Also there are other dating methods such as Thermoluminescence and Radiocarbon C-14 dating, which I will elaborate more on later.
P.S. I hope this doesn’t anger you or upset you in any way. It’s just that science has a much better
position on proving evolution than the Bible. Again, I am not stating that God did not create mankind.
I feel He did, but that mankind, as well as the rest of the earth, was allowed to go thru a process of
slow evolution to get where we all are now, And it is still a continuing process.
Robin
************************
Jul 05, 98
Notice the specific language that I used with regard to Mosaic Law and its basis for American law.
I made a statement of fact that it is. Because I stated it as a fact, I am prepared to back that up.
(I will bring you something in a day or so.)
I said about the founders that "it was believed to be delivered by God to Moses". That statement
(that the founders believed it) can be proven by looking at the writings of the founders on that subject
in the congressional record, published essays, and private letters. I have an excellent hard-cover
book entitled, "In God We Trust" by Cousins, which is a good reference for that topic. Whether God did,
as a matter fact, personally deliver the Law to Moses, is a matter for each person’s faith. The point is,
the founders of this country believed that the system was the best known to man, whether every person
believed in its origins or not.
What seems to be a major point in the debate thus far, is the reliability of scientific methodology and the
veracity of those reporting the results of their findings. I will see what I can find on the reliability of
carbon 14 dating of fossils but I do know that there are limitations. Just can’t remember the specifics
right now. I’ll put my hands on something soon and we can compare notes.
*************************
06Jul98
Hello John! I’m glad you didn’t take offense towards some of the comments I made yesterday about
the belief in creationism. I realize that there are many different dating techniques and methods.
I am still researching the varieties of methods in order to prove accuracy to the age of certain elements.
I realize carbon-14, which is one of the oldest methods of dating is not 100% accurate all of the time,
my point was that it can tell whether an object is a certain age up to 50,000-70,000 years. Let’s say a
piece of human bone or even a rock was dated with C-14 to be 50,000 years old, wouldn’t that say
something about the age of the earth and all of it’s inhabitants right there? It would most definitely
say that the earth and many of it inhabitants are older than 5,000 years, as according to the theory
of creation. Yes, you researched or brought up many good points about dating methods and materials,
and that is why I am putting more research into this. I never said all science or scientific methods were
completely flawless or foolproof. After all, it is humans that are interpreting the outcomes, just like it is
human beings (in particularly men, I’m sure) who wrote the Bible.
Get my point? But, overall, it is thru science that many questions can be empirically answered.
It just might take a little time and several methodical steps. As far as the part where it was mentioned
that only sedimentary rock, and not igneous rock could bear fossils, I’m not so sure about that. I would
like to look into that more. I remember when I was a kid, a large piece of granite (which is igneous rock)
was blasted in order to make a road. I remember my father picking up pieces of granite with sea shells
and other marine life dating back to millions of years ago when our area of New England was under
water. Let’s put it this way, my father took it to the Massachusetts Archeological Society and had it
dated, by whatever means they dated it, I’m not sure, never really thought about it since I was about
10 years old at the time. It was dated to be 40 million years old. Let’s say that the dating techniques
are even a little bit off, how much out of range could it be? It is most certainly more than 5,000 years old.
Again, there is a lot more to research here.
It was stated in the article "Genesis and Time", that "As Bible believing Christians, we accept as fact that
God created the earth." I am not saying that God did not create the earth. Don’t you think that God wants
us to know the truth? That’s why He created human beings with an intellect for discovering all there is
to know about our universe? You talk about faith. Well, then what is the difference between faith and
truth? Faith, I guess one could say is subjective and truth, objective. But at the same time they are
similar. One can still have faith in God and still seek truth about the makings of the universe. One can
also have faith in science as well. Is there any passage in the Bible where God says, thou shalt not be
curious and learn all there is to learn about my creations and thou will not believe in scientific methods
and methodical reasoning?
If the earth was suppose to be created in 6 days, then why is the earth still forming new lands and still
changing its face or crust thru tectonics? The earth, along with the rest of the galaxy or universe for
that matter, is still forming and changing. If the universe was suppose to be completed in so many
days, then why are these changes still taking place? Why are there new star systems continuously
being born, which we can observe thru the Hubble telescope, etc. Is the creation theory also saying
that the rest of the universe must adhere to the sayings of the Bible. Why doesn’t the earth, then conform
to the same astrophysics as the rest of the star systems, since many of those are still forming as well
as dying. It seems that many christians use the concept of faith as an excuse for not seeing the real
picture. (I call it the Ostrich Syndrome) Why is the earth so unique from the rest of the universe, if the
theory of creation is suppose to be correct? Mankind is surely extremely egotistical if we believe we
are the only intellectual creations, created in the image of God. Why should I believe that because
someone wrote such and such in the Bible, thousands of years ago, when there was not understanding
of science like there is today, that some of these writings are not flawed? Is mankind flawless?
No, unfortunately we all make mistakes. And, yes, I’m not even saying that all methods of science
are flawless either, but at least science is still evolving, and changing. Life, like everything in this
universe is dynamic. If everything remained static or the same, there would be no progress. Just like
humans, the earth and the universe are dynamic. And if they are dynamic or changing, then how could
it all have been created in just 6 days. Wouldn’t that be it? If it was so perfect, then why does God
allow for the changes thru tectonics and so forth?
Some of the articles you sent to me like, Piltdown Man and others, I have read before. It is a shame
that some people have unethical standards and try to use science for their own selfish egos.
There is still more I need to sift thru in what you sent me. There’s alot there! Will have more to
comment on later. Please give me feedback on this if you have any. Talk to you later!
Robin
*******************
18 July 98
Hi John! Interesting piece on the "School Restructuring" article. The only difference between
communism and fascism, from what I understand, is their economic systems. Didn’t fascism,
at least under Hitler’s rule promote free enterprise? I probably need to research that question
some more. Either way, both political systems are totalitarian and when I really think about it, I
have become aware of some of these changes in our school systems. I don’t see a problem
with having prayer in school. I don’t see it as combining church and state. It shouldn’t be that big
of an issue, to have a moment of silence in the beginning of the school day and let the students
have the option of praying or not praying if that is what they desire. (And regardless of religious sect).
On goal # 29, it mentions the American constitution as a "hinderance to cooperation between
nations on a world wide basis". How is that? Goal # 30 mentions something I have often identified with.
My opinion of the Founding Fathers, overall, was that they didn’t understand the real common man,
or I should say, that they only understood the white man, (don’t see anything about women mentioned,
either). I guess, they meant well, but just a product of their times. As far as the mention of treating
behavioral problems ( I guess what they’re talking about is not conforming with the political system),
as phychiatric disorders, hasn’t this been commonly practiced in China? From what I understand,
in former USSR also. Often people need to be "rehabilitated", so those who don’t quite fit into the
system must be "crazy" and in need of help. That’s if they are capable of rehabilitation. It is scary,
when you think about it, that the school is really the perfect launching ground for planting political
seeds. How is this happening now? Or is it happening now. It’s been a long time since grade school,
and I don’t have children, so am a little out of touch perhaps with what’s really going on with American
children in public schools. Just because I don’t have children, doesn’t mean I am not concerned
about what is going on.
I am very much concerned with the education of all children and what they are and aren’t exposed to.
18 Jul 98 response
Robin:
You wrote: On goal # 29, it mentions the American constitution as a "hinderance to cooperation
between nations on a world wide basis". How is that?
Answer: When the states are in control of their own laws and justice system, the federal government
cannot compel a state to "cooperate" with other nations. Only a strong central government
(without the constitutional protections that we have) can bind the the states to an unpopular treaty.
You wrote: My opinion of the Founding Fathers, overall, was that they didn’t understand the real
common man, or I should say, that they only understood the white man, (don’t see anything about
women mentioned, either).
Response: I don’t know what you mean by Didn’t understand the common man. What I read from
the founders is that they understood perfectly what was in the heart of man (all mankind, women too)
and the structure of the proposed government had to account for that nature. Thus, a limited govt
(because man has a right to sovereignty), a free market economic system (because man has a
right to own property and to "make it or lose it"), and a strong support of Christianity (because those
values are the only ones that allow for the proper balance of personal and civic rights and
responsibilities.)
That last sentence is key to understanding the tone and intent of the form of government intended
by the founders. NO OTHER RELIGIOUS SYSTEM properly balances individual and community
rights and duties! Even if some people do not like and will not embrace Christianity (their guaranteed
right) they may not destroy the values which form the foundation of the nation. If the foundations
be destroyed, the nation will perish! That is EXACTLY what’s happening to America now.
You wrote: As far as the mention of treating behavioral problems ( I guess what they’re talking
about is not conforming with the political system), as phychiatric disorders, hasn’t this been
commonly practiced in China? From what I understand, in former USSR also. Often people
need to be "rehabilitated", so those who don’t quite fit into the system must be "crazy" and in
need of help.
Response: You are right! It has happened in every totalitarian regime in history in some form. Either
kill them or "convince" them to get in line! It is the hallmark of tyranny! IT IS HAPPENING TO US NOW!
It has happened slowly, as the morals and values been "retrained" out of us through public education
and mass media and political pressure from immoral leaders. That’s why many in our age group are
not very sensitive to the changes- we are products of a public school system that has been steered
on a deliberate course towards socialism for 30 years or more.
You wrote: How is this happening now? Or is it happening now.
Response: For a real shocker, go to the National Education Association web page and look for the
"Resolutions" for 1997-98. I have a hard copy which I can bring to work if you’d like but it was taken
right off the NEA web site. Also, I just finished a 10 page paper on "GOALS 2000: Educate America
Act" and its partner in crime, the "School-to-Work Act of 1994" I can also bring you a copy of that paper
which describes the shift in philosophy in public education over the last 100 years and especially in
the last 30 years.
It is scary. An it is good that you are concerned. Even if you don’t have children in school, you are
still entitled to a voice in the school system. A principle from our founders was that education is the
responsibility of the parents but in the best interest of everyone.
Thanks for taking the time to read the stuff I send to you. You are a "searcher" and I admire that!
God Bless, and keep searching!
John
BLOODY RECORDS
John
John
Robin
***************************