Christian Forum General Apologetics, RIP

It has been my privilege to spend many hours at the Christian Forums website, debating the issues that I present at my site. That site is now under new management. Most of the threads from those days have been deleted. Skeptics are no longer welcome at that site. Unfortunately, many of the discussions that I reference at my site no longer exist. Someday I will update my site, and remove those links. See Christian Forum General Apologetics, RIP .

The Way of the Master

Previously I posted that the book, "The Way of the Master" includes an extensive quote from my site. I now find that this book is part of an agressive witnessing site entitlted "The Way of the Master." Here are some videos that refute the claims made at the site about evolution. I recommend these videos.

Part 1.



Part 2.



Part 3.



And here is a good video on transitional fossils.

Is God Imaginary?

I found this thought-provoking video. Can you answer these questions within the context of your faith, without resorting to unlikely rationalizations? Do you come to the conclusion that God is imaginary?

Can we enjoy believing in a real Jesus?

RS writes:

I just read your tretise again. I like your questions. In fact I've asked a lot of them myself. You imply some conclusions that I'm not comfortable with however. We could draw some firm conclusions if all of the books that were ever written about everything were still available. But they're not. In the ancient, illiterate world I don't think many books were written in the first place. How many books do you think there were in circulation 2 thousand years ago? What did people write about back then? Who were the authors and who were the audiences? Why did they even write books? Did they get paid for writing them? Were there professional authors back then, like there are now? So, I'm uneasy about some of your conclusions; like maybe Jesus didn't actually exist because we haven't found more than a couple of ancient books outside the Bible that even mention him. We don't have all the books that were written available for examination. We can't conclude that an event didn't happen just because there is no evidence for it. The event could have happened but the evidence is gone. To be rational I think we have to reserve the possibility that Jesus did exist. I think we also have to consider the possibility that mingled within possible myths, legends, and embellishments contained in the Bible is a kernel or 2 of truth. You seem to have drawn your conclusions more on faith than on evidence. So I guess you and I are still following a practice we thought we left religion for: believing in things that can't be proven or disproven. I enjoy believing there was a real Jesus. I enjoy reading what he puportedly said for the most part. There is wisdom and insight there in some of it. I enjoy reading Pauls teachings. I accept from the Bible generally , what is relevant for me and ignore the rest, and I find meaning in it. I don't believe there is a final exam at the end of life so to me it's okay if you reject everything. All I'm suggesting is that because we don't know all there is to know we should be open to the possibilities. Cheers,

You are uneasy with reaching the conclusion that Jesus did not exist, for we do not have a complete historical record of that time. That is true. We cannot resolve the issue of his existence with certainty either way. And I make no claim that I know it with certaintly. I do think he probably did not exist, but I am not dogmatic about that claim. (See The Jesus Puzzle for more information on why many think he did not exist.)


You say you enjoy reading the reported words of Jesus. That is all well and good. There are a lot of good ideas in the Q Gospel and Thomas, the two books that are believed to be closest to the timeframe of Jesus. And there are lessons to be learned from writers like Luke who built on this tradition. I am in no way saying we cannot learn from these books. The point is that there is no way to prove that these books represent the words of a single man named Jesus, the words of one man who used Jesus as a pseudoname, or a compilation of sayings of many people. When it comes to enjoying the moral lessons there, one can do that regardless of who had a hand in preparing those documents.

"Ask whatever you need to, and let Him provide the answers."

Another reader observes:

I stumbled upon your website and wanted to ask something. In your own words, taken directly from your website, you state: "To convince a skeptic that he is wrong, you will need to do more then state that you are right and he is wrong. You will need evidence." I simply want to ask...what "evidence" have you provided that the Bible is not inspired? Your website is a multitude of questions without answers. Can you, with your scientific mind, provide evidence that the Bible was not inspired by God? Can you provide evidence that God does not exist? You pose very good questions on your website, however, you fail to answer any of them. In the end, you simply tell me that since I can not provide evidence that you deem sufficient, I am incorrect in my beliefs and you are correct in yours. Why does it have to be me providing the evidence, and not you? Even if I were to tell you of all the wonderful ways God has blessed my life since inviting the Holy Spirit of Jesus into my heart and doing my best to live in His will...you would ask me whether wonderful things ever happened before, and you would tell me that it's all just coincidence. So, one man's "evidence" is not necessarily another's. Based on the litany of questions on your website it seems to me that you are searching. Don't look in the Bible, and likewise don't look to science (which will only explain to you the matters of this three dimensional universe and time)...just look to Jesus and ask. Take the time to sit peacefully, open your heart, and invite Him in. He'll stand at the door waiting for as long as it takes, but he won't break it down to get in...it's got to be your choice. Then ask whatever you need to, and let Him provide the answers. God Bless...and I hope you find what you're truly looking for.

I respond here:


What evidence have I provided about the Bible? What about the long list of contradictions at my site? What about the detailed descriptions of moral problems with the Bible? Could God have written such things? Please read what I wrote. If you don't think that evidence is sufficient, please explain why.

You say, "you simply tell me that since I can not provide evidence that you deem sufficient, I am incorrect in my beliefs and you are correct in yours. " But of course, I never said any such thing, or anything close to it. Failure to find evidence for one belief in no way proves that another belief is correct. My views must stand on their own evidence.

You say I fail to answer any of the questions at my site. Again, have you even attempted to read my site? The site is filled with questions, and my responses to those questions. I think I have made my position very clear. If you are confused about my position, please ask.


You say one man's "evidence" may not be enough to convince another. Exactly. You are not convinced with the evidence that Iesha presented for Islam, are you? You are not convinced with the evidence for the book of Mormon, are you? Can you understand that some evidence is not convincing? Some evidence is valid, some is not. The fact that you found "evidence" may not mean the evidence is valid. For even you refer to your "evidence" in quotes, indicating that even you see that this is not convincing evidence.


You tell me to open my heart and invite Jesus in. I have indeed done that, many, many times. And no, I did not get all the answers. Yes, when I was a Christian, I thought I had a direct line to the throne, and yes, I thought I was getting answers directly from God, but as I explained at my site, others were using the exact same link to the throne and finding dramatically different answers. Have you never experienced that? Have you never once found a Christian who prayed to God and concluded something different from you? If this method you propose is so valid, why do people who use if find such radically different answers?

.

"I ended up in a place I should be in"

JF writes:

I just read some of your points. You are very creative. There is a lot of smoke and mirror's for you to hide behind. I think you should look closer. The answer may be there. Good luck on your ongoing search for the truth. My search was long and winding and I ended up in a place I should be in. I will give you a hint, I will pray for you,

JF, I am glad that, after a long search, you ended up in a place you should be.

Can you understand that, just because a place may be right for you, it may not necessarily be right for me? After all, some will tell me that they have found a place that is right for themselves, and their faith is very different from yours. Should I follow Islam, for example, since some have found it to be a place that is right for them? Will you immediately turn and follow all religions for which others declare that they have found it to be right for them? No? Then why would you expect others to immediately turn and follow your religion just becuase you declare it is right for you? Can you understand how most people would not regard your argument to be convincing evidence that they should abandon their views and accept your faith?

May I ask you how you know this is the place for you? Is it because of social pressure, and the fear of saying things that disagree with your peers? Is it because you have come to the faith you knew as a kid, and you feel secure in not having to face the real world with its many conflicting beliefs? Or is it because you have found new evidence that convinces you of a certain truth? If it is because of new evidence, what evidence are you referring to?

You say that you will pray for me. Fine, but what will you pray for? Will you pray that I abandon the knowledge I now have, and accept your faith, even though I sincerely think the evidence points me in another direction? Would your God honour such intellectual dishonesty? And if your God honors intellectual dishonesty, how would I know I could trust him?And if you are praying that I will be informed of a new fact, what fact is it that you want me to know? Why not just tell me?

I am sorry that you think my site is smoke and mirrors. I wrote it as an honest attempt to explain my views, and why I came to those views. If I am mistaken, it was an honest mistake, and I would like to know where I am wrong. Can you understand how simply calling my site smoke and mirrors does not address the issues? If I am wrong, where am I mistaken?

Okay, maybe not so much Paul as Mark and Luke

I see that WisdomUnchained has responded in detail to my post about Paul. I will address him here.

WisdomUnchained,

You write,

I have read the 3 parts starting with the Conspiracy of Silence so I understand your reasoning that Paul was speaking of Jesus on a spiritual plane and not as an earthly person. My initial reaction is that a person, after reading all of Paul's writings, would have to make a pretty significant leap of faith to agree with that. This in light of the fact that the gospel of Luke makes it clear that the Jesus being spoken about was an earthly person. Luke of course was a travelling companion of Paul so it seems unlikely that he would have somehow been in disagreement with Paul over whether Jesus was a real person or not.

I'm glad that you were willing to read the other side. You are certainly on the way to deeper understanding. Many refuse to read that which they disagree with. You and I--and probably most of those reading this--are among those who are willing to explore the thoughts of those who disagree with us.

Now that you have read the skeptical view, you may want to go back and read Paul for what he says. People are so used to hearing bits and pieces in church, where the speaker jumps between Paul and the gospels, leaving one with the impression that they are all speaking the same message. But if one isolates just the teaching of Paul, and reads it by itself, without interpreting it in the light of the first five books of the New Testament, it is hard to see that Paul is speaking of an earthly Jesus. That was the point I was responding to. The argument had been raised that Paul was a good early witness to the reality of the story of Jesus. Paul certainly testifies that he believed in a Jesus, but does he witness to the fact that Jesus lived on earth? That is the question.

Are we justified in reading Paul on his own, without viewing him in light of the first 5 books? Yes, if Paul wrote long before those books, wrote to a different audience, and had no contact with those other books or their authors. Is there any convincing evidence that the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were known by Paul?

Interestingly, your response shifts completely from the original topic of the writings of Paul, and turns back to the four gospels as your source. I addressed those books at Are the Gospels Historical?, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? , and When Were the Gospels Written?.

You refer to Luke, the companion of Paul, as the writer of the third gospel. How do you know that he wrote that book? The third gospel is completely anonymous, with no indication within the book itself of who the author is. Nobody even mentions Luke as a writer of a gospel until 150 years after Christ. And even then, we are told only that a Luke wrote the book, and not told which Luke. And yet your whole argument here hinges on the assertion that this book was written by Luke, the companion of Paul. Do you have any evidence for that claim? And if you admit that there is no convincing evidence that this Luke wrote that book, then the argument that Paul's intimate companion taught an earthly Jesus disappears. One is then left once more with turning to the writings of Paul himself to find out what Paul taught.

The gospel of Mark, who of course is considered the disciple Peter's interpreter, also speaks of an earthly Jesus. Since from Paul's writings we know that he had extensive interaction with Peter, and Peter claimed to be a direct disciple of Jesus of Nazareth, it seems pretty unreasonable that there was some major miscommunication between all four of them over whether Jesus was a real earthly person who had died just 20 some years before or not.

Again, I see an assertion here about the authorship of Mark. Once again, there is no mention within the gospel of who the author is. Again, we find nobody identifying this particular book with Mark until 150 years after Jesus. How do you know it was written by Peter's interpreter?

Paul mentions Peter, but nowhere mentions anything about Peter actually being with a physical Jesus on earth. In fact, Paul very clearly indicates that his own spiritual visions of Jesus are of equal validity with what Peter saw. Is there any indication anywhere that Paul thought Peter saw anything more than a vision? If I look only at the writings of Paul, I find there no evidence there that Peter physically saw Jesus.

Mark most likely wrote to an isolated group away from Palestine who had no contact with the Jerusalem apostles. If the Jerusalem apostles were even still alive at that point, they probably had no contact with the book of Mark, and so never refuted it.

If you would like to claim Mark was written before 70 AD, I would be interested in your reasons. For I find strong evidence for a date of Mark after 70 AD.

Peter even addresses this in 2 Peter 1:16 where he says, “We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty”..

Excuse me, but how do you know that Peter wrote the book of 2 Peter? 2 Peter is widely regarded as a second century pseudepigraph, that is, it was written by somebody other than Peter. See 2 Peter. What are your reasons for thinking Peter wrote that book?

Be that as it may, that still doesn't answer the underlying question. What are your thoughts on why Paul, who from the writings attributed to him was obviously a highly educated zealous Jew, who spoke and wrote fluently in multiple languages, was a man of reason, a roman citizen, a rising star in his Jewish sect of the Pharisees, and one who had already demonstrated his contempt for Christians by admittedly having them put to death; Why would he have abandoned his zealous Jewish beliefs to convert to Christianity? All this in light of the fact that he was trading a life of success and respect for one of prison, beatings, and suffering that lead to his own death by crucifixion. Whether it was an encounter with the physical or spiritual Jesus, it was a catastrophic event that compelled him to make a 180 degree change in his lifestyle based on 1400 years of tradition. A reasonable man, as Paul obviously was, just doesn’t do that without a dramatic event.

Did Paul encounter a catastrophic event? Sure! It was the Diaspora. Paul appears to have been one of the many Jews that were spread by the Romans across the area, intermixed with believers in many religions. In those desperate times in which people had to learn to cooperate with people of many cultures to survive, many adopted parts of other religions. So it is no big surprise that Paul combined elements of Judaism with elements of other religions, such as the religions that taught that a dying savior god in the spiritual realm brings salvation.

There is no doubt that Paul was zealous about his religion. Many are zealous about many different religions. What is in question is whether Paul taught that his Jesus had recently walked on earth as a man. You will have no problem convincing me that Paul was zealous. The question before us is this: What message was Paul zealous for?

I look forward to reading your response.

What about Paul?

I have contended that the early records tell little about an historical Jesus. We have no record of anybody definitively writing of the earthly Jesus revealed in the gospels until about 70 AD when Mark wrote his book. If the earthly life of Jesus was so important, why did nobody choose to write about it until 40 years later? Could it be that Mark was simply writing a novel which was later adopted as truth, and that the story has very little basis in historical fact?


Here is a reader's response:

I just came across your website this evening and I must admit that I haven't read through everything yet. I'm curious though about what your thoughts are on the books of the new testament written by Paul. I read your comments on the gospels and how you question whether they are eye witness accounts or not. Paul on the otherhand is credited with writing much of the new testament. He describes his seemingly miraculous conversion to belief in Christ and then travels around until he is killed proclaiming Christ. What are your thoughts on these books and Paul himself? Are you skeptical that he was a real person? If you think he was a real person, why would he have fabricated the story he did especially unto death? The other option is that he was deceived by the Apostles but he seemingly would have had an easy time of validating their stories with other eye witnesses since he lived during the same time as the original Apostles. I can understand how zealots in our own modern age can be deceived and convinced by faith in whatever religion to give their life as a final act of obedience. They take the word of a man before them. If you read the writtings of Paul though, he comes across as a man of reason. It doesn't seem reasonable that he could be deceived given his proximity to others who could disprove the Apostle's claims. Even if he was deceived, why make up the lie about his conversion? And what could his movitation have been to perpetuate that lie and Christ? Before proclaiming Christ, he was apparently a rising star in the Jewish community, a roman citizen, a free man, with power, influence, and likely money. Why trade all that for a lie?

Yes I believe that "Paul" was a literal man, for we have a collection of books written by "Paul". Although we can't be absolutely certain that the person who wrote these books was called "Paul" by those around him, it seems obvious that a man existed who wrote these books.


The problem is that Paul does not testify to the fact of an earthly Jesus. Paul describes a Jesus in heaven, who is doing a work on a spiritual plane. If this Jesus had had an earthly existence before this heavenly work, the letters of Paul bypass it. Yes, Paul refers to a death and resurrection, but the experience he refers to appears to be a heavenly experience, not one that happened on earth. You can read more about this at Conspriacy of Silence.


So the books of Paul, rather than being a convincing argument for the earthly resurrection, actually support the view that Jesus was considered to be only a heavenly figure by the earliest Christians. Not until Mark came along do we have a record of anyone reporting that the story happened on earth.

"God's ways are higher"

Where have I been? It's been a busy year, and I haven't spent much time on this blog. Several have written emails to me in the past year, but I have not yet responded. Let's get back to some of your concerns.


One person observes:

I also was brought up in a very devout Mennonite family and have recently found myself having questions about God, creation, the Bible, my life. You name it - I have questions about it. I am basing what I am writing on the belief that there is a God and He is Creator. As I read through the articles on your website I was struck by a thought - if we could understand everything about the way the earth was created, human nature, science, the mind, etc... through human intellect and reasoning wouldn't that, in itself, nullify God. It seems to me that one of the attributes of God is that God's ways are higher than our ways and God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts. If we could figure everything out using our human mind and understanding that would mean we are equal to God - just as intelligent as He is. Is that possible? I am grappling within myself about the questions I have about God: How did the earth come to be? Why are there so many, what seem to be, inconsistencies in creation, the Bible, theology - just as you have written? But then I think of my own experience and how I have felt God's presence in such remarkable ways. I have seen miraculous things happen. Is that just my emotions, my mind, nature? It is written that we are to walk by faith and not by sight. Where is faith in all of this? Could it be that God has left things unanswered - not all aspects of things - but that perfect connection, the perfect answer, the one thing that nails down the theory for the very fact that it requires faith to believe in Him? I don't know. I'm just putting it out there. Right now, I hold to my belief in God, not because I have all the answers, but precisely because I don't. Thanks for listening,

Could it be that God's ways are higher than ours, and that we really can't understand him. Sure! That is certainly possible. In fact, if a God did create this world, then it seems obvious that his ways would be higher than ours.


If God's ways are higher than ours, does this prove that this person has the correct religion? I think not. For if this person could prove he is right, since God is unknowable, then religions that radically differed with her could make the same claim. But religions differ greatly. Can all be proved to be right by using this argument? Can you see that an argument that leads to the conclusion that all religions are right cannot be a valid argument?


If God is not fully knowable, doesn't that lead us to the position of agnostism? If God's ways are above us, and we can't fully know those ways, then what is wrong with saying, "I don't know?" Why "nail down the theory" of one faith by accepting it on faith, when you know that you would be "nailing down the theory" of another faith if you were in different circumstances, with everyone around you nailing down another theory?


The writer speaks of feeling God's presence, but how can she be sure of what she felt? For if God's ways are unknowable, and she feels comfort, how can she know God comforts? If she feels guidance, how can she know God guides? To assume that these feeling come directly from God implies that we know what God wants to convey to us. But if God's ways are above us, and we can't understand them, how can we make definitive statements about how Gop wants us to feel? And if we can't know how God wants us to feel, how can we be sure that a particular feeling was caused by a direct intervention from God?


So no, I don't understand that the argument that our ignorance about God proves that a certain religion is right about God. That conclusion just doesn't follow.

The greatest threat to America

What is the greatest threat to America? Many fear terrorism or global warming. These are serious concerns, but I do not think either of these is our greatest threat. Nor do I think that scientific illiteracy, irrationality, war, or environmental damage is the greatest threat. All of those problems are real, and all contribute to our vulnerability, but there is a far greater danger. The greatest threat is this: we are running out of cheap oil, and this has staggering implications for our way of life.

Surely, we will find it harder to supply our needs for oil. We have searched virtually the entire planet with high-tech gadgets, and are finding little additional oil. For the last 25 years we have consumed far more oil than we have discovered. Each year the amount of oil demanded goes up, but the amount of oil discovered goes down. By 2006, the rate of discovery was down to 6 billion barrels per year, but the production rate was 28 billion barrels per year. Folks, that can't go on forever. If we consume 28 billion barrels each year and find 6 billion new barrels each year, eventually we will run out, and will be left with a trickle of oil. What will then happen to our economy?

Okay, so someday we won't have as much gas. Can we just pass this problem on to the next generation? No, the problem is facing us now. The more we pump from the existing oil wells, the harder it becomes to maintain the flow out of the wells. Thus, oil fields tend to reach a peak in production, and this peak generally occurs about 40 years after the oil is discovered at that field. When enough of fields peak, the entire region reaches a peak, and oil output starts to decline. Mounting evidence indicates that worldwide oil production has reached, or nearly reached, its peak. Production rates have been flat for the last 5 years, and the output for 2007 was lower than the output for 2006. Evidence indicates world oil production will fall to less than 95% of its current production sometime before 2020--perhaps even within the next 2 years--and to less than 50% sometime between 2025 and 2050.

But world demand has increased, especially in developing countries like China and India. We are headed for oil shortages.

Okay, can we turn to other liquid fuels, such as ethanol from corn or synthetic gasoline from coal? These fuels are expensive, even though they are heavily subsidized by the government. And ethanol has the problem that large fields that formerly grew food have been converted to sources of ethanol, posing the danger of world famines. Also, synthetic fuel from coal is polluting and contributes greatly to global warming. If we were to use coal to replace our oil supplies, even our coal reserves would shortly be exhausted. So there are problems with putting other fuels in our cars.

Okay, so maybe we need to rely on something other than liquid fuels. But if this is so, what energy sources will power our future transportation needs? Obviously, we can't attach huge solar panels or windmills onto our cars, and nobody really wants to fire up the coal stove in the trunk to power her steam-driven car to work. We could install large solar cells and windmills on land to make electricity, but how do we get that power to our cars? Batteries are expensive, notoriously limited in range, and frequently wear out. And using electric to make hydrogen to power cars is inefficient. Further, we either need to compress the hydrogen to very high pressures, or cool it to a liquid at very low temperatures in order to carry enough fuel in the car to travel a reasonable range. Both processes are expensive, and create serious hazards. In addition, hydrogen molecules are so small, they tend to escape from any container we put them in. Do you really want a tank of leaky, explosive, compressed hydrogen in your car in your garage? Alternative energy sources are limited in their value to transportation.

Okay, so we may need to cut back on vacation driving. That will help for a while, but eventually we will need to make major sacrifices. And how is that going to happen? Most likely we will rely on the laws of supply and demand, and we will simply let the price of gasoline and heating oil rise until consumption falls. Prices could rise until people cannot afford things they consider necessities, such as driving to work, or maintaining the house at a comfortable temperature. How will we then live?

Okay, so times may get rough. Not very long ago, folks survived without any gas, and they seemed to be happy. Can we just go back to a simpler life? It would be nice if the solution was that easy. We forget that in the 1800's, folks either lived in dense cities and towns, where they could walk or ride the train everywhere they needed to go, or they lived in the country and owned horses for transportation. Those of us who live in suburbia will not easily be able to go back to either mode of transportation. Our suburbs are too spread out for practical pedestrian travel, and our yards are not big enough to pasture horses. We have built suburbia, not considering that it becomes almost unusable once the gas is gone.

Okay, so maybe we need to start rearranging our suburbs to be walkable. Fine, but more than just transportation is at stake. Oil is used to make plastics, and many other items we consume. Most importantly, oil is used to make fertilizer and pesticides, and to fuel our tractors. Without oil, our entire farm system is in jeopardy. This is serious. Not only will we need to cut back to a simpler life, but we may find that there is not enough food to feed everybody. In 1900, before petroleum fueled the green revolution, there were only 1.5 billion people. Now there are over 6 billion people. If farming must eventually cut back to the methods of 1900, how many people will the world be able to feed? And how will the world cut back the population level to a sustainable level? Will we rely on wars and famine, or will we find more civilized methods? Those are big questions.

The implications of all of this are serious. When we add in scientific illiteracy, decline of rationalism, and religious intolerance, we may find society unable to deal with the new problems. Society could disintegrate into superstition and wars over resources.

Through all of this there is hope. There is a chance that widespread development of nuclear fusion energy, geothermal energy, or improved solar cells could relieve some of the problem, but that is not certain. Technology has done wonders for us, but that does not prove that it could solve these future problems. Science and engineering are constrained by the laws of nature. They are not magic systems that are guaranteed to supply all of our needs. They are constrained by reality. Will reality allow us to obtain the energy we need? We have known about fusion and solar cells for a long time, but fusion is nothing more than a distant dream at this point, and solar cells still chug along at low efficiencies and high costs.

Perhaps we will find it in ourselves to develop the new technologies needed. Perhaps we will find ways to reorganize our suburbs and transportation systems, and find ways to cut back on the over-population and materialism that eats away at our natural resources. The path forward is a serious challenge to all of us.

And that is why I write that running out of cheap oil is the most serious threat to our county. Although the topic drifts from the stated intent of this site, it is of vital importance. I expect that I may be writing more about this at my site.

A faith in God that cannot be moved by evidence

The debate about evolution with Mike Purington (which began here) continues. At first Purington seemed to be arguing for his view from science, but his later writings indicate that he is really relying on theology as his source, not science. Purington writes with approval of "a faith in God that cannot be moved no matter how much circumstantial evidence is produced." If the evidence does not matter, why even pretend to be interested in the evidence?

For the record, I respond to Purington here.

Horse Sense

A reader tries to explain the horse fossils without evolution. He writes:

I just thought I would reply to one of your statments you made. In my opinion, even if every question is answered.. people tend to believe in what they believe anyway. You ask Pastor Al this: How do you explain all of the fossil animals similar to modern horses and zebras? What are the Hyracotherium, Epihippus, Mesohippus , Miohippus, Merychippus, and Dinohippus, if not intermediates? And why do we find those creatures buried in strata older than 2 million years, but no modern horses there? And why do we find modern horses in strata younger than 2 million years, but no Hyracatherium? And why is there a progression in these fossils, if they are not intermediates? What I have read about Horse Evolution: 1. If it were true, you would expect to find the earliest horse fossils in the lowest rock strata. But you don't. In fact, bones of the supposed 'earliest' horses have been found at or near the surface. Sometimes they are found right next to modern horse fossils! O. C. Marsh commented on living horses with multiple toes, and said there were cases in the American Southwest where 'both fore and hind feet may each have two extra digits fairly developed, and all of nearly equal size, thus corresponding to the feet of the extinct Protohippus'.1 In National Geographic (January 1981, p. 74), there is a picture of the foot of a so-called early horse, Pliohippus, and one of the modern Equus that were found at the same volcanic site in Nebraska. The writer says: 'Dozens of hoofed species lived on the American plains.' Doesn't this suggest two different species, rather than the evolutionary progression of one? 2. There is no one site in the world where the evolutionary succession of the horse can be seen. Rather, the fossil fragments have been gathered from several continents on the assumption of evolutionary progress, and then used to support the assumption. This is circular reasoning, and does not qualify as objective science. 3. The theory of horse evolution has very serious genetic problems to overcome. How do we explain the variations in the numbers of ribs and lumbar vertebrae within the imagined evolutionary progression? For example, the number of ribs in the supposedly 'intermediate' stages of the horse varies from 15 to 19 and then finally settles at 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also allegedly swings from six to eight and then returns to six again. 4. Finally, when evolutionists assume that the horse has grown progressively in size over millions of years, what they forget is that modern horses vary enormously in size. The largest horse today is the Clydesdale; the smallest is the Fallabella, which stands at 43 centimetres (17 inches) tall. Both are members of the same species, and neither has evolved from the other.

I repond:

First, I notice that most of this was simply copied from another site http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c016.html. Why didn't you simply post a link, rather than copy from the site? The article you copy made many mistakes. Did you ask if this stuff is true before you blindly copy it from the Internet?

You say that early horse fossils are found right next to modern horse fossils. What is your documentation for this claim? Are you not aware that simply making a claim on the Internet does not make it true? Don't you need evidence?

The claim that early horses have been found with modern horses frequently gets batted around the Internet, but nobody seems to have any documentation for when and where this find happened. See for instance, Did Hyracotherium and Equus Live at the Same Time?, to see one man's attempt to find the source for this claim, and the lack of evidence for it. You see, Hyracotherium lived millions of years before modern horses ever existed. If you ever found thoses fossils together, it would be earth-shattering news in the field of geology. And yet somehow this claim gets made repeatedly by uninformed people who copy what they have heard, and never stop to ask exactly when and where this amazing find occured.

So you are getting off to a bad start here. You simply copied somebody's claim off the Internet, and that claim cannot be supported with any real evidence.

And yes, of course, the early fossils were found on the surface. That is where fossils are. But not all layers at the surface are the same age. That is why scientists date the rocks to see how old the fossils are. And the early horse fossils always date over 50 million years. If you believe otherwise, please show me evidence of a particular fossil that differs with this claim. Simply copying a false statement that has been published on the Internet is not a valid argument.

You say there are cases where living horses have multiple toes. That may be true, but it is certainly rare. But 50 million years ago, all horse had multiple toes, and none had hoofs. Now can you explain why that is so? The most obvious explanation is that modern horses had not yet evolved.

You mention that three-toed horses and one-toed horses were found in the same layer, and ask if this doesn't suggest that they were two different species. Yes, of course, that is exactly what it suggests. Horse evolution is known to have occurred in a branching fashion, in which multiple species were alive on different branches at one time. This has been known for a long time. Eventually some one-toed horses evolved before all branches of three-toed horses died out. That does nothing to contradict the statement that there has been a progression through time, with more and more modern traits introduced into the record as time advanced.


You say the horse fossils come from multiple sites. Of course! You wouldn't seriously suggest that all of horse history should have occurred in the same meadow, and that all we should need to do is dig down into that meadow to see an example of all past horses. Horses are extremely mobile. Even if they traveled at a rate of only 1 mile every 10 years, in a million years they could easily circle the globe. And land bridges frequently existed between North America and Asia. So in 60 million years, we can expect that horses could be found all over the globe, not just in the same spot.


You ask why there would be variations in the number of ribs. Why not? Many things were changing with time. There was no linear progression from eohippus (hyracatherium) to modern horse, but rather, a series or branches in many different directions. So this is not at all unusual.


You mention the variations in size in modern horses, but that doesn't begin to address the findings of the fossil record. Ancient horses were very different from modern horses in many aspect, not just size. So you cannot simply ignore eohippus as though it were simply a short horse.


So the horse arguments you copied from the web do nothing to refute the findings of horse fossils.


You go on to mention several other arguments which have been answered many other times in the past, so I won't get into them now. You can leave them as a comment here if you want. I think it is sufficient to say you have not begun to explain away the horse evidence.

Why are there no records of civilization beyond 10,000 years ago?

Here is another email from a supporter.

I really enjoyed your site, and the easy manner with which you deal with difficult subjects. I am a former evangelical christian who, over time, like you, came to realize there was another side to the story, with overwhelming evidence to support it. I do have one question though, that you may be able to help me with. This is particularly an issue for a christian friend of mine. Every time we discuss or debate the age of the earth/universe, he always resorts to "why are there no records of civilization beyond 10,000 years ago?" It is enough for me to accept that beyond 10,000 years ago, people didn't write, period. But that is unsatisfactory for him. So, my question to you is, is there strong evidence of civilizations beyond 10,000 year ago? Do you have any links or info that would show this? Appreciate any help or advice you can offer. And keep up the great work!

That is is good question, and it is one that I had pondered for a long time. Science shows that humans who were essentially the same as us lived 40,000 years ago. Why do we not see signs of their civilizations? There is a simply answer to this question. They didn't have much food.

Let me explain. In the wild, less than 0.1% of the biomass is edible by humans. Much of the edible food is hard to obtain. Wheat, strawberries, potatoes, etc. simply did not exist in the forms we know them today. Thus, early humans spent much of their time searching for natural food. Frequently they exhausted the food in one region, and had to roam long distances in small tribes. Such existences are not conducive to the development of civilization.

Nevertheless, there are signs of early civilization that do survive. Early cave paintings in France show that these people were fully human in their ability to create. And early Polynesians sailed far beyond the visible horizon to reach Austrailia and the Pacific Islands. Europeans would not be able to duplicate this feat for another 30,000 years. Doubtless there were other works of art, techonology, and civilization of which we are not aware.

But the development of advanced civilation had to wait until food was more readily available. The process was slow. Wild grains, for instance, had small seeds which quickly fell to the ground when they were ripe. However, a mutation in some of these grains caused them to stay on the stalk. Early humans could have found these grains on the stalk, and gathered them to bring to their families. On the way, some of these grains could have been scattered on the ground, where they led to the growth of more grain. Thus humans, without knowing it, began to guide the process of grain evolution, by helping to scatter the grains they liked best. Eventually grains near human settlements became bigger, stayed on the stalk longer, and were better for human consumption. Eventually, some people may have planted some of these grains as a hobby in small fields. These fields would not have been enough to supply all of their food needs, but eventually, the grain fields would become a significant part of their food supply. As time went on, the grains became better, and technology to store and process these grains improved. Grain farming became big business. The abundance of food led to increased population, and this increased the demand for better farming methods. And so this necessity became the mother of invention, and people worked together to build advanced communities.



As food became more common, some people had time to specialize in other occupations, such as building things of wood, stone and metal, and governing the towns. The crowds of people in town with time to tinker, and to share their ideas with many others, facilitated the development of the other aspects of civilization.

But all of this was not possible 40,000 years ago. Civilization had to wait until plant evolution made this all possible.

It's a most fascinating study. You can ready more about it in the book, Guns, Germs and Steel, which describes how we got from bands of hunter-gatherers to people who could conquer the world with guns and steel.

Click on the book for more details.

In Six Days

Mike Purington, a Christian science fiction writer wrote to me arguing for creation. His original email is at Opening email from Mike Purington. I respond at In Six Days?.

Same arguments, different book

Ieshas worte another (huge) email appealing to us all to become Muslims. Her email can be found here. My response is here. A discussion of the fact that her arguments for Islam are basically the same as the arguments made for Christianity can be found here.

Near Death Experiences

I received an email asking about near-death experiences:

I read a lot of your website and I think you have made so many great points about the bible. I too have been going through my own search for truth and appreciate your views on many of the subjects you have written. One of the things that I find a little puzzling is your confidence in this life being all we have. Although most all of your points seem valid to me I wonder how much you are willing to investiage the Near Death Experience (NDE), or Out of Body Experience (OBE). The NDE and OBE documented by some very respected Doctors of Medicine would seem to point to something beyond this life as we know it. I am aware of the scientific explanations of certain chemical reactions at time of death producing this phenomona but we simply do not have an explanation for certain individuals who have claimed to hover over their bodies or travel to other places at the time of their legal death (no brain activity or heart function) -- some can repeat conversations from medical staff after their legal death! The last issue I still struggle with is matter -- the creation of it, or the origins of it -- did it always exist? Is that possible? Was there never a nothing -- is that possible? How could something come from nothing? I am just talking off the top of my head at this point but would love to engage someone on these subjects. It seems to me that while you may be right on historical matters there are just some issues we cannot know at this point. It doesn't seem profitable to pull away from the notion of a Creator or an afterlife with what we feel so sure of.

DG,

Your concern is that near death experiences indicate that there is something beyond this life. You recognize that there are arguments that explain the subjective feelings of these experiences. When brains are deprived of oxygen, they can respond in confusing ways, which can be interpreted by the patient as a near-death experience. But what about the reports that some people have made observations of events that occurred while they were in this near-death state? Does this prove they were outside the body and making observations of the world?

Before we look at the reported evidence, lets think about the problems with such claims. How exactly is it that these people are able to hear voices? Their brain is practically shut down, and is not responding to sounds heard by the ears. So how are these sounds being heard? Is the soul able to detect sounds without the benefit of ears? If so, why do people have ears? Why doesn't the soul simply tune into these sounds all of the time? And why can't deaf people hear? If souls can hear without using their ears, one would think that deaf people could hear without using their ears. And if the soul is somehow hearing these things and remembering them, exactly how is the soul transferring those memories to the brain. For science demonstrates that our memories are stored in the brain. So how do souls transfer this knowledge? Does the soul somehow manipulate the molecules in the brain? Souls are supposedly immaterial, and are supposedly undetectable by physical means. If souls are able to rearrange molecules in the brain, why aren't we able to detect these souls working?

If we instead decide that the soul is actually using the patient's physical ears and auditory portions of his brain, where exactly is the miracle here? This would prove only that the patient may have drifted into states of consciousness or near-consciousness during the experience. That would do nothing to prove they were outside of their body.

The same problem occurs when we think about the other senses that the soul would be using in a near-death experience. Exactly how are these people seeing without eyes, or smelling without noses?

So there are many problems with believing that the soul of these people is observing while the brain is technically at or near death. Nevertheless, if it really happened, we would need to recognize it.

I don't find that the reports of physical observations during that experience are that impressive. Much that is reported represents basic knowledge of emergency room procedures. Also, the patients have had time to interact with doctors and nurses after the experience. Further, many of these patients are familiar with what others have reported when near death, and they know what they are expected to say. Could their minds simply be assimilating the knowledge of these various sources? In the fog that their brain experiences in the recovery process, could the brain piece this all together into a story? Many of these reports do not occur until weeks after the experience. It is well known that memories change with time, and tend to change in the direction that the person wants to be true. Could it be that these "memories" simply grew with time as the patient tried to make sense of it all?

It would be far more impressive if the patients could report things that they could not have known from any other source. For instance, some have put laptop computer screens in the room, with the screen facing toward the ceiling and away from the people in the room. If the patient's soul is indeed hovering over the room, then he should see the display on the laptop and tell us what was on that display. I understand that such studies have not yet produced interesting results.

Until I see impressive responses that could not possibly have come from other sources, and as long as the concept of a disembodied soul conflicts with so much known science, I will remain skeptical of the claims of out of body experiences.

For more information see Near-death experience.

"Just because the evidence no longer exists doesn't mean the events didn't happen"

I received an email from RS, agreeing that the things of faith cannot be proven, but suggesting that they just might be true anyway:

I've read your site to the point where I started to get a headache. You are one of those people who I find amazing. You have the ability to go deep on an issue and ask some really pertinent questions. I have seen others who have done the same on other topics; for example the Muslim woman with whom you briefly debated. She came across as so steeped in her worldview that she appeared blind to another way of looking at things. I've seen Atheists do the same. So what's my point? You may have come to erroneous conclusions based on your interpretation of the evidence that you found or failed to find. Or, maybe you're right. I agree with you that the Bible is an unreliable document generally. But, I suspect there are nuggets of truth, revelation, inspiration, and wisdom salted among the myths and legends. The problem is in sorting the wheat from the chaff, if you'll pardon my mixed metaphors. At one time I was tempted to conclude that Jesus didn't exist, or if he did he didn't resurrect from the dead based on the lack of empirical evidence. However, I've pulled back on that because I see that as a faulty conclusion. There wasn't enough evidence to convict OJ. But, that doesn't mean OJ didn't do it. Unfortunately not every scrap of everything written 2 thousand years ago is still around. So we are not in a position to examine and weigh every bit of evidence that could have been available. So, just because the evidence no longer exists doesn't mean the person or the events didn't happen. I think trying to come to conclusions about God and the world in general from a strictly logical, intellectual approach is inadequate. I'm not sure all of what's available to know or experience can be determined that way. I've tried your approach and found it unsatisfying. I think its foolish to dismiss what those claiming to have spiritual insight and wisdom have to offer. Perhaps God is the very energy inside every cell in your body. Just because you don't understand how God relates to the universe doesn't mean God doesn't relate to the universe. And you may be approaching the arrogance so often seen in Christians, Muslims, and Atheists who seem to think they have it all figured out. An old friend of mine said, "Opinions are like a**-holes: we've all got one." It seems to work for me as long as I keep perspective and realize that our conclusions are just opinions. I don't think any of us have any idea of what's really going on in this universe we occupy. Having said that I appreciate your web site. People need to be challenged and disturbed a little. One of the most toxic combinations is ignorance and arrogance. There's too much of that in this world, especially the world of religion. You've done a lot to chip some of that away. Thanks,

RS,

I'm glad you found my site to be challenging.

You are right that we do not have every bit of evidence from ancient times, and we cannot say with absolute certainty what happened. That is understood by all historians. We have only bits of writing and other artifacts to go by. Could the writer of those texts have been mistaken, or lying, or simply writing fiction? We don't know with absolute certainty. But there are methods of historical investigation that let us know with a high degree of certainty, even if we don't know with absolute certainty. Basically we look for agreement of different texts from independent sources. If the writers of several independent nations all record the same event, then we think it probably happened. But nobody knows for sure.

When dealing with the gospel accounts, we run into the problem that the stories are not verified outside a small group of people, who may well have been intending the accounts to be interpreted as fiction. Now if these events had actually happened; if many people had risen from the dead and walked around Jerusalem as Matthew records; if many had been healed of diseases; if thousands of Christians were proclaiming that a man was recently resurrected from the dead; and if a star had indeed let wise men to a particular spot, we would expect many historians to record that such events happened. For there were other historians who wrote in these times, and they seem to be unaware that the gospel story happened.

Now of course I cannot say with absolute certainly that these events did not happen, and I think I make that clear at my site. If I said anything that hints that I know these things with absolute certainty, then please show me what I wrote that hints at that. For I never intended to imply that I know these things with absolute certainty.

Do you use the same argument for other claims of ancient history? Do you believe that Asclepius was capable of doing many miracles? Do you believe that there was a statue of an athlete at Olympia with healing power? Will you go to that statue the next time you are sick? (See Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire) If you instead dismiss those claims of other religions, what makes your religion different? Why should one doubt the claims of many of the supposed healers of ancient Rome, except for one?

You say, I "may be approaching the arrogance so often seen in Christians, Muslims, and Atheists who seem to think they have it all figured out." On what do you base your accusation? If I have said anything that approaches arrogance, than please tell me exactly which words I have said that you think approach arrogance. My words have been on public record here on the Internet for years. If you think some of those words approach arrogance, please let me know which words you object to.

You say that there are nuggets of truth in the Bible, and we need to sort that out from the chaff. Yes, I agree. I know of nobody who claims that every sentence in the Bible is false. All admit that there is some truth there, as there is in almost any book.

You say, "I think trying to come to conclusions about God and the world in general from a strictly logical, intellectual approach is inadequate." But what is your alternate? You don't offer a method of finding out about God and the world, but you suggest that we can get this insight by listening to certain people. You write, "it's foolish to dismiss what those claiming to have spiritual insight and wisdom have to offer." Well, I agree with listening to what they have to say. But if they claim to have knowledge of God, how do they know they are right? Is there any reason to believe them? And what am I to do with the thousands of claims of insight? Surely you must know that there are many religions, cults, denominations, and sects. Surely you must know that these people have radically different views of God. Can all of them be right? No? Well, if some are wrong, how do you pick out the views that are right? Unless you can suggest a method of doing that, one is left with a system based on luck, in which one simply chooses to believe somebodies claims, and hopes he was lucky enough to pick the right guru.

You say, "Just because you don't understand how God relates to the universe doesn't mean God doesn't relate to the universe." Yes, of course, that is true. The fact that I do not understand something does not mean that it doesn't happen. I thought I made that clear at my site

You say, "I don't think any of us have any idea of what's really going on in this universe we occupy." I find that to be a rather strange claim. Surely you must realize that scientists know a great deal about the universe. Yes, we may not know things with absolute certainty, but we do have a good idea of how things work. So how can you suggest we have no idea what is going on?

So let me reiterate that I don't know the answers to religion with absolute certainty. I do, however, think that I have studied the issues sufficiently to reach strong but tentative conclusions for myself. I invite you to read my writings, for they might be helpful, but you are all welcome to decide for yourselves what is right on these issues.

When were the gospels written?

One of the most common portals to my site is the page entitled, "When Were the Gospels Written?" I wrote that page because I could not find the topic covered sufficiently on the web. Since then, many people have found that page with Google searches. The page is sometimes referenced on various forums, either as an authority by those that agree, or an object of derision by those who don't. I am flattered by the attention given to that essay.

It's been a busy summer. In August RA wrote to me about this subject. I finally take the time to address him here.

What About Islam? (continued)

It is amazing how religion can convince a person that he or she is right, and that those who disagree are wrong.

Is the Bible or the Quran a miraculous book in which the writer knew scientific facts far before they were known to others? Previously "Honey" argued at my blog that the Bible was such a miracle book, and that all such miraculous claims for the Quran were false. Now we find Iesha arguing that the Quran is a miracle book of science and the Bible is wrong. How is it that each can be so sure that she is right and the other is wrong? Each can see the obvious flaws in the other's arguments for her book. Yet each seems unable to see the faults in her own arguments, which are quite similar. Such is the grip of religion.

(Click here for more.)

Debating Islam

Our discussion of Islam continues. Iesha had written to me and said, "write to me...all that you dislike about Islam...any 'mistake' in the quran." Iesha informed me that she would try to answer my objections. She wrote that when I get to know it, "You'll begin to love Islam." I wrote back, pointing out that the Quran sometimes encourages intolerance and evil acts. (I was not condemning all of Islam, nor was I condemning all Muslims. I was merely pointing out that I see that the Quran has faults, even as I point out that the Bible has faults.) Since the Quran approves of things that I consider unjust and intolerant, I do not love that book. Sure, there are good things in the book, but I find the intolerance unacceptable to my tastes.

After reading Iesha's later comments one might well ask if she ever really expected us to fall in love with the book, as opposed to following it out of fear of Allah. For fear seems to be the thrust of her latest posts, arguing that we need to be scared of Allah, lest he do horrible things to us.

Click here for more.