Thursday, December 28, 2006

What About All of Those Smart Guys Who Believed?

I have shown at this site why I do not believe everything in the Bible. "Ah", some will tell me, "I know a lot of smart guys, and they all believe the Bible." Every week they see the ushers at church, all outstanding men in the community, dutifully doing their service because they believe the Bible. And they see the pastor and deacons, all of whom are outstanding men and very smart, and all agree with the doctrinal statement of the church. How can one even suggest that any point of that doctrine might be wrong, when there are so many smart people who support it? (Click here for more, including why I do not agree with Honey's argument by quoting past scientists.)

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

It is true; I give example of great scientists who have contributed greatly to scientific advancement, and quoted what they actually stated about their belief in the Bible. My comments were not directed at Merle but were in reply to another’s ignorance in speaking of Sir Isaac Newton (and also the Bible). Newton knew the Bible far better than Merle Hertzler could ever dream of knowing it. Merle Hertzler demonstrates a very one dimensional understanding of the Bible.

MERLE SAYS

“You and I have minds. We can read what the Bible says for itself, and can see for itself that it has contradictions. If someone claims that Newton found no contradiction he could not have explained away, what are his explanations? To ignore the errors in the book, we will need to hear more than the fact that someone did not see contradictions. We will need to know his reasons. What reasoning did he use to explain away the contradictions, such as the ones I list at….”
____________________________

If he knew anything about Sir Isaac Newton he would know that Sir Isaac had a very good understanding of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. This capability alone would allow Newton to eliminate many contradictions, arising from linguistic and translation difficulties.

I have expressed objection to Merle’s contradictions. I see that many are in fact a misunderstanding on his part, of the English language, the textual context, the structure of the Bible, translation issues etc.

Here is a quote from Sir Isaac Newton pertinent to our discussion on Biblical contradictions.

“A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of them is not understanding.”

I have pointed out on this site that many of the contradictions given by people are not in fact contradictions, but rather misunderstandings. Once one has an understanding there is no longer a contradiction.

MERLE SAYS

Smart people are sometimes wrong. (referring to the scientists I listed I assume)
____________________________

Yes, but when I see that they are right, and that Merle is so very wrong, and that he doesn’t even understand HOW he is wrong, then it is a bit much to ask that I should take seriously anything that he says. And so far he didn’t demonstrate where any of these men were actually wrong - apart from his misunderstood alleged contradictions.

But then that must make a lot more sense to him – to dump all these very intelligent men in the ‘smart but deluded’ basket, rather than think that perhaps HE could be the one to have missed something that they understood.

I chose these men, because they made very significant contributions. Sir Isaac Newton for example –

English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, alchemist, and natural philosopher, regarded by many as the greatest figure in the history of science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Isaac_Newton

Now if he is considered to be ONE OF THE GREATEST, if not THE GREATEST SCIENTIST of all time…well if I had nothing else with which to make my decision, then when I weigh the scales it does weigh mighty heavy in his favor as opposed to Merle the Mistaken, or an anonymous noiance. And I should just mention here that observing oneself to be in agreement with another person on a matter (such as Sir Isaac Newton) certainly does not make one a slave (I’m not saying that is what was said – I’m just making a statement). Why Merle would imply it creates such connection is beyond my understanding, unless it is an attempt to discredit my ability to think independently, or that of anyone else who should dare to compare.

So what exactly was Newton’s view of the Science of the Universe? (Science being the knowledge of and study of facts and principles relating to a matter)

“This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

"I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily."

Hmm. It would appear very apparent to me that Sir Isaac’s belief in the Bible had an enormous impact on his knowledge and study of the universe. Sorry Merle, but they ARE THE FACTS according to Sir Isaac Newton, the MOST IMPORTANT FACTS.

And here is the important part for US. The part that refers back to my statement “Thank goodness Newton let the Bible shape his view of Science, maybe we would make greater advancement in a much shorter time if we did the same today” Merle directs us to check out Sir Isaac’s Principia. So let’s now take a look at what influenced Sir Isaac Newton in his writing of the Principia.

“When I wrote my treatise about our System I had an eye upon such Principles as might work with considering men for the belief of a Deity and nothing can rejoice me more than to find it useful for that purpose.”(Sir Isaac Newton in a letter to Richard Bentley)

So there we have it, plain and simple. Sir Isaac Newton compiled his Principia, having in mind the intent that it be purposeful for being persuasive in demonstrating God’s design and creation of the universe (just in case anyone didn’t get it).

Some times you gotta look beyond what’s written Merle, to get the full picture – and the story is the same with the Bible.

It would probably surprise people to be told that Sir Isaac Newton actually wrote more on theology than he did on natural science.


And on the Jews and Einstein, nothing he says about himself or about religion changes the facts written in the Bible, as I gave reference for. John 12:37-40, Romans 11:24-26, Romans 9:30-33

As Jesus said in Luke 11:52 52 to the Jewish leaders,

"Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge (Christ). You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering."

It’s not that Einstein was hidden behind the locked door of Judaism, as you put it; it’s that he was locked out of Christianity because he wasn’t permitted to have the key – there is a slight but notable difference between being locked in something and being locked out of something.

The secret to finding God cannot be uncovered in the study of the cosmos - it lays deep within the heart.

Then moving on Merle makes extensive comment on the scientists I listed in my comment.

Let’s just remember that I didn’t make the initial scientist comment, I just gave a legitimate reply, and then I furthered it for the benefit of the reader. I chose the scientists because they were intelligent Christians who had made a significant contribution to science, of which many readers would find their names familiar because of their great achievements. And I don’t follow them – I’m sorry Merle but you’ve got that quite wrong. As Merle himself quoted “Europeans went on to lead the world in science and many other areas”. They stand out for this very reason and thus we are familiar with them. Again, this is why I chose them; it would seem to be self evident. If Merle understood the context of the comments he would see that I was not demonstrating that white, European Christians were more of anything. I was merely demonstrating that intelligent men of science found the Bible an inspiration in their lives (thus their work). And that not every Christian who believes in the Bible is an unscientific, unreasoning, illogical slave to ignorance, as some would attempt to portray through their comments.

As for Louis Pasteur, I forgot to include who my initial quote was from, but here you go:

“Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction”
-Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology France, 1872

So it wasn’t a neighbour, or a guy reading about in on the street, it was a professor of physiology...it must make it difficult to contend with such negativity to your discoveries, and deal with the likes of such people in a professional capacity I should imagine.


And the quote you gave apparently by Louis Pasteur supporting evolution...I must ask - ARE YOU SERIOUS!!?

MERLE’S ERRONEOUS LOUIS PASTEUR QUOTE
Virulence appears in a new light which cannot but be alarming to humanity; unless nature, in her evolution down the ages (an evolution which, as we now know, has been going on for millions, nay, hundreds of millions of years), has finally exhausted all the possibilities of producing virulent or contagious diseases -- which does not seem very likely. [emphasis added.]
NOTE: Not only was emphasis added (by Merle I imagine), BUT WORDS WERE ADDED!

Here is what I believe to be THE REAL QUOTE in context.

And so it is that virulence appears to us in a new light, rather disquieting for humanity, unless nature in its evolution during centuries of the past already encountered all possible occasions of creating virulent or contagious diseases, something which is very unlikely.

What makes a micro-organism harmless for a human being or any given animal? It is a micro-organism which cannot grow in our body or in the body of this animal; but nothing proves that provided this micro-organism were to penetrate one of the thousands of species of Creation, it might not invade it and make it ill. Its virulence, then reinforced by successive passages through members of this species, could become able to infect some animal of large size, man or certain domestic animals. In this way new virulences or contagions could be created.

(Pasteur 1881)
Schwartz, M.
The life and works of Louis Pasteur.
Journal of Applied Microbiology 91 (4), 597-601.
doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2672.2001.01495.x
Pasteur, L. (1881) De l'atténuation des virus et de leur retour á la virulence (avec la collaboration de MM.Chamberland et Roux). Comptes rendus de l' Académie des Sciences, Séance du 28 Fevrier XCII, 429–435.

WOW! Somewhat different huh! It actually does not speak of evolution at all as such, but uses the word in an almost tongue in check manner, describing the theoretical situation of which it referred as very unlikely, and going on to stress ‘the species of Creation’, in describing the new threat of disease as always possible through existing micro-organisms gaining new access to living creatures, previously unencumbered by the organism, which then spreads from one creature to another, thus being contagious.

This first erroneous quote of Merle’s, is exactly why pointing out the deceptions is SO NECESSARY. I cannot know if this were an intentional deception on Merle’s part (I shall give him the benefit of the doubt) but even if unintentional, it did show a lack of research on his part when it had already been stated that Louis Pasteur was a Christian, who opposed Darwinism. I do notice Merle is not the only person spreading this false quote around.

I would like to provide more confirmable information on Louis Pasteur but since he was French most of the current internet information is predominantly scientifically detailed as opposed to personal, and the external information I have to date, is also not referenced so it is a matter I must delve into deeper. In the meantime here is Louis Pasteur’s quote on God.

"The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator."


MERLE SAYS

“Honey can't even seem to find an example of someone who had once accepted atheism on intellectual grounds”

Um…‘atheism on intellectual grounds’…as far as I am concerned that phrase is an oxymoron. Anyone who can come to such an opinion in view of the vast scientific evidence that matter, laws of nature, life, and order do not come from nothingness, certainly hasn’t exhausted their intellect on the matter.

THEN MERLE SAYS RE GREGOR MENDEL

“So once again we find Honey's desperate attempts to attack the integrity of mainstream science to be based on misinformation.”

What desperate attempt? What attack on the integrity of mainstream science? What misinformation? Please clarify.

The only one desperate here, would appear to be Merle, and that would seem to be with regard to presenting me as a desperate ranter, hostile towards mainstream science.

My intent is not to attack mainstream science. My intent is to make people aware, and keep them conscious of the facts, which are - that science is not infallible, and man is far from infallible, and the combination of the two can at times make for very unsatisfactory results. And the reason I point this out? My purpose is to prevent people who might come across this site from unconsciously replacing a faith in the Word of God with a faith in science. Now I don’t believe that Merle would ever openly encourage replacing one faith with another, but I do see it as a potential trap, that those who have left the Christian faith may unwittingly fall into. I do not understand why Merle is so aggitated by what I am doing. I have stated that I condone science; everyone can see that to be true when I post a comment honoring the work of great scientists. I would think we are both on the same side with this one? Surely Merle wouldn’t suggest that people be made painfully aware of what he considers to be Bible errors and contradictions, and then turn a blind eye to the weakness within the scientific field would he? He wouldn’t suggest that just because someone understands ‘the science’. that they are then credited with a ranking of infallibility? Or that majority view on a situation is always, without question correct? I know he doesn’t believe these things because he has pointed them out to me himself, and says the same on his site. Why then when I do the same for science as he does for the Bible does he say I ‘rant’ or that I am desperate?

MERLE SAYS

“Did these believers know something which we don't know? If so, what is it that they knew that convinced them to believe the Bible? And then we should wait for the answers.”

Exactly!! That is Merle’s mistake! I found the answers by studying the scriptures and trusting in God. Sir Isaac Newton found the answers by studying the scriptures and trusting in God. Many other scientists found the answers by studying the scriptures and trusting in God. Merle searched the scriptures, but gave up on trusting in God when the waters became a little deep for him.

Look at what Sir Isaac Newton said,

To explain all nature is too difficult a task for any one man or even for any one age. ’Tis much better to do a little with certainty, and leave the rest for others that come after you, than to explain all things.

This didn’t mean he didn’t have more answers, he did have other answers but also had the understanding that the time was not right to reveal them. This is often the case.

I will demonstrate to you several of your errors (as time permits) from your site, then if you or others really want answers you should study the Bible as a scientist does nature, and with an open heart.

MERLE SAID

“Ah, so atheists and agnostics are not viable and they are fools? That's odd, for atheists and agnostics have made great discoveries. Where would we be without atheists such as Einstein or Thomas Edison? It sure seems to me that they knew many of the secrets of the universe. God, if he exists, apparently did not regard these men as fools, and saw it fit to hand over secrets of heaven to them.”

In reference to my comment

“The fundamental issue is that they trusted God. When you put your trust in Him you demonstrate yourself viable. Should He hand over the secrets of heaven to fools?”

Here Merle confuses the ‘secrets of heaven’ with the ‘secrets of the universe’, using them interchangeably, yet that is not what I said. I spoke of the ‘secrets of heaven’ as of a spiritual level, and my comment was directed at ‘anonymous’ to consider, and related to his understanding of the Bible, and the scientists understanding of the Bible. The comment that went before was

“The question every nonbeliever needs to ask is 'what did these intelligent and knowledgeable men know and see, that I am not knowing and seeing?'

Merle can read so he knew this, but as usual prefers to manipulate for the purpose of denigrating me.

But while we are on the subject here is what the Bible says.

Psalm 14:1
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

As for Fabri and Leviticus 11:21-22, I know the answer, so I have every reason to believe he too was shown the answer. You too may find the answer, as I have said before; it is there in the Bible, for everyone to see.

As for Matthew Maury and the paths of the sea – I’m not going to argue with what he believed. If he made scientific progress using the Bible, then so be it. That was the point I was trying to demonstrate.

I don’t remember sharing my opinion on the verses regarding the flat earth or corners or pillars? Merle says “the Bible consistently speaks of the earth as flat”? I just don’t have the time to waste on such an absurd suggestion, when I see the Bible clearly demonstrates otherwise, in a far more significant way, which would put to shame anyone who would make claims to the contrary.

I am not here to convince you of anything Merle, nor share with you what I know. I am here for one purpose only, and that is to encourage God’s children to cling to him in faith. We all live by faith, whether it be faith that our own perceptions are correct, or that someone else’s are correct, or that the way information is portrayed or understood is correct… there is faith needed for all forms of belief. God only asks us to open our hearts in faith on one thing; that is His love demonstrated through the gift of Jesus Christ, who humbled himself as a servant to fulfill God’s purpose of demonstrating that love, for us unto death. There is no greater sacrifice of love that can be given, and no greater demonstration of love, with no more pure way for man to follow, than the way of love. This is the simple message of the Bible. If we put our faith in God’s Love as the superlative way, acknowledging that the way of serving self leads only to destruction, then we desire to emulate God’s love to others. In demonstrating our love for God through our love for others, the Bible tells us we have fulfilled the requirements of God. It is really very simple, but too often we allow ourselves to be lured away by deception of many kinds.

Honey

Anonymous said...

Further on Merle’s ‘atheism based on intellectual reasons’

THE DAWKINS DELUSION

DAWKINS (prominent atheist ethologist and author of ‘The God Delusion’)
“Of all the questions I fielded during the course of my recent book tour, the only ones that really depressed me were those that began "I'm an atheist, BUT . . .".bla bla bla.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,318,n,n
I'm an atheist, BUT . . .
by Richard Dawkins

Well thanks for that Dawkins, but it appears to me you have your own BIG BUT ISSUES.

Here is an excerpt from an interview appearing in ‘TIME’ November 13, 2006, with both C. Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins (human genome geneticist), picked up from bottom of first column page 39 (I would like to have picked it up earlier in the interview but kept to minimum for copyright reasons)

INTRO – Collins makes comment that “The gravitational constant, if it were off by one part in a hundred million million, then the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang would not have occurred in the fashion that was necessary for life to occur…” Dawkins reply includes (without any statistics) that “God himself would be even more improbable…” Dawkins reply also includes two theories to counteract Collins statement, one being the theory that somehow (as yet unknown, or undocumented), the gravitational constant is locked in, the second that there are many universes. Collins comments that he finds the fact that God planned the universe this way more compelling than the possibility of multiverses on the basis of ‘Occam’s razor’ (see wiki) – a principle once used against God, now with the increasing knowledge of the universe only leading to ever more and greater questions Collins uses this principle of Occam’s in support of God.

DAWKINS: I accept that there may be things far grander and more incomprehensible than we can possibly imagine. What I can’t understand is why you invoke improbability and yet you will not admit that you’re shooting yourself in the foot by postulation something just as improbable, magicking into existence the word God.
COLLINS: My God is not improbable to me. He has no need of a creation story for himself or to be fine-tuned by something else. God is the answer to all of those “How must it have come to be” questions.
DAWKINS: I think that’s the mother and father of all cop-outs. It’s an honest scientific quest to discover where this apparent improbability comes from. Now Dr. Collins says, “Well, God did it. And God needs no explanation because God is outside all this.” Well, what an incredible evasion of the responsibility to explain. Scientists don’t do that. Scientists say, “We’re working on it. We’re struggling to understand.”
COLLINS: Certainly science should continue to see whether we can find evidence for multiverses that might explain why our own universe seems to be so finely tuned. But I do object to the assumption that anything that might be outside of nature is ruled out of the conversation. That’s an impoverished view of the kinds of questions we humans can ask, such as “Why am I here?”, “What happens after we die?”, “Is there a God?” If you refuse to acknowledge their appropriateness, you end up with a zero probability of God after examining the natural world because it doesn’t convince you on a proof basis. But if your mind is open about whether God might exist, you can point to aspects of the universe that are consistent with the conclusion.
DAWKINS: To me, the right approach is to say we are profoundly ignorant of these matters. We need to work on them. But to suddenly say the answer is God-it’s that that seems to me to close the discussion.

TIME: Could the answer be God?
DAWKINS: There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.
COLLINS: That’s God.
DAWKINS: Yes. But it could be any of a billion Gods. It could be God of the Martians or of the inhabitants of Alpha Centauri. The chance of its being a particular God, Yahweh, the God of Jesus is vanishingly small-at the least, the onus is on you to demonstrate why you think that’s the case.

TIME changes topic.
----------------------------------------------

So, what have we here? Dawkins agrees there could be a God of incredibly grand and incomprehensible divinity, any of a billion gods in fact. And the possibility of Yahweh being this one is vanishingly small.

Wow! Maybe Dawkins needs to be reminded of what atheism is. Then someone probably needs to point out that to acknowledge the possible existence of a God (or many), would demonstrate a conflict of beliefs if one were an atheist. And if what Dawkins say’s is true, that there is possibility of a God (or many) then how could one intellectually come to the conclusion that there is none? The fact is one can’t.
One cannot intellectually say ‘I am an atheist, but there is the possibility of a God’, well actually one can, but it would demonstrate a deficiency of intellect, not to mention how unscientific it is.

So that is the Dawson Delusion. He would like to portray that atheism is scientific, but atheism is in truth merely a faith that there is no god; a faith with no promise of anything better than eventual annihilation for mankind. A faith, that offers no incentive or legitimate reason to treat our fellow man any better than the apparent virus he is to his ailing planet Earth.




INCREDIBLY GRAND AND INCOMPREHENSIBLE

Hmm. Sounds to me like the God of the Bible.

2 Chronicles 2:6
But who is able to build a temple for him, since the heavens, even the highest heavens, cannot contain him?

1 Corinthians 2:11
For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.


So what if this INCREDIBLY GRAND AND INCOMPREHENSIBLE
God decided the best way to present himself to his creation to demonstrate the essence of his Divine nature (Love) was in the same form as what He had created? And what if He ensured written evidence would be given and passed on so that 1. His one short human life span would be recognized as belonging to Divinity (Old Testament) 2. His one short human life span would continue on through the evidence of the witnesses (New Testament).

And what if this continuing written evidence contained witness to the fact that it was from God due to its incredibly grand and incomprehensible (to the common mind) details? And what if God hid these details within the written witness, to make it evident to those who have faith that this was of God and not just the documenting of information known or believed by all? And what if men given understanding of this incredibly grand and incomprehensible (to the common mind) information clung onto this information through an understanding that disclosure was at God’s will, not mans? Yep, sounds exactly like God to me.

Jeremiah 33:3
'Call to me and I will answer you and tell you great and unsearchable things you do not know.'

The real God delusion is that a man wise in his own eyes, thinks that he can snatch from God that which rightfully belongs to God. Tell him he’s dreaming!

1 Corinthians 1:25
For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

Jude 1:8
In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings.

Anonymous said...

AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE TO WHOM THIS IS A LEGITIMATE CONCERN I RELENT - HERE IS MY REPLY TO MERLE

RE: Isaiah 11:12
And he will set up an ensign for the nations, and will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Of course it is literal. God is saying he will gather Judah from the four extremities, of the earth ie. north, south, east, and west or as far as from the crossing of these points. Did anyone think to look up the meaning of the word corner? It’s really a very simple verse to understand. Google “four corners of the globe” – over 100,000 people believed this to be a correct use of the word in relation to a round object, and one that would be understood by internet readers. Here in Australia we have a current affair show called “Four Corners”, and I can assure you it has nothing to do with the Bible (so there is 17 million who understand to start with). What seems to be the problem you are having with this verse exactly? What sort of corners did you think God meant? Did anyone even think to look up a dictionary to check out the meaning of corner? Even if one is looking at a map and wants to speak of flat paper corners it would still imply that it would include the entire map of the world, inclusive of all four points where north south east and west meet the outside circle of the earth. What part of this can’t be understood literally?

Here is some guidance for people experiencing difficulty.
Check a dictionary first - you may find a meaning you weren't aware of.
Then check another Bible version – many words cross over meanings and some translators may use a word you are more familiar with.
If you still have trouble ask yourself if it is possible you are misinterpreting what is being said and do a google search for other suggested interpretations.
Check out the context of the text - this will often help to clear up a matter.


Anyway, this one was very straight forward and Dictionary.com kindly gives us not only the meaning of the word corner but the meaning of the phrase (just in case we were still unsure about which meaning to choose):

26.THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH
- the most distant or remote regions: They traveled to the four corners of the earth.


So God will draw together Judah from the most distant regions of the Earth. Simple

Unfortunately Adrian Swindler Author of ‘The Flat-Earth Belief of Bible Writers’
also demonstrates his ignorance which I will from hence forth call Flat-Bible Syndrome. Ie. those whose understanding of the Bible is one dimensional, and cannot appreciate the great height and depth of knowledge for stumbling over flat words.

It’s not unlike an American missing the whole plot of a story because he spends his time searching for typos – problem is its spelt in British English – not American, yet of this sinmple matter he is ignorant.

Take care.

Honey

Merle said...

"Honey"

See my response at Smart Guys

Merle

Anonymous said...

Wow Merle, you never let us down do you! Or do you? Without fail you pick and pull at everything said twisting and contorting everything until it fits your desired purpose. I don't have time to waste on your manipulation game. Playing twister, semantics, decontextualising, over contextualising, misrepresenting, missing the point and messing with minds - none of these are on my list of things to do, so I invite you, if you are serious, to take your best shot. You choose the one item from your page, where you believe I am most in error, and we will examine that in a productive manner.

Honey

Merle said...

"Honey",

So sorry if anything I said misrepresented you. I simply responded to what you have written. If I am mistaken about anything you said, please let me know where I misunderstood.

Merle

Anonymous said...

Nice try Merle.

My tongue towards you is blunt – you may feel it overly sharp as it cuts through to the truth. Your tongue on the other hand Merle, is forked.

What I do, I do as an act of Love - Love for my Christian brothers and sisters who grapple with the many deceptions concocted to lead them from the path of truth. Love is not a warm fuzzy feeling Merle. It is a caring devotion. It seeks truth and speaks honestly. Plenty of times the sting of my parents love brought me pain, and even self correction can be excruciating – sometimes the truth hurts.

My Philistine comment was not directed at any person (just in case anyone thought otherwise) but was made concerning the ‘science’ of Islam - I am not now, and never will be ‘politically correct’.

Your disrespect has been evident to me since the day you posted my private email to your blog without offering the common courtesy of asking if I would have any objection to such. If I had intended it to appear on your blog I would have posted a comment. The disrespect hasn’t stopped since, no matter how sweetly you believe you coat it.

For example of your not so squeaky persona let’s just take a quick look at the simplest matter from the quagmire of your comment page. This one everyone can readily verify for themselves.


YOU QUOTE MY COMMENT

It’s not that Einstein was hidden behind the locked door of Judaism, as you put it; it’s that he was locked out of Christianity because he wasn’t permitted to have the key – there is a slight but notable difference between being locked in something and being locked out of something.


YOU REPLY

Ah, so Einstein was locked out of Christianity? Then why did you include Einstein on your list titled “what some great [scientists] really thought about God and the Bible”? Since he was “locked out of Christianity” and denied the God of the Bible, he really doesn’t belong on your list, does he?


YOU QUOTE MY COMMENT

I chose the scientists because they were intelligent Christians who had made a significant contribution to science, of which many readers would find their names familiar because of their great achievements


YOU REPLY

Then why in the heck is Einstein on your list, when you say he was locked out of Christianity?
____________________________________

Why am I always forced to defend myself against your derision Merle?
If I chose to make note of Einstein for a particular point and included him on my “list”, then why would you think in necessary to bring my action to issue? What purpose does it serve Merle? I didn’t make any false claims; in fact I made it clear he wasn’t a Christian.

And you don’t just address it with one comment, apparently it is worthy of two. I mean your “why in the heck” is pretty intense grilling over something that really is a non issue isn’t it Merle? Why do you grill me over a non issue? What answer are you really expecting from me here Merle? There is none I can give to satisfy your real desire is there Merle - for the intent of your question is not to receive an answer.

Now I would ask everyone to please take a look at the link Merle provides. Please read the “list”, which wasn’t actually intended as a list although it does appear to take list form, and certainly doesn’t have a title despite Merle’s claims to the opposite, but rather an opening sentence to the comment. I ask the readers – does anyone see in the linked “list” any mention of Einstein? No. You won’t find it because it is not there.
__________________________________


It is virtually impossible for me to continuously try to contend with Merle's intentionally insidious barrage.

I think I have demonstrated sufficiently, first his desire to deny truth when it conflicts with his belief system, second his pretense in the manner he treats people (some may not pick this up, but I know that anyone who clearly reads what has been written on both sides will see that this is true), and third that he will knowingly lie to promote his position.

Finally I would quickly like to mention the LOUIS PASTEUR QUOTE. It is my understanding that the book (Cuny, Hilaire. 1965. Louis Pasteur: The man and his theories. Translated by P. Evans), from which Merle’s source took its quote, does not itself include a source for the quote. As there seems to be no other source for the quote it is believed (and seems most likely in light of other evidence) that the content in brackets is an editorial note by the author, and not part of the original quote. I have been able to locate the book and will confirm (or retract, should I be mistaken) this when I have the book in my hands.

The quote in no way suggests that micro-organisms evolve. Anyone who reads it can see that "PENETRATION" OF UNFAMILAIR SPECIES (ie. foreign to its species of origin) for the micro-organism, is the description clearly given for “new virulences or contagions”.

Honey

Merle said...

See my response to "Honey" at http://geocities.com/questioningpage/pasteur.html

Anonymous said...

I will go through your response one item at a time to reinforce the truth of the matters you dispute, after we finish with the Judas discussion.

Honey

Anonymous said...

I’m sorry, I didn’t post the moment the book came to my hands as intended; too much to do and too little time.
The alleged quote of Louis Pasteur used by Merle, and found in the book ‘Louis Pasteur – The Man and His Theories’, has no reference noted to it. There are other quotes used in the book (such as found on page 68) which have clearly had comments added to them in parenthesis that were not part of Pasteur’s own words. This seems not so surprising when noting that the bibliography contains books such as Eleanor Doorly’s ‘The Microbe Man, A Life of Pasteur for Children’ published by Penguin Books.

Honey

Merle said...

"Honey", you seem to miss the point, that both versions of the quote from Pasteur support evolution. Your attempts to paint Pasteur as an evolution-denier have simply not held up to scrutiny.

You claim the book about Pasteur inserts words in parenthesis that were not Pasteur's. How do you know they were not Pasteur's? So far we have only your word for it. Please quote a portion that you think was altered by the book, and why you think it was altered. An accusation without supporting evidence means nothing.

And are you sure the book was using parenthesis and not brackets at the alleged insertions? Adding words in brackets is standard editing procedure.

Anonymous said...

The point is as I stated previously
"PENETRATION" OF UNFAMILIAR SPECIES (ie. foreign to its species of origin) for the micro-organism, is the description clearly given for “new virulences or contagions”.

There is more than one definition for the word evolution, and it would seem apparent to me that if he makes reference to "the thousands of species of Creation", that he is certainly not referring to the evolution to which you would like to imagine he refers.

Could I quote for you? Nope. Sorry. Just take a look at yourself Merle - "Are you sure the book was using parentheses and not brackets" You can't help yourself! As far as you are concerned I couldn't possibly be right on anything and if I were, you still need to have a dig. I said what I meant.

Honey

Merle said...

"Honey",

Sorry, you have not presented any real evidence that Pasteur did not believe in evolution.

Your comments are shown in bold below:

"The point is as I stated previously 'PENETRATION' OF NFAMILIAR SPECIES (ie. foreign to its species of origin) for the micro-organism, is the description clearly given for 'new virulences or contagions'. "

Sorry, read the quote again. The point is not so much that viruses penetrate new species, but that, after they penetrate a new species, their virulence is "then reinforced by successive passages through members of this species". That is what Pasteur correctly saw as a potential problem. A virus could invade a species, and then evolve to the point where it presented a serious danger to that species or another related species. The quote definitely refers to evolution.

"There is more than one definition for the word evolution, and it would seem apparent to me that if he makes reference to 'the thousands of species of Creation', that he is certainly not referring to the evolution to which you would like to imagine he refers. "

Sorry, many people believe in evolution and still refer to evolution as the means God used to create new creatures. They may use this terminology for political reasons. Regardless, they refer to "creation", but they believe the method God used is that of evolution. The fact that Pasteur used the word "creation" does not mean he denied evolution.

"Could I quote for you? Nope. Sorry. "

That's odd. You accuse the writer of the book about Pasteur of being dishonest, and when I ask you for an example of his dishonesty, you refuse to give us a quote. So all we have is your word that the author of this book wrote dishonestly (or mistakenly), and you refuse to give us an example of your claim.

"Just take a look at yourself Merle - 'Are you sure the book was using parentheses and not brackets' You can't help yourself! As far as you are concerned I couldn't possibly be right on anything and if I were, you still need to have a dig. I said what I meant. "

No, that was not a dig, it was a question. If you claim the writer was inserting comments into a quote of Pasteur, why cannot I ask if you are sure he was using parenthesis and not brackets for the inserted words? That is a legitimate question.

May I remind you that in the past, you have mistaken parenthesis for brackets. For instance, you wrote, "it is believed (and seems most likely in light of other evidence) that the content in brackets is an editorial note by the author, and not part of the original quote". Actually, the passage you referred to had no brackets, but had parentheses. So you were mistaken in calling a parenthesis a bracket. If you made such a mistake once, why is it not legitimate to ask if you made a mistake in identifying the punctuation?

Tyson said...

i know a lot of great peopel who didn't beleive ANYTHING the Bibel says...

Anonymous said...

Christianity is really at odds with the Bible message. The Bible teaches 'unity' - and how 'many' completely 'different (disunity)' Christian denominations are there? Let's see, Catholic (different forms of Catholics; orthodox, born-again, and other), Protestant (many different forms of Protestant: Lutheran (orthodox and born-again), United (orthodox and born-again)and many more, Evangelical (too many to list).

Something's not right!!! And what about this:

(Genesis) Adam/man (Hebrew-synonyms) = ‘ruddy’, rosy, the flush of red blood

"man became a ‘living soul’ " (Genesis 2:7):
soul (Hebrew & Greek) = animal principle/breathing creature

- does not suggest a ‘human’ being but rather a ‘ruddy’ creature (as coming from the ‘red’ earth -dust/ground-primordial soup)

According to my studies of the writings, Adam/man was not initially a human being as many believe but rather a ‘ruddy creature of earth’, an animal (which must have been a chimpanzee; somewhere along the line human beings caught the chimp gene because of recent human genome DNA mapping).

Religious tendencies are observed strictly in the ‘human’ species. If human beings are in part ‘soul (primate/mammal)’ then why aren’t such tendencies evident in primates? Could it be because we have something primates don’t have?

animal = soul
human being = soul + spirit

soul = mortal (of earth)
spirit = immortal (otherworldly, aura, transcendent, supernatural = God's image)

Prior to being put into the garden, ruddy did not have 'spiritual' ability, he only gained that after he entered the garden; '...and the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had made.' (Gen. 2:8)

It was the gaining of this other element that enabled one primate to change from animal to human, and unless he had gained this other element, he could not have changed - thus the reason we don't see other primates in various stages of change.