Chr

responses, page 2c

Responses, page 2b was becoming unmanageably large due to an ongoing conversation, so I have continued that discussion on this page.

Send e-mail to Tekministry@aol.com
responses 1
responses 2a
responses 2b
responses 2c
responses 3
responses 4
responses 5
responses 6
responses 7
responses 8
home

Subj: Brooks Response 7
Date: 98-02-03 09:43:24 EST
From: XXXXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks:

Your insistence that I have tried to deceive you in some way is really starting to disturb me. Please take a second look at what I said:

"Moreover, some evolutionist would vehemently contradict your claim, as Talk.Origins alluded to: 'Some biologists feel the mechanisms of macroevolution are different from those of microevolutionary change.'"

Your first misconception is that my "statement [regarding their vehement contradiction] was based on this quote from Talk.Origins". As I said in my original remark, the quote from the site "alluded to" or referred to a "major controversy". I NEVER said that the quote itself expressed the verve of this debate. It does not and it never has.

However, this controversy does exist as is expressed in other statements in Talk.Origins, statements which I read before writing the above remark. For instance, point three of the Modern Synthesis of evolution says: "It postulates that speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. This is equivalent to saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution."

This view of gradual, consistent change is apparently one you share and it is the view held to throughout the majority of Talk.Origins. However, in fairness, the author also notes that some do not agree entirely. It continues: "The major controversy among evolutionists today concerns the validity of point #3. There are many who believe that the fossil record at any one site does not show gradual change but instead long periods of stasis followed by rapid speciation."

More specifically: "The debate is over the relative contributions of gradual versus punctuated change, the average size of the punctuations, and the mechanism."

Let's review shall we? There is "major controversy" whether or not "macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution" and there is "debate" over "the mechanism".

Talk.Origins does not support this view to any great extent. In fact, it stated in the quote that you sent me: "There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution." This statement is NOT supported by all evolutionists. Of course, there are theories such as orthogenesis, typostrophism (principally in Germany), and neo-Lamarckism, but I am not going to argue the validity of one theory of evolution over another. However, the question must be asked (before moving on), if neo-Darwinian theory has been proven to be the cause of life on earth, as you claim, why are scientists coming up with other theories in contradiction to it?

But even if you did ignore other theories on evolution, you cannot ignore that even proponents of neo-Darwinism admit differences in macro- and microevolution. In fact, "Some biologists feel the mechanisms of macroevolution are different from those of microevolutionary change." For instance, microevolution, according to evolutionists, is said to occur during times of anagenesis (what is referred to as "periods of stasis") while REAL change (macroevolution) occurs during cladogenesis (what is referred to as "periods of rapid.change").

The difference becomes obvious in this quote from a website for students at the University of Iowa taking Human Origins courses

(http://www.uiowa.edu/~anthro/origins/index.html):

"Gradualism doesn't agree with what is seen in the fossil record. Gradualism predicts constant change in fossils with species gradually transforming into other species with many transitional forms. But, the fossil record is long periods of time where the fossils change little if any at all, followed by rapid transitions between species with transitional forms rarely found. This pattern implies that the rate of evolutionary change has not remained constant.

People who worked with the fossil record have historically thought that the problem was with the fossil record itself. They thought that because the fossil record was fragmentary, they were simply not recovering transitional forms. In the middle 1970's people who were working with the fossil record finally realized that the fossil record was not defective, that transitional forms were actually rare, and that gradualism was probably wrong. They proposed a new model of evolution called punctuated equilibrium."

(http://www.uiowa.edu/~anthro/origins/campus/Lec7.html)

(Note: The fact that there are "long periods of time where the fossils change little if any at all, followed by rapid transitions between species with transitional forms rarely found" supports the Genesis account)

You then claimed that "we have observed macroevolution numerous times over the last several decades." If such direct evidence exists for macroevolution, why is it never called upon to defend it? For example, the quote you sent me said that "Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes." All the author had to do was say: "But we have witnessed it!" Instead, he states that "this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered."

In other words, macroevolution is true because you cannot disprove it. This is expressed in another quote you sent me (I highlighted words that imply that macro- is not a fact): "However, synthesists CLAIM that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles CAN BE extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered." Again, "macroevolution is true because you cannot disprove it." What if I used the same logic on you? God MUST exist because you cannot disprove Him.

All the instances listed on the webpage you sent me are merely examples of speciation in microevolution, largely as a result of intelligent intervention and definition of "species". No direct evidence exists for macroevolution. In fact, evolutionists have even said that only indirect evidence is discernable. Macroevolution has arisen as a theory "without direct observation of the process occurring in our time." (http://icarus.uic.edu/~vuletic/cefec.html#4.9)

Your statement that "we have observed macroevolution numerous times over the last several decades" is false. As this was your only objection to Finley, his evidence stands.

The fact that lists exist showing that one kind of animal is similar to another proves nothing. Evolutionists see connections that do not exist in the fossil record. These reflect the beliefs of the scientists and prove nothing. Yesterday I saw a cloud that looked like an elephant. There should be an abundance of convincing transitional animal but none have ever been found (although millions should exist according to Darwin.)

2) In your last e-mail, you often seemed to imply that my objections to evolution are based on unreasoning bias. I disbelieve evolution, not because of reason, but because: "as a fundamentalist you are committed to a literal interpretation of Genesis."

Of course, this is not true. In "Brooks Response 5b" I said of the Biblical account of creation:

"Let me also state that the need here is to investigate and determine whether it harmonizes with known facts, not to mold it to fit some theoretical framework (such as theistic evolution). Also to be remembered, the Genesis account was not written to show the "how" of creation."

In other words, Genesis does not tell us how, exactly, the animals were formed. Therefore, the account does not exclude the possibility of evolution entirely. Consequently, I am able to look at the evidence for or against macroevolution objectively. Weighing the reasonableness of both sides. Eventually I was forced to conclude, as was Finely, that evolution did not fit the facts of the fossil record, probability, logic, etc.

You, however, do not have this luxury. You are an atheist. As such the only logical conclusion for our existence is that we MUST have arouse through purely natural processes. Unfortunately, your narrow-mindedness extends beyond that.

For instance, because you are unable to accept that the Bible might have something significant to say about the origins of our earth (which would give strong evidence of its divine authorship), you are unable to accept something as simple as the meaning behind the Hebrew word yohm. But is my interpretation that the word translated "day" means more than 24 hours reasonable? Let's review the facts:

a) According William Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies "yohm" is defined as: "A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration . . . Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens."

b) In Genesis 1:5 God himself is said to divide day into a smaller period of time, calling just the light portion "day."

c) In Genesis 2:4 all the creative periods are called one "day."

d) There are numerous Biblical references that use the period day to represent various lengths of time, even milleniums.

e) Evidence from geology supports a much longer process of creation.

f) Even modern day languages, including English, use the word day to represent various lengths of time (see critique b).

However, you disagree, citing:

a) A 24-hour period is the traditional view of most Christian religions.

b) The expressions "evening" and "morning" are used relative to the creative periods.

Allow me to critique these objections.

a) As I have already stated "that fact that Christendom has killed in the name of Jesus does not make murder right. And the fact that they interpreted the word yohm as 24 hours does not make it right either." This is a form of fallacy known as "appealing to authority." It is not a petition to reason.

b) This is the only objection you have raised that shows some sign of reason. What you have failed to recognize, however, is that this wording is consistent with the language of the verses. For example, in some places people often refer to a man's lifetime as his "day." They speak of "my father's day" or "in Shakespeare's day." They may divide up that lifetime "day," saying "in the morning [or dawn] of his life" or "in the evening [or twilight years] of his life." 'Evening and morning' in Genesis chapter 1 does not limit the meaning to a literal 24 hours in Hebrew any more than it does in English.

Therefore, the secular interpretation of the word defines it. The use of it in Chapter one supports it. The use of it in Chapter two confirms it. It agrees with the context of the account. It agrees with the context of the Bible as a whole. And the interpretation is supported by the facts of geology, reality, and the premise of authenticity. Still, Mike Brooks does not believe.

I beg you to look at the reasonableness of this interpretation and honestly examine why you object to such a small point from the onset of my argument.

I am also interested in having a discussion with a reasonable person who is willing to consider other points of view - someone that will not dogmatically cling to biased prejudices but listen fairly to the reasoning of others. If this is something you feel you cannot do, please tell me now so that I will not waste anymore time.

Finally moving on.

3) Again you insisted that Chapter two of Genesis could not be reconciled with Chapter one. Only this time you actually provided a reason. You said:

'Hmmm...if the animals' creation "began long before Adam appeared on the scene," then why does the Bible specifically say this:

"Then the Lord God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make a helper fit for him.' So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them."? (RSV)

However, you also noted that not all translations agreed with this wording. After all, The NIV version reads: "Now the Lord had formed..." as if all the animals had already been created and were not about to be. Because a translation does not agree with your personal interpretation or was written at a later date does not mean it is wrong. So the question arises: Which translation is correct?

Actually, they are BOTH wrong. And now for a lesson in Hebrew:

The Hebrew word rendered "formed" in the RSV and "had formed" in the NIV, is taken from the verb "form" in the imperfect state. Unfortunately for translators, the perfect and imperfect states do not exist in the English language. Fortunately, I am somewhat of a "language buff" and am very familiar with these states from my four-year study of Spanish (these states are proliferate in nearly all the Romantic languages).

According to Appendix 3C of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures - With References:

"The Hebrew verb has two states, the perfect state and the imperfect state. The perfect state indicates completed action. The imperfect state indicates incomplete or continuous action, or action in progress. In Ge 1:1 "created" in Hebrew is a verb in the perfect state, showing that the action of creating the heavens and the earth was completed. In Ge 2:2 "proceeded to rest" in Hebrew is a verb in the imperfect state, indicating an incomplete or continuous action, or action in progress. (Compare Heb 4:4-7.) Therefore, in Hebrew, action that took place in the past could be indicated by verbs in the imperfect state if that action is viewed as incomplete,."

This Bible translation renders the words at Genesis 2:19 as "was forming." This is consistent with the imperfect state and means that Jehovah was creating animals long before Adam was lonely. However, he was not finished. Man existed but his creative works were not complete, he had yet to create a "helper for him, as a complement of him" (NWT ftn. "Or, 'counterpart,' something fitting for him.") Thus a woman was formed and god "proceeded to rest" (and "continues to rest" at least until the end of the seventh creative "day" - our day)

Your listing of creation in the order they are mentioned (1- man 2- trees 3- animals) is deliberately misleading. In view of the imperfect state, trees and animals were created before man in harmony with the first chapter.

4) "Your 'it takes up at a point in the third 'day' ' statement can reasonably be described as synonymous with the word 'continuation.'"

I understand. Sorry about the miscommunication. I thought you were implying that I said Chapter two was simply a continuation after the sixth day.

5) When referring to the evolution of the eye, I said: "I am willing to admit that evolutionists have a perfectly wonderful explanation for how this miracle came about."

For some reason, you still found it necessary to prove this to be the case. However, all the assumptions from the text you sent me are based on the idea that evolution is unerring and true. So these theories stand foundationless.

6) After rereading your e-mail I found so many loose thoughts and aggravations I decided to send them in a separate e-mail called Brooks Response 7b - Loose Thoughts. But before I go.

I would like to apologize for some "fiery" comments I made regarding your belief in virtual particles. Your insistent mockery of my own beliefs is very frustrating, but that does not excuse retaliation (also, I tend to get 'edgy' around my birthday).

You're a smart guy, don't waste it.

Sincerely,

Craig

Subj: Brooks Response 7b - Loose Thoughts
Date: 98-02-03 09:43:24 EST
From: XXXXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Some false claims from your last e-mail:

1) "I have gotten you to admit that change takes place in populations." - I came forward with the facts of microevolution before you composed your straw man argument.

2) "I have shown you numerous, clear, undeniable transitional fossils" - The "transitional fossils" you have shown me simply reflect the views of the evolutionists that come forward with them. They are neither numerous, clear, or undeniable.

Perhaps I am not being clear on this point. Allow me to illustrate my reasoning. We are both familiar with couches and beds. Now, if decided I wanted to prove that beds had evolved from couches I would look for "transitional furniture" and would find an excellent example: the hide-a-bed. However, we both know that all three are separate creations, so the hide-a-bed's existence doesn't really prove anything. But, if I were still convinced, it would be possible for me to put forth even more evidence and maybe even prove my theory if I could find some sort of household furnishings that crossed the gaps between these three. Perhaps if I found a couch with space set up for a bed, but no bed there. Or a bed inside a couch that is not big enough to sleep on. Unfortunately for my theory, no one has ever made these useless things.

The same is true in nature. No truly "transitional animals" can be found. As I have said before," there are fossils of various types of flying creatures-birds, bats, extinct pterodactyls. According to evolutionary theory, they must have evolved from transitional ancestors. But none of those transitional forms have been found. There is not a hint of them. Are there any fossils of giraffes with necks two thirds or three quarters as long as at present? Are there any fossils of birds evolving a beak from a reptile jaw? Is there any fossil evidence of fish developing an amphibian pelvis, or of fish fins turning into amphibian legs, feet and toes? The fact is, looking for such developing features in the fossil record has proved to be a fruitless quest."

3) Regarding arguments in favor of a god you said: "So far you have not done this, but have instead directed all your energy into attacking evolution." -I have written pages on the necessity for design in life. Are you blind?

Some frustrations from you last e-mail:

4) "By the way, I could not find arguments on Finley's site for the existence of God, just attacks on evolution" -Exactly, and why should there be? ".if you showed that evolution does not occur, this would not necessarily make the existence of a god true by default." Finley was not arguing the existence of God - I was. Incidentally, the non-existence of a god would not necessarily make the existence of macroevolution true by default either.

5) ".you are not arguing for just any god, as you claimed, but are specifically arguing for the existence of the god of the Bible and for the infallibility of the Bible." - In Brooks Response 2 I said: ".I was not attempting to argue the validity of Christian belief over any other religious philosophy, although we can if you like. However, I wish to discuss the topic at hand for now."

It was never my intent to be drawn into a discussion of Christianity. However, your insistent questions and complaints sucked me in, and now I find myself in a full blown debate about the authenticity of the Bible. This is because you seem to believe that discrediting the Bible and Christianity will somehow prove that there is no god. This is a "false dichotomy."

6) "You laugh at the idea of the universe "popping" into existence, but have no problem with an intelligent being, a god, arising from nothing. Seems a bit hypocritical" - Now you understand MY point of view. I wrote that portion to show you that laughing at my beliefs and then insisting that the universe just "popping" existence is just as hypocritical. - I NEVER said I believe in God "arising from nothing." Jehovah is eternal.

On to your questions:

>>Why do whales have pelvis? I don't know. I'm sure they serve some purpose. As for snakes, what did you think I would say? (Genesis 3:14)

>>How old is the earth?

Modern science says about 4.5 billion years. Right now, I have no reason to believe otherwise.

>>Is the Noah's Ark story true? When did it happen and what is the evidence for it?

Yes. From what I understand, the Bible is unclear as to exactly when it occurred, but I believe it was about 4,000 to 5,000 year ago. The evidence for it is the record in God's word.

I also find the amazing similarity of numerous "flood legends" convincing evidence. I'm sure you are familiar with the frozen mammoths, however I read somewhere that they do not conclusively prove anything. They have also found the remains of marine life in mountains.

>>Did you visit those abiogenesis links I sent you?

Yes. These are commented on later.

>>The fact that most species are now extinct fits in with evolutionary theory, but it tends to contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis, wouldn't you agree?

Honestly, no, I do not agree. The February 8, 1990 issue of Awake! magazine comments on the extinction of dinosaurs: "When the dinosaurs had fulfilled their purpose, God ended their life. But the Bible is silent on how he did that or when. We can be sure that dinosaurs were created by Jehovah for a purpose, even if we do not fully understand that purpose at this time. They were no mistake, no product of evolution."

The fact that dinosaurs appear suddenly in the fossil record like any other species and disappear mysteriously and just as suddenly supports this view.

>> "Finally, please provide the observations and facts which unambiguously support the creationist account of our origins."

The first two are brief because I am very confident in them. The third, dealing with biogenesis, takes into consideration the links you sent me and directly addresses them. It started out brief and then took on a life of its own.

1) The stages of geologic development themselves. You objected to my quote in support of this because, as you said: "I want to hear YOUR explanation of how geology supports the creation story in Genesis"

I do not understand how my rewording it will help you to appreciate this point any further. I'm afraid my knowledge of secular theories on geologic development is limited to High School Freshman Earth Science.

>From what I understand, the earth was at one time completely covered in water and dense gasses, eventually dry land emerged, then plants, aquatic life appeared, and then land animals. This is exactly how the Bible describes it. However, I also remembered a few vague points about the density of the earth's atmosphere and how this changed after the introduction of plant life. This is amazingly consistent with the Bibles acknowledgement that the luminaries of the sky would not have been visible until the fourth creative day even though light from these luminaries would have existed long before this and would have been adequate for photosynthesis.

Along with other insightful comments (such as the fact that there was a beginning, a view that has not always been held to by the scientific community and is absent in most creation myths), the fact that the Genesis account lists these events in the order that they actually occurred is remarkable. How could some starving Hebrew out in the wilderness have known that?

2) If evolution were true, we should see gradual changes in the fossil record with each stage producing millions of real transitional fossils. If the Genesis account were true we should see numerous complex plant and animal species appearing virtually simultaneously in the fossil record and then persisting nearly unchanged for millions of years, each eventually becoming extinct or surviving to the present.

This is precisely what we see in the fossil record. Evolution cannot account for this. There is the theory of punctuated equilibrium, but this theory is under "much debate" (from quote in your e-mail received by me 12/7/97). After all, does it make sense for microevolution (little change) to occur during the longer periods of history, and macroevolution (major changes) to occur almost abruptly? According to the mechanisms of evolution, this seems to be contradictory.

But the fact that this is the way the fossil record appears is undeniable. It supports the Genesis account.

3) "The law of biogenesis states that life comes only from previous life." Vuletic objected to this by saying that this law applies only to multi-cellular organisms. He wrote: "The slow, stepwise process of prebiotic synthesis and the all-at-once process of spontaneous generation are not comparable" (http://icarus.uic.edu/~vuletic/cefec.html#3.1)

However, I made it clear in my original remarks that my argument does not refer to complex organisms but to "simple" celled life. The law of biogenesis does apply in this case, as a history of the law shows. You see, as late as the 17th century, even educated people still believed that living things could very easily arise from nonliving matter. Mice bred from old rags, weevils from wheat, frogs from mud and eels from dew.

The issue still raged when Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859. Many cited the supposed spontaneous generation of bacteria as support of evolution and as an explanation of the origin of life. In the same year French scientist Pouchet "proved" that microorganisms bred from water, air and hay. Another French scientist, Louis Pasteur, however, challenged these claims, showing that bacteria carried in the air on dust particles could have infected Pouchet's experiments. One web site on your list (http://128.120.103.4/bio10\origin.htm - later referred to as "Origin of Life") said: "In a sense, Pasteur was almost too good. His experiment made scientists reject the idea that life could have arisen spontaneously at any time under any circumstances."

This view was supported by modern science. Modern microscopes allowed scientists to observe just how cells divide and multiply. There was no doubt about it. Life, even simple life, came only from previous life. However this meant that life could not start on its own as part of some naturalistic process. Some "outside" eternal force would be necessary to supply the blue prints. Again, this view is consistent with what we see in the fossil record. According to the "American Scientist Article: The Beginnings of Life on Earth" (http://www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/articles/95articles/CdeDuve.html) the very first life to be found on this planet was already complex: "In rocks of that age, fossilized imprints have been found of bacteria that look uncannily like cyanobacteria, the most highly evolved photosynthetic organisms present in the world today."

But this god hypothesis was unacceptable (the reason is for this will be discussed later). Therefor scientists pressed forward with their ideas. Some, such as Oparin and Haldane (Origin of Life), even constructed possible models. You described their success by saying: "There is strong evidence suggesting that non-living matter can produce life."

This made me nervous. There were too many problems with macroevolution for me to seriously consider it, but was there really "strong evidence" in favor of abiogenesis?

The first sites I looked at were very confusing. Much chemistry was discussed and it took me some time to understand the processes being examined. Then I noticed the contradictions. Some researchers insisted that RNA (see: RNA and the Origins of Life) or some other macromolecule was necessary while others stated that it was not (see: Molecular Modeling of Protocell Functions - http://exobiology.arc.nasa.gov/biomod/PSB96/publi15.html).

But despite these, a general description emerged. It begins with the formation of the earth and atmosphere that provided the inorganic raw materials necessary for the evolution of life and set up the conditions for their interaction. It then required organic molecules to be produced through interactions between inorganic substances, driven by energy sources such as lightning and ultraviolet radiation from the sun. The then organic molecules present began to assemble randomly into collections capable of chemical interaction with the environment. These interactions eventually developed a genetic code. Evolution proceeded from here.

Only makes sense right? Except then, a few honest writers came forward with the problems that even this general description presents. Origin of Life comments:

"There are two recurring problems with the Miller-Urey scenario. First, if the newly formed molecules were exposed to the sun's ultraviolet light, they would break apart. The only way to avoid the sun is to shelter the molecules under water or somewhere else. The second problem is to find a way to enclose the newly formed molecules in a membrane to protect them from the environment."

This first problem can be elaborated on. The book "Life" comments:

"The same energy that would split the simple compounds in the atmosphere would even more quickly decompose any complex amino acids that formed. Interestingly, in his experiment of passing an electric spark through an "atmosphere," Miller saved the four amino acids he got only because he removed them from the area of the spark. Had he left them there, the spark would have decomposed them.

However, if it is assumed that amino acids somehow reached the oceans and were protected from the destructive ultraviolet radiation in the atmosphere, what then? Hitching explained: "Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions; water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules."

In other words, once amino acids are in the water, they must get out of it if they are to form larger molecules and evolve toward becoming proteins useful for the formation of life. But once they get out of the water, they are in the destructive ultraviolet light again!

The Origin of Life goes on to mention other problems. For instance, "how did the cell acquire a cell membrane?" "Why [are] only 20 or so of the many amino acids produced in a Miller-Urey experiment.actually used in protein synthesis by today's living organisms?" And why are there "no clear-cut answers to the nucleic acid question?"

After all of this, I was still looking for that "strong evidence" you had promised me at the beginning. I soon realized that I would not find any. The reason? "American Scientist Article" (referred to earlier) commented:

"How this momentous event happened is still highly conjectural, though no longer purely speculative."

Of course, it mentioned that "clues come from the earth, from outer space, from laboratory experiments, and, especially, from life itself." But let us not loose sight of the ultimate bases for these flawed, contradicting theories: conjecture. Why does the author not say that these theories are based on "strong evidence?" Because "strong evidence" does not exist. Because "it is now generally agreed that.life arose spontaneously by natural processes. Why? Because this is "a necessary assumption if we wish to remain within the realm of science."

In other words, these theories are base on "assumption." Apparently, the "realm of science" has room for the idea that life may have come to earth by means of an alien spaceship, but not from God (American Scientist Article, par. 2). Why is that?

This reminded me of a quote from Professor Wald of Harvard University, he said: "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible." But what does this proponent of evolution actually believe? He answers: "Yet here we are-as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." Wald is obviously an atheist. Is he practicing objective science here? Or is he allowing an emotional bias to dictate his scientific opinion? The only evidence he presents for this "impossible" task is his own existence. Is this reasonable to "assume"?

I originally wrote another page on how the protocell runs into the same problems as traditional macroevolution but will end my e-mail here instead.

In conclusion, strong evidence does not exist for abiogenesis. There is only a slew of contradicting theories. These theories are flawed. Theyall based on an assumption: if we exist then we MUST have evolved. This assumption is false because there are reasonable alternatives.

In your first e-mail to me, you said that to assume is the "greatest logical sin." Why then, is it so intrinsic to your personal philosophy?

---------------------------------

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle."-Biologist Francis Crick

"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."-Mathematician J. W. N. Sullivan

"The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."-Biologist Edwin Conklin

Craig,

Thanks for your response. I am not going to respond to everything you wrote, the reason why should be clear by the end of the e-mail.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I still don't see where the word "vehemently" is justified. Be that as it may, if some scientists believe that macroevolution is not a culmination of microevolution, what, specifically, are their alternative explanations for it? Do their alternative explanations somehow include the biblical god, and if not, do you then think that their explanations have any more merit than the micro=macro explanation? The citations you provided only discussed the pace of macro-evolution, not the process of macroevolution. Nothing you wrote showed that micro and macroevolution are not connected. The question that must be asked is this: why is it not possible for a culmination of small changes to result in transpeciation (reproductive isolation)?

I have a problem with the following statement:

"All the instances listed on the web page you sent me are merely examples of speciation in microevolution, largely as a result of intelligent intervention and definition of "species". No direct evidence exists for macroevolution. In fact, evolutionists have even said that only indirect evidence is discernable. Macroevolution has arisen as a theory 'without direct observation of the process occurring in our time.'"

The problem I have with the statement is that SPECIATION IS MACROEVOLUTION. And speciation, macroevolution (reproductive isolation), has been observed. The above statement that it hasn't been observed is false.

What more can I say? Microevolution and macroevolution have been observed, and you now apparently accept macroevolution. You can certainly argue that your god directs macroevolution (speciation) through divine intervention, as you say above, but macroevolution occurs, it is a fact. There is nothing more to debate on the subject. I appreciate the time you spent vainly disputing it in your e-mail and I will post your response on my web site, but I am not going to argue a moot point.

So you can now claim that Jehovah somehow directs evolution, as most Christians believe, and try to substantiate it. You have said that you don't want to debate Christianity specifically, but isn't that what my web site is about, isn't that the religion you believe in, and isn't that why you e-mailed me in the first place? Are you uncomfortable defending your beliefs? Your god, the god of the Bible-Jehovah, demands animal sacrifices, supports slavery, murders children, orders his chosen people to slaughter men, women and children, and promises to torture people for all eternity because of their opinions. He advises men to castrate themselves, he tells people to hate their families, and commands capital punishment for picking up sticks.

(Go here: http://the-anointed-one.com/bbu84/biblicalstupidity/quotes.htm)

If you want to spend your life paying homage such a demented monster, that is your business. That is fine and dandy.

I just think you are making a mistake.

It is my view that this god is simply the product of primitive, ignorant, warring people. I see no reason to believe otherwise, your inability to accept evolution as a natural occurence notwithstanding. I think people continue to believe in this and other gods because of their upbringing, their culture, their fears and their desires. I see that a person's religion is largely an accident of his or her birth. Don't you find it amazing that most people in Asia believe in Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism rather than Christianity? If you were born and raised in Saudi Arabia, what religion do you suppose you would believe in, and why do you think you would accept that religion rather than Christianity? Don't you find it intriguing that a person's religion is almost always the religion of his or her parents? To me this is clear evidence that religion is simply a psychological phenomenon. Most children in this country are brought up to believe that if they worship the god of the Bible, they will get to live forever in paradise. If they don't worship this god, they are threatened with eternal hellfire. They are promised that they can magically alter reality through prayer if they accept the Christian god. Their parents, their peers and their authority figures repeat these messages to them over and over again before they are educated about history, mythology, science and psychology. Can you admit that this has a powerful effect in motivating Christian belief, that in fact it is the real reason why most people are Christians?

If you want to convince me that the jealous, petty, vain, slavery-supporting, animal-sacrifice-demanding, women and children slaughtering, rape-condoning, baby-murdering, eternally torturing god of the Bible exists, and is not merely the product of self-serving, lying and manipulative priests and illiterate, ignorant believers living centuries ago, you are going to have to show some evidence for such a being.

Saying that order, complexity and life cannot arise naturally does not function as evidence for this god. All this is evidence for is your own incredulity about the principles of chemistry and physics.

One of the comments you made in your last e-mail was that the Noah's Ark drama occurred 4000 to 5000 years ago.

"Is the Noah's Ark story true? When did it happen and what is the evidence for it?" "Yes. From what I understand, the Bible is unclear as to exactly when it occurred, but I believe it was about 4,000 to 5,000 year ago. The evidence for it is the record in God's word."

The problem is that there is no evidence for it in the facts of reality. According to the genealogy of Jesus given in Luke, Noah lived 4000-5000 years ago. There is no evidence that 4000 to 5000 years ago the entire earth was entirely under water. The evidence is overwhelming that 4000 to 5000 years ago there were great civilizations all over the earth, all living on dry land. If you believe that Noah's flood occurred 4000 to 5000 years ago, you are mistaken. This Bible claim clearly shows that the Bible is not infallible, as you believe.

I really have a hard time taking you seriously when you claim to accept as true something which is so obviously false. I mean, are you maintaining this discussion with me just as a joke, and laughing when I actually take the time to respond to you?

If you really are serious and you truly want to convince me that the Bible is infallible and that your version of Christianity is legitimate, you are going to have do a bit of work. You are going to have to explain away all the contradictions, falsehoods, mistakes, historical errors, scientific errors, and God-ordered atrocities and absurdities that fill the Bible from one end to the other. I have added two new articles to my web site which detail some of these problems with the Bible and Christianity. They are "Some Reasons Why Humanists Reject The Bible" and "Tough Questions For The Christian Church," which was written by a former Christian. You can start your work by showing why these writers are mistaken when they point out the numerous and overwhelming problems with Christianity. Until you do, I will be unable to see you belief in the infallibility of the Bible to be anything other than a strongly-held delusion.

Have a nice day.

Sincerely,

Brooks

P.S. Oh yeah, the reason why sea fossils are found in and on mountains is because of plate tectonics. If you have a high school understanding of geology, you should know this.

Subj: Brooks Response 8
Date: 98-02-05 09:21:48 EST
From: XXXXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks,

Are you saying it's over between us? You seem to believe that you have put the evolution question to rest now by making sweeping, generalizing comments like "speciation is macroevolution." And then ignoring facts that contradict it (macroevolution is defined by Talk.Origins as referring "to large scale change, mostly at the SUPERSPECIES level, eg, by Niles Eldredge." Why do the definitions contradict your claim? Why are scientists saying that macroevolution has arisen as a theory "without direct observation of the process occurring in our time?" Why have you not supported your claim with quotes from authorities?)

But, if you are through discussing evolution, than I will not push the subject on you further. Besides, it is now becoming abundantly clear that you are not an atheist because other options make so much more sense, but because you have to many problems with the religions available to you and with religion in general.

"If you want to convince me that the jealous, petty, vain, slavery-supporting, animal-sacrifice-demanding, women and children slaughtering, rape-condoning, baby-murdering, eternally torturing god of the Bible exists, and is not merely the product of self-serving, lying and manipulative priests and illiterate, ignorant believers living centuries ago, you are going to have to show some evidence for such a being."

You sound a little bitter. You next stated that design in life does not support this kind of god, and frankly I would agree. So the question that is really being raised here is: "does the Bible support this kind of God?" A preview of your webpage shows that you obviously believe, very deeply believe, that it does. This belief is "set in stone" in your mind and I do not know that all the reasoning in the world could change a single opinion of yours. After all, I provided abundant evidence on the proper definition of the Hebrew word yohm and you never accepted that! But, who knows? For the sake of argument I will take up your challenge.

"You can start your work by showing why these writers are mistaken when they point out the numerous and overwhelming problems with Christianity."

Obviously this request is outrageous. Each of these pages goes on at great length and it would not only take me many months to respond, but the e-mail would take up several hundred pages! Your one accusation that Jehovah is a "jealous, petty, vain, slavery-supporting, animal-sacrifice-demanding, women and children slaughtering, rape-condoning, baby-murdering, eternally torturing god" alone would consume months! And no doubt you would not be able to parry each point in a reasonable amount of time either. Therefore, lets look at one or two points at a time.

Please send me the statements that you have the most trouble with to begin our discussion.

But before I go, you raised several very interesting questions.

"Don't you find it intriguing that a person's religion is almost always the religion of his or her parents?"

Yes. I was raised by a single parent. My mother was a Buddhist, "new age" witch, and scriptural apostate. I was taught that the Bible was evil and I am very thankful that I do not imitate her "religion." You also asked what religion I think I would have been if I had been raised in another culture. I wonder, how would you respond? I would probably have been an atheist.

"Can you admit that this [cultural influence and fear] has a powerful effect in motivating Christian belief, that in fact it is the real reason why most people are Christians?"

Yes. For many people, this is their motivation. However I believe that atheists are also made by the same influences. It is not right.

"I really have a hard time taking you seriously when you claim to accept as true something [global deluge] which is so obviously false?"

If it is "so obviously false," then prove that it is not true. I find it interesting that you ridicule the ideas of others and then claim that we have evolved from monkeys. Does this suggestion not sound ridiculous at face value?

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Craig

Craig,

Speciation is macroevolution. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html) "Evolution can be divided into microevolution and macroevolution. The kind of evolution documented above is microevolution. Larger changes, such as when a new species is formed, are called macroevolution." Speciation has been observed, and you acknowledged this. We both agree that evolution takes place, although I am sure that you think it is directed by your god.

Regarding the term "yohm" used in Genesis. Let's grant that "yohm" as used in Genesis was meant to equal billions of years, despite the fact that it is preceded by "morning and evening" and despite the fact that it was only recently, in the last 150 years or so, that the Church, obviously bowing to the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence, changed its mind and decided that "yohm" really meant billions of years rather than a literal day. So a Genesis "yohm" means billions of years. My question then becomes this: how could plants have been created before stars? Plants were created on the third "day," but stars-including the sun-were not created until the fourth "day." If a day is equivalent to billions of years, then how could the plants survive billions of years without sunlight? Another obvious question would be this: is it really true that plants existed before stars, including the sun? Is this what the evidence shows?

You asked me to disprove that there was a worldwide flood 4000 to 5000 years ago. I don't have to disprove anything, since it has never been "proven" that the entire planet was underwater 4000 to 5000 years ago. There isn't a scrap of evidence for such a ridiculous story. If you think otherwise, feel free to provide the evidence for it. If you cannot, then we will have to agree that this story is an example of error in the Bible.

If I was born in Saudi Arabia, I would probably be a Muslim. You say that if you were born in another culture, you would probably be an atheist. Okay then. Let's say that you were an atheist in India, and after a life of helping others and being a good citizen, you died and found yourself in the Christian hell, on fire, screaming in pain. Obviously you would no longer be an atheist at this point but a theist, though this wouldn't change your fate. What feelings would you then hold towards the Christian God as you writhed in agony, your eyes melted in their sockets, and you looked ahead to trillions of trillions of years of suffering?

I have a few more questions for you:

Why do you worship a god which supports slavery?

Why do you worship a god which continually orders its chosen people to butcher men, women and children with swords?

Why do you worship a god which murders children?

Why do you worship a god which promises to torture billions of people for all eternity for their opinions?

Why, in the first place, do you think that the Bible is anything other than a collection of books written by men?

Looking forward to your response.

Have a good weekend,

Brooks

Subj: Brooks Response 9
Date: 98-02-10 10:35:10 EST
From: XXXXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks,

It's good to hear from you. I originally wanted to open with some additional comments on evolution but have decided to wait on some feedback before I do. As it stands, because our definitions for macroevolution are different does not make yours correct by default as you apparently assume.

Before I begin to answer your questions, it is necessary for me to make a few comments on the validity of some "Christian" claims. First, it is important to note that the Bible foretold that after the death of the apostles, wrong teachings and unchristian practices would slowly come into the Christian congregation. Men would draw away believers to follow them instead of Christ. The apostle Paul wrote at Acts 20:29, 30:

"I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among YOU and will not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among YOU yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves." (All quotes are from the New World Translation unless otherwise indicated.)

Jesus himself foretold the coming of these "false prophets" who would infiltrate the congregation in "sheep's covering" (Matthew 7:15). Moreover, he said at Matthew 7:21-23 that there would be many who would claim to follow him, but would be unacceptable, no doubt because they are being led by the "twisted things" that Paul commented on. We read:

"Not everyone saying to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?' And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew YOU! Get away from me, YOU workers of lawlessness."

The Bible presents only one fundamental ideology. However, individuals use their own personal biases to create whatever religion bests suites them. They even draw a following by speaking "twisted things." This is not a testament to an inadequacy of the Bible, but to the rationality of man.

As an example I pulled this ad for the St. George's Episcopal Church off the internet:

"Since the 1970s, St. George's has been dedicated to offering a positive and affirming place for gay and lesbian Christians. Beyond mere tolerance, we believe in inclusivity and acceptance."

The Bible however, while teaching love of neighbor, does not condone such practices within the congregation. (Rom. 1:24-27 and 1 Tim. 1:9-11) There are literally hundreds of examples. 'Christians' have used the Bible to promote celibacy, war, and even mass suicide. This explains why so many Christian religious philosophies exist today.

So how are we to know which religion is correct? For the sake of argument, let's assume that all of them are false (an assumption I do not agree with but is necessary for an unbiased view of the Bible). This way, we can build from the ground up and will not be confused by conflicting man-made views.

1) For example, some Christians teach that sinners go straight to hell. Others think that a detour is necessary in a place called "purgatory." Others think that you only go to purgatory. Others do not believe in hell at all. Let's see what the Bible has to say:

It is very important to note that mankind was not made to die. Eventually of course our original parents sinned by disobeying God. What did He first promise those sinners? At Genesis 2:17 we read: "But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively DIE."

So in other words, Jehovah told Adam that if he disobeyed, the punishment would, not be eternal torment, but death. This fits in well with His standards for justice. When someone sinned, generally equal recompense was necessary (eye for an eye). Since no one could cause a fellowman torment for an eternity, it would not make sense for God to demand this of Adam. This idea of death in exchange for sin is consistent throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. At Ezekiel 18:4 we read: "The soul that is sinning-it itself will die."

Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10 comments on the state of the dead: "The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all . . . All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place to which you are going." (If they are conscious of nothing, they obviously feel no pain.)

Sheol is the only Hebrew word that is translated "hell" in many Bibles (i.e. the Catholic Challoner-Douay Version, Dy). However in other Bibles, it is translated in this verse as "the grave" (KJ, Kx) or "the world of the dead" (TEV). This inconsistency in translation has confused many. These other renderings, as well as other verses in the Bible, lead to the definition of sheol as "not to an individual burial place, but to the common grave of dead mankind," and certainly not to an eternal place of torment (Insight on the Scriptures, 1988, p.1086).

For instance, at Job 14:13, Douay Version: "[Job prayed:] Who will grant me this, that thou mayst protect me in hell, and hide me till thy wrath pass, and appoint me a time when thou wilt remember me?" (God himself said that Job was "a man blameless and upright, fearing God and turning aside from bad."-Job 1:8.) Was Job here praying, as a release from his debilitating illness and sorrow, to be tormented forever in hell? Obviously not. But he was asking for the relief of death in "the common grave of dead mankind" until he could be "remembered", or resurrected.

Jesus was well acquainted with the Hebrew Scriptures. When he was only twelve, the religious leaders of that day were "in constant amazement at his understanding and his answers" regarding scriptural questions (Luke 2:47). When Jesus was older, he met at the synagogue where "he stood up to read." "So the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed him, and he opened the scroll and found the place where it was written." Of course, chapters and verses were not applied to the Bible until much later. My point here is that he must have been well acquainted with the scroll in order to have found the few verses of Chapter 61 that he read - thereby proving that he was very familiar with the text (Luke 4:16-17).

My point in mentioning this is what I call "harmony plausibility." There is no doubt what the Hebrew Scriptures meant by sheol. Was Jesus going to change that? Jesus quarrel was with the apostate religious leaders of his day who taught "commands of men as doctrines", not with the Scriptures (Matthew 15:9). In fact, he often referred to the Bible of that day for authority, as shown in the instance mentioned above.

Therefore, it was clearly not Jesus intent to contradict scripture and any statement by him must be examined in this light. In addition, Jesus directly stated that he came "in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) In other words, those not exercising faith in Jesus would, not be tormented forever in hell, but be "destroyed." Other statements in the Greek scriptures mirror the definition for "sheol."

For instance, Paul wrote at Romans 6:23: "For the wages sin pays is death." Also at Rom. 6:7: "He who has died has been acquitted from his sin." This is very reminiscent of the scripture at Ezekiel 18:4.

In addition, we read in the King James Bible at Acts 2:25-27: "David speaketh concerning him [Jesus Christ], . . . Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." (The fact that God did not "leave" Jesus in hell implies that Jesus was in hell, or Hades, at least for a time, does it not?) This scripture reminds us of Job's plea to be hidden in "hell," showing it to be an indiscriminate "common grave."

Secular authorities agree with these meanings for Sheol and Hades. Collier's Encyclopedia (1986, Vol. 12, p. 28) notes concerning "Hell": "First it stands for the Hebrew Sheol of the Old Testament and the Greek Hades of the Septuagint and New Testament. Since Sheol in Old Testament times referred simply to the abode of the dead and suggested no moral distinctions, the word 'hell,' as understood today, is not a happy translation."

It is, in fact, because of the way that the word "hell" is understood today that it is such an unsatisfactory translation of these original Bible words. This modern definition comes from the concept portrayed in Dante's Divine Comedy and Milton's Paradise Lost, which meaning is completely foreign to the original definition of the word. The idea of a "hell" of fiery torment, however, dates back long before Dante or Milton. The Grolier Universal Encyclopedia (1971, Vol. 9, p. 205) under "Hell" says: "Hindus and Buddhists regard hell as a place of spiritual cleansing and final restoration. Islamic tradition considers it as a place of everlasting punishment." The idea of suffering after death is found among the pagan religious teachings of ancient peoples in Babylon and Egypt.

>From this we get a clear picture of were the hellfire concepts come from. It started out as a pagan doctrine and then entered into Christianity after the death of the apostles. Unfortunately, since then, this idea has influenced the translation of Bibles.

For instance, at Matt. 25:46, in the KJ we read: "These shall go away into everlasting punishment ["lopping off," Int; Greek, ko'laúsin]: butrighteous into life eternal."

But is this accurate? The Emphatic Diaglott reads "cutting-off" instead of "punishment." A footnote states: "Kolasin . . . is derived from kolazoo, which signifies, 1. To cut off; as lopping off branches of trees, to prune. 2. To restrain, to repress. . . . 3. To chastise, to punish. To cut off an individual from life, or society, or even to restrain, is esteemed as punishment;-hence has arisen this third metaphorical use of the word. The primary signification has been adopted, because it agrees better with the second member of the sentence, thus preserving the force and beauty of the antithesis. The righteous go to life, the wicked to the cutting off from life, or death. See 2 Thess. 1.9."

2 Thess. 1:9, RS: "They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction* and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might." (*"Eternal ruin," NAB, NE; "lost eternally," JB; "condemn them to eternal punishment," Kx; "eternal punishment in destruction," Dy.)

But more than just mistranslations have been construed to support this unchristian belief. Does not Jesus, on several occasions, speak of sinners being thrown into fire? For instance at Mark 9:47, 48 we read in the King James: "And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

What are the words "hell fire" a translation of? They are taken from the Greek word "Gehenna," the third and final word ever translated "hell." Where does this word come from and what does it really mean? Many are surprised to learn that Gehenna does not only appear in the New Testament, but it also appeared in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures in Jesus day). Appendix 4c of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures rather lengthily comments on the origin and meaning of this word:

"Gehenna" means "valley of Hinnom," for it is the Greek form of the Hebrew geh hinúnom'. In Jos 18:16, where "valley of Hinnom" occurs, [Septuagint] reads "Gehenna." It occurs 12 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures,.. appearing in. Mt 5:22, 29, 30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33; Mr 9:43, 45, 47; Lu 12:5; Jas 3:6.

The valley of Hinnom lay to the west and south of ancient Jerusalem. (Jos 15:8; 18:16; Jer 19:2, 6) Under the later kings of Judah it was used for the idolatrous worship of the pagan god Molech, to which god human sacrifices were offered by fire. (2Ch 28:3; 33:6; Jer 7:31, 32; 32:35) To prevent its use again for such religious purposes, faithful King Josiah had the valley polluted, particularly the part called Topheth.-2Ki 23:10.

The Jewish commentator David Kim_hi (1160?-1235?), in his comment on Ps 27:13, gives the following historical information concerning "Gehinnom": "And it is a place in the land adjoining Jerusalem, and it is a loathsome place, and they throw there unclean things and carcasses. Also there was a continual fire there to burn the unclean things and the bones of the carcasses. Hence, the judgment of the wicked ones is called parabolically Gehinnom."

The valley of Hinnom became the dumping place and incinerator for the filth of Jerusalem. Bodies of dead animals were thrown in to be consumed in the fires to which sulphur, or brimstone, was added to assist the burning. Also bodies of executed criminals, who were considered undeserving of a decent burial in a memorial tomb, were thrown in. If such dead bodies landed in the fire they were consumed, but if their carcasses landed upon a ledge of the deep ravine their putrefying flesh became infested with worms, or maggots, which did not die until they had consumed the fleshy parts, leaving only the skeletons. Therefore, to have one's dead body cast into Gehenna was considered the worst kind of punishment. From the literal Gehenna and its significance, the symbol of the 'lake burning with fire and sulphur' was drawn.-Re 19:20; 20:10, 14, 15; 21:8.

No living animals or human creatures were pitched into Gehenna to be burned alive or tormented. Hence, the place could never symbolize an invisible region where human souls are tormented eternally in literal fire or attacked forever by undying worms. Because the dead criminals cast there were denied a decent burial in a memorial tomb, the symbol of the hope of a resurrection, Gehenna was used by Jesus and his disciples to symbolize everlasting destruction, annihilation from God's universe, or "second death," an eternal punishment."

In conclusion, Sheol and Hades refer to the condition of indiscriminant death from which individuals can be "remembered," or resurrected from. Gehenna is used as a metaphor for the destruction of sinners. The concept of hellfire was integrated into false Christianity after the death of the apostles from ancient pagan beliefs. Any scriptural quotations to the contrary are based on misconceptions and are not in harmony with the context of the verse, of the Bible, and of a loving and just God.

>> How could plants have been created before stars?

You have asked this question several times and I have answered it several times. Until you acknowledge what I have said before I will just repeat my previous statements:

"However, I also remembered a few vague points about the density of the earth's atmosphere and how this changed after the introduction of plant life. This is amazingly consistent with the Bibles acknowledgement that the luminaries of the sky would not have been visible until the fourth creative day even though light from these luminaries would have existed long before this and would have been adequate for photosynthesis."

>> There isn't a scrap of evidence for such a ridiculous story [of an earthly deluge]. If you think otherwise, feel free to provide the evidence for it. If you cannot, then we will have to agree that this story is an example of error in the Bible.

What kind of reasoning is this? For decades, the fact that King David was not mentioned outside the scriptures provided Bible critics freedom to discuss his fictional nature. However, a team of archaeologists, led by Professor Avraham Biran in 1993, discovered a basalt stone on an ancient mound called Tel Dan with the words "House of David" and "King of Israel" carved into the rock. Professor Joseph Naveh wrote regarding the stone: "This is the first time that the name David has been found in any ancient inscription outside the Bible."

Prior to the discovery of this stone, was I forced to believe that King David was nothing more then a figment of Hebrew imagination? Clearly he was not. Does the fact that no evidence has yet been discovered in favor of the Biblical Flood force me to believe that it was also a figment of Hebrew imagination? Clearly it does not.

>> Why, in the first place, do you think that the Bible is anything other than a collection of books written by men?

Of course, I could go on at great length on this question, but for lack of time, will just touch on a few points. Looking at life and at creation, I believe that God wants us to be happy, despite all the problems in the world. Why else would he create love, beauty, curiosity, etc.? Since we are his creations, He would know what would best make us happy. Would He keep this information hidden? That would not seem logical. Therefore I would expect to find some sort of "instruction manual" for life.

The Bible fills this need. I have seen it transform people's lives. I have seen the sad consequences of those who would ignore it. What other book has influenced as much of the wold's greatest art, literature, and music, while also having a profound impact on law? What other book has survived thousands of years of recopying by human hand and yet has come down to us essentially as it was written? What book has inspired such unselfishness that some have been willing to suffer hardship and even risk death in order to translate it? If the Bible really was the Word of God, it would have to be available to everyone on earth. This book has been translated into more languages and more copies of it exist than any other publication on earth. It is available in over 2,100 languages and is accessible to 90 percent of earth's population. It contains scientific truths not discovered until many centuries later. It contains timeless principles that can help people of all racial, ethnic, and national backgrounds to improve their lot in life. And more than that, it contains unambiguous predictions that came true, as proved by historical facts.

In the light of this evidence, I have no choice but to believe it is God's Word.

You also asked several other questions, but I think I have written enough for now. Please raise them again in the future after we are able to settle this business with hell and such. As always, I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Craig

Subj: Brooks Response 9.5
Date: 98-02-10 11:43:50 EST
From: XXXXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks:

In order to clear up any misunderstandings regarding the definition of macroevolution, I decided it would be best to simply ask the good people at Talk.Origins. The response was somewhat disappointing.

The author made it very clear that "macroevolution is evolution at species level or higher." And that "since speciation has been seen, macroevolution has been seen."

I was wrong!

However, it is important to note that there are different kinds of macroevolution and that, while my definition for this word has changed, my understanding of what kind of evolution is taking place and what kinds are impossible remains the same.

The e-mail went on to state: "Since some kinds of macroevolution occur at very long periods, some kinds have not been seen." As I said in Brooks Response 6, I do not believe there is enough evidence to support this "kind" of "superspecies macroevolution." In fact, I believe that there is strong evidence against it, evidence that I have shown you.

The author went on to note that "to observe macroevolution of that kind, where it involves millions of years of data, you have to dig, literally, into the past, and since some sorts of information get lost over time (ie, behavioral) you have to infer rather than observe."

Please note that this kind of super-macroevolution is not solely based on observation, but largely on inference. It is NOT proven. The author insists that there is "every empirical reason" to believe that it has taken place. However, he did not find it necessary to cite this evidence, which is doubtlessly no more convincing then the "strong evidence" provided for prebiotic synthesis.

The complete text of his letter follows this e-mail.

Sincerely,
Craig

*****************

My response to your feedback query:

=======

There is a longstanding confusion about the use of the term "macroevolution" by evolutionists that lends itself to these sorts of misunderstandings. The Macroevolution FAQ gives the basic definitions and history of the term.

Briefly, macroevolution is evolution at species level or higher. This involves, at a minimum, speciation - the splitting of one species into two. Because even more derived varieties of evolution, such as the appearance of new families, occur above the species level, they are also "macroevolutionary", and Eldredge's book referred to covers the dynamics of evolution at that level.

So, since speciation has been seen, macroevolution has been seen. Since some kinds of macroevolution occur at very long periods, some kinds have not been seen. For example, the original ancestor of a new family would be very similar to other species it shared an ancestral species with. The fact that it has some novelty that forms the basis for a large number of species many millions of years later would not (then) be apparent. You'd have to wait until the large number of species evolved to find out that it was a family-producing novelty. And so forth for higher taxa.

So, to observe macroevolution of that kind, where it involves millions of years of data, you have to dig, literally, into the past, and since some sorts of information get lost over time (ie, behavioral) you have to infer rather than observe. But the converse is also true, that nobody can demonstrate that the sorts of small-scale macroevolutionary changes we do see in the period of biology known as the Recent, or Neontological, period are not capable of producing the paleontological patterns we find in the fossil record, and there is every empirical reason to think that they do.

=======
John Wilkins
Head, Graphic Production
The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research
Melbourne, Australia
mailto:wilkins@WEHI.EDU.AU>

Craig,

Macroevolution has been observed. This is not debatable. Now that you see that this is true, you try to say that what you actually objected to was something called "super species-macroevolution." It looks very much like you are playing word games in order to avoid admitting that you, and Finley, were wrong. It looks as though you are trying to redefine evolution so that you can deny it. Do yourself a favor and give it a up.

As I said before, there is no longer any point in arguing about evolution because we both agree that it occurs. You are certainly free to provide evidence that it is directed by your god, but I am not going to argue about the fact that it occurs.

(Oh, one more thing regarding evolution. You said that whale pelvises may have some as of yet undiscovered purpose. Please. The pelvis in whales is clearly a vestigial structure from land-dwelling ancestors.)

I wanted you to provide an explanation for why you believe that the Bible is the work of god rather than the product of men. To make things easy, I will reprint your reply and answer it point by point in parenthesis:

"Of course, I could go on at great length on this question, but for lack of time, will just touch on a few points. Looking at life and at creation, I believe that God wants us to be happy, despite all the problems in the world." (Of course, this is an assumption that a god exists in the first place.)

"Why else would he create love, beauty, curiosity,etc.?" (This is an assumption that love, beauty and curiosity come from the assumed god. You have not made a case that a god exists or that these qualities have some divine origin.)

"Since we are his creations,..." (Again, a presupposition.)

"He would know what would best make us happy. Would He keep this information hidden? That would not seem logical. Therefore I would expect to find some sort of "instruction manual" for life." (You assume a god, you assume what its thoughts are and you assume its method of communicating its thoughts to the human race. Furthermore, if the Bible really is a divine instruction manual for life, then we should castrate ourselves, hate our families, beat our children, keep slaves and slaughter those who do not share our religion.)

"The Bible fills this need. I have seen it transform people's lives." (the Koran has transformed peoples lives, as has the Bhagavad-Gita. So has Mein Kampf.)

"I have seen the sad consequences of those who would ignore it." (And history has witnessed the sad tragedy of those who have taken it literally. Remember Jesus' words, "Thou shall not suffer a witch to live"?)

"What other book has influenced as much of the world's greatest art, literature, and music, while also having a profound impact on law?" (Uh, there were laws and thriving societies long before the Bible was put together in the fourth century. The Bible has had a considerable influence on western culture simply because western society has been dominated by Christianity for 2000 years. The fact that Christianity inherited the Roman empire does not make the Bible divine.)

"What other book has survived thousands of years of recopying by human hand and yet has come down to us essentially as it was written?" (First of all, the Catholic Bible, the original Bible, did not exist until its books were selected and voted on in the fourth century by some Christian leaders. So the Bible has not been around for "thousands" of years, but less than two thousand. The reason a Bible of some sort has existed for hundreds of years is because Christianity has existed for hundreds of years. Secondly, the Bible has not remained unchanged over the years, but has been constantly revised and corrected, and there are several different versions available today. If I am not mistaken, the Catholic version, the "original" version, contains entire books all the other Bibles leave out.)

"What book has inspired such unselfishness that some have been willing to suffer hardship and even risk death in order to translate it?" (People have always endured hardships and risked death for earnestly-believed falsehoods, especially if they thought that their hardships and risks would gain them eternal rewards in a mystical afterlife.)

"If the Bible really was the Word of God, it would have to be available to everyone on earth. This book has been translated into more languages and more copies of it exist than any other publication on earth." (The fact that Christian believers pump out millions of copies of the Bible in different languages is not evidence that the Bible is divinely-inspired. It is evidence that devote Christians want to preach to the world, and have the money and power to do so.)

"It is available in over 2,100 languages and is accessible to 90 percent of earth's population."(Again, it doesn't make it divine. This simply shows power and money of the Christian Church and the efficiency of mass-production.)

"It contains scientific truths not discovered until many centuries later." (It doesn't contain special, then-unknown scientific knowledge. If you think otherwise, please cite specific examples. Additionally, it contains many scientific errors, such as the notions that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth.)

"It contains timeless principles that can help people of all racial, ethnic, and national backgrounds to improve their lot in life." ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto to you" is perhaps one of these "timeless" principles, but this idea did not originate with the Bible. It was repeated numerous times over hundreds of years before Christianity got its start. Some people would just call advice like this common sense anyway. Even if the Bible contains some good advice, so what? Many books do. This doesn't make the Bible divine. The Bible clearly condones much that is ill-advised, morally repugnant and evil-such as slavery, torture, the beating and murder of children, and genocide.)

"And more than that, it contains unambiguous predictions that came true, as proved by historical facts."(Care to be more specific than this?)

"In the light of this evidence, I have no choice but to believe it is God's Word." (In light of your "evidence," I have no choice but to remain a non-Christian.)

As I hope I have shown, nothing you have said in regards to the Bible shows it to be anything other than a collection of books written by men. Nothing you said indicates that the Bible is the work of a supernatural being. The number of translations of it, the effort Christians put into copying it, the number of languages it is available in, the influence of the Christian Church on western society, the advice found in the Bible, these things do not show supernatualism. You alluded to special scientific knowledge found in the Bible, but did not describe what it was. You implied that the Bible contains amzing prophecies, but again you did not explain what these were or how they show the Bible to be divine. You are going to have do better than this.

This brings me to the biblical flood, an obviously erroneous story, and your ingenious attempt to avoid providing evidence for it. You compared the claim that the entire planet was entirely covered with water 4000 to 5000 years ago to the assertion that there was a Hebrew king named David in the Middle East in ancient biblical times. You explained that just because there was no physical evidence for King David until recently, we should not be surprised that, at present, there is no real evidence for the worldwide biblical flood. Excuse me, but these claims are not in any way comparable. If there there was a particular king, David, lording over an obscure band of nomads in the Middle East in ancient times, this is not something one would immediately or ever expect to find evidence for. However, if the entire planet endured a cataclysmic flood 4000-5000 years ago, one would be continually overwhelmed with dramatic and undeniable evidence for it. This, obviously, is not the case. There is not one scrap of evidence that this occurred. All of the evidence clearly shows that 4000 to 5000 years ago, the continents were much as they are today-high and dry above water.

I really don't know how else to put this to you, so I will just say it straight out: the biblical flood never happened. It is a false story. A myth. To assert otherwise is to delude yourself. The fact that this story is in the Bible shows, undeniably, that the Bible is in error.

Since I am talking about Genesis, I want to touch on your response to my question about how plants can exist for billions of years without sunlight. You reply was as follows:

"However, I also remembered a few vague points about the density of the earth's atmosphere and how this changed after the introduction of plant life. This is amazingly consistent with the Bibles acknowledgment that the luminaries of the sky would not have been visible until the fourth creative day even though light from these luminaries would have existed long before this and would have been adequate for photosynthesis."

The Bible says that the plants were created on the third day, and that the stars were created o the fourth. It did not say that the stars became fully visible on the fourth day, but provided light on the third day. It says that they were created on the fourth day. How could the English possibly be made more clear to you? Don't feed me any more nonsense about the orignal Hebrew being mistranslated. Just explain to me how plants can exist for billions of years without sunlight.

It seems to me that if the Bible said that 2+2=5, you would find a way to argue that two added to two equals five. You would say that the Hebrew word for 5 could also mean 4 in certain contexts, or that the Hebrew word for 2 actually means 2.5, or that Satan has deviously fooled humanity about the true sum of 2+2 since the beginning of mathematics in an effort to populate hell with unbelievers. Any conceivable answer would do as long as you could deny that the Bible had an error in it.

Having said all that, it now seems that you are willing to admit that the Bible does have errors in it. You call them mistranslations. You devoted a great deal of space to describing how Christians have misinterpreted the Bible, how they have mistranslated references to hell-how the original references to hell were only comparatively benign descriptions of bodies being thrown into a garbage dump and forgotten. Well, this is quite a major mistranslation regarding hell since the New Testament describes these bodies as weeping and gnashing their teeth, and suffering "eternal punishment." I didn't know dead bodies could suffer eternal punishment. Clearly the Hebrews who wrote the books of the Old Testament believed that a relatively benign place called Sheol was the final resting place for ALL of the dead, but the New Testament writers believed, or wanted others to believe, in something much different-in eternal torture for those who did not accept Jesus, and eternal paradise for believers. Remember the story about the rich man suffering in hell in Luke 16:19? My question is this: how could your god's perfect word have such a glaring error in it regarding something of such grave importance, our eternal fate???

If you admit that there is such a dramatic example of misinterpretation and mistranslation-of error, in the Bible, how can you say elsewhere in your letter that the Bible "has survived thousands of years of recopying by human hand and yet has come down to us essentially as it was written..." You seem to be contradicting yourself. If, as you admit, your god's perfect word can not be trusted to mean what it says, if you admit that it has such blatant errors in it, then what are we arguing about? I mean, it seems that no matter how ludicrous a biblical claim is, you can always defend it by asserting that, well, this is what it says, but this is not what it means. The Bible is wrong, but the error is simply a "mistranslation" and you know what it "really" means. If the Bible says "black," you can claim that it actually means "white," if it says "up," you can reply that the original author meant "down," if it says that 2+2=5, you can say that "5" is a mistranslation of "4." Rather than embarrass yourself by engaging in ridiculous word games, you should just face the fact that the Bible is the product of fallible men, and as such, is filled with contradictions and errors.

If there really is a god, we should not ridicule it by blaming it for the Bible.

You seemed to miss some questions that were in my last e-mail. Here they are again:

Why do you worship a god which supports slavery?

Why do you worship a god which continually orders its chosen people to butcher men, women and children with swords?

Why do you worship a god which murders children?

Why do you worship a god which promises to torture billions of people for all eternity for their opinions? (or is eternal torture simply a matter of biblical misinterpretation, error, which your god has allowed to persist for virtually the entire history of Christianity, up until this day?)

Look forward to you reply.

Brooks

Subj: Brooks Response 10
Date: 98-02-24 12:52:51 EST
From: XXXXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks,

Once upon a time, all someone had to do was say that he did not believe in "evolution," and he was understood. He did not believe that animals (with their unique characteristics and interdependent features) could have come about through minor changes in entirely different animals.

However, others began rejecting their claim by "playing word games." They changed the definition. No longer did "evolution" refer to Darwinism, but to ANY kind of change in life. Then the terms microevolution and macroevolution arose. Theists shifted their argument to the latter, reasonably stating that it was impossible for minor change to create new genus. But then the definition for macroevolution changed. It no longer refers to large-scale change, as some understood it to, but to small-scale "speciation." Therefore, by no small coincidence, evolutionists have not defined the kind of evolution that creationists deny, and have always denied, by playing their "word games." They have continued to blur the distinctions between minor and major change, as if there were no difference, in order to further their dubious claims.

Fortunately, they cannot deny the profound arguments that do not allow their theories to proceed.

a. Not enough time has elapsed for the formation of the variety of life that exists.
b. Interdependent features can only come about by intelligent design.
c. The fossil record unambiguously supports creation.

In the face of these arguments, a reasoning person could not help but conclude that Darwinism doesn't work as a theory. The only reason a person would choose to think otherwise is if they are influenced by personal bias.

2) I did not say that "whale pelvises may have some as of yet undiscovered purpose." I said I do not know how they are used - I am not a marine biologist. However, your ridiculous claim that it is "clearly a vestigial structure from land-dwelling ancestors" has lead me to do some research. "The Book of Whales" by Richard Ellis states that "the pelvis is present in some species, but represented only by a rudimentary bone embedded in the muscle below the spine." I could not find a book that commented on the specific purpose of this bone, but by the diagrams included, it was apparently used in movements of the upper trunk in relationship to the lower, boneless fin.

3) Let me make it clear that the reasons listed in favor of the Bible are reasons why I, not necessarily anyone else, believe it to be inspired by God, as you had requested. Your critique of my statements did not take this fact into consideration and is therefore inappropriate. For instance, you said that belief in God is an "assumption." This is not true. The natural universe shows obvious signs of innate intelligent design. Since there is no means for this "design" to come about through purely natural processes, an intelligent force MUST have guided it. There is simply no way around it. Intelligent design is clear, unequivocal evidence of an intelligent designer. What is now brought into question, is the nature of this designer.

If this force created all that we see, then it must have created "love, beauty, curiosity, etc." These facts lead me to the undeniable conclusion that it must have wanted us to be happy. Right? My next point is that the majority of the pain, poverty, and suffering we experience are the result of man's hand. If a god truly wanted us to be happy, would he not provide something to guide this "hand?" This does not mean that a guide MUST exist, but that it is likely. There are many holy books that claim to be what we are expecting. Nothing else has been offered, therefore my conclusion is that if we examine them and find one befitting an inspired book, this form of communication is the guide we are looking for.

Fortunately, in comparison, only one stands out.

The Bible is not the only book that has transformed people's lives. But the fact that it has forces us to take notice. Moreover, other holy books do not share its other unique features. For instance, no other holy book has had as profound affect on so many people's lives as has the Bible. While there have been many great civilizations, no other book has influenced as much of the world's greatest "art, literature, and music, while also having a profound impact on law."

No other book is available to nearly everyone on earth. This is not just a testimony to the extraordinary, unique zeal that it has inspired in those who read it, as you commented. But it makes it stand out again as a truly unique book. Moreover, this would have to be a characteristic of God's guide to man and no other work, be it Koran, Bhagavad-Gita, or Mein Kampf, shares it.

Your claim that the Bible was composed in the forth century is not correct. Despite proud Catholic claims, the book "All Scriptures Is Inspired of God and Beneficial" lists fifteen catalogs prior to the Third Council of Carthage in 397 AD that contain nearly all of the Christian Greek Scriptures. One of the most interesting early catalogs is the fragment discovered by L. A. Muratori in the Ambrosian Library, Milan, Italy, and published by him in 1740. The fragment is dated at 170 AD and, although large portions of this document are missing, it catalogs the complete modern Bible with the exception of James and Hebrews.

But more than that, fragments of the Hebrew scriptures have been found prior to the birth of Christ. It is generally held that the entire 39 books were recognized by the fifth century BC, moreover, the writing themselves were completed much earlier. In fact, some scholars estimate that the Pentateuch began being written nearly 3,000 year ago! But when newly discovered documents from these ancient times are compared with modern texts, there is virtually no change. This is essentially impossible, since the printing press did not exist and texts had to be copied by man's imperfect hand. How was it accomplished?

In addition the Bible DOES contain scientific knowledge not discovered in its day. A separate e-mail will discuss this. In my next e-mail, I will tackle the much larger issue of fulfilled prophecy.

You then concluded by saying that: "In light of your 'evidence,' I have no choice but to remain a non-Christian." What evidence? I only listed things that make this book unique and said that there was evidence that convinced me -- I did not show this evidence to you. It appears that you have already made up your mind to disbelieve any evidence I present BEFORE I present it to you. Is this reasonable?

>>"As I hope I have shown, nothing you have said in regards to the Bible shows it to be anything other than a collection of books written by men."

You would not consider "unambiguous predictions that came true, as proved by historical facts" profound evidence that the Bible is much more "than a collection of books written by men?" You say that you have "shown" me this, but you did not present any evidence that the Bible does not contain undeniable prophecy, or even scientific facts. The claim you make here is nothing more than ridiculous posturing!

4) Regarding the non-existence of Flood evidence, the book "The Bible; God's Word or Man's" comments"

"If we grant that a great flood could have happened, why have scientists found no trace of it? Perhaps they have, but they interpret the evidence some other way. For example, orthodox science teaches that the surface of the earth has been shaped in many places by powerful glaciers during a series of ice ages. But apparent evidence of glacial activity can sometimes be the result of water action. Very likely, then, some of the evidence for the Flood is being misread as evidence of an ice age.

Similar mistakes have been made. Concerning the time when scientists were developing their theory of ice ages, we read: "They were finding ice ages at every stage of the geologic history, in keeping with the philosophy of uniformity. Careful reexamination of the evidence in recent years, however, has rejected many of these ice ages; formations once identified as glacial moraines have been reinterpreted as beds laid down by mudflows, submarine landslides and turbidity currents: avalanches of turbid water that carry silt, sand and gravel out over the deep-ocean floor." [Scientific American, May 1960, p.71]

Another evidence for the Flood appears to exist in the fossil record. At one time, according to this record, great saber-toothed tigers stalked their prey in Europe, horses larger than any now living roamed North America, and mammoths foraged in Siberia. Then, all around the world, species of mammals became extinct. At the same time, there was a sudden change of climate. Tens of thousands of mammoths were killed and quick-frozen in Siberia. Alfred Wallace, the well-known contemporary of Charles Darwin, considered that such a widespread destruction must have been caused by some exceptional worldwide event. [Planet Earth-Ice Ages, by Windsor Chorlton, 1983, pp. 54, 55, 57.] Many have argued that this event was the Flood."

This book goes on to state other reasons and evidence for believing the flood. It also discusses several of the other points I have brought out in favor of the Bible and why they work (including Bible prophecy). I would like to send you a copy. If you accept, please send me your address in the next e-mail. I live in Missouri.

5) "It seems to me that if the Bible said that 2+2=5, you would find a way to argue that two added to two equals five. You would say that the Hebrew word for 5 could also mean 4 in certain contexts, or that the Hebrew word for 2 actually means 2.5, or that Satan has deviously fooled humanity about the true sum of 2+2 since the beginning of mathematics in an effort to populate hell with unbelievers. Any conceivable answer would do as long as you could deny that the Bible had an error in it."

I found this statement particularly interesting because it is, in some sense, true. You apparently consider me unreasonable for this, but in my eyes you are the one that is being unreasonable! Please reason with me Mike.

What if YOU said that 2+2=5? Would I be forced to conclude that you are an idiot? Clearly this is not the case for such an idiotic handicap would prevent you from writing intelligibly. Would it not be logical for me to consider that you meant this in some other way? Perhaps you were being sarcastic, or perhaps in your native language the "word for 5 could also mean 4 in certain contexts." The truth is, if I looked at the context of your statement I could probably figure out what you meant.

The same is true of the Bible writers. An example: consider the often-raised problem of where Cain got his wife. Bible critics claim that this is an inconsistency in the text, that the Bible is, in essence, saying that 2+2=5. But is this assumption reasonable? After all, even a six-year-old Israelite of that day could have told you that people do not come out of thin air. Is it sensible to believe that the Bible writer did not know this, considering that he was able to compose a narrative that is hailed as sacred down to this day?

Or is it perhaps possible that Adam had more than two children, maybe even a daughter? Would it then not be reasonable to say that Cain could then have married one of his sisters, or perhaps a niece? After all, laws against incest did not exist until much later in the Bible and they would have been much closer to perfection (as indicated by their life span) and thus able to avoid modern day problems with such a union. (In fact the Bible clearly states that Adam had "sons and daughters" at Genesis 5:4)

Another example: some have claimed that plant life could not exist until after the fourth day when the sun, moon and stars appeared. ".Explain to me how plants can exist for billions of years without sunlight," they might say. But such claims do not take into account the fact that light appeared in the FIRST DAY.

But how could light exist before the luminaries? Did Moses not know where light came from? In essence, they are claiming that the Bible says: 2+2=5. Is this reasonable?

No, it is not. The text does not exclude the possibility that the sun and moon were in outer space long before this first "day," and that their light simply did not reach the surface of the earth for an earthly observer to see. Now, light evidently came to be visible on earth on this first "day," and the rotating earth began to have alternating days and nights.

It is interesting to note that the light apparently came in a gradual process, extending over a long period of time, not instantaneously as when you turn on an electric light bulb. The Genesis rendering by translator J. W. Watts reflects this when it says: "And gradually light came into existence." (A Distinctive Translation of Genesis) This light was from the sun, but the sun itself could not be seen through the overcast. Hence, the light that reached earth was "light diffused," as indicated by a comment about verse 3 in Rotherham's Emphasised Bible.-See footnote b for verse 14.

It would not make since then, for the luminaries to be mentioned until after this overcast was gone - after oxygen had been released into the atmosphere. It is now that we find God's statement: "Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens." But note, they appear for the purpose of, not to give light (which they have already provided), but to "serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years."

No one would EVER claim that having two and adding two would give you five. That would sabotage one's credibility. And if you claim that a credible person would, then you are sabotaging your own.

6) Does Social Darwinism and Laissez-faire Capitalism prove that evolution is false? Clearly, you would not agree that misinterpretations and misapplications of the theory prove anything about its authenticity. Therefore, would you not also agree that it would be hypocritical to claim that social misrepresentations and mistranslations of the Bible, such as the Inquisition and hell fire, prove that it is false?

You said that I contradict myself if I "admit that there is such a dramatic example of misinterpretation and mistranslation-of error, in the Bible [hellfire]," but then "say elsewhere.that the Bible "has survived thousands of years of recopying by human hand and yet has come down to us essentially as it was written..."

I believe my earlier comments clarify this point. When referring to the Bibles unchanging nature, I was comparing ancient Hebrew copies to more modern Hebrew copies; it is adequately explained in the book that I will send you. Comparing mistranslations to these accurate texts can easily clear up misunderstandings.

For instance, at Matt. 25:46, your Bible says that the wicked will "go away into everlasting punishment" but mine says "everlasting cutting-off." Which translation is correct? Fortunately the original Hebrew meaning is explained for us in plain English. I already sent you this comment from The Emphatic Diaglott:

"A footnote states: "Kolasin . . . is derived from kolazoo, which signifies, 1. To cut off; as lopping off branches of trees, to prune. 2. To restrain, to repress. . . . 3. To chastise, to punish. To cut off an individual from life, or society, or even to restrain, is esteemed as punishment;-hence has arisen this third metaphorical use of the word. The primary signification has been adopted, because it agrees better with the second member of the sentence, thus preserving the force and beauty of the antithesis. The righteous go to life, the wicked to the cutting off from life, or death. See 2 Thess. 1.9."

7) There are several instances in the Bible where individuals are said to weep and "gnash" their teeth (Lu 13:28; Mt 8:12; 13:42; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30.). In NONE of these situations do we find it is the result of physical torment. For instance, at Luke 13:28 individuals are not allowed into a feast and are thrown outside. "There is where [YOUR] weeping and the gnashing of [YOUR] teeth will be," the verse says. As a result of their misconduct, they experience intense emotional remorse and are excluded from His kingdom. It is an expression used to communicate sorrow. The only verse I could find that might be misconstrued to support the hellfire doctrine is Matthew 13:42. Here we read:

"And they will pitch them into the fiery furnace. There is where [their] weeping and the gnashing of [their] teeth will be."

This verse follows an illustration where the kingdom is compared to harvest day. After a year's worth of work, the harvester reaps the wheat and binds any invasive plants for destruction. Verse 40 of chapter 13 comments: "Therefore, just as the weeds are collected and burned with fire, so it will be in the conclusion of the system of things." The "weeds" are "weeping and the gnashing" their teeth in sorrow as a result of this destruction in death.

But what about Jesus parable at Luke 16:19? Isn't it a clear example of hellfire? The Jerusalem Bible (a Catholic version), in a footnote, acknowledges that it is a "parable in story form without reference to any historical personage."

If it was meant to be taken literally, it would mean that those enjoying divine favor could all fit at the bosom of one man, Abraham; that the water on one's fingertip would not be evaporated by the fire of Hades; that a mere drop of water would bring relief to one suffering there. Does that sound reasonable to you? Moreover, it would mean that those in heaven can hear the screams of agony and pleas for relief of those in hell, does that sound like paradise to you?

Jesus did not mean that the Pharisees actually swallowed camels whole (Mt. 23:24), that they were full of dead men's bones (Mt. 23:27), or that sinners would be tormented by a loving and just God. Such ideas are ridiculous! They were presented in metaphor. In fact Jesus stated the exact opposite regarding sinners. He said that they would be destroyed (John 3:16).

What does the parable mean? The "rich man" represented the Pharisees. (See verse 14.) The beggar Lazarus represented the common Jewish people who were despised by the Pharisees but who repented and became followers of Jesus. (See Luke 18:11; John 7:49; Matthew 21:31, 32.) Their deaths were also symbolic, representing a change in circumstances. Thus, the formerly despised ones came into a position of divine favor, and the formerly seemingly favored ones were rejected by God, while being tormented by the judgment messages delivered by the ones whom they had despised.-Acts 5:33; 7:54.

"My question is this: how could your god's perfect word have such a glaring error in it regarding something of such grave importance, our eternal fate???"

What glaring error? Misinterpretations do not equate error. If we really are going to burn forever in hell, why doesn't the Bible come out and say it? Why does it constantly refer to death as being the result of sin? Why does it always use the image of fire and Gehenna as a metaphor for destruction? Why does Job ask to go there? Why was Jesus sent there?

The Bible is very clear on this point. If you sin, you die. Men speaking "twisted things" have drilled the "error" into us. It simply is not in the Bible.

8) ".it seems that no matter how ludicrous a biblical claim is, you can always defend it by asserting that, well, this is what it says, but this is not what it means."

I could not say anything about Hebrew grammar, words, etc. if it were not true.

9) A few questions:

>>Why do you worship a god which supports slavery?

The Bible refers to many different kinds of slavery. To which do you refer? The reference work "Insight on the Scriptures" comments:

"The original-language words rendered "slave" or "servant" are not limited in their application to persons owned by others. The Hebrew word `e'vedh can refer to persons owned by fellowmen. (Ge 12:16; Ex 20:17) Or the term can designate subjects of a king (2Sa 11:21; 2Ch 10:7), subjugated peoples who paid tribute (2Sa 8:2, 6), and persons in royal service, including cupbearers, bakers, seamen, military officers, advisers, and the like, whether owned by fellowmen or not (Ge 40:20; 1Sa 29:3; 1Ki 9:27; 2Ch 8:18; 9:10; 32:9). In respectful address, a Hebrew, instead of using the first person pronoun, would at times speak of himself as a servant (`e'vedh) of the one to whom he was talking. (Ge 33:5, 14; 42:10, 11, 13; 1Sa 20:7, 8) `E'vedh was used in referring to servants, or worshipers, of Jehovah generally (1Ki 8:36; 2Ki 10:23) and, more specifically, to special representatives of God, such as Moses. (Jos 1:1, 2; 24:29; 2Ki 21:10) Though not a worshiper of Jehovah, one who performed a service that was in harmony with the divine will could be spoken of as God's servant, an example being King Nebuchadnezzar.-Jer 27:6.

The Greek term dou'los corresponds to the Hebrew word `e'vedh. It is used with reference to persons owned by fellowmen (Mt 8:9; 10:24, 25; 13:27); devoted servants of God and of his Son Jesus Christ, whether human (Ac 2:18; 4:29; Ro 1:1; Ga 1:10) or angelic (Re 19:10, where the word syn'douúlos [fellow slave] appears); and, in a figurative sense, to persons in slavery to sin (Joh 8:34; Ro 6:16-20) or corruption (2Pe 2:19)."

It also comments:

"At times slaves held a position of great trust and honor in a household. The patriarch Abraham's aged servant (likely Eliezer) managed all of his master's possessions. (Ge 24:2; 15:2, 3) Abraham's descendant Joseph, as a slave in Egypt, came to be in charge of everything belonging to Potiphar, a court official of Pharaoh. (Ge 39:1, 5, 6) In Israel, there was a possibility of a slave's becoming wealthy and redeeming himself.-Le 25:49."

>>"Why do you worship a god which continually orders its chosen people to butcher men, women and children with swords?"

Again, you will have to be more specific.

>>"Why do you worship a god which murders children?"

In today's society, juvenile delinquents are being tried as adults. This is a matter of much debate today, as is capitol punishment, but in Bible times there was never any question that if youth was responsible for his actions, than he should be punished for them - whether it be gluttony, murder, or mockery of God.

Your responses are always surprising, I look forward to your next.

Sincerely,
Craig

Subj: Brooks Response 10b
Date: 98-02-24 12:52:49 EST
From: XXXXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

This is a collection of articles and book exerts that discuss the validity of scientific statements in the Bible. My comments are in brackets [].

-------------

While the Bible was not written as a science textbook, it is in harmony with true science when it deals with scientific matters. But other ancient books regarded as sacred contain scientific myths, inaccuracies, and outright falsehoods. Note just a few of the many examples of the Bible's scientific accuracy:

THE POSITION OF THE EARTH. In ancient times when the Bible was being written, there was much speculation about how the earth was held in space. Some believed that the earth was supported by four elephants standing on a big sea turtle. Aristotle, a Greek philosopher and scientist of the fourth century B.C.E., taught that the earth could never hang in empty space. Instead, he taught that the heavenly bodies were fixed to the surface of solid, transparent spheres, with each sphere nested within another sphere. Supposedly the earth was on the innermost sphere, and the outermost sphere held the stars.

Yet, rather than reflect the fanciful, unscientific views existing at the time of its writing, the Bible simply stated (in about the year 1473 B.C.E.): "[God is] hanging the earth upon nothing." (Job 26:7) In the original Hebrew, the word for "nothing" used here means "not any thing," and this is the only time it occurs in the Bible. The picture it presents of an earth surrounded by empty space is recognized by scholars as a remarkable vision for its time. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament says: "Job 26:7 strikingly pictures the then-known world as suspended in space, thereby anticipating future scientific discovery."

The Bible's accurate statement predated Aristotle by over 1,100 years. Yet, Aristotle's views continued to be taught as fact for some 2,000 years after his death! Finally, in 1687 C.E., Sir Isaac Newton published his findings that the earth was held in space in relation to other heavenly objects by mutual attraction, that is, gravity. But that was close to 3,200 years after the Bible had stated with elegant simplicity that the earth is hanging "upon nothing."

Yes, nearly 3,500 years ago, the Bible correctly noted that the earth has no visible support, a fact that is in harmony with the more recently understood laws of gravity and motion. "How Job knew the truth," said one scholar, "is a question not easily solved by those who deny the inspiration of Holy Scripture."

THE COMPOSITION OF LIVING THINGS. "Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground," Genesis 2:7 states. The World Book Encyclopedia says: "All the chemical elements that make up living things are also present in nonliving matter." So all the basic chemicals that make up living organisms, including man, are also found in the earth itself. This harmonizes with the Bible's statement that identifies the material God used in creating humans and all other living things.

[According to the Babylonian myth of creation, from which secular historians claim the Bible's creation account was drawn, the god Marduk, with Ea's aid, made mankind from the blood of another god, Kingu. Other myths paint equally outrageous images of man's origins. How was the author of Genesis able to transcend these fables and compose an original document of human creation that was verified milleniums later by modern science?]

"ACCORDING TO THEIR KINDS." The Bible states that God created the first human pair and that from them all other humans descended. (Genesis 1:26-28; 3:20) It says that other living things, such as fish, birds, and mammals, did the same, coming forth "according to their kinds." (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25) This is just what scientists have found in the natural creation, that every living thing comes from a parent of like kind. There is no exception. In this regard physicist Raymo observes: "Life makes life; it happens all the time in every cell. But how did nonlife make life? It is one of the biggest unanswered questions in biology, and so far biologists can offer little more than wild guesses. Somehow inanimate matter managed to get itself organized in an animate way. . . . The author of Genesis may have had it right, after all."

[Note that, as I have mentioned before, it wasn't until Pasteur's experiments that this fact became recognized by the scientific community. "As late as the 17th century, even educated people still believed that living things could very easily arise from nonliving matter. Mice bred from old rags, weevils from wheat, frogs from mud and eels from dew." Yet the Bible rose above such misconceptions. How did it "know"?]

HEALTH AND SANITATION. The book Manual of Tropical Medicine comments: "No one can fail to be impressed by the careful hygienic precautions of the Mosaic period. . . . It is true that the classification of disease was very simple-[namely] into acute disorders, called 'plague'; and chronic disorders, with some sort of eruption, called 'leprosy'-but the extremely stringent quarantine rules very likely did a great deal of good."

Ancient physicians did not fully understand how disease spreads, nor did they realize the importance of sanitation in preventing sicknesses. Many ancient medical practices would seem barbaric by modern standards. One of the oldest medical texts available is the Ebers Papyrus, a compilation of Egyptian medical knowledge, dating from about 1550 BC. It contains 700 remedies for various afflictions, "ranging from crocodile bite to toenail pain." Most of the remedies were merely ineffective, but some of them were extremely dangerous. For the treatment of a wound, one of the prescriptions recommended applying a mixture of human excrement combined with other substances.

This text of Egyptian medical remedies was written about the same time as the first books of the Bible, which included the Mosaic Law. Moses [the presumed author of these books] grew up in Egypt. (Exodus 2:1-10) He was familiar with "the physicians" of Egypt. (Genesis 50:1-3) did their ineffective or dangerous medical practices influence his writings?

On the contrary, the Mosaic Law included sanitary regulations that would be considered reasonable by modern medical science. For example, a law regarding military encampments required that excrement be buried outside the camp. (Deuteronomy 23:13) This was a profoundly advanced preventive measure. It helped keep the water sources free from contamination and provided protection from fly-borne shigellosis and other diarrheic illnesses that still claim millions of lives each year, mostly in developing lands.

The Mosaic Law contained other sanitary regulations that helped prevent the spread of infectious diseases. A person who had or was suspected of having a communicable disease was quarantined. (Leviticus 13:1-5) Garments or vessels that came in contact with an animal that had died of itself (perhaps from disease) were to be either washed before reuse or destroyed. (Leviticus 11:27, 28, 32, 33) Any person who touched a corpse was considered unclean and had to undergo a cleansing procedure that included washing his garments and bathing. During the seven-day period of uncleanness, he was to avoid physical contact with others. (Numbers 19:1-13)

This sanitary code reveals wisdom that was far ahead of its time. Modern medical science has learned much about the spread and prevention of disease. For example, medical advances in the 19th century led to the introduction of antisepsis - cleanliness to reduce infections. The result was a significant reduction in the infections and premature deaths. In the year 1900, life expectancy at the time of birth in many European counties and in the United States was less than 50. Since then it has increased dramatically, not only on account of medial progress but also because of better sanitation and living conditions.

Yet, thousands of years before medical science learned how disease was spread, the Bible prescribes reasonable preventive measures as a safeguard against disease. Not surprisingly, Moses could speak of Israelites in general in his day as living to 70 or 80 years of age. (Psalms 90:10) How could Moses have known about such sanitary regulations?

MENTAL HEALTH. The Bible's high standard of hygiene even involved mental health. A Bible proverb said: "A calm heart is the life of the fleshly organism, but jealousy is rottenness to the bones." (Proverbs 14:30) In recent years, medical research has demonstrated that our physical health is indeed affected by our mental attitude. For example, Doctor C. B. Thomas of Johns Hopkins University studied more than a thousand graduates over a period of 16 years, matching their psychological characteristics with their vulnerability to diseases. One thing she noted: The graduates most vulnerable to disease were those who were angrier and more anxious under stress.

WATER CYCLE. Consider, too, the Bible's statement: "All the winter torrents are going forth to the sea, yet the sea itself is not full. To the place where the winter torrents are going forth, there they are returning so as to go forth." (Ecclesiastes 1:7) This sounds like the description of the water cycle found in textbooks today. The rivers deliver water into the sea, where it evaporates and is carried in the form of clouds back over the land, to fall as rain or snow and run back into the rivers.

GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS. Perhaps even more remarkable is the Bible's insight into the history of mountains. Here is what a textbook on geology says: "From Pre-Cambrian times down to the present, the perpetual process of building and destroying mountains has continued. . . . Not only have mountains originated from the bottom of vanished seas, but they have often been submerged long after their formation, and then re-elevated." Compare this with the poetic language of the psalmist: "With a watery deep just like a garment you covered [the earth]. The waters were standing above the very mountains. Mountains proceeded to ascend, valley plains proceeded to descend-to the place that you have founded for them."-Psalm 104:6, 8.

"IN THE BEGINNING" The very first verse of the Bible states: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) Observations have led scientists to theorize that the material universe did indeed have a beginning. It has not existed for all time. Astronomer Robert Jastrow, an agnostic in religious matters, wrote: "The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."

True, many scientists, while believing that the universe had a beginning, do not accept the statement that "God created." Nevertheless, some now admit that it is difficult to ignore the evidence of some kind of intelligence behind everything. Physics professor Freeman Dyson comments: "The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming."

Dyson goes on to admit: "Being a scientist, trained in the habits of thought and language of the twentieth century rather than the eighteenth, I do not claim that the architecture of the universe proves the existence of God. I claim only that the architecture of the universe is consistent with the hypothesis that mind plays an essential role in its functioning." His comment certainly betrays the skeptical attitude of our time. But putting that skepticism aside, one notes there is a remarkable harmony between modern science and the Bible's statement that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."-Genesis 1:1.

THE SHAPE OF THE EARTH. The Encyclopedia Americana said: "The earliest known image that men had of the earth was that it was a flat, rigid platform at the center of the universe. . . . The concept of a spherical earth was not widely accepted until the Renaissance." Some early navigators even feared that they might sail off the edge of the flat earth. But then the introduction of the compass and other advancements made possible longer ocean voyages. These "voyages of discovery," another encyclopedia explains, "showed that the world was round, not flat as most people had believed."

Yet, long before such voyages, about 2,700 years ago, the Bible said: "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth." (Isaiah 40:22) The Hebrew word here translated "circle" can also mean "sphere," as various reference works note. Other Bible translations, therefore, say, "the globe of the earth" (Douay Version) and, "the round earth."-Moffatt.

Thus, the Bible was not influenced by the unscientific views prevalent at the time regarding the earth's support and its shape. The reason is simple: The Author of the Bible is the Author of the universe. He created the earth, so he should know what it hangs on and what its shape is. Hence, when he inspired the Bible, he saw to it that no unscientific views were incorporated in it, however much they may have been believed by others at the time.

A FLAT OR UNMOVABLE EARTH? Bible writers often speak from the standpoint of the observer on the earth, or from his particular position geographically, as we often naturally do today. For example, the Bible mentions "the sunrising." (Nu 2:3; 34:15) Some have seized upon this as an opportunity to discredit the Bible as scientifically inaccurate, claiming that the Hebrews viewed earth as the center of things, with the sun revolving around it. But the Bible writers nowhere expressed such a belief. These same critics overlook the fact that they themselves use the identical expression and that it is in all of their almanacs. It is common to hear someone say, 'it is sunrise,' or 'the sun has set,' or 'the sun traveled across the sky.'

The Bible also speaks of "the extremity of the earth" (Ps 46:9), "the ends of the earth" (Ps 22:27), "the four extremities of the earth" (Isa 11:12), "the four corners of the earth," and "the four winds of the earth" (Re 7:1). These expressions cannot be taken to prove that the Hebrews understood the earth to be square. The number four is often used to denote that which is fully rounded out, as it were, just as we have four directions and sometimes employ the expressions "to the ends of the earth," "to the four corners of the earth," in the sense of embracing all the earth.-Compare Eze 1:15-17; Lu 13:29.

FIGURATIVE AND SYMBOLIC EXPRESSIONS. The earth is spoken of figuratively in several instances. It is likened to a building, at Job 38:4-6, when Jehovah asks Job questions concerning earth's creation and Jehovah's management of it that Job obviously cannot answer. Jehovah also uses a figurative expression describing the result of earth's rotation. He says: "[The earth] transforms itself like clay under a seal." (Job 38:14) In Bible times some seals for "signing" documents were in the form of a roller engraved with the writer's emblem. It was rolled over the soft cla