Blog

Let's here it for freedom!

John 8:32

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

The truth as revealed by Galileo.
The truth as revealed by Nicholoas Copernicus.
The truth as revealed by Issac Newton.
The truth as revealed by Charles Darwin.
The truth revealed by science.

The study of science frees one's mind from the dogma and slavery of religion. Free thought is among the greatest of freedoms.

Actually, aside from Darwin, your list is a group of Christians who studied the world/universe to, as Newton said, "think God's thoughts after Him." "Science" seems to be something different for you than what it actually is. "Truth" is actually nothing that science is even designed or intended to show. It's the acquiring of knowledge. "Truth" is what philosophy and religion bring us.
Jesus is the way the truth and life. The "truth" of science will be thrown out next week for the newer "truth."
But it still is silly to think that science and religion don't work together. In fact, every branch of science we have today was founded by a creationist. How does that work for you?

Bill, your article doesn't address the issues brought up in the introduction.

Steve - Whether a scientist is a Christian, a Jew, a Hindu, an atheist -- whatever -- has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not they discover anything that is valid. I say "valid" rather than "true" only because you seem to think that your Jesus has some sort of monopoly on that word.

What about mathematical truths? Do you believe that the Pythagorean Theorem is true? I say it is. And since Pythagoras lived long before the supposed time of Jesus, Pythagoras was obviously not a Christian. Eratosthenes made a fairly accurate estimate of the earth's diameter in the 3rd century BC. Eratosthenes was obviously not a Christian either. Archimedes figured out buoyant force (also in the 3rd century BC). Clearly, Christianity is not required as a prerequisite to making scientific discoveries.

While one can say that all scientific truths are subject to revision, there are thousands of them that are solidly established and unlikely to be revised to any significant degree. Universal constants such as the speed of light are among them (although one assumes that in the future this speed may be measured to greater precision). The chemical and physical properties of the chemical elements are beyond doubt, too.

But I realize that it is pointless to try to reason with those who are sold on the notion that their particular holy book trumps everything else. You will cherry-pick those facts which appear to support your "world view" and ignore the rest.

I just hope you aren't twisting the minds of any young children to believe the nonsense you spew. Infecting young children's minds in that way is a form of child abuse.

Philosophy provides some guidance for seeking truth. Science (or natural philosophy) provides actual truth. Religion makes claims to "truth" without providing evidence.

//But I realize that it is pointless to try to reason with those who are sold on the notion that their particular holy book trumps everything else. You will cherry-pick those facts which appear to support your "world view" and ignore the rest.
//

So by your own admission you are wasting your time here, is that right? You are right about one thing. You won't change our minds. Neither will Ashley, neither will David. The three of you combined have earned the quality time of hearing as we admit to a fly or a mosquito. Because that is how you have behaved here. You can take your anti-Biblical dogma and hatred elsewhere. When you learn to speak with intelligence and respect, we'll consider giving you the time of day. You have worn out your welcome.

Charlie - No, I'm not wasting my time here. I am learning more about the symptoms and the etiology of the contagious mental illness that is religion. I have hopes that one day we will find a cure for this disease.

I am not constrained by "anti-Biblical dogma" nor do I hate your bible. I just find it absurd that people take this one book as entirely true, without question. Worse yet, I find it appalling when people with political power use their religious fantasies (or their feigned religious poses) as a basis for winning elections and writing legislation. James Inhofe (a lobbyist posing as a U.S> senator) is a prime example.

Whether or not I have "worn out my welcome" in your little mind is of no concern to me. I see that actual thinking is not something you care to engage in.

//I have hopes that one day we will find a cure for this disease.//

//I am not constrained by "anti-Biblical dogma" nor do I hate your bible.//

This is what happens when you reject truth and logic. You are a either a walking contradiction or an outright liar. That you can attempt to say both statements in the same breath tells me much more about the lack of quality thinking skills you have. Yeah, you may have read the books. But you have not demonstrated you are capable of thinking about what they say. In all the books you have read, have you ever bothered attempting to get the slightest clue about our position? Your thinking our belief is a 'disease' that needs to be cured is not free-thinking. If you were free, you'd actually be free enough to find out what we actually believe and why. Because you are wrong on EVERY ACCOUNT. You don't have the slightest clue about Christianity. Not the slightest. If that is insulting to you, too bad. Get a mirror if you want talk about that.

Charlie - Since I know I'm not lying, I suppose (in your mind) that I must be a "walking contradiction." (Although I am usually sitting down when I type).

You must have very different ideas than I do as to the meanings of truth and logic. I could mention some books I've read on logic, and some computer science courses I took years ago dealing with formal logic, (the theoretical foundation of computer science) but you'd simply scoff at that.

I saw your latest post while I was watching the latest PBS "Frontline" program about the ebola epidemic that started in western Africa in 2013. The disease spread in part because of religious beliefs, superstitions and dangerous funeral rituals. I'm sure glad that science-based medical practices were finally brought to bear against the ebola crisis. Without a scientific approach to disease, human kind would still be suffering through horrendous epidemics -- just as people did in biblical times.

David said "Bill, your article doesn't address the issues brought up in the introduction."--sure he did. Perhaps you should read it again.

Thomas, Tommy, Tom, Doubting Tom, you seem to be a very unhappy person. I'm sorry for that. You also seem to not know how to communicate with other humans in a courteous, thoughtful, coherent way. Would you mind being respectful? You don't know me nor do you know anyone else here personally. As human beings, whether we're followers of Christ, atheists, or whatever, we should be afforded respect and polite interaction. No one provoked you to such an uncontrolled lashing out. Your picture leads me to believe you're a mature individual, but I realize anyone can post anything they like about themselves on the internet. Maybe your a 13 year old who's frustrated with his dad and your lashing out here as a vent. I don't know. But your conduct doesn't make any sense at all.
So, to your comments. First, you didn't actually respond to my comment, You changed directions. Your comment was slightly related, but didn't address what I said. Second, you seem to try to distort what I said into something I didn't say nor did I intend to. No one here said rational thought, logic or discovery had to go hand in hand with being a follower of Christ. That is not my position at all. But, ironically, you made a list of people who were some sort of champions of freedom for you, I guess, and all but one were exceptionally religious people. And the one that wasn't wasn't even a scientist and didn't have any real thoughts of his own. He just published something at the right time after taking it from a host of other people. But I'm still not certain why you are bringing some of this up. You are aware, I'm sure, that Pythagoras created his own religious system. Eratosthenes was a Greek and, at likely had religious beliefs as well. Archimedes' home town was a hotbed of religious activity and experimentation. All you've done is show that your original statements were inaccurate. You claim you want to rid the world of religion? Why would you damn such an amazing thing? How many hospitals are named "St. something" and how many humanitarian organizations are built on religious foundations? Again, how many are credited to atheists? It's sickening. In fact, "religion" has resulted in fewer deaths in thousands of years when compared to atheism the last century alone. Atheism is a sickness that has destroyed millions upon millions of lives==some by death and some by oppression. Christianity hasn't done anything like this. In fact, anyone who oppresses another in the name of Christianity is actually rebelling against the very teachings of the one they claim to follow.
You also said, quite comically, "...the supposed time of Jesus..." I certainly hope you're not inferring that Christ didn't actually exist. That is one of the most telling things you could say. It means you're not interested at all in facts or truth. Evidence has nothing to do with your position. In fact, it just means you're an unhappy troll who finds meaning in irritating people he disagrees with. You claimed this conversation was pointless. So why are you wasting your time? You only get this life, in your worldview. You are squandering what precious little time you have since, once you're dead, you'll be forgotten and will cease being. I'd be out there living if I were you, not playing tough guy through a computer screen.
Ironically, Bill mentioned you in his last paragraph when he talked of those who believe they're free when, in fact, they are the ones who are bound and enslaved.

William Wilberforce, influential in abolishing slavery in the UK, was in fact an evangelical Christian. Whether he had your 'Biblical worldview' I do not know.

"You won't change our minds. Neither will Ashley, neither will David." That's not what this is about. It's about showing that you do not have answers to every question that critics raise; some reading the exchanges might think about what all of us are saying.

Charlie RAN AWAY from the previous discussions under Steve's blogs. So did Steve in the case of the more recent blog.

Presumably getting involved in discussions with people who do not think that Bible verses trumps scientific discoveries and methodology is risky for you. That is, the more you read from more rational people the more you might discover that your own arguments are based more on blind faith than on reason.

I have saved this post as I am still awaiting Jason's decision on whether to clear my post 203 at Steve's blog dated 23 April.

David, I think I did address the issues I introduced. You might want to read it again keeping in mind that I have addressed them in such a way that the reader does have to put some thought into the connection I am making between the intro and the content.

Thomas, Darwinism is commonly used to justify Marxism which is the basis for communism. Communism is basically the enlsavement of an entire country under the rule of a regime. The Bible is a liberating force like none other. That is why communists regimes and, dare I say, the medieval church have tried their hardest to keep people from reading and understanding it.

//David said "Bill, your article doesn't address the issues brought up in the introduction."--sure he did. Perhaps you should read it again.//

The first paragraph after the introduction has some mentions of God setting people free. The second scriptural reference comes from a passage that uses slavery as a metaphor.

The next three paragraphs are stories about how God has used slaves for his purposes, but that's not really relevant to the topic of the Bible condoning slavery.

The last paragraph is Bill using slavery as a spiritual metaphor.

There's nothing wrong with the article, and it uses slavery as a subject, but I don't feel it addresses the issue of the Bible condoning slavery. A skeptic is going to point to verses like Exodus 21:20-21 or Leviticus 25:44-46 or Luke 12:47-48.

The way I see it, the Bible often has conflicting passages that can be used to support contradictory views. I was reading some stuff on hell, and some people were pointing to verses that show that people don't suffer eternally in hell, then another group will claim that the first group obviously doesn't know their Bible because look at these other verses.
In science there are often fierce disagreements too, but at least there is hope that new evidence can be found that will more strongly point to one view or the other. When it comes to the Bible, people will have the same arguments forever, because you can't add content or take content away.

I attended a church for several years that had a pastor who taught through the whole bible verse by verse. He probably had views similar to most of the bloggers at WW (and so did I). He believed the events in the Old Testament literally happened, but he'd also explain how they were prophesy or used them as metaphors for things such as sin. But just because they can be used as nice metaphors doesn't justify the events actually happening. I think the story of Abraham attempting to sacrifice Isaac is awful, even if it points to the sacrifice of Jesus.

Sorry for rambling a bit there, I'm not very good at expressing my ideas.

Steve - Will I be allowed to respond with a comment?

Ashley, your comments that contain personal attacks will not be posted. Your comments that continue a rivalry between you and Bob will not be posted. Comments where you or anyone else just want to be jerks will not be posted. I'm not trying to name call, but you are all inappropriate in your conduct. I am happy--very happy actually--to allow any post that disagrees with me, Charlie, Bill or anyone for that matter as long as it is delivered in a respectful way. Demeaning others may be how you normally communicate, but it's not tolerated here. This is a place to discuss, not attack others. It's truly appalling how you people conduct yourselves. Please don't make stupid remarks in other places about how you beat us into blocking you or some other nonsensical garbage (which I'm sure you already have). Your content that is related to the topics is 101 level material. But the tripe you peddle with it is of no value..actually, it actually is such a detraction from the conversation that it's not allowed.
For anyone who has sent a comment to be posted that is not an attack, not rude, not childish or any of the other things mentioned, please be patient. We work for a living. Some of us have children...some have many children and run our own businesses as well as all the other things that "lives" entail. We will get to them. Thanks.

Ashley, quite hysterically said, "Charlie RAN AWAY from the previous discussions under Steve's blogs. So did Steve in the case of the more recent blog."--you are truly a legend in your own mind. Please refrain from beating your chest, especially when it comes to someone not getting back to you on a comment you made. There are well over 200 comments on my Clash blog. I have read about 10 of them. I just can't keep up with reading that much, especially when most of it is just childish banter and personal attacks. I truly have much more important things to do than argue with unkind, inconsiderate people with no interest in sharing ideas.

He also said, "Presumably getting involved in discussions with people who do not think that Bible verses trumps scientific discoveries and methodology is risky for you."--I am aware of no scientific discover that contradicts any Biblical statements.

"your own arguments are based more on blind faith than on reason."--actually, the faith a Christian has is based on evidence. It's solid. It explains much that you cannot in terms of naturalism. It's also quite logical. A great number of the most brilliant minds our world has ever known were followers of Christ. You can read my blog "Creation Science is not an Oxymoron" for more on that. I'd rather not list them off.


Thomas said, "Steve - Will I be allowed to respond with a comment?"---of course, as long as it is respectful.

Steve - You asked, "Would you mind being respectful? " No I do not mind, although it is curious that you ask such a question after you and Charlie have shown so much disrespect toward me.
Charlie wrote (referring to me and two others], "The three of you combined have earned the quality time of hearing as we admit to a fly or a mosquito." I find this disrespectful, to be granted no more consideration than an insect. How can I read such things without finding them disrespectful?

It is also difficult to remain civil when you yourself post such things as "Thomas, Tommy, Tom, Doubting Tom, you seem to be a very unhappy person. I'm sorry for that. You also seem to not know how to communicate with other humans in a courteous, thoughtful, coherent way," and then go on to insinuate that my picture is fake, and that I am a 13-year-old. I find all of this most disrespectful.

So you see, you demand respect, while you and your buddies show little in return. Such hypocrisy.

Despite the disrespect you and your friends have shown here, I have gained some insight which I will share with you.
Several of us (myself included), have suggested that there are 'facts' that we know for certain. There was a previous statement that scientific facts are true, while interpretations of these facts are not themselves facts, and hence, not necessarily true. No argument to the latter point.

However, I'm now inclined to say that ALL statements of facts, truths, interpretations of fact, etc. exist on a continuum of likelihood of being true. Using the standard practice of mathematicians, this continuum ranges from zero (absolutely false) to 1.0 (absolutely true). The number of absolute truths appears very small (possibly zero outside the rather sterile realm of pure mathematics). In the "real world" there are facts we accept with probabilities well above 0.999, but that still is less than 1.0 (certainty).

As has been demonstrated time and again in courts of law, "eye-witness testimony" cannot be regarded as absolutely true. Eye-witnesses can and do make mistakes, and psychology experiments confirm this. How many "eye-witness" accounts of UFO sightings have been reported? How many of these do you suppose are "the truth?

Steve - To your suggestion that I am "a very unhappy person" ... this is not true in general. I admit that I am not at all happy about having people like James Inhofe in positions of power, defending the interests of oil companies and denying the reality of global climate change caused by increasing levels of CO2. I may be more sensitive to this issue since I have children and (so far) one grand-child who will have to live with whatever environment we leave to them on this unique planet.

More generally, I object to all U.S. politicians who inject their religious beliefs into politics. I strongly favor keeping religion out of politics altogether.

So now I think I've been respectful. Please return the favor, OK?

Thomas, that post was a significant improvement from your entrance. But let us face reality. You walked in here with disrespect. You consider us to be a virus that needs to be cured. You want to talk 'respect'. I honestly think you do not know the meaning of the word. You make comments like that and then have the gall to complain we aren't showing you respect? Wake up.

In regards to the rest of your post, basically what you are saying is that you cannot actually know that you know anything, including the claim that you cannot know anything. Yes you can talk likelihoods of something being true, but by what criteria are you using to determine that likelihood? You cited some books written by some scientists. Okay. How do you determine if what they are saying is true or not? You obviously reject anything YEC says unless it somehow can be used to favor your position. How do you determine they are talking bunk?. Is it just a matter of "one comes from a religious perspective"? Again, reality. When God is intentionally left out of the picture, it is just as a religious position as when he is intentionally in the picture. It is a common claim that science does not deal with God. I agree. That means science is a very poor tool to use as a standard to determine any comments about God. If science is your standard, use actual science, not the philosophy that pretends to be science.

Ashley,

I 'ran away' from what? An on-line 'debate' with someone who has still yet to bring a logical, coherent argument to the table? One who has a very difficult time writing a post without using the label 'liar' or 'bigot'? When you have something worth listening to, we'll talk more. But what exactly are you 'winning'? An on-line 'debate' that has no value other than apparently to your ego?

Also, any posts attacking Bob with no relevance to the topics on hand will not be published. What he says on his blogs is his business and we don't need to deal with that here. Nor will we.

Charlie - Allow me to describe two things I assert are facts, and please explain how you interpret them from a YEC perspective. The facts I will assert are from direct, personal observation.
(There is a link to a photo of item 2).

1. A short walk from my house, a solid chunk of rock is perched near a hilltop. This rock is a roughly rectangular solid, approximately 3 by 4 by 5 feet (not counting the part that is below ground level). The rock has a finely granulated texture, and is dark in color. I would estimate that it weighs no less than 5 tons.

2. Elsewhere in Illinois (in The Morton Arboretum) one can find "The Big Rock":
http://www.mortonarb.org/places/big-rock

This massive piece of stone is presumed to be granite, with an estimated weight of 14 tons.

From a YEC perspective, can you please explain how these two pieces of rock got to where they are? Most geologists would describe these two features as "glacial erratics" left by the Pleistocene glaciers. But as I readily acknowledge, these are interpretations because "nobody was there."

Thanks.

Thomas, YEC would have the same idea that you have. That it was dispersed by glacial remnants. However, where we differ is WHEN such an ice age took place. The only conditions that would actually produce an ice age would require excessive amounts of moisture, and there is only one mechanism that could produce such moisture: Noah's Flood. I've seen such rocks and Bill Nye suggested a number of others in Washington State. His objection was that Noah's Flood would not have deposited those rocks there. We agree. We don't make that claim. We do not deny an ice age. We question the timing of it from the mainstream perspective and we suggest there was only one ice age. This does not preclude other glacial movement, but in reality, how do we define an 'ice age'? It's ultimately arbitrary, and you could ask 70 different scientists what constitutes an ice age and while most would give similar answers, you'd actually have 70 different models.

But as Steve was describing in the Facts post, that the rock is there is the fact. No one disputes that. How it got there has a variety of options, but by process of elimination, glacial deposition is most likely. WHEN it was placed is the real debate between our positions. The rock cannot tell you how or when it got there. You make an inference (which is not in itself bad), but that inference is heavily dependent upon your worldview. Because your worldview is the filter that you use to determine what options are even possible.

The problem you have is that you are trying to interpret the Bible and our claims in light of Evolutionary thinking. This is naturally going to bring up conflict and problems. This is why I try to address both sides from their own perspective. I don't merely disagree with Evolution because it goes against what the Bible teaches. I disagree with it because I cannot find quality logical or scientific defense in the position. I've tried to examine the theory for what it is worth without bringing the Bible into the equation and as a logical, reasonable man, I can't buy it. It does not make sense and the evidences cited for it do not actually do what they are claimed to do. And the more I learn, the more ridiculous it looks. That's without the Bible. Can you look at the Biblical account for itself...WITHOUT bringing your naturalistic, no-God, view into the picture?

Charlie, you wrote "The only conditions that would actually produce an ice age would require excessive amounts of moisture, and there is only one mechanism that could produce such moisture: Noah's Flood."

This strikes me as an attempt at a "naturalistic" explanation. Do you agree? But what facts support your assertions? These being

1. The only conditions that would actually produce an ice age would require excessive amounts of moisture.

2. There is only one mechanism that could produce such moisture: Noah's Flood.

Given that masses of snow still accumulate at high altitudes, there appear to be conditions consistent with the formation of glaciers even now. (Although many ice masses are now shrinking; this fact is cited as evidence of global warming caused by accumulating greenhouse gases).

You claim Noah's flood as "the only mechanism.." etc. What is your basis for this assertion? Why not consider the possibility that volcanoes spewed tons of material into the atmosphere, reducing the heating effect of the sun for several years? If snow remains on a wider-than-normal area for an extended period, the snow's surface itself will reflect a higher percentage of solar energy back into space, leading to further cooling. Is this not a possible scenario?

The effects of volcanic ash in the atmosphere, and the reflective property of snow are both well known and easily observed.

The total amount of moisture available does not seem to be necessary in order to have an ice age. What is required is that the rate of accumulation of frozen precipitation exceeds the rate of melting and run-off for an extended period of time, over some geographic region. This is admittedly, a "naturalistic" argument based on what we can observe in the present day.

Note: None of my argument makes any reference whatsoever to evolution, because it is not relevant to the physics and atmospheric science above.

Does believing in God require us to reject him using natural methods, or letting natural consequences be part of the picture? Yes, we believe God does the supernatural, and yes, he very often does things that have no natural explanation (Creation being one of them). But the Bible does not specify anything about an ice age, because 1) We have about 500 years of history taking place between Genesis 9 and Genesis 12 with only the Tower of Babel in between and with no mention of climate. and 2). The events at that point on took place in the Middle East where there would not be much mention of icy conditions.

But think logically. What would happen if the world was covered in water for a year and remnants of massive geologic movements started settling down? An Ice Age would be something we should expect.

Now, have I not considered volcanos being the primary cause? You don't know if I have or not. Truth is, I have. 2013 was an interesting year when we had more volcanic activity in one period of time than any other period in RECORDED history (which is only the last 150 years where we had worldwide records as such). How did that impact the climate? Yes, it cooled the earth but a degree or two, but it did not have the effect the global warming folk proclaim it is supposed to have. You say you want religion out of politics. I'd like politics out of science and religion. Evolution and global warming are politically supported. Don't believe me? Follow the money. I don't want my tax dollars to go to that. Let them have to raise their own funds like we creationists have to.

And all this does not include having major global climate cycles that we simply have not been recording and measuring long enough to have a clear picture. When it comes to an ice age, it is really boils down to the best educated guesses either side has. We really don't know the exact details of what happened and we cannot know for any certainty without an eye-witness report. Scientific evidence can verify or disprove an eye-witness testimony, however without such an account, science can only prove the POSSIBILITY of an event happening, not that it did happen.

And in case you have not been up to speed, no body really calls it "global warming" anymore because the earth is NOT warming at all. Right now we are actually cooling and have been the last five years. Same thing happened in the 70s. It wasn't global warming but global cooling. Now it's just climate change. I like to see it as God telling these 'experts' they have no clue what they are talking about. But money talks and global warming is politically motivated. When that happens, science is an afterthought.

But this had drifted way off topic from the OP. So let us either get back to what Bill had to say (and remember that it is talking about Romans 6) or move it to a more appropriate thread.

Change "The total amount of moisture available does not seem to be necessary in order to have an ice age" above to "The total amount of moisture available does not need to increase in order to have an ice age."

The oceans as they exist today contain vast amounts of water. If we assume glacial ice at a density 1/10 that of water, and oceans covering 70% of the earth's surface, then for each foot of drop in sea level we could cover 10% of the entire earth with 70 feet of ice. Glaciers 7,000 feet thick over the same area would only require a 100 foot drop in sea level.

Charlie, Previously you folks wanted to shut me down because you claimed I was being disrespectful. Now you suggest that this discussion has drifted off topic. I hope that is not a dodge to prevent me from answering your last post.

You wrote, "2013 was an interesting year when we had more volcanic activity in one period of time than any other period in RECORDED history (which is only the last 150 years where we had worldwide records as such). How did that impact the climate? Yes, it cooled the earth but a degree or two..."

There was a "Little Ice Age" that was documented to a considerable degree. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Be sure to read the whole article. It is clear that Northern Europe throughout the 17th century was affected by the Little Ice Age. It is not clear what caused it, but volcanic activity seems a plausible explanation.

See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#Volcanic_activity

Not a dodge, Thomas. But discussing the ice age has nothing to do with Bill's post about Romans 6. We have Steve Risner's post on facts that would be more appropriate. I'm trying to maintain discussions that have to deal with the OPs they are taken place on.

Yes, I am aware of the little ice age of the 17th century. Are you aware of the one of the 13th century? This is credence to my point that there are long term climate cycles that our scientists simply have not been keeping records long enough to examine in detail. There are other factors going on than what the scientists actually know. We YEC do not know everything and we are quick to admit that our models may not be right. We also aren't the ones calling our models facts. We only call the Bible fact. Must like how you must call naturalism and uniformitarianism fact to support the Evolutionary model (it is a MODEL, not a theory).

But again, this is not a slight to try to avoid you, but simply trying to keep the discussion on the subject of the OP.

Thomas said " No I do not mind, although it is curious that you ask such a question after you and Charlie have shown so much disrespect toward me."
A sincere apology. Please specifically quote what I or Charlie said that was in disrespect. Also, could it be that a response to a distasteful, rude comment was taken in like manner when it may not have been intended as such? Just a thought. But, again, my apologies for any disrespect. I'm sure, if your comments were still visible, you could see how your comments were absolutely uncalled for, unproductive, and childish. That was why the request was made. I am certain comments made by Charlie or myself cannot be labelled as such. But, I do appreciate your cooperation. We can talk now and that makes me happy.
Further reading shows me you did provide a few examples. I cannot answer for Charlie, but Ashley in particular and you may qualify as well have not provided anything of substance to even try to talk about. That's just irritating and unproductive. Hence, I suppose the analogy of a mosquito is not too far off. And you further said, "So you see, you demand respect, while you and your buddies show little in return. Such hypocrisy." This is not hypocrisy at all but simply stating my take on your comments. You did act childishly. You did act disrespectfully. You were arrogant, haughty, and slandered something that is fundamental in my life. You have no knowledge of me, my life, my background or anything else for that matter concerning me aside from a few paragraphs I wrote and you throw around exceptionally unkind remarks with no provocation. I'm sure you can see why you were asked to be respectful. You had no reason to jump in with such immature comments that serve no purpose but to degrade your opponent in this discussion. It's totally unproductive and unnecessary and unappreciated. What is appreciated is if you comment on the blog. Has anyone done that yet?
"The number of absolute truths appears very small"--so there is absolute truth? Great. We agree. Where did absolute truth originate? Is there absolute moral truth? This is good stuff. Thank you.
"Eye-witnesses can and do make mistakes"--sure. No one has made the assertion that eye-witness testimony is the end of the story. That's a funny thing secularists want creationists to be saying but that's nonsense. However, as stated before, an eye-witness can fill in the gaps or connect the dots so to speak. In fact, without one, you're guessing at best. And since the facts we have can EASILY fit into the eye-witness account we have in the Bible, we're pretty excited. But atheists commonly want creationists to be saying, "God said it. That's it." And that be the end of their investigation. But that's ignorant and, actually, just a foolish notion. Please take a moment to read my blog "Creation Scientist is Not and Oxymoron" to see just how much you and I owe to God fearing creationists who paved the way for modern science. Their love for God and their thirst for knowledge compelled them to dig into the natural world to "think God's thoughts after Him." I realize it helps someone think the Christians are just stupid, science denying fools, but science is what it is today because of creationists. I'm not sure of many if any atheists who were pivotal in the founding of any major branch of scientific study.

So, back on track here, the facts when viewed in light of the eye-witness testimony is amazing and beautiful! It's awesome to see the natural world in the amazing sophistication that God created.
In terms of climate change, that's a farce and has been shown as such so many times I'm not really interested in getting into it. The scientists have admitted it's a sham. The data shows there's nothing happening like they suggest. The models predicted we'd be under water by now and the ice caps would be gone. They're growing at record rates and the planet has been cooling for a decade or more. Let's put it to rest. I, too, have children--5 in fact--and I fear they'll be enslaved by politicians who demand green energy and other fairly useless forms of living.

If I may, I'd like to address your question on the Ice Age(s). There is no contradiction or issue with an ice age and the Bible. In fact, Job mentions the ice, telling us it's likely he lived during the time the glaciers were retreating. It's easy to see how the Flood could have triggered an ice age and Flood models readily predict one. Were you aware of this? Again, it's nice for the secularist to have these weird ideas that creationists have, but we really don't. We don't deny any science. We don't ignore the facts. It's taken into account. But this is not the right place for this discussion. Bil's blog is not about creation, science, or the age of the earth. It's about the Bible and slavery. Can you find an appropriate place for this discussion?