serve the LORD with gladness;

come before him with joyful song.

Know that the LORD is God;

he made us, his we are;

his people, the flock he tends.

The LORD is good:

his kindness endures forever,

and his faithfulness, to all generations.

<Let all the earth cry out to God with joy.

Religion is about faith, belief and devotion and science is about discovery, evidence and testing theories. And ne'er the twain should meet I suppose, hence these prolonged arguments that will change no-one's minds.>

Well, I agree, but the point of my being here really isn't to debate against religion, but to voice a defense of science.

I got involved when I noticed this post:

<Feb-26-10 OhioChessFan: Apparently the old primordial soup theory of life has been given up as a lost cause. So to review, for 80 years, the evolutionists were wrong, and the creationists were right. I'm not holding my breath waiting for the Exalted Scientists to apologize for lying to generations of school children. On the bright side, this site is full of the brainwashed students they managed to confuse. >

This is a unwarranted shot at scientists (liars) not to mention many at this site who accept the scientific views of evolution (brainwashed students).

I don't particularly care so much if Christians such as OCF believe in the young earth idea and doubt evolution. But when they feel the need to express these beliefs as broad accusations against scientists and those who accept science, then I believe they are acting injustly.

This injustice is certainly an annoyance to scientists. But worse, IMO, it draws well-deserved ridicule that damages the reputation of Christianity and Bible.

BTW, I don't always know how this debate comes across to observers. I think some people have gotten the impression that I'm angry. I am not angry at all. I think <OhioChessFan> is a good guy, doing what he thinks is right.

If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own;

but because you do not belong to the world,

and <I have chosen you out of the world,>

the world hates you.

<Remember the word I spoke to you,

‘No slave is greater than his master.’>

If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you.

<If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.>

And they will do all these things to you on account of my name,

I felt something was amiss with my post and therefore undertook to reread the entire debate and indeed found the 25 Feb post by Ohio that you quoted and in which he threw down the gauntlet. I'm about a third of the way through reading it as it adds up to over 500 typed pages of discussion.

I felt I owed it to the company here to at least not repeat arguments that have already been made, one of the failings of kibitzers in this place once an argument has moved off the front page. I see that I've done that in my every post here so far, so apologies to all.

I'm impressed by the knowledge and erudition that's been expressed by the protagonists in this debate, both about the Bible and about science. Rather more, I'd say about some of the pro-science people's knowledge of the Bible than about pro-Biblist's knowledge of science, but that may only reflect my own ignorance of the Bible.

This may come from having years of religious doctrine shoved down my throat as a kid but one thing I recall, is that even in the sixties, religious clergy were comfortable with the discoveries of science being congruent with the discovery of God's work and God's creation. To that extent they were IDers whose beliefs did not clash with basic science, but harmonised with it, recognising the different roles that science and religion played in people's lives.

Following that eminently sensible approach to religion and science, I was and still am flummoxed by creationists that insist that science has got it totally wrong and that their <interpretation> of the Bible has it right. For heaven's sake (take it as a pun if you like), even most Bible scholars don't take it literally but as a collection of stories, parables and other tracts that provide moral guidance and spiritual inspiration, notwithstanding some of the excruciating cruelty and horror the old Testament in particular depicts and advocates.

I agree you won't change <Ohio>'s views, and I applaud your defence of science and scientists - well, as far as they deserve to be defended, which in this case is considerably.

I especially liked <YouRangism>, and if that didn't convince <Ohio> and other literalist creationists, nothing will. It was hilarious and most of all, absolutely apposite.

What's most pleasing is that by and large the debate has been extremely civilised.

And despite our differences, Ohio and I are friends who can and have aired their deepest philosophical differences without alienating each other, especially as a bit of care was taken with our responses. We've worked together, as you'll remember from your participation in the Nickelodeon Team back in '06 (bring out the walking sticks), and that companionship and teamwork has been one of our legacies to each other.

That said, I wonder how Ohio can recognise utterly fallacious arguments and still employ them in his debates with a straight face. The thing that most puzzles me is the living contradiction that is the person that is Ohio; how can a person be such a zealous fundamentalist, and yet otherwise be such an intelligent and friendly mensch.

I disagree to an extent, and *do* think there is a point to all this, and in addition, or more on a sidenote- I remember I entered the discussion indeed many many weeks ago when eternal punishment, torment, was discussed. Very useful to an extent. Seeds have been sown.

If there is anything to be gained from this exchange, or doubt arises on that, then if needed RE-define the battle ground and agree to some (new) rules, clearly and densely formulated, and if any difficulty arises and accusations start dominating and result in a division, then the smarter one will simply make sure that the discussion is led back to within quieter waters and the last major point of divergence and try and proceed from there.

Attempts to do this are, and were, certainly there, but frustration often shines through and exhaustion can indeed lead to an accusational tone.

I do realize that this is a hot issue, especially in your neck of the woods.

But to return to the previously highlighted text: keep in mind and consider that Acts 17:10,11 and several other scriptures advice us to research and question <everything> and examine if they are "true", which also applies of course to biblical science, belief, behaviour-- and science in every field, especially since there are accusations back and forth, agendas to prove and disprove the possible existence of a God/Intelligence, so also with respect to what is taught at schools, and the strangulation of any kind of debate and attempt to not engage in it and even ridicule it, is problematic (and hard to judge for me, as the debate is pretty much non existent here in Holland); especially considering recent criticism voiced from within the scientific community. (Not just ID but also "simple" Biochemistry and molecular Biology.) I hope to offer proof of that existing debate soon. Darwinian natural selection theories appear to need revision.

I've always been impressed with your nuanced arguments, even as I disagree with them. The benefit you plainly gain from your study of the Bible makes you much of the person you are, and I for one wouldn't want to change you. Well, I might have a go at changing an opinion or two, but if that wasn't the case we'd all be agreeing with each other all the time and not saying anything at all.

I've noticed the argument between you and Ohio has often been every bit as spirited as the argument between Ohio and us pro-science types. The main difference I guess is that you don't weld yourself to spurious and fallacious reasoning that seems to be a significant part of Ohio's MO (forgive me Ohio, amigo, but that's the way it seems to me).

When I was at school, way back in the dark ages of liberal enlightenment in the 60s, in the wake of that dreadful liberal pope John XXIII and the Ecumenical Council, we were as I mentioned above steeped in the notion that the Bible was to a large extent a figurative and metaphorical work and that its teachings were in no way contradicting, or contradicted by, science if read in the spirit in which it was meant to be understood.

Part of my bemusement with this debate is

(a) that it's happening at all, not just here but anywhere on any significant scale

I'm impressed by your determination to inform yourself of discussion so far. I fear that after you've gone through about 1/3 of it, you will start to sense quite a bit if deja vu. We've circled the same points a number of times over. :-)

And yes, I do recall the glory days of Nickel #1 (still the best game IMO). I certainly hope this little debate hasn't damaged relationships formed here. My feelings toward OCF are somewhat sympathetic (maybe not the right word) since, as I mentioned in my forum, that I once held similar views myself.

serve the LORD with gladness;

come before him with joyful song.

<Let all the earth cry out to God with joy.

he made us, his we are;

his people, the flock he tends.

<Let all the earth cry out to God with joy.

It's okay for you to think that.>

That's unclear to me why you're saying that, amigo. If I've hurt your feelings tell me, and I'll back off. But I am assuming we can have this discussion without offence being taken.

<Whereas I often sit and wonder the same about the other side.>

I keep wondering (see earlier: OhioChessFan chessforum, para 4) why there have to be sides here?

Be that as it may, you responded to my query by putting it onto the "other side".

<lark: That's unclear to me why you're saying that, amigo. If I've hurt your feelings tell me, and I'll back off. But I am assuming we can have this discussion without offence being taken.>

I meant it's 100% fine for you to think that and express that. There was no sarcasm etc in the statement. You'd have to work mighty hard to offend me at all, and usually I'm over it in 3 seconds anyway. You haven't even approached that point.

<That's no answer - if your own arguments are invalid there is no need for further reply except to ask: why use them?>

<I am not aware any of my arguments are invalid.>

Bible Study HOME

I once interviewed Bob Bakker at great length (he gave me over 90 minutes of his time). I take it for granted that you and everybody else here know who he is.

Bakker says that he personally is a creationist, although not a Young Earth Creationist, that he holds campfire Bible studies on some of his digs, and that he had originally intended to go into the ministry until he opted for dinosaur paleontology instead. (Can't say I blame him!)

Now certainly Bakker is a scientist in good standing. Some of his colleagues resent that he makes much more money than most of them do--but can he help it if he knows how to connect with the public?

“Whoever loves me will keep my word,

and my Father will love him,

and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him.

Whoever does not love me does not keep my words;

yet the word you hear is not mine

but that of the Father who sent me.

“I have told you this while I am with you.

The Advocate, the Holy Spirit,

whom the Father will send in my name,

will teach you everything

and remind you of all that I told you.

Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you.

Not as the world gives do I give it to you.

Do not let your hearts be troubled or afraid.

You heard me tell you,

‘I am going away and I will come back to you.’

If you loved me,

you would rejoice that I am going to the Father;

for the Father is greater than I.

And now I have told you this before it happens,

<Oil deposits under great pressure.>