Savage Street Church of Christ

Got something to say? Go for it!

1. agnophilo says:

   October 18, 2013 at 12:39 pm

   Don Patton is not a scientist, he has no degrees of any kind, and actual life scientists (most of which are christian in the US) overwhelmingly accept the science of evolution. What Patton is engaging in is called quote-mining, taking quotes out of context in order to misrepresent their meaning. The fossil record begins 3.4 billion years ago, several billion years before the cambrian period. The quote about no new phyla is misleading because of what the concept means in taxonomy, it’s like saying we don’t get more grandparents as time goes by. To claim that the species in the cambrian and pre-cambrian are as complex as modern species is dishonest and factually not accurate. It’s sleaze.

   Loading...

   Reply
   • Don Ruhl says:

     October 22, 2013 at 3:35 pm

     It is always nice to hear from you sweet-spirited evolutionists who think that being bombastic makes your point or refutes the other guy. Let’s examine what you wrote:

     “Don Patton is not a scientist, he has no degrees of any kind, and actual life scientists (most of which are christian in the US) overwhelmingly accept the science of evolution.”

     This is no argument. What is a scientist? Is it not someone who investigates rather than merely telling us what someone else has studied? Don Patton goes into the field and does the work!

     Even if every scientist, whether Christian or not, accepts evolution, that does not make it true. That is not a scientific way of thinking. Scientific truth is truth, regardless of what people do with it.

     “What Patton is engaging in is called quote-mining, taking quotes out of context in order to misrepresent their meaning.”

     Asserting that Don Patton did such, does not prove a thing. Are we supposed to believe your charge against him because you made it? Show wherein he took the quotes out of context.

     “The fossil record begins 3.4 billion years ago, several billion years before the cambrian period. The quote about no new phyla is misleading because of what the concept means in taxonomy, it’s like saying we don’t get more grandparents as time goes by. To claim that the species in the cambrian and pre-cambrian are as complex as modern species is dishonest and factually not accurate. It’s sleaze.”

     Again, your assertions prove nothing. Explain yourself.

     Loading...

     Reply
     • agnophilo says:

       October 28, 2013 at 2:51 pm

       “It is always nice to hear from you sweet-spirited evolutionists who think that being bombastic makes your point or refutes the other guy. Let’s examine what you wrote:”

       I was not trying to be bombastic, only informative.

       “This is no argument. What is a scientist? Is it not someone who investigates rather than merely telling us what someone else has studied? Don Patton goes into the field and does the work!”

       A scientist is someone who uses the scientific method to test their ideas about the natural world. I have never heard of a creationist who applied the scientific method to their own beliefs. They generally just attack scientific ideas and try to replace them with a god of the gaps by default, which is not science.

       “Even if every scientist, whether Christian or not, accepts evolution, that does not make it true. That is not a scientific way of thinking. Scientific truth is truth, regardless of what people do with it.”

       While that is true my point was that even christian scientists (who if anything would be biased toward what he is sayin) overwhelmingly reject claims like a young earth, global flood etc. If evolution were some kind of hoax or the product of a conspiracy or were based in ideology you would expect to see a disparity between christian and secular scientists, but there is none that I am aware of.

       [“What Patton is engaging in is called quote-mining, taking quotes out of context in order to misrepresent their meaning.”]

       “Asserting that Don Patton did such, does not prove a thing. Are we supposed to believe your charge against him because you made it? Show wherein he took the quotes out of context.”

       Okay, the first quote from richard dawkins he claims is about the beginning of the fossil record when it’s actually about the cambrian period which is about 600 million years ago.

       Patton:

       …And he’s talking about the beginning of the fossil record…”

       Dawkins, one sentence before the quoted passage:

       “For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups.”

       Patton:

       “That lowest layer is called the cambrian…”

       Wikipedia:

       http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Geologic_Clock_with_events_and_periods.svg

       If you mean prove the fossil record goes back further do a google image search for “pre-cambrian fossil” and you will find many examples. Or google “oldest fossil” and you will find countless sources on the actual beginning of the fossil record.

       “Again, your assertions prove nothing. Explain yourself.”

       Okay, assertion 1:

       “The fossil record begins 3.4 billion years ago, several billion years before the cambrian period.”

       Already established above.

       Assertion 2:

       “The quote about no new phyla is misleading because of what the concept means in taxonomy, it’s like saying we don’t get more grandparents as time goes by.”

       Taxonomical groups represent major forks in the road of evolutionary history, a phyla is made up of every species that descended from a certain point. It is like saying group A is everyone who descended from your great great grandparents and group B is everyone who descended from your great grandparents, then someone else saying that you aren’t part of group B because there is only one group A and we don’t see more group A’s appearing over time. Obviously there is no reason we should see that at all, you only have one lineage and it’s past tense.

       Assertion 3:

       “To claim that the species in the cambrian and pre-cambrian are as complex as modern species is dishonest and factually not accurate. It’s sleaze.”

       The cambrian period represents the first species with bones, teeth and exoskeletons, it does not contain for instance, the traits diagnostic of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, dinosaurs or any species “higher” than fish. And the fish in the cambrian are primitive compared to modern fish.

       Loading...

       Reply
       • Don Ruhl says:

         October 31, 2013 at 5:00 pm

         agnophilo,

         You are still trying to argue for evolution based upon who believes it, maintaining that most Christian scientists accept it. However, if we lived in the Middle Ages and I argued that every scholar accepts the teachings of the Catholic Church, and therefore those teachings are true, both of us would not accept that conclusion. Why then accept it with this issue?

         Our discussion could get very lengthy, and so I will try narrow it down, in order that people might be more inclined to read it.

         Most of your discussion revolves around the layers that we all observe. How did those layers get in place?

         Don Ruhl

         Loading...

         Reply
         • agnophilo says:

           October 31, 2013 at 5:28 pm

           “You are still trying to argue for evolution based upon who believes it, maintaining that most Christian scientists accept it.”

           Actually I said a lot more than that. You asked me to back up my assertions and I did so at length – this is all you are going to respond to?

           “However, if we lived in the Middle Ages and I argued that every scholar accepts the teachings of the Catholic Church, and therefore those teachings are true, both of us would not accept that conclusion. Why then accept it with this issue?”

           First of all we are not living in a theocracy and the consensus of scientists is not won by threat of execution or threats of hellfire. Two, if you said something was intellectually bankrupt and obviously flawed and that it contradicted church teachings, but 99.99% of catholics accepted it as true, would that not be strange?

           “Our discussion could get very lengthy, and so I will try narrow it down, in order that people might be more inclined to read it.”

           Then don’t demand such a long list of proofs and elaboratoins next time if you are then going to ignore them.

           “Most of your discussion revolves around the layers that we all observe. How did those layers get in place?”

           Do you want me to describe the whole of geology? There are many geological processes, different kinds of layers are formed by different ones, from erosion to compression of sediment to the crushing of rocks by glacial activity to volcanic activity etc. They did not, however, form suddenly in one event. This we know because they contain a detailed record of fossil history of life on earth, volcanic activity, magnetic pole reversals (which effect how magnetic materials solidify in volcanic rocks and polar ice) and many other things. These layers also contain massive meteor impact craters so unless the earth was bombarded by many civilization-ending meteors and then the flood happened again after each one so the crater could be filled in with sedimentary layers, then they are the result of gradual processes over long periods of time.

           Loading...

           Reply
           • Don Ruhl says:

             November 12, 2013 at 2:30 pm

             Thanks for providing the backup to your assertions!

             The point I made about the Middle Ages, was not so much a theocracy, but a situation where a certain way of thinking dominates the culture. It is hard to go against that, for one may lose everything. Simply because the majority claim something to be the truth, does not make it so, that was my point. Therefore, it does not matter to me whether every academic accepts evolution.

             In your first post, you argued that all Christian scientists accept evolution. Why did you make that point? Are you a Christian? If they are Christians, what makes them so? Is it not because they accept the teachings of the Bible? Do you accept the teachings of the Bible?

             By the way, do you live in Oregon?

             Loading...

             Reply
             • agnophilo says:

               December 18, 2013 at 4:16 pm

               The people who know the most about every field of scientific study overwhelmingly disagree with your position, and in a time and place when no conspiracy theory can account for this broad consensus. While technically that does not make you wrong it is astonishing to me that so many fundamentalists do not seem to be so much as given pause by this fact. I wonder if I’m wrong as a matter of routine and a matter of principle, about everything. Could atheism be wrong? Could skepticism be a bad way to go about my life? Could the mormons really be right? Etc, etc. I am willing to consider any idea however absurd it may seem to me. Have you never paused and wondered if maybe the 99.9% of biologists, geologists, paleontologists, geneticists etc, etc are actually onto something?

               To answer the questions in your last paragraph, 1) The point was that acceptance of evolution is not based on bias or ideology, 2) No, I was once years ago though. 3) I generally use the term christian in the broad, demographic sense and avoid questions of who is a “true” christian and who isn’t, especially since everyone people think are not “true” christians feel the exact same way about them, in all directions. I also am not so arrogant as to suppose I know the intent and original meaning of authors who died over 2,000 years ago. 4) That’s one definition, but it does not require them to interpret it the way you do. If I told a child the story of little red riding hood they could take it as a literal story about magical creatures or they could take it as a warning that there are dangerous things in the world so they had better be careful. Or as fiction, or legend or anything else. Some people take genesis as a literal story, others do not. Some people take jesus’ remarks about the corrupt jews of his day as a call to antisemitism, others do not. Some consider paul the first pope, others do not, etc, etc. 5) I do not claim to know how to take them. I do not take them all as literally true, since this leads to many things that can be demonstrated to be impossible, logically inconsistent or untrue. Beyond that it’s anybody’s guess. 6) Yes, why do you ask?

               Loading...

               Reply
               • Don Ruhl says:

                 February 7, 2014 at 5:44 pm

                 agnophilo: “The people who know the most about every field of scientific study overwhelmingly disagree with your position, and in a time and place when no conspiracy theory can account for this broad consensus.� Likewise, the majority of Americans from every walk of life disagree with your position of evolution, and in a time and place when no conspiracy theory can account for this broad consensus!

                 agnophilo: “While technically that does not make you wrong it is astonishing to me that so many fundamentalists do not seem to be so much as given pause by this fact.� While technically what the majority of Americans believe does not make you wrong, it is also astonishing to me, that so many evolutionists do not seem to pause for one moment at this phenomenon.

                 agnophilo: “I wonder if I’m wrong as a matter of routine and a matter of principle, about everything. Could atheism be wrong? Could skepticism be a bad way to go about my life? Could the mormons really be right? Etc, etc. I am willing to consider any idea however absurd it may seem to me.� Except, it seems, the position of creation. Is it not also true, that there are some truths that become so settled in a person’s mind, that he closes his mind to anything that might contradict it? For example, two plus two equals four, your mother is in fact your mother, George Washington was the first president of the United States and so on. Would you place macro-evolution in that category?

                 agnophilo: “Have you never paused and wondered if maybe the 99.9% of biologists, geologists, paleontologists, geneticists etc, etc are actually onto something?� Of course, I have. I listen to them carefully, even as I seek to read you carefully. I gain nothing by disregarding other people, regardless of who they are and what they believe. Likewise, have you never paused and wondered if perhaps creationists are actually onto something?

                 Don Ruhl: “In your first post, you argued that all Christian scientists accept evolution. Why did you make that point?� To which agnophilo said, “The point was that acceptance of evolution is not based on bias or ideology.� Or, so it seems. Believers who seek to blend evolution and creation have an agenda; they seek to make creation more tasteful to people like you. Do you make that statement because they agree with you and disagree with me? Again, I do not determine what to believe based on how many people and what kind of people promote something or speak against it. Truth is truth, whether you and accept it or not.

                 Don Ruhl: “Are you a Christian?� To which agnophilo answered, “No, I was once years ago though.� What changed?

                 Don Ruhl: “If they are Christians, what makes them so?� To which agnophilo declared, “I generally use the term christian in the broad, demographic sense and avoid questions of who is a �true’ christian and who isn’t, especially since everyone people think are not �true’ christians feel the exact same way about them, in all directions. I also am not so arrogant as to suppose I know the intent and original meaning of authors who died over 2,000 years ago.� On your first sentence there, I understand. On the next sentence, you are not so arrogant as to suppose that you know the intent and original meaning of writers who died 2,000 years ago, but you can know that something came from nothing billions of years ago, and that order came from chaos billions of years ago, and that life came from non-life millions of years ago, and that one form of life transformed itself into another form of life millions and hundreds of thousands of years ago!

                 Don Ruhl: “Is it not because they accept the teachings of the Bible?� Then agnophilo continued, �That’s one definition, but it does not require them to interpret it the way you do�Some people take genesis as a literal story, others do not�� Yet, they claim to be Christians because of the Bible in someway with some kind of interpretation. Trying to use other believers against me, will not succeed, because I seek to base my beliefs on the readings of both the Bible and the world. Yes, I learn from others, but ultimately I make a decision based on what I have seen in the Scriptures and in the world, or on the Earth.

                 Don Ruhl: “Do you accept the teachings of the Bible?� agnophilo contemplated, “I do not claim to know how to take them. I do not take them all as literally true, since this leads to many things that can be demonstrated to be impossible, logically inconsistent or untrue. Beyond that it’s anybody’s guess.� Studying the Bible is a lifelong endeavor, even as studying the various sciences is a lifelong endeavor, but that does not keep you from accepting what you have discovered, or what others have discovered, in spite of the fact that there have been all kinds of interpretations from evolutionists over the centuries. Why not do that with the Bible? Why not accept what you can understand and seek to understand the rest as your life goes on?

                 Don Ruhl: “By the way, do you live in Oregon?� agnophilo affirmed and questioned, “Yes, why do you ask?� I wondered if you were close to Grants Pass, and whether you attended our seminar with Don Patton.

                 Loading...

                 Reply
               • Don Ruhl says:

                 February 7, 2014 at 5:50 pm

                 Unfortunately, question marks inside a diamond shape appear at some of the quotation marks. Sorry about that.

                 Loading...

                 Reply
2. agnophilo says:

   March 2, 2014 at 5:16 pm

   “Likewise, the majority of Americans from every walk of life disagree with your position of evolution, and in a time and place when no conspiracy theory can account for this broad consensus!”

   Actually a majority of americans now accept evolution according to the most recent polls, america being pretty much the last first world country where this has happened. But regardless you are ignoring my point. And a conspiracy theory isn’t necessary to account for the wrong opinions of people with no relevant expertise or education. Ignorant people tend to be wrong, and if 50, 60 or even 99% of non-physicists rejected einstein’s theory of relativity it would mean little. All it would mean is that people who don’t know what they’re talking about don’t know what they’re talking about.

   “While technically what the majority of Americans believe does not make you wrong, it is also astonishing to me, that so many evolutionists do not seem to pause for one moment at this phenomenon.”

   I addressed it at length above. And you’re ignoring my words and just parroting them mindlessly back at me slightly modified.

   “Except, it seems, the position of creation. Is it not also true, that there are some truths that become so settled in a person’s mind, that he closes his mind to anything that might contradict it?”

   If someone is closed-minded, yes. And I am perfectly willing to entertain the notion of creation, and have done so for years.

   “For example, two plus two equals four, your mother is in fact your mother, George Washington was the first president of the United States and so on. Would you place macro-evolution in that category?”

   I would be willing to entertain the idea that all of those things are not true, but would not be convinced otherwise without solid evidence (or debunking of the evidence that exists in favor of each idea).

   “Of course, I have. I listen to them carefully, even as I seek to read you carefully. I gain nothing by disregarding other people, regardless of who they are and what they believe. Likewise, have you never paused and wondered if perhaps creationists are actually onto something?”

   Yes. I’ve actually been excited by the idea once or twice. I remember when I first heard about the so-called “man tracks” (supposedly human footprints alongside dinosaur footprints in ancient stone) I was actually excited at the thought that they could be real. It would be very interesting to find out humans and dinosaurs lived together and that all of our ideas about natural history are wrong, because it would mean finding out something new, which I enjoy. I was of course disappointed to find out in about ten seconds of googling that these often repeated claims are actually either cartoonishly bad forgeries that were long ago debunked or real dinosaur tracks with tracks next to them that don’t even remotely resemble human footprints.

   “Or, so it seems. Believers who seek to blend evolution and creation have an agenda; they seek to make creation more tasteful to people like you. Do you make that statement because they agree with you and disagree with me? Again, I do not determine what to believe based on how many people and what kind of people promote something or speak against it. Truth is truth, whether you and accept it or not.”

   Science is based on tests and peer review, an experiment does not conform to a theory because the experimenter is biased. A medication does not heal more of the people receiving it in a double-blind study than the people receiving a placebo because the person who invented it believes it will work. The prediction always comes first and the test later, and once you perform your experiment it is no longer a matter of opinion or belief whether it conforms to your theory’s prediction. It does or it doesn’t. And if you lie or fudge your data someone else will find out very quickly because of the peer review process and the fact that scientists perform the experiments of their peers and modify them all the time. An experiment has to work not just in your lab or with your evidence, but across the board. This is why when it comes to scientific subjects the percentage of experts in a given field who accept an idea does not vary greatly based on the ideology or belief system or religion or lack thereof of the scientist. Muslim, christian, hindu, buddhist, atheist etc scientists can and do all reach a broad consensus because they can all do the same test and watch the same predictions unfold.

   [“Don Ruhl: “Are you a Christian? To which agnophilo answered, “No, I was once years ago though.]

   What changed?

   http://agnophilo.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/how-and-why-i-became-an-atheist-if-anyone-is-curious/

   “On your first sentence there, I understand. On the next sentence, you are not so arrogant as to suppose that you know the intent and original meaning of writers who died 2,000 years ago, but you can know that something came from nothing billions of years ago, and that order came from chaos billions of years ago, and that life came from non-life millions of years ago, and that one form of life transformed itself into another form of life millions and hundreds of thousands of years ago!”

   First of all I don’t claim to know or believe almost any of that. I do not pretend to know how the universe began (in reality nobody actually does, some people just pretend to know). I also do not pretend to know how exactly life began, but we know from the fossil record that it began at least 3.4 billion years ago and that the first life was much simpler than a person, since multi-cellular life does not appear anywhere in the first 2+ billion years of the fossil record. We also know from the fossil record, genetics, and other fields of study that life not only changed in the past but changes all the time. In fact no two members of any species have probably ever even been identical, life literally never stays the same. Everything alive changes a little bit every generation. It is possible to know something like this from fossils and genes because of the information recorded in them. If rocks recorded the thoughts and intentions of dead people we could know the intentions and views of the biblical authors too, but we can’t. At least not reliably, imo.

   “Yet, they claim to be Christians because of the Bible in someway with some kind of interpretation. Trying to use other believers against me, will not succeed, because I seek to base my beliefs on the readings of both the Bible and the world. Yes, I learn from others, but ultimately I make a decision based on what I have seen in the Scriptures and in the world, or on the Earth.”

   I’m not sure how I was trying to use anything against you. I was just saying there are other theologies out there.

   “Studying the Bible is a lifelong endeavor, even as studying the various sciences is a lifelong endeavor, but that does not keep you from accepting what you have discovered, or what others have discovered, in spite of the fact that there have been all kinds of interpretations from evolutionists over the centuries. Why not do that with the Bible? Why not accept what you can understand and seek to understand the rest as your life goes on?”

   I suppose I do do this to an extent, if I find something that is self-evidently true or has merit in the bible I adopt it, but because it has merit, not because of it’s source. Bear in mind my perspective is not “here’s the bible, is it true?”, it’s “here are thousands of religions and religious texts and miracle accounts etc, are any of them true?” I have tried to understand the bible and beyond the bits of truth I see in most religions I see no reason the miraculous claims in one text rise above the rest.

   “I wondered if you were close to Grants Pass, and whether you attended our seminar with Don Patton.”

   I’m a few hundred miles north of grant’s pass (portland area) and have never attended the seminar. Though it would be interesting to ask a question or two.

   Loading...

   Reply
   • Don Ruhl says:

     March 26, 2014 at 5:39 pm

     Don Ruhl: “‘Likewise, the majority of Americans from every walk of life disagree with your position of evolution, and in a time and place when no conspiracy theory can account for this broad consensus!’

     AgnoPhilo: “Actually a majority of americans now accept evolution according to the most recent polls, america being pretty much the last first world country where this has happened. But regardless you are ignoring my point. And a conspiracy theory isn’t necessary to account for the wrong opinions of people with no relevant expertise or education. Ignorant people tend to be wrong, and if 50, 60 or even 99% of non-physicists rejected einstein’s theory of relativity it would mean little. All it would mean is that people who don’t know what they’re talking about don’t know what they’re talking about.”

     Don Ruhl: Actually, you missed my point. You build the majority of the foundation of your belief in evolution on what the majority of paleontologists, geologists, and so on say. I could just as easily throughout a belief in which a majority of people believe in it. And as I have been saying all along, that does not matter to me. We do not determine truth or history by how many people believe in it, but that is what you do. Also, you have so much faith in your belief system that you argue in the paragraph above, and in all your other comments, that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant! If anyone does not accept evolution, they are ignorant people! Wow, do you have any idea how many people you summarily dismiss? This all goes back to your original comment, “Don Patton is not a scientist…It’s sleaze.” That last comment should have alerted me to your attitude toward anyone who disagrees with you. Okay, Don Ruhl, lesson learned.

     Don Ruhl “‘While technically what the majority of Americans believe does not make you wrong, it is also astonishing to me, that so many evolutionists do not seem to pause for one moment at this phenomenon.’

     AgnoPhilo: “I addressed it at length above. And you’re ignoring my words and just parroting them mindlessly back at me slightly modified.”

     Don Ruhl: Yes, I did repeat your words back to you, but not mindlessly, because they apply to you. You base your belief on the majority of experts.

     Don Ruhl: “‘Except, it seems, the position of creation. Is it not also true, that there are some truths that become so settled in a person’s mind, that he closes his mind to anything that might contradict it?’

     AgnoPhilo: “If someone is closed-minded, yes. And I am perfectly willing to entertain the notion of creation, and have done so for years.”

     Don Ruhl: Really? I think you are close-minded about creation because the majority of scientists do not accept it, according to your reporting. If the majority of scientists accepted creation, you would entertain the notion, but reading all your comments, including what you have said on our web site and on your web site, shows that you are totally closed to the idea of creation. You only want to appear to be open-minded, so you can debate people, but what we are doing on our web site is simply providing you another platform for you to speak and spread your ideas all the while you remain anonymous! By the way, the Northwest Creation Conference is this Saturday in Portland: http://www.creationnw.org It would be great to meet you. E-Mail me at R d r u h l at a o l . c o m.

     Don Ruhl: “’For example, two plus two equals four, your mother is in fact your mother, George Washington was the first president of the United States and so on. Would you place macro-evolution in that category?’

     AgnoPhilo: “I would be willing to entertain the idea that all of those things are not true, but would not be convinced otherwise without solid evidence (or debunking of the evidence that exists in favor of each idea).”

     Don Ruhl: You want to appear open-minded so badly that you would question mathematics, biology (or adoption), and history! If you wanted to argue with me about those three things, I would not waste my time. Yes, let us be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains fall out. Each of us, whether you acknowledge it or not, eventually arrives at certain conclusions about various matters that make us close-minded to any other conclusion. I am close-minded about 2 plus 2 equaling 4, about my mother truly being my mother, or George Washington being the first president of the United States.

     Loading...

     Reply
     • agnophilo says:

       March 26, 2014 at 8:42 pm

       “Actually, you missed my point. You build the majority of the foundation of your belief in evolution on what the majority of paleontologists, geologists, and so on say. I could just as easily throughout a belief in which a majority of people believe in it. And as I have been saying all along, that does not matter to me. We do not determine truth or history by how many people believe in it, but that is what you do.”

       Actually I don’t, I just pointed out that you are seeking information on technical subjects from non-experts and ignoring the conclusions of people who spend their entire life studying these topics. It would be just like me holding the opinions of someone who flipped through a bible one day and started preaching about it over those of scholars who spent decades studying the original texts, languages and cultures they came from.

       “Also, you have so much faith in your belief system that you argue in the paragraph above, and in all your other comments, that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant!”

       I did no such thing, I said people who are ignorant are ignorant. I was talking about non-experts, whether they agree with me or not. You appear to be saying that a majority of experts agreeing with me means nothing but how that it is offensive to apply the same standard of logic to a majority of non-experts. The fact is that majority opinion does not prove anything either way, and it’s worth mentioning that you are the one who made that argument, not me.

       “If anyone does not accept evolution, they are ignorant people! Wow, do you have any idea how many people you summarily dismiss?”

       I did not say that.

       “This all goes back to your original comment, “Don Patton is not a scientist…It’s sleaze.” That last comment should have alerted me to your attitude toward anyone who disagrees with you. Okay, Don Ruhl, lesson learned.”

       I didn’t say that either. You know for a christian you’re doing a lot of bearing false witness against your neighbor.

       “Yes, I did repeat your words back to you, but not mindlessly, because they apply to you. You base your belief on the majority of experts.”

       I base my views on a preponderance of the evidence. Again you are putting words in my mouth.

       “Really? I think you are close-minded about creation because the majority of scientists do not accept it, according to your reporting. If the majority of scientists accepted creation, you would entertain the notion, but reading all your comments, including what you have said on our web site and on your web site, shows that you are totally closed to the idea of creation. You only want to appear to be open-minded, so you can debate people, but what we are doing on our web site is simply providing you another platform for you to speak and spread your ideas all the while you remain anonymous!”

       I don’t see what my being anonymous (like virtually everyone on this website) has to do with anything, and you calling me closed-minded doesn’t make it true.

       “By the way, the Northwest Creation Conference is this Saturday in Portland: http://www.creationnw.org It would be great to meet you. E-Mail me at.”

       I went to the link and considered going but I am not willing to pay money to the people who will be speaking at the event since I consider several of them to be outright con men. Also if I were you I would delete or edit your previous comment with your email address, posting it publicly will get you lots of spam, bots search webpages for email addresses to sell to spammers. If it makes you feel any better I am probably well versed in 90% of the material they would provide anyway.

       “You want to appear open-minded so badly that you would question mathematics, biology (or adoption), and history!”

       No, I actually am open-minded. I believe in the philosophy of socrates, that the only way to know anything is to question everything. I am open to the idea that evolution or science or history or anything could be wrong. But that doesn’t mean automatically believing it. Give me a good argument and you will sway me. But this word games and misquoting me and making personal attacks stuff is not a good argument. By the way I grew up christian and changed my mind. That was partly because I am open-minded and I am willing to question even basic “truths”.

       “If you wanted to argue with me about those three things, I would not waste my time. Yes, let us be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains fall out. Each of us, whether you acknowledge it or not, eventually arrives at certain conclusions about various matters that make us close-minded to any other conclusion. I am close-minded about 2 plus 2 equaling 4, about my mother truly being my mother, or George Washington being the first president of the United States.”

       My brain falling out would constitute me believing that george washington is not the first president of the united states without a compelling enough argument. I would agree that it would take a vast amount of evidence to overturn most of those ideas, but I’m willing to admit such evidence might (but probably doesn’t) exist.

       Loading...

       Reply
       • Don Ruhl says:

         April 25, 2014 at 4:19 pm

         AgnoPhilo: “Actually I don’t, I just pointed out that you are seeking information on technical subjects from non-experts and ignoring the conclusions of people who spend their entire life studying these topics. It would be just like me holding the opinions of someone who flipped through a bible one day and started preaching about it over those of scholars who spent decades studying the original texts, languages and cultures they came from.”

         Don Ruhl: A semi with a large and tall trailer needed to move during the night because of the size of the load. However, the experts did not anticipate a low bridge. If only the load was 1 inch shorter. It was too large to backup, and so they toiled all night, trying to figure out what to do. As the dawn began to come on, a newspaper boy happened upon the scene. He suggested they let some air out of the tires!

         Don Ruhl said earlier: “If anyone does not accept evolution, they are ignorant people! Wow, do you have any idea how many people you summarily dismiss?” Then AgnoPhilo replied: “I did not say that.”

         Don Ruhl: Is the following the way you have been arguing? This is not a trick question, but I truly want to understand you.
         1. The experts verify evolution.
         2. People who reject the testimony of the experts are ignorant.
         3. Therefore, those who reject evolution are ignorant.

         Don Ruhl said earlier: “This all goes back to your original comment, ‘Don Patton is not a scientist…It’s sleaze.” To which AgnoPhilo denied: “I didn’t say that either. You know for a christian you’re doing a lot of bearing false witness against your neighbor.”

         Don Ruhl: Here is your whole first comment that got our discussion going: “Don Patton is not a scientist, he has no degrees of any kind, and actual life scientists (most of which are christian in the US) overwhelmingly accept the science of evolution. What Patton is engaging in is called quote-mining, taking quotes out of context in order to misrepresent their meaning. The fossil record begins 3.4 billion years ago, several billion years before the cambrian period. The quote about no new phyla is misleading because of what the concept means in taxonomy, it’s like saying we don’t get more grandparents as time goes by. To claim that the species in the cambrian and pre-cambrian are as complex as modern species is dishonest and factually not accurate. It’s sleaze.” I suppose it’s possible that someone hacked your account, but go back and read your very first comment. I have not borne false witness of you, but apparently you now deny what you said in the beginning comment.

         AgnoPhilo: “I don’t see what my being anonymous (like virtually everyone on this website) has to do with anything, and you calling me closed-minded doesn’t make it true.”

         Don Ruhl: I don’t like anyone being anonymous on this web site. That is why you see my name. If we were in person, we would exchange names.

         Don Ruhl: “By the way, the Northwest Creation Conference is this Saturday in Portland: http://www.creationnw.org It would be great to meet you.” To which AgnoPhilo said, “I went to the link and considered going but I am not willing to pay money to the people who will be speaking at the event since I consider several of them to be outright con men.”

         Don Ruhl: I understand totally, and I had forgotten about that, or I would have offered to pay for your ticket. By the way, would you pay my property taxes please, that go for teaching the doctrine of evolution with which, as you know, I am in disagreement? 🙂

         Loading...

         Reply
         • agnophilo says:

           April 26, 2014 at 9:19 am

           “Don Ruhl: A semi with a large and tall trailer needed to move during the night because of the size of the load. However, the experts did not anticipate a low bridge. If only the load was 1 inch shorter. It was too large to backup, and so they toiled all night, trying to figure out what to do. As the dawn began to come on, a newspaper boy happened upon the scene. He suggested they let some air out of the tires!”

           Setting aside for the moment that the story is likely fictional, the child would need to have some basic understanding of the function of a car tire to have any hope of coming to a solution, which is common and simple enough for a child to understand. However to understand something like genetics is not as common and requires vastly more information to be learned and understood than something as simple as a car tire deflating and getting smaller. The same is true of biology in general, taxonomy, paleontology and other fields related to evolution. So asking that kid (or some evangelist who knows more about the bible than science) to weigh in on evolution and holding their opinion in higher esteem than those of generations of biologists, geneticists, etc is like asking either of them to diagnose a medical disorder off the top of their head, while ignoring the conclusion of ten thousand doctors and many batteries of medical tests.

           “Don Ruhl: Is the following the way you have been arguing? This is not a trick question, but I truly want to understand you.
           1. The experts verify evolution.
           2. People who reject the testimony of the experts are ignorant.
           3. Therefore, those who reject evolution are ignorant.”

           While it is true that I’ve never met someone who rejected science and also understood it very well, I would not dismiss someone simply because of their position. I was just pointing out that your sources of information are people who don’t know what they’re talking about. I tried to be even-handed and say that the same standard would apply to someone talking about scripture, someone who has spent a lifetime studying it would be more worth seeking out for an opinion than someone who knew next to nothing about it. Is this not true?

           “Don Ruhl said earlier: “This all goes back to your original comment, ‘Don Patton is not a scientist…It’s sleaze.” To which AgnoPhilo denied: “I didn’t say that either. You know for a christian you’re doing a lot of bearing false witness against your neighbor.” Don Ruhl: Here is your whole first comment that got our discussion going: “Don Patton is not a scientist, he has no degrees of any kind, and actual life scientists (most of which are christian in the US) overwhelmingly accept the science of evolution. What Patton is engaging in is called quote-mining, taking quotes out of context in order to misrepresent their meaning. The fossil record begins 3.4 billion years ago, several billion years before the cambrian period. The quote about no new phyla is misleading because of what the concept means in taxonomy, it’s like saying we don’t get more grandparents as time goes by. To claim that the species in the cambrian and pre-cambrian are as complex as modern species is dishonest and factually not accurate. It’s sleaze.” I suppose it’s possible that someone hacked your account, but go back and read your very first comment. I have not borne false witness of you, but apparently you now deny what you said in the beginning comment.”

           Taking something out of context and editing it to misrepresent it IS bearing false witness. In context it is clear that I said that misrepresenting facts about the fossil record was sleazy. Ironically what he was doing, taking things out of context to misrepresent them, is exactly what you are doing. And it’s just as dishonest.

           “Don Ruhl: I don’t like anyone being anonymous on this web site. That is why you see my name. If we were in person, we would exchange names.”

           Well probably 99% of the people on this website are anonymous so I guess you’re going to be unhappy regardless of what I do.

           “Don Ruhl: I understand totally, and I had forgotten about that, or I would have offered to pay for your ticket.”

           It’s not the money going out of my pocket that offends me, it’s the money going into theirs for what they do that offends me. I care about truth and when people actively misrepresent it that, to me, is wrong.

           “By the way, would you pay my property taxes please, that go for teaching the doctrine of evolution with which, as you know, I am in disagreement? :-)”

           If that were the standard we wouldn’t teach that the earth was round either, because some people don’t agree with that. But we can prove it objectively so we teach it in schools. The reason science is the standard is that once you can test something empirically it’s no longer a matter of belief or opinion. That you don’t accept that life changes over time doesn’t change the fact that 600 million years ago not one single species alive today existed on the earth. It doesn’t change the fact that we can compare the DNA of modern species and actually measure how closely related they are to each other, the same way we can measure how closely related two people are. And it doesn’t change thousands of other facts.

           Besides if people could get out of paying taxes for things by saying they didn’t believe in them nothing would get done because everyone would just say they don’t believe in anything. Which is why such things are decided democratically, not individually when it comes to public services.

           Loading...

           Reply
           • Don Ruhl says:

             May 16, 2014 at 4:34 pm

             AgnoPhilo: “However to understand something like genetics is not as common and requires vastly more information to be learned and understood than something as simple as a car tire deflating and getting smaller.”

             Here was the point of my illustration. Any expert does well to keep an open mind. Sometimes experts get so bogged down in details, or they get so caught up in their expert status, that they fail to see the simple. Then someone comes along whose mind has not yet been cluttered, sees something the expert does not, and provides great insight. The older experts enjoy getting that information from the non-experts, but the younger ones feel threatened by it. If you have not had that experience yet, someday you will, and I hope at that time, you can remember our discussion. This passage of Scripture has provided great wisdom for me, “Better a poor and wise youth than an old and foolish king who will be admonished no more” (Ecclesiastes 4.13). Also, this one from Jesus reminds me of the attitude I must take with anything in life, including in those areas wherein I believe I may be an expert, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18.3–4).

             AgnoPhilo: “I tried to be even-handed and say that the same standard would apply to someone talking about scripture, someone who has spent a lifetime studying it would be more worth seeking out for an opinion than someone who knew next to nothing about it. Is this not true?”

             Oh yes, that is true, but often “non-experts” in the Bible have amazed me with something they discovered or with an insight into a passage that I, who have been preaching for 34 years this summer, had not previously discovered. While there are experts, no expert knows everything, even within his field of expertise. Therefore, he does well to keep a child-like curiosity and open-mindedness, because every-once-in-a-while someone will come along and show him something he never considered, and he may kick himself for not having seen it himself, but he was glad to meet the non-expert. If a scientist, of any stripe, thinks he or she cannot learn from the common man, then that expert will someday experience a great humbling event.

             Concerning the “sleaze” comment you made. Who do you believe did something sleazy? Was it not Don Patton? What is the definition of “sleaze”?

             The thing about being “anonymous,” is that it removes accountability. Just look at all the comments on countless web sites and the hatred that prevails. Whereas, you and I have engaged in debate without resorting to such tactics. If you called me on the phone, I would not answer, “TheistPhilo,” but Don Ruhl. If you walked into the church building here, I would identify myself by my name. By the way, whenever you travel south, get off exit 58 on I-5 and come visit me in my office. We are only about a mile off the freeway, and I would love to buy you a coffee or lunch or whatever. If you need a place to stay, my wife and I would host you gladly.

             Now, let me ask you again, just to make sure that I got it right: Did you say you are open to your mother not actually being your mother, two plus two not equaling four, and George Washington not being the first president of the United States?

             Loading...

             Reply
             • agnophilo says:

               May 17, 2014 at 9:27 am

               “Here was the point of my illustration. Any expert does well to keep an open mind.”

               I would go further to say that any person does well to keep an open mind. And while yes experts can get it wrong so can non-experts. You seem to be saying that the occasional insight of a non-expert or child trumps or invalidates all expertise on every subject, or at least those which conflict with your theology.

               “Sometimes experts get so bogged down in details, or they get so caught up in their expert status, that they fail to see the simple. Then someone comes along whose mind has not yet been cluttered, sees something the expert does not, and provides great insight.”

               It is worth mentioning that experts themselves can often have new ways of looking at things, almost every great scientist in history went against the grain to some extent. While being an expert doesn’t mean you can’t be thinking about things the wrong way it also doesn’t mean you’re not thinking about things the right way. This is why science is not dogmatic and is based on evidence, not authority. There is no central organization that decides whether something is true, every scientist is allowed their own opinion, while being trained to follow evidence over their own feelings and biases, and eventually a consensus is reached which, to the credit of how scientists are trained to be objective, crosses all national and ideological borders. The scientists in one country (assuming the country has free speech) overwhelmingly will agree with the scientists of another country, regardless of different ideologies or religious beliefs or political views. There is no scientific issue I have ever heard of where a majority of the actual scientists are divided along political lines or by religious affiliation. Though ideological groups tend to paint a picture that that is the case (including creationist organizations) by highlighting the minority that favor their views and ignoring the vast majority that do not.

               “The older experts enjoy getting that information from the non-experts, but the younger ones feel threatened by it.”

               I would think it would be the other way around, if at all.

               “If you have not had that experience yet, someday you will, and I hope at that time, you can remember our discussion.”

               I am more than willing to entertain any idea from any person. It’s part of what I believe in.

               “This passage of Scripture has provided great wisdom for me, “Better a poor and wise youth than an old and foolish king who will be admonished no more” (Ecclesiastes 4.13).”

               I agree. And I apply the “I could be wrong for all I know” philosophy to everything. You however, as you have stated previously, apply it to everything except certain religious views. You believe in open-mindedness and humility and logic and evidence with a really big asterix at the end, “except when it comes to my core religious beliefs”.

               “Also, this one from Jesus reminds me of the attitude I must take with anything in life, including in those areas wherein I believe I may be an expert, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18.3–4).”

               I adopt any idea I agree with or that makes sense from any philosophy, including egolessness in eastern philosophy, though the extreme of it is probably impossible. I am very humble when it comes to my beliefs and my idea of myself.

               “Oh yes, that is true, but often “non-experts” in the Bible have amazed me with something they discovered or with an insight into a passage that I, who have been preaching for 34 years this summer, had not previously discovered. While there are experts, no expert knows everything, even within his field of expertise. Therefore, he does well to keep a child-like curiosity and open-mindedness, because every-once-in-a-while someone will come along and show him something he never considered, and he may kick himself for not having seen it himself, but he was glad to meet the non-expert.”

               I agree.

               “If a scientist, of any stripe, thinks he or she cannot learn from the common man, then that expert will someday experience a great humbling event.”

               A scientist can learn from the common man, but the common man usually knows nothing about the cosmological or the microscopic from his day to day experience, simply because our senses do not perceive these things and we must use instruments of science to gain any kind of familiarity with them. Things like fossils and arctic ice cores are similarly obscure to the average layman and are simply not something people tend to stumble across in the course of their day. And even if someone does they cannot learn much from a single fossil or even a handful, and the accumulated observations and insights of thousands of minds over hundreds of years will be more impressive and useful, no matter how brilliant the layman.

               “Concerning the “sleaze” comment you made. Who do you believe did something sleazy? Was it not Don Patton? What is the definition of “sleaze”?”

               Yes, don patton (though his behavior is by no means unique). And what I was talking about was everything described here:

               “What Patton is engaging in is called quote-mining, taking quotes out of context in order to misrepresent their meaning. The fossil record begins 3.4 billion years ago, several billion years before the cambrian period. The quote about no new phyla is misleading because of what the concept means in taxonomy, it’s like saying we don’t get more grandparents as time goes by. To claim that the species in the cambrian and pre-cambrian are as complex as modern species is dishonest and factually not accurate. It’s sleaze.”

               “The thing about being “anonymous,” is that it removes accountability. Just look at all the comments on countless web sites and the hatred that prevails.”

               It also removes inhibition and, for the most part, the harm done by neurotic behavior. Yes people express hatred on the internet, but they can also get feedback which can be therapeutic. And the hatred was there before the internet, and perhaps posting crazy youtube comments is better and less destructive than joining the KKK and lynching people, or beating one’s children or, to go back not too far into history, raping your slaves. Yes hateful comments on the internet are unpleasant, but as outlets for society’s mental illnesses go there are far worse alternatives.

               Also I wouldn’t attach my name to a blog like mine because I express political and religious views which, given how strongly people feel about both subjects, could disqualify me for or more of the jobs I apply for in the future. A majority of americans say they wouldn’t put an atheist in any position of authority, usually because they believe atheists to be selfish and immoral. So “coming out” as an atheist can have serious harmful repercussions for people, especially if they have any kind of freelance career which relies on many employers. These days people google people and look at their facebook before they hire them.

               “Whereas, you and I have engaged in debate without resorting to such tactics. If you called me on the phone, I would not answer, “TheistPhilo,” but Don Ruhl. If you walked into the church building here, I would identify myself by my name. By the way, whenever you travel south, get off exit 58 on I-5 and come visit me in my office. We are only about a mile off the freeway, and I would love to buy you a coffee or lunch or whatever. If you need a place to stay, my wife and I would host you gladly.”

               That is very kind of you to say. I would take you up on lunch or something but I take public transit so you may as well be on the other side of the country from me.

               “Now, let me ask you again, just to make sure that I got it right: Did you say you are open to your mother not actually being your mother, two plus two not equaling four, and George Washington not being the first president of the United States?

               Yes. I know the odds of any of those things being untrue is very small, and a vast amount of evidence would be needed to contradict them, but in principle I have to allow for the possibility of being wrong about anything.

               Loading...

               Reply
               • Don Ruhl says:

                 June 6, 2014 at 3:29 pm

                 AgnoPhilo: “I would go further to say that any person does well to keep an open mind. And while yes experts can get it wrong so can non-experts. You seem to be saying that the occasional insight of a non-expert or child trumps or invalidates all expertise on every subject, or at least those which conflict with your theology.”

                 Yes, anyone can get things wrong, because we are all human. No, I am not saying that the occasional insight of a non-expert trumps everything the expert has to say.

                 Your paragraph above that begins, “It is worth mentioning that…” was great. The only thing I would add is to your second parenthetical statement “((including creationist organizations).” I would have worded it, “(including creationist and secular organizations).”

                 AgnoPhilo: “You believe in open-mindedness and humility and logic and evidence with a really big asterix at the end, ‘except when it comes to my core religious beliefs’.”

                 Think about it, assume with me for a moment. If there is a God, and if He has communicated to us in the Scriptures, then life gets interpreted in light of the Scriptures. You act as though “core religious beliefs,” are inconsequential, but they are everything. Jesus said that the two greatest commandments are to love God and to love your neighbor. Therefore, I live my life in light of those things. They come first. I seek to love God with the entirety of my being, and I seek to love you even as I love myself. As Paul said, “Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies” (1Co 8.1). Therefore, for me, love comes before knowledge.

                 “Core religious beliefs” go to the very center of my being. How can I disregard such truths? Therefore, I do not modify the Scriptures to harmonize with life, but I modify life to harmonize with the Scriptures.

                 You mentioned that you are an atheist. That surprised me, because of your “handle,” as we used to call back in the days of CB radios. I always assumed AgnoPhilo meant “lover of agnosticism,” but obviously I was wrong. What does AgnoPhilo stand for?

                 Although you take public transportation, Greyhound does stop in Grants Pass, and if you have some extra time when stopping here, please give me a call.

                 How do we know what is truth? How do we know what happened in the past? Which comes first: Belief or knowledge? Biblically, knowledge comes first. And in the working daily world, knowledge comes first. We do not determine what we want to believe and then look for evidence to support it, at least that is not the way we are supposed to work. However, we should believe whatever the truth is, not make true whatever we want to believe.

                 Do experts have biases? Do they ever make mistakes? Do they know it all? I say, No, to all three questions [See my next comment posted: June 11, 2014 at 9:43 am, and it will explain the mistake I made here, DR], because their expert status does not nullify their humanity. Should we accept without question what the experts say? For the most part, yes, we can. Their expert status makes them a form of authority.

                 Concerning faith, why not let the Bible define what faith is, since it is a biblical issue. Hebrews 11 lays out the clear definition of biblical faith, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Heb 11.1).

                 Court cases demonstrate Hebrews 11 faith. Usually, juries have not witnessed the murder they are to judge. By that I mean, they did not see it on video or any other way. Yet, they will convict a suspect beyond any reasonable doubt. By the way, what is the antonym of “doubt”? Certainty, knowledge, and faith serve as the antonyms of doubt. When juries convict a suspect of a crime, such as murder, they say that, although they did not see the crime, they examined the evidence, which demonstrated to them that they know such and such committed the crime, leading them to conclude that they believe such and such happened. Juries walk by faith, not by sight.

                 History demonstrates Hebrews 11 faith. How do we know that George Washington served as the first president of the United States? Did we see him serve as the president? Have we ever seen him at all? No! How then do we know, or should I say “believe,” that he ever existed or served as our first president? Can you prove scientifically that he ever existed or served as president? If not, why do we believe he existed and served as president?

                 We believe that George Washington served as president, because documents exist proving he served as our first president. We base our belief on historical knowledge, written by credible witnesses, and other valid historical information, because history is just as valid a form of knowledge as is science.

                 So it is with the biblical record. Credible witnesses wrote down the information, such as on the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. On the resurrection, God chose certain witnesses, “And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed by hanging on a tree. Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly, not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead” (Acts 10.39–41). “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life—the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us—that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ” (1Jo 1.1–3).

                 The Holy Spirit chose the right witnesses. Observe how man ruins things. No, the Holy Spirit wanted men who were truthful, credible, devoted, and close associates of Jesus. The enemies of Jesus in the first century argued that His testimony was insufficient, hence false, “The Pharisees therefore said to Him, ‘You bear witness of Yourself; Your witness is not true'” (John 8.13).

                 Listen to the brilliant reply of Jesus, “Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from and where I am going'” (John 8.14).

                 However, knowledge alone, or knowledge exalted above all other things, leads to serious problems. It can lead to arrogance, “Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies” (1Co 8.1). It can also lead to emptiness, “For in much wisdom is much grief, And he who increases knowledge increases sorrow” (Ecc 1.18).

                 There is biblical knowledge and there is scientific knowledge. We cannot make scientific knowledge our God, nor can we make biblical knowledge our God. Both scientific knowledge and biblical knowledge come from the one true and living God.

                 Science benefits us as long as we make it our servant and not our master. Science is like money. We need money. Money does good things for us. When we make money our god, we ruin our lives.

                 The same with any form of knowledge.

                 “Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him” (1Co 8.1–3).

                 Simply knowing leads to boasting that one knows more than another. If I think I am Mister Knowledge, then I still have some things to learn. Knowledge and love are good, but love supersedes knowledge. Love leads to helping other people. Ultimately you want to love God, for if you do, God knows you, because He loves you whether you love Him or not.

                 If there is a God, then not only must you know Him, you need to make sure that He knows you. Yes, He knows who you are, but does He know you as one of His?

                 He knows how we make a mess of our lives. The time approaches that we shall all stand before Him to give an account of our lives.

                 He created everything, including you and me. Therefore, He wants things to operate in a certain way, and when things do not, our ruined lives create problems, “…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3.23).

                 We are supposed to aim for God’s glory that we might share in it, but we get lured away from the target, and no longer being focused on God’s glory, we do not give the strength needed, causing us to fall short.

                 We still do not have the strength to reach the target, even after we have discovered our shortcomings and want to get back on track that we might reach His glory.

                 However, He extends favor to us, because He wants us. He wants to adopt us as His children. He want us in His family.

                 Loading...

                 Reply
                 • Don Ruhl says:

                   June 11, 2014 at 9:43 am

                   Oops, I goofed big time in the following sentences:

                   “Do experts have biases? Do they ever make mistakes? Do they know it all? I say, No, to all three questions, because their expert status does not nullify their humanity.”

                   Yes, experts have biases.
                   Yes, they make mistakes.
                   No, they do not know it all.

                   My initial reply either confused you, or cracked you up. It cracked me up when I went back to read it over. 🙂

                   Loading...

                   Reply
3. Reptoroklou says:

   June 26, 2014 at 1:22 pm

   Brother Agno would like ot post some stuff but the exchange is somewhat confusing. Would you mind putting out your contention in a simple straight forward manner. It looks as though you beleive in a non0guided mechanism as an explanation for life? Is htat correct. I want o say out front that The fact you have that view does not bother me not do I think your any less energized to find “real truth” than I am so while I may scientifically criticize your views I will not criticize you, I expect our exchange to be cordial and informative as well civil. Please capsulize this discussion, as it jumps all over the place and I can’t get a hold of the argument that well, your all going now where with what your saying. Thanks!!!
   Humbly I am an intelligent cause advocate which also would infer a guided explanation for life, the details we may or may not all observe our explanations and interpretations of some of it is up for level discussion, but some of it I believe there is a very heavy argument in favor of a guided mechanism as being responsible and will gladly share that view with you. This is not about right and wring, how about the novel idea of just finding out truth. There are many people who want to think for us and “tell” us what we observe isn’t true. On both sides. So lets just be civil and have an exchange and see where it goes. Cheers brother.

   Loading...

   Reply
   • Don Ruhl says:

     June 30, 2014 at 6:56 am

     Reptoroklou, you said, “It looks as though you beleive in a non0guided mechanism as an explanation for life? Is that correct.”

     Was that for me, or AgnoPhilo?

     I think it is obvious that I believe in God, that He created all things, and that He continues to sustain all things.

     Loading...

     Reply