Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

"Christian" evidences?: Rick's reply to Daniel Denham's #193

Expand Messages
  • w_w_c_l
    This was to be my response to Daniel Denham s 2nd installment of replies to my message #152. (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/christianevidences/message/193) I
    Message 1 of 24 , May 16, 2007
      This was to be my response to Daniel Denham's "2nd
      installment" of replies to my message #152.
      I had this message nearly completed when I saw they
      had banned me from the list, so much of it sounds as
      if it is addressed to the ChristianEvidences list,
      even though most of them, likely, will never see it.

      Daniel Denham wrote:

      > Dear Rick and List,
      > Here is my second installment dealing with Rick's
      > post# 152.
      > 6) Daniel Here: I wrote: Daniel Here:
      >>> Notice, the use of the term "allegorically," which,
      >>> though Rick may quibble against it, is not used in
      >>> the Biblical sense of the term as employed in Gal. 4 by
      >>> the apostle Paul. Paul clearly treats Hagar and Sarah as
      >>> historical figures. The allegory that he fashions by
      >>> inspiration from their history is a figurative
      >>> illustration of the principle between the bondage of the
      >>> Law of Moses and the freedom of the Gospel of Christ."


      >> "You have the terms "allegory" and "analogy" mixed up."

      > Daniel Here: No, Rick, you are the one in deep confusion.
      > Paul uses the word "allegory" in Galatians 4:24 just as I
      > noted.

      Are you now suggesting that the translation itself is
      "divinely inspired"?

      Or that an allegory to the Greeks meant the same as
      we use it today?

      No, I think in modern usage, Paul is drawing an "analogy",
      and an "allegory" is more often used as a "symbolical
      narrative". Either way, your point point fails: when I
      tell someone that the Genesis Creation is allegorical
      rather than literal, they don't have to know how Paul used
      the word in Galatians to understand what I mean.

      > You are the one misusing the term "allegory" when it
      > comes to Genesis 1 and 2.

      Not according to my dictionary! And of course I'm
      going to take the words of the Sacred Webster over
      those of Daniel Denham.

      > You do not use it in keeping with the inspired use of
      > it, which recognizes the historicity of the events
      > involved as factual but then makes a spisitual
      > application to something else by way of illustration.

      That's Webster's 1st definition (sort of). I'm using
      the 2nd one: "a symbolical narrative".

      > You are simply under the guize of "allegorizing"
      > butchering the text and making it mean what you must
      > have it mean to arrive at your desired view.
      > Postmodernism's hermeneutics of suspicion is a better
      > name for what you are practicing inyour mishandling of
      > the text. You ought to be ashamed to handle it so
      > deceitfully.

      "Postmodernism's hermeneutics of suspicion"? Colorful!
      I like that! But it doesn't have anything to do with
      me. Might make a good band name, though.

      > Daniel Here: I then observed:
      >>> "By "allegorically" Rick, however, casts reflection
      >>> against the historicity of Genesis."

      >> "Everything we know about the Creation itself casts
      >> doubt on the "historicity" of Genesis as a step-by-step,
      >> literal account of an Earthly week 6,000 years ago. And
      >> if you believe God made the Earth, surely you must
      >> believe that the Earth bears a true record of how God
      >> brought it all about.
      >> The Genesis Creation account is still happening today
      >> and very relevant to us. When you try to turn it into
      >> something that was all over and done with 6,000 years ago,
      >> you are taking the large and profound truths away from
      >> the allegory and fable-iZing your literal reading."

      > Daniel Here: There you have it! The only thing that should
      > be added is "what we {Rick and his cohorts} think we know..."
      > This is "Christian Evidences"?

      Was Galileo's excommunication "Christian evidences"? Turns
      out the Earth isn't flat after all. It's a sphere, and it
      orbits the Sun.

      And you have, as usual, not responded to the point, Denham:
      Everything we know about the Creation itself tells us
      that the Earth was NOT created in 6 days 6,000 years ago.

      Now, God made this Creation. It is the inspired, unalterable
      record of His work. God *made* it! And God made us, and
      gave us brains, and told us to ask the Creation itself.
      He said ask the animals and they would teach us; ask the
      stars and they would declare it. He said the invisible
      things would be clearly seen in the things which are made.

      You want to act as if "we" are "Rick and his cohorts".
      Cheap rhetorical ploy. I'm well aware that you want me
      off this [ChristianEvidences] list. Because *you can't
      handle it*! You cannot handle having your doctrine
      questioned by someone who doesn't cow down to your bashing.

      That is hardly who the "we" that I am referring to are.
      "We" are humanity. The human race has advanced in its
      understanding of the world until "we" know that the Earth
      is much much older than any 6,000 years. There is no
      going back from that. It isn't going to happen, any
      more than "we" are going to suddenly change our minds
      about what the speed of light is.

      > Daniel Here: I wrote:
      >>> "He {Rick} doesn't believe that Cain and Abel were
      >>> real people anymore than Lil' Abner! Notice, also his
      >>> take-off into the realm of LaLa land on the ecology.
      >>> To spring board from Genesis 4 into Al Gore-ism is
      >>> the height of exegetical absurdity."

      >> "To pretend that Man has not destroyed God's Earth
      >> left and right at every step he has taken away from
      >> the Garden is the "la-la land", and for some reason
      >> I get this same reaction from young-earth creationists
      >> every time I point out these truths from the Creation
      >> account. But we have messed up this Earth and we have
      >> messed up *bad*.
      >> And you who are so insistent on the literal "historicity"
      >> of Genesis seem to want to deny that this Earth belongs
      >> to GOD, not to Man, and that we were supposed to be
      >> taking care of it. You want to downplay respect for
      >> God's Creation as "Al Gore-ism" -- one young-earth
      >> creationist called it "eco-babble". But it is simply
      >> impossible that young-earthers should be able to
      >> understand the environment anyway. We have messed up
      >> things that came about over millions of years, we are
      >> not going to be able to fix it, and we (humanity) are
      >> going to be called to account for it. It all fits
      >> together. Read Isaiah 5.
      >> And Cain is still hunting down Abel and murdering
      >> him to this very day. That is a much more important
      >> and relevant point than one brother killing an other
      >> thousands of years ago. Abel's blood is still crying
      >> to the Lord from the ground. And Jesus said that
      >> blood would be required of "this generation". And
      >> the psalmist asks rhetorically, "who shall declare
      >> His generation?"
      >> These things are here and now."

      > Daniel Here: What did I say? Rick, where in Genesis
      > 4 are all of thes ethings found? You simply read them
      > into the text as though you are divinely inspired
      > yourself!
      > That the ecology has been damaged is not the thrust of
      > Genesis 4, Rick. That is the most innane, unbalanced
      > handling of any text I have ever seen a human being
      > professing to believe the Bible is God's Word try to
      > pull! The ecology has not the first thing to do with it.

      So you say, but as someone who thinks the Earth is only
      a few thousand years old, it is impossible that you
      should understand anything about ecology. That is
      self-evident. If you understood these things, it wouldn't
      be difficult at all to see them in the Creation account.

      > Isaiah 5 is not in the context of Genesis 4, Rick.
      > It has no bearing on the text in question.

      Oh, but it does! See what has happened because we have
      turned from the Garden to our own systems! House
      laid to house, as in verse 8. Impending agricultural
      calamity, as in verses 9-13. Hell hath enlarged her
      mouth to receive the multitudes (verse 14), as the ground
      opened its mouth to receive the blood of Abel (Genesis 4:11),
      whose blood is yet to be required of "this generation"
      (Luke 11:49-52). The days of Isaiah 5 are upon us, here and
      now, directly because of our dependence on agriculture,
      which was symbolically embodied in Cain, the murderer.

      > Clearly, friends, he does not believe that Cain and
      > Abel were historical figures. So, now they're just
      > Lil Abner and Barney Google, as far as Rick's
      > hermeneutics is concerned!

      No, Cain and Abel were real, yet they were figures for
      a larger lesson that has carried down through human
      history and that remains with us today.

      [Or, as the Apostle Paul might put it, they are an
      "allegory". ;-) ]

      > If Rick's right, the inspired writer of Hebrews and
      > the Holy Spirit who inspired him both missed it,
      > when in referring to the latter, the record states
      > explicitly "he being dead yet speaketh." It is dealt
      > with as a real, historical event, Rick, and not a
      > good moral, fairy-tale.

      The moral lesson of that "fairy-tale", as you call it,
      is more important than who they were or when they lived.

      > And, Rick, he wasn't writing about Al Gore-ism in
      > that text either (Heb. 11:3).

      Al Gore, for the most part, isn't talking about what I'm
      talking about, nor is he coming from where I'm coming
      from. There is a such thing as "environmental justice" --
      you can try to turn a blind eye toward it and pretend
      that the hour of that judgment is not coming -- and now is --
      but there is nowhere you can go to escape the reality of

      A l l . y o u . h a v e . t o . d o (I'm trying to say this
      slowly and distinctly) is realize that there are human
      beings starving to death in this world *right now*, while
      others in the lap of luxury complain, in the dead of winter,
      that the supermarket didn't have any good-looking tomatoes.
      These are but the beginning of sorrows.

      How blind to reality can you be, people?

      > You just gave up the Bible! Nothing means anyhting, but
      > what Rick Hartzog conveniently wants it to mean. Every
      > text is now unhinged from its socio-historical background
      > and divine origin.

      The message of the Creation account, and Man's Fall, are
      directly "hinged" to today's state of affairs and how
      the world arrived at this state of affairs. It is hard for
      me to believe that people can't see that, and will deny it,
      much more so that they will actually condemn someone who
      tries to point it out to them.

      > Daniel Here: I noted:
      >>> "This is pure eiso-gesis, not exegesis. This is the
      >>> kind of approach to the Scriptures that gives us
      >>> Liberation Theology, Finite God-ism, baptized
      >>> Communism, and all sorts of other fringe and ludicrous
      >>> approaches to the text."

      >> "I guess any time you try to make the Scriptures
      >> relevant to the world in which we live, you are guilty
      >> of eisogesis."

      > Daniel Here: Friends, he admits that is exactly what he
      > has done to the text! Let it mean whatever it needs to
      > mean to make it "relevant" in Rick's mind! So, now we
      > have a new paradigm for Bible interpretation -- it is
      > embodied in Rick's imagination as to what is relevant
      > and what is not. This is "Christian Evidences"? No
      > wonder he gets along with the atheists so well! He's
      > virtually one with them as far as the Bible's authority
      > is concerned.

      I am not rejecting the Bible's authority, I am rejecting
      Daniel Denham's posturing as to being any kind of
      authority over my approach to the Scriptures. And Daniel
      Denham seems to be overlooking the reversals in so-called
      "eisogesis" and "exegesis" that were involved in getting
      rid of the ideas that the Bible teaches the Earth is flat,
      and that the Sun goes around it.

      The Bible was given in a way that people from long ago
      could understand it. It is not a science book.

      [We touch more on the topic of eisogesis below. Not
      very kindly, I'm afraid.]

      > Daniel Here: I wrote:
      >>> "BTW, Rick, lest you accuse me of being a racist
      >>> because I do not subscribe to your views, my family
      >>> and I are predominantly American-Indian."

      >> "I have some Native American heritage, too. It seems to
      >> me you would be interested in knowing the truth about
      >> the history of that people who lived on this continent
      >> for 15,000 years or more before the Europeans arrived."

      > Daniel Here: Rick, I know more about my Indian heritage
      > than you realize. The rest of your statement is pure
      > assertion.

      It's an assertion based on the actual science -- an
      assertion for which you are ill-equipped to refute the
      evidence. And you want to talk about misinterpreting the
      text? Just look at all the wild claims that have been made
      since the New World was discovered and found to be inhabited!

      You have nothing, absolutely nothing, from the Scriptures
      to explain human presence in the remote parts of the world
      where they have been found. Therefore you have to come
      up with non-Scriptural explanations for that. Your
      non-Scriptural explanations are real-world claims that
      are testable by real-world evidence.

      You have *nothing*!

      > Rick had said:
      >> > "And to define a premise, you are first going to have
      >> > to distinguish for us what makes a human a human, and
      >> > define "morality". (You might need to consider some of
      >> > the behaviors we observe in animals, too, and
      >> > differentiate between traits we share with them that we
      >> > consider moral behavior.)"
      >>> Daniel Here: "Did I not call it? Here we have the
      >>> beginning of his leading off into what constitutes a
      >>> human being (btw, he has, as best I can recall, not
      >>> used the phrase "human being," mostly spoken of the
      >>> human as a "human thing," even when he sought to
      >>> restate my original questions to him). I suspect that
      >>> we are going to fin that he views "humanity" as a
      >>> nebulous class for a kind of anthropoid that walks
      >>> upright."

      >> "I don't think so.
      >> But I do note that you are completely avoiding getting
      >> on with your task of describing for us exactly what it is,
      >> according to Daniel Denham, that makes a human a human."

      > Daniel Here: In your post #151 you granted my definition
      > of a moral, mortal being. It's time to move on, and you
      > tell us now whether some humans are more human than others!
      > Are there humans living today, Rick who are more human
      > than others? Yes or No.

      No. (I've answered this in previous posts, but in the
      merry-go-round of all these "installments" demands such
      as Denham makes above may have been restated before my
      answers to the prior "installments" were posted. But,
      as it turns out, I had already answered this question
      even before Denham asks it again here, as will be seen
      below. I think he just doesn't like my answer.)

      > Daniel Here: I then referred to certain qualities that
      > are part of the power of reason:
      >>> "Such things as moral volition, sense of aesthetics..."

      >> "Why are flowers "pretty"? Why do people gather around
      >> a tree? There are some deep questions about human
      >> aesthetics."

      (There really are some deep questions in the origin of
      human aesthetics. Ultimately, since art derives from
      Nature, the most beautiful landscape is the one that
      God has made, and it is our skewed sense of aesthetics
      that keeps us from recognizing the beauty of the natural
      landscape. And since God put us in the Garden "to dress
      it and keep it", that means the aesthetic of God included
      a place for us; we therefore have an innate sense of
      what God's aesthetic is, knowing that we are not here to
      overthrow God's landscape plan but to maintain it, and
      we are stewards, caretakers, of the existing plan, not
      agents brought in here to rearrange everything and set
      it "right".)

      > Daniel Here: I added:
      >>> "...volitional altruism, free will, conceptualization of
      >>> morality, etc. are all just the products of evolutionary
      >>> processes."

      >> "Housecats have all of these characteristics. Granted,
      >> it's a cat morality, but it is still "morality"."

      > Daniel Here: Yes, Rick, we just see housecats everyday
      > throwing themselves in front of cars to save one another
      > and writing great masterworks on social justice.

      As if we see the human race trying to save each other.
      "Volitional altruism" is one of the rarest of traits.

      And housecats don't *need* masterworks on social justice.

      And what good does a human "masterwork of social justice"
      do anyway? There will never be social justice in this
      world. It isn't possible, and we have been told not to
      expect such a thing. So your higher "morality" of humans
      seems not much morality after all.

      > Notice, my friends, he is being compelled even to take
      > an evolutionary view of the origin of values. He is well
      > on the way to being a full materialist. No wonder the
      > atheists get along so well with him.

      So, Daniel Denham, back up your insinuation: bring forth
      your evidence that atheists "get along so well" with me.
      That is the second time you have said that in this one
      message. Now back it up.

      And if it is true, what is your problem? They that are
      whole have no need of a physician. How close do you
      (and some of the others on this list, such as Keith
      Sisman) ever hope to come in reaching any atheists with
      your hateful treatment of them? How close do you hope
      to come to reaching *anyone* with the hateful way you
      treat anyone who doesn't believe like you.

      1 Peter 3:15 says to give your answer "in meekness and
      fear" -- not arrogance and hatred. We will be called
      to give account for the souls we condemn -- that blood
      will be on all of us. That's right, Denham, if you
      really believe what you say you believe, you and Keith
      Sisman are going to be asked about Todd Greene.

      > Daniel Here:
      >>> "Why Cain (or, more precisely, the Cro Magnon man, as
      >>> Abel has been paralleled to Neanderthal man) really was
      >>> not as responsible for his murdering of his fellow as
      >>> much as John Wayne Gacy or Jack the Ripper, because
      >>> this sense of "oughtness" was not as well developed
      >>> and defined."

      >> "Who says his sense of "oughtness" wasn't as well
      >> developed? Are you working yourself up to defining
      >> humans, and human "morality" for us?"

      > Daniel Here: Are you saying that Cro Magnon man, granting
      > only for the sake of argument your view of things, had the
      > same sense of "oughtness" as modern man?


      > Or was he less human than modern man, Rick?

      Depends on how you define "human", doesn't it? ;-)

      > Daniel Here:
      >>> "We are going to find, friends, that, according to
      >>> Rick, some are more humans than others. He cannot
      >>> help himself from going that route. He has already
      >>> set his feet upon its pavement."

      >> "Not hardly, fella. You are leaping way ahead of
      >> yourself."

      > Daniel Here: We shall see.

      It looks to me as if I told Denham right here, above,
      that he would *not* find that, according to me, some
      humans are more human than others. Why then has he
      continued to insinuate that I must say some humans
      are more human than others, in numerous subsequent

      I don't think he liked my answer!

      > 8) Daniel Here: I wrote:
      >>> "Well, here we have it. Rick says it is
      >>> spiritual death that passed upon men when the first
      >>> sin entered the world, and not physical death. (Really,
      >>> friends, it was both. The sinful pair separated from
      >>> God spiritually -- spiritual death, Isa. 59:1-2 -- and
      >>> began to die physically, having been cut off from the
      >>> Tree of Life, cf. 1 Cor. 15:21-22. But don't tell Rick.
      >>> He's too busy trying to twist the Scriptures to fit his
      >>> evolutionary paradigm.)"

      >> "There is nothing in the Scriptures about the animals
      >> being cast out of the Garden or being denied the Tree of
      >> Life, yet they die. The animals have never sinned, yet
      >> they die physical death. If physical death of the animals
      >> was a bad thing, would God have been unjust to punish
      >> them for Adam's sin? If physical death of the animals
      >> was a bad thing, would Jesus have eaten fish.
      >> The verse you cited above, 1 Corinthians 15:22, says
      >> "For as in Adam all die, EVEN SO in Christ shall all
      >> be made alive." *Even so*, just as, in the *same way* --
      >> Christ makes us *spirtitually* alive. We still die
      >> physical deaths, even after believing on Him. And when
      >> we are resurrected we will not be given physical bodies --
      >> flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.
      >> If sin brought on physical death, Adam would not have
      >> lived another 900 years or so. If sin brought on
      >> physical death, there are a lot of people in the world
      >> now who should have been dead long before now, yet many
      >> of them will outlive the righteous."

      > Daniel Here: They do die today, but Rick please
      > show from the Scriptures where they were dying
      > before the Fall of man and his being cast out of
      > the Garden. You simply assume so much that the text
      > just does not support and you deny what so often what
      > it speifically does support. And again, I ask, "This
      > is Christian Evidences?"

      It doesn't say anywhere in the text that animals died
      before Adam's sin. Neither does it say anywhere in the
      text that before Adam's sin, animals lived forever. You
      say I am assuming things that are not supported by the
      text; that is exactly what you are doing as well.

      Yet my "assumption" *is* supported by the real-world
      evidence. Yours is not. Therefore, you are assuming
      something with no supporting evidence whatsoever.
      Again, as with the peopling of remote parts of the
      world, you are making non-Scriptural claims about the
      real world which can be tested by examining the real-
      world evidence. The real-world evidence shows your
      claim to be false.

      Once again, you have *nothing*!

      > I never have taught that the physical death of
      > animals is a bad thing, Rick. How do you arrive at
      > that as a correlation with what I have said? It is
      > non sequitur to my point.

      If the death of animals was brought into the world
      because of human sin, then the death of animals is
      against the order which God had ordained, therefore
      the death of animals is a "bad" thing.

      So whether you have ever taught that death of animals
      is a bad thing or not, if you have taught that the
      death of animals is a consequence of Adam's sin, and
      that without Adam's sin animals would have lived as
      immortals, you have implicitly taught that the death
      of animals is a "bad" thing.

      But if the death of animals was a "bad" thing, would
      Christ have eaten fish?

      > Rick, what a butchering of 1 Corinthians 15! Another
      > case of pure eisogesis, folks. Everyone on this list
      > knows that Paul is writing about the resurrection from
      > the dead, Rick! He is writing about being made alive
      > in being raised immortal from the physical dead. He
      > parallels the whole thing to the bodily resurrection
      > of the Lord, which you claimed to believe in. Now, I
      > wonder even about that!
      > Rick, yes, the righteous will have spiritual bodies,
      > but that which is "sown" is what kind of body?
      > I have never seen someone so flippantly butcher the
      > Word of God to maintain a hobby than you have shown
      > in this one post.

      I'm beginning to understand that when Denham starts
      saying things like this I'm getting under his skin. ;-)

      "EVEN SO" we are made alive in Christ. We are made
      alive *spiritually*, not physically; Adam's death
      through disobedience was therefore spiritual, not
      physical. And the same holds true today.

      > As to Adam living 900 years, Rick, there is a sense
      > in which a person begins dying from the time of his
      > conception. You yourself admitted that we are all --
      > including babies, Rick -- subject to the principle of
      > increasing entropy. It is a long process for some,
      > and quite short for others, to be sure.

      Nope. Genesis 2:17 clearly says, "in the *day* ye eat
      thereof ye shall *surely* *die*. Now, you're the
      Bible literalist. According to you, Adam should be
      dead *that day*, before the sun goes down. This stuff
      about, "well, in a *sense*", isn't going to cut it.

      Adam died *spiritually* -- *that day*, then and there,
      through disobedience to God. And that is the death
      that has passed on all men, because once we left the
      Garden it was impossible for us to live according to
      God's commandment. If physical death was what was meant,
      then since it has passed on all of us, there is no
      further need to be obedient to God -- righteous and
      unrighteous all die alike.

      Yet we are made alive in Christ. Christ overcomes
      what we have lost through Adam. But we still die
      physical deaths, just like all the other animals.
      The life given to us in Christ is therefore spiritual.

      > Paul clearly by inspiration of the Holy Spirit {are
      > you inspired Rick so that you could contradict an
      > apostle of Jesus Christ?} teaches in 1 Corinthians 15:22
      > that physical death was brought upon the human race by
      > the sin of Adam.

      Paul is speaking of spiritual death. Your *lack* of
      inspiration is what is causing you to not understand
      the Scriptures. We are not made physically alive in
      Christ, in this world or the next. We are made spiritually
      alive in Christ, here and beyond.

      > David Brown, I believe that we have found another
      > that is "like beatin' on jello."

      Appeal to authority? Nobody's going to be able to help
      you out of this mess, Denham.

      [Unless, of course, they ban me, which they did!]

      > Daniel Here: I wrote:
      >>> "At what point, Rick, did that first sin actually occur
      >>> to bring about this state of affairs? When did the first
      >>> upright athropoid do something that morally he should
      >>> not have done and thus transgress whatever law
      >>> (cf. Rom. 4:15; 1 John 3:4) that he had innately in his
      >>> infinitesimally small brain?"

      >> "Please show where members of the genus Homo ever
      >> had an "infinitesimally small brain".
      >> As to when the first sin occurred, I am waiting on
      >> you to bring us to that with your definitions for
      >> "human" and "human morality".
      >> You get sooo close, sometimes, but then you go
      >> bounding away, like a curious doe who finds something
      >> that doesn't belong in the woods. Interesting."

      > Daniel Here: Folks, I knew he would bit on it. He's
      > so predictible. Rick, however big his brain was is
      > not essential to the point. I have defined what a
      > human being is and you granted it in post #151.
      > Now, answer the question!

      I think Denham already knows what my answer to the
      question is going to be. I don't see how he could
      not have figured it out by now. I've beat all around
      the bush, I've run the critter out right past him a
      dozen times now; he just keeps letting it get away.

      I don't think he likes the looks of it! I think he's
      hoping I'll run something else out!

      Oh, the mystery! What makes a human a "human"? Will
      we *never* find out? Ha!

      [Looks now as if those of the ChristianEvidences list
      never will know what the answer to that is! And here
      they were, supposed to be on that list to learn

      > Daniel Here: I asked:
      >>> "Rick, the Bible says that Adam "died" in Gen. 5:5.
      >>> Was that "spiritual death" and not physical death?
      >>> When Adam "died," was that the end of one species
      >>> of upright anthropoid, Rick?"

      >> "No and no."

      > Daniel Here: So, Adam did die! So, I guess it must
      > represent the extinction of Lucy. When you're making
      > it up as you go, which is what Rick is doing with
      > the Biblical text, then any old story will do.

      You asked if Adam represented the extinction of a
      "species of upright anthropoid" and I said no. So
      now you say Adam's death must "represent the extinction
      of Lucy", and accuse me of making it up as I go along.

      You may know something I don't know, but I sure can't
      see where this kind of behavior helps your cause any.
      It looks to me as if you have been your own worst enemy
      over the course of this discussion. But thats' just my

      > But wait, Rick, Cain represented all of those evil
      > land grabbers down through the ages who killed all
      > the Abels to take their land. But wait, Cain was the
      > agrarian; Abel was a shepherd, Rick. Well, that sure
      > shoots that story, doesn't it?!

      Cain turned toward an agrarian lifestyle, in which
      Man commandeers and alters the natural systems which
      God has set in place. Cain, because of agriculture,
      built the first "city". Abel, by his lifestyle, lived
      within the confines and constraints of God's natural
      systems. Abel didn't "own" land, he went from place to
      place with his herds; when grazing in one place was
      depleted he moved on to another, and the land healed
      itself. Abel's faith, mentioned in Hebrews, was in
      God and His providence, not, as Cain's, in his faith
      that he could "take care of himself". Over time, the
      agricultural lifestyle completely annihilated the ability
      of the nomadic lifestyle to remain -- all the land was

      And because of the "advances" afforded by agriculture,
      man's faith in his ability to look after himself, with
      no concern for God's natural systems from which all his
      production is derived, has come down to us today in the
      form of our "civilization". You can scoff at such ideas,
      call it Al Gore-ism, eco-babble, whatever, but they are
      historically verifiable, and they are here and now.

      > But then who does Adam represent, Rick, if not a specific
      > species of upright anthropoid?

      "Adam" is the one who disobeyed God, Denham. Haven't
      you figured it out yet?

      > Did Adam literally die? If it is physical death that
      > is contemplated here, Rick, then yes he did. If he
      > literally died, how could he do so without having
      > literally......lived?

      Yes, "Adam" literally died. But he was going to do
      that anyway, since he was a biological organism. The
      thing that Adam did that no other biological organism
      had ever done, was to die *spiritually*, in direct
      disobedience to God's direct command.

      > Thanks for your implicit admissions! I told you, folks,
      > this discussion was over sometime back. We are now in
      > the mop-up phase. He just relinquished his allegorical
      > view of Genesis 1 and 2.

      And I told you, Denham, it is your "implications" that
      get you into trouble. So don't put your mop away just
      yet; you've missed some spots (several unanswered
      questions), and I'm still here, making a big mess all
      over your nice clean floor!

      Daniel Here: I wrote:
      >>> "Maybe Lucy or Piltdown Man (oh, I forgot, he was a
      >>> HOAX!)?"

      >> "Forget the controversial fossils and the hoaxes, of
      >> which you can only point to the same few over and over
      >> and over again. Let's concentrate on the real deal, the
      >> unquestionably ancient hominids of which we have a great
      >> deal of unambiguous evidence. Those fossils are out there,
      >> and they're finding more all the time. How are you ever
      >> going to explain it all away?
      >> If they were using stone tools, were they "human"?"

      > Daniel Here: Rick, you worry too much, boast too loud,
      > and present too little. I already told you that there
      > are creationist answers, but you reject them a priori
      > and any other evidence, including the Biblical text,
      > that is contrary to your interpretation of the data.

      Yeah, yeah. And you talk too much without answering
      any questions. You don't want to talk about those tool-
      using fossil hominids at all, do you, Denham!?

      > BTW, if I grant ONLY for the sake of argument, that your
      > referents here werr "human," were they less human than
      > you are, Rick? Or, to put it another way, are are you a
      > more innately advanced "human," Rick, in your essential
      > nature?

      Yes to the first. The second depends on what you consider
      "advanced". But since you think you are asking the same
      question, as evidenced by, "Or, to put it another way,"
      I see you really don't understand yourself just what
      question you're asking. I said, along about the very
      beginning of this discussion, that human morality had
      *devolved*. Daniel Denham accused me of trying to make
      "cutesy" answers, but all these many words later I see
      he just didn't "get it", and he still hasn't gotten it.

      But Daniel Denham does, in this place, *tentatively*,
      "ONLY for the sake of argument" you see, seem to say
      that if they were using stone tools, they were human.

      I disagree. How will Denham respond to that?

      (UPDATE!: From something Denham has just posted to the
      list (message #204), it appears that Daniel Denham is
      NOT going to be responding to any more of "Rick's rubbish"!
      So I guess I'm just going to be winging it for the next
      several messages.)

      [Further UPDATE!: Looks like Rick is going to be doing
      his "winging it" on another list now! Looks like Denham
      won't have to face up to me disagreeing with him about the
      use of stone tools meaning they were "human" after all!]

      > Rick claimed:
      >> > "If you want to say no thermodynamics before the Fall,
      >> > then for all practical purposes the entire Universe
      >> > had to be *re-created* because a couple of humans
      >> > disobeyed God. And saying there were no thorns or
      >> > thistles before sin requires them being created
      >> > after sin."
      > Daniel Here: I asked:
      >>> "By what premise do you arrive at that last conclusion,
      >>> Rick? Genesis 3 says that the earth would "bring forth"
      >>> thorns and thistles (Gen. 3:18)."

      >> "And "bring forth" is the same thing God said in
      >> Genesis 1 for the fish in the sea and the beasts in
      >> the earth."

      > Daniel Here: And how does this demand that the whole
      > Universe had to be re-created?

      There were two separate sentences containing two separate
      statements in what I "claimed" above. The thorns and
      thistles certainly wouldn't require the re-creation of
      the Universe. But the beginning of thermodynamic law
      would. Thermodynamics applies to everything -- every
      transfer of energy -- under the Sun. And the Sun itself,
      and everything beyond the Sun. Without the physical laws
      of energy transference and entropy, nothing works in a
      physical Universe. You might as well be saying that when
      Adam sinned he was literally cast out of Heaven and into
      a different realm.

      But back to the thorns and thistles: there are those who
      claim that, like the death of animals, there were no
      thorns and thistles before the Fall. But if thorns and
      thistles didn't come about until after the Fall, they
      must have been *created* by God, which contradicts
      Exodus 20:11 -- "ALL that in them is."

      > Daniel Here:
      >>> "Was this spoken BEFORE or AFTER the sin, Rick?"

      >> "After. That's the point. It looks like it [the thorns
      >> and thistles] could be a Creation event, after Creation
      >> was supposedly over and done with."

      > Daniel Here: The fact that it happened "after," Rick,
      > does not demand that the entire Universe would have to
      > be created for the second law of thermodynamics to come
      > into effect. As I noted, God, who is all-powerful --
      > in fact, enough to speak the Universe into existence
      > (unless you are going to invoke Finite God-ism, which you
      > tell us you reject) -- could simply hold it in abeyance
      > until the Fall of man with the bringing forth of the thorns
      > and thistles thus evidencing its release. Now, is that so
      > difficult to grasp?

      Daniel Denham is here guilty of a "non sequitur", that of
      equating the operation of thermodynamic law with the
      appearance of thorns and thistles. He knows better
      than this nonsense.

      Young-earth creationists are always saying that the laws of
      thermodynamics preclude the possibility of biological
      evolution, which shows they know next to nothing about the
      laws of thermodynamics. Daniel Denham is here demonstrating
      a similar degree of misunderstanding, because even if the
      laws of thermodynamics were held in "abeyance", when they
      were released it would completely change the nature of the
      Universe. If the Universe was the same before and after,
      then something *exactly like* the laws of thermodynamics
      was in place, even though the laws of thermodynamics were
      not in place.

      In other words, Denham has proposed a
      "thermodynamics-of-the-gaps" theory!:

      "Thermodynamics is in, thermodynamics is out, in, out, etc."


      > Daniel Here:
      >>> "Or are you proposing an evolutionary rewrite that
      >>> way you think God should have revealed it?"

      >> "No, we can't rewrite it. But we can ask ourselves if
      >> we have been reading it the right way."

      > Rick, In eisogesis, which you admit to resorting to and
      > even tried to justify, that is exactly what you are doing --
      > rewriting the text according to how you want it to read!
      > Now you say that no one can do that!

      It isn't rewritten, it is just looked at from a different
      perspective. To me, the fact that the Bible accommodates
      this is one of the proofs that it is of Divine origin.

      The world is not flat. The Bible didn't have to be
      rewritten to get rid of that belief. Most people today
      probably couldn't even point to all the verses that the
      Catholic church used to use to dogmatically asssert that
      the Earth *was* flat, or that it was fixed and the Sun went
      around it. The only thing that really got rewritten in
      people's minds was the idea that the Catholic church was
      infallible. This is pretty much the same thing we are going
      through now with the idea that the Earth is only a few
      thousand years old. It isn't -- no matter how adamantly
      and vehemently fallible men may wish to oppose the idea.

      So here is a dilemma for you, Daniel Denham: Either the
      Bible teaches the Earth is flat, and fixed in its place;
      or that interpretation of the text is wrong. Here's another
      one: The Bible speaks of the Earth as if it were flat, and
      fixed in its place because (a) it was written in a way that
      people with a primitive knowledge of the world could
      understand it, or (b) the Bible is wrong.

      As to my "admitting" I "resort to" eisogesis, Denham,
      you are just lying. Again. I said, "I reckon (in Denham's
      view) any time you try to make the Scriptures relevant to
      the world in which we live, you are guilty of eisogesis."

      And you replied:

      > > Daniel Here: Friends, he admits that is exactly
      > > what he has done to the text!

      Daniel Denham, *why* are you such a liar? You don't have
      to be this way. All you have to do is love the truth,
      and these wicked habits of yours will flee away from you.
      But it's impossible for you, isn't it? How can you love
      the truth when you love a lie? You must cling to the one
      and despise the other; you cannot serve both.

      > God is in ; God is out; God is in...

      I have dispelled this notion so many times now that I get
      the idea you're just trying to irritate me. I have shown
      you where you are wrong about this so plainly and clearly
      that it would take an imbecile not to understand it by
      now. I don't think that about you, Denham. I think you
      are knowingly and purposefully lying.

      > Daniel Here: I then asked:
      >>> "Or, do you believe that the writer just made it up?"

      >> "Of course not."

      > Daniel Here: Was it then just an oral tradition handed
      > down through the ages?

      Yes. Part of it. And it was one of the first things
      written down, I suspect, once writing was developed.
      And of course there is nothing in the Bible (that I've
      so far noticed) that, by itself, justifies that belief.
      But there is external evidence.

      And there is internal evidence as well as external
      evidence that Genesis wasn't part of the Scriptures
      until after the Babylonian captivity. Hate to
      burst your bubble, but it appears "Adam's" name
      was really "Admah", or "red" -- the father of the
      Semitic race. God chose Israel to bring the Story
      to us, down through the ages.

      [I guess if the folks on the ChristianEvidences list
      thought that some of the other things I said over
      there were "blasphemy", they would really be ready to
      burn me at the stake after this! But really, folks,
      Hebrew is neither the oldest written nor the oldest
      spoken language. But the story behind The Story does
      not in any way negate its Divine origin or the truth
      of its message.]

      > Daniel Here:
      >>> "Friends, this is "Christian evidences"? Further,
      >>> by what premise would a "recreation" have to take
      >>> place? As far as we know they may have sinned quite
      >>> soon relative to the time frame of their creation?
      >>> God, who is omniscient and thus knowing they would
      >>> sin, could have simply held the Laws of Thermodynamics
      >>> in abeyance until the act was carried out in fact.
      >>> Your attempt at a dilemma is ludicrous."

      >> "What is ludicrous is your suggestion that the Laws
      >> of Thermodynamics were held in "abeyance" until after
      >> the Fall. How is that even remotely possible in this
      >> Universe where the sun shines and the seas bring forth
      >> and the fruit of the Garden is food for man and beast?
      >> The Universe would have to be completely re-created
      >> after the Fall if such was the case. I'm sure that
      >> you, Daniel Denham, understand how thermodynamic law
      >> has some bearing on nearly every action in the Universe.
      >> If you're going to say something like that, I could
      >> just as easily say that God let the plants grow on
      >> Earth for a billion years before the Sun started
      >> shining."

      > Daniel Here: Relative to certain conditions, Rick,
      > God most certainly could have held the laws in
      > abeyance.

      Not if the Sun was shining and the plants were growing
      and animals and man were eating and digesting food.
      Not if they were doing all of these things in a physical
      Universe. If all of these things (and, of course, many,
      many more, such as the oceans being warm enough to support
      life) were taking place while the laws of thermodynamics
      were held in "abeyance", that just means that something
      *exactly like* the laws of thermodynamics were operating.

      I'll mention also that if (in the young-earth scenario)
      the laws of thermodynamics were held in abeyance until
      after the Fall, that removes the young-earthers' (false
      at any rate) protest that thermodynamic law precludes
      the possibility of biological evolution. And that is
      typical of the problems associated with "young-earth
      creation-science". Every time they propose an
      explanation for one problem, a dozen others pop up
      somewhere else. If they try to mash one of those other
      problems down, more pop up in a different place, which
      discredit things they thought they already had "fixed".
      They are *never* going to get their wallpaper smoothed
      out! It's *always* going to look like an amateurish

      > You have claimed to believe in the bodily resurrection
      > of Christ. How was it that His fleshly body did not
      > suffer corruption in the grave, Rick (Acts 2:30-
      31)? Hmmm?

      Because that is what was prophesied (Psalm 16:10). God's
      Word had gone forth across Time and Space, "declaring
      the end from the beginning" (Isaiah 46:10). The Lamb
      was slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8).

      > As for the plants being protected for billions of
      > years, that would not be consistent with evolutionary
      > doctrine, Rick. If you want to take that view, go ahead!
      > That would be marvelous, because it would imply,
      > according to your own calims in post #151, a
      > repudiation of a purely naturalistic explanation. Now,
      > want to go that route?

      No, and I don't think *you* should go that route either.
      I would think that right there would be just another
      of the many obvious clues that you weren't supposed to
      be reading the text as a literal account.

      (We took care of the plants and the Sun and the Moon in
      the previous post.)

      > Daniel Here: I wrote:
      >>> "Once more, friends, I believe we see that Rick does
      >>> not really believe in God as revealed in the Bible.
      >>> He is hinting at Finite God-ism or even Panenthesism."

      >> "Your "belief", once again, is incorrect. I believe
      >> in the God of the Bible -- the one who sent His Son
      >> to redeem mankind.
      >> We'll get to Panentheism later."

      > Daniel Here: Rick, a lot of Finite God-ites would make
      > the same claim, and even so do some Panentheists. Yes,
      > I am looking forward to dealing with Panenthesism. There
      > are those who hold that the immanence of God in nature
      > involves confinement and identity, and yet they claim
      > to believe in Jesus Christ as well. One of the most
      > prominent of these was the later W. E. Garrison.

      If you will believe in your heart on the Lord Jesus,
      and confess Him with your mouth before men, you will
      be saved. At least that's what it says in the Bible.
      If someone else's conception of what God *is* is a little
      different from your own, who are you to condemn them?
      The differences between any of our conceptions of God are
      miniscule compared to the difference between all of our
      conceptions of God and what God really is.

      God is God, and not a man. We have been told many times
      that we have but a human idea of God.

      "He hath made everything beautiful in its time: also he
      hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can
      find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to
      the end." (Ecclesiastes 3:11 [KJV])

      (Other versions read, "He hath set eternity in their

      So that sounds like God worketh the work from beginning
      to end, to me. It sounds like an ongoing act of Creation,
      to me. And it also shows that, despite Denham's saying
      that naturalistic explanations exclude God being involved,
      we can still predict snow and make ice cubes without having
      to understand all the miracles involved in a simple molecule
      of water.

      > That closes this installment. Daniel Denham

      [I think it is truly unfortunate that the folks on the
      ChristianEvidences list, in spite of that list's stated
      intent, were so opposed to learning anything that they
      may never even bother to read this.]

      Rick Hartzog
      Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
    • rlbaty50
      ... But Rick, I ve been trying to help put together a discussion on just that issue on the premise that we could go back if we can find David ! Robert
      Message 2 of 24 , May 16, 2007
        Rick, you wrote, in part:

        > "we" know that the
        > Earth is much much
        > older than any 6,000
        > years.

        > There is no going back
        > from that. It isn't
        > going to happen...

        But Rick, I've been trying to help put together a discussion on just
        that issue on the premise that we could go back if we can find "David"!

      • w_w_c_l
        Here is my reply to Daniel Denham s 3rd installment of responses to my message #152 on the ChristianEvidences list, which is posted here:
        Message 3 of 24 , May 17, 2007
          Here is my reply to Daniel Denham's "3rd installment" of
          responses to my message #152 on the ChristianEvidences
          list, which is posted here:

          I like to think that Don DeLong knew ahead of time
          what some of my rebuttals in this message to Denham
          must necessarily be, and decided to get rid of me
          before I could make them, rather than just arbitrarily
          deciding "enough is enough".

          Since almost none of this message had been composed
          before I got booted off the ChristianEvidences list,
          you may notice a little sterner tone here than the
          saccharine way I have dealt with Denham up until now.

          Re: Questions for Rick Hartzog

          > Dear Rick and List,
          > This is the third installment in my response to Rick's
          > post #152.
          > 10) Rick admitted:

          >> > "No, Jesus did not treat the Scriptures "completely
          >> > as myth". But asking the Pharisees, "Have ye not read,"
          >> > seems pretty weak in insisting that the "days" are
          >> > 24-hour periods."

          Daniel Here: I responded:
          >>> "Rick, you did not really answer the question,
          >>> did you? I asked, "Did Jesus do so when He handled the
          >>> Scriptures, or did He go all the way back to the very
          >>> creation of man and woman and the formation of the first
          >>> home and assign that to "the beginning" (Matt. 19:4-6)?"
          >>> The question was did Jesus treat the Genesis account of
          >>> creation of the man and woman and the formation of the
          >>> first home as a myth, Rick? That question is not that
          >>> difficult. He clearly treated the Record as history and
          >>> even said that these things occurred "in the beginning"
          >>> (cf. the use of that form in Genesis 1:1, Rick)."

          >> "Actually it says "*at* the beginning", not "in the
          >> beginning". Just a quibble, I know."

          > Daniel Here: Indeed, is is just a quibble, because
          > in Greek it makes not one whit difference, Rick.

          But in your saying "In the beginning", tying it to
          Genesis 1:1, leaves a different sense than saying
          "*from* the beginning" which is how the other
          translations render it, and refers to the beginning
          of the human race, "male and female created he them"
          in Genesis 1:27. What you are attempting is called
          "subliminal messaging", trying to get people to
          associate one thing with another.

          > Jesus has gone all the way back to the very beginning --
          > the creation week and refuted your heresy.

          What heresy? I believe God created them male and
          female in the Creation week. I say we are still in
          the Creation week.

          > As He is the Son of God, and therefore Deity, and
          > was an EYEWITNESS of as well the ACTIVE AGENT in
          > the creation, which more than makes Him a credible
          > witness to the events of which speaks. He puts the
          > nails in the coffin for theistic evolution. You
          > cannot reconcile Jesus' testimony with your error
          > without ultimately calling Jesus a liar!

          I can reconcile the testimony of Jesus with my views,
          which you have not shown to be error, without even
          suggesting that Jesus is a liar. Jesus never said the
          Creation week was 6 24-hour days 6,000 years ago.
          Jesus never said said God made man like a kid makes
          mudpies. Jesus was teaching a spiritual lesson, not a
          history lesson.

          > Friedns, if Rick had been among the Pharisees then
          > before Jesus in Matthew 19 and, believing what he
          > believes today, I wonder if would have had the nerve
          > to tell the Son of God, "You don't know what you're
          > talking about! Everything just evolved. Adam and
          > Eve were not real people. The Genesis Record is a myth,
          > and we all descended from a bunch of apes. You are using
          > false information to teach a truth. Wouldn't it be better
          > to tell these folks the whole truth on the matter,
          > instead of lying to them about what actually did take
          > place." Rick, if anyone ever did know exactly what took
          > place it would be the very One who made it happen to
          > begin with, correct? Why then will not accept His
          > credible testimony?!

          "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye
          cannot bear them now. Howbeit when He, the Spirit
          of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:
          for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever
          He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will
          show you things to come." (John 16:12,13)

          Jesus didn't tell everything He knew.

          > Daniel Here:
          >>> "The Lord Himself refutes your case. So, you must
          >>> either reject Him or reject your view. You will
          >>> have to choose which you will do!"

          >> "Or reject your shallow logic. I think I will
          >> choose #3."

          > Daniel Here: Not an option, Rick. You have not answered
          > the argument. You admitted that the Lord did not treat
          > Genesis 2:24-26 as myth.

          No. I did not. I said that Jesus did not treat the
          Scriptures "completely as myth", which is what you asked.
          You just snipped that part out. You said:

          >>> Are we to treat the scriptures completely as myth?
          >>> Did Jesus do so when he handled the Scriptures...

          ...as if that is what *I* do. I said no He didn't.
          And neither do I.

          > Therefore, an allegorical intewrpretation, as you
          > have sought to use that term, is not possible by your
          > own admission.

          False. The spiritual lessons taught by Genesis are true.
          Young-earth creationism is false, and sacrifices the
          spiritual lessons, calling it "Al Gore-ism", for the
          sake of their literal interpretation. There is no
          reason for me to think that Genesis 2:24-26 are not
          accurate statements, even within an allegorical frame.

          > The Lord clearly states the entire matter
          > matter-of-factly, which means that He considers it an
          > historical event. It is fact.

          According to you and your young-earth literalism, that is.
          How do you dare to misrepresent the teaching of Jesus to
          support your own false doctrine? You do realize that is
          what you are doing, don't you? If the Earth is ancient,
          Jesus would not be teaching that the Creation account
          was literal. So since the Earth is ancient, Jesus was not
          teaching that the Creation account is literal. Therefore,
          you are misrepresenting the teaching of Jesus. It would
          appear to me, Daniel Denham, that every time you accuse
          me of something horrible, all I have to do is wait a few
          minutes and watch as you do yourself what you have just
          accused me of doing.

          A particulary shining example of that was the long list
          of logical fallacies you presented as violations I had
          committed, and it was shown that you were the guilty party.

          > You cannot erase it from the Bible.

          I have no intention of doing such a thing.

          > You can carp, and you can cavil, but you cannot answer
          > it! You have not, nor will do so!

          I can. And I did.

          > For Rick's dogma to be true, the Lord must be a liar,
          > but the Lord is not a liar. Therefore, it must be the
          > case that Rick's dogma is not true.

          Or Daniel Denham's interpretation of the Scriptures
          is not true. That's what I believe to be the case, as
          has been pointed out not only by me to Daniel Denham,
          but as have all the other Christians in the world who
          recognize the allegorical nature of the Creation account
          pointed it out to the young-earth literalists.

          You are falsifying the Scriptures with your interpretation.

          > Daniel Here:
          >>> "'Have ye not read" is an appeal to the authority of
          >>> the inspired Record, Rick (pure and simple).
          >>> Syntactically, it is a rather strong statement of
          >>> endorsement for the historicity of that Record, despite
          >>> what you may think. If that implies a literal 24-period,
          >>> then your beef is with the Son of God, Rick!"

          >> "But don't you understand? If the Earth is ancient, and
          >> if humans have been on the Earth much longer than any
          >> 6,000 years, then it is *wrong* to insist that Jesus
          >> taught a literal interpretation of Genesis of 6 24-hour
          >> days! Don't you get that? Don't you understand what
          >> that kind of teaching does to the credibility of the
          >> Scriptures?
          >> You are insisting on reading the Bible in a way that is
          >> contradictory to all of the real-world evidence! That
          >> has *got* to be error on your part, if the Bible is
          >> indeed going to be the infallible word of God!
          >> Why is that so hard to get through your head(s)?"

          > Daniel Here: Rick, the Lord taught that the earth is not
          > ancient, and that the creation literally did happen the
          > way Moses records it in Genesis 1 and 2.

          Who said Moses wrote Genesis? I don't find that in the
          Scriptures anywhere. And where does Jesus teach that the
          Creation happened *literally* as it is recorded?

          Jesus never said any such thing. That is Daniel Denham
          saying such things. And Daniel Denham has no credibility
          when it comes to the Scriptures. Or anything else, as
          far as I am concerned.

          > He put His own stamp on the inspired Record!

          I don't have any doubt that the record is inspired. But
          it wasn't meant to be literal, either.

          > That's the issue. That is what YOU are not getting.
          > There are other forms of evidence than empirical evidence,
          > Rick. Your "real world evidence" is not so real.

          Jumping back across to the "apparent age" side of the
          fence, are we?

          You aren't going to be able to produce any kind of evidence
          that the world is not ancient that can not be immediately
          refuted either scientifically or theologically.

          For example: tell us a little bit about "apparent age",
          Denham. Come on, tell us. You'll be off into something
          so far over your head you won't know up from down.

          > BTW your so-called empirical evidence is really not so
          > empirical, when you apply the strict and proper
          > definition of the word to it, Rick. You know that,
          > or at least, you ought to know it!

          I know how often young-earth creationists are guilty
          of pretending "empirical" as it relates to science
          is the same as "empiricism" in layman's terms:
          ALL THE TIME! We are talking about scientific
          terminology here, Denham, not something you read in
          the dictionary.

          Your ignorance of science, and how science works, and
          the terminology used by science, and your absolute
          refusal to *learn* any of these things -- in fact to
          *misrepresent* these things at every turn -- leaves you
          poorly equipped to carry on an intelligent conversation
          about it.

          > Have you ever seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or
          > touched a living triceratops, Rick?

          Of course not. And neither has any other human that
          ever lived.

          > How do you know what they even looked like, Rick? Or
          > what were their habits and what kind of environemnt did
          > they require? Have you personally seen their habitat?

          1) From their fossilized skeletons. 2) From the
          environmental data gathered from the same place (stratum)
          where their fossilized skeletons are found. 3) No; that
          environment no longer exists.

          > You have to use intuitive reasoning to gather the
          > evidence and then draw the conclusions from the
          > evidence.

          False. Conclusions drawn from evidence are deduced,
          not intuited. I've already explained intuitive reasoning
          to you one time. I'm not going to do it again, just
          because you are a slow learner. If you want to play in
          this game, you're going to have to keep up.

          > Historical records are also evidence, Rick -- just as
          > much so as the pieces of bone one may find in a quarry!
          > It is also itself empirical in as much as there is
          > manuscript support, et al. for the documents, hitorical
          > and archaeological data that supports and attends its text,
          > and other evidences, including linguistics, that support
          > the accuracy of the text in question.

          Basically, what you have just done here is admitted the
          primacy of Gilgamesh and the Sumerian Creation account.
          And supported the findings of the researchers who say that
          Jericho is 10,000 years old. (No sign of it ever having
          been destroyed by a Flood, either.)

          And somehow managed to include archaeology, which relies
          solely on empirical evidence, in with linguistics, which
          is much more tentative, but which nevertleless does find
          *artifacts* -- empirical evidence -- in deconstructing
          languages. Denham, it is plain as day that you understand
          nothing about how evidence fits together.

          If you did, you would also be able to see how the evidence
          from linguistics may be similarly conceptualized as how
          some of the genetic evidence for evolution works, in that
          "typographical errors" arise in the DNA at a certain point
          and are repeated down through subsequent generations, just
          like when "aleph" first evolved into an "A". Not all the
          alephs turned into As at one time, but after the As had
          supplanted the alephs, there was no going back. Do you
          get that?

          Here, I'll give you this link again:

          Evolution: Converging Lines of Evidence:

          Study up on it. These are the sorts of evidences you are
          going to have to provide alternate explanations for if
          you ever hope to argue against biological evolution.

          Your appeals to logic and theology are delusional.

          > Rick, you need to go back to square one and start over.
          > You and your cohorts have been working on a presumptious
          > view of the Scriptures that is false to its core and on
          > a false view of what constitutes evidnece that is decidedly
          > deceitful. You have been foisting a sham on people for
          > some time.

          These are assertions for which you have no evidence of any
          kind, and for which the evidence that does exist is decidedly
          contrary to your position.

          > Now deal with it or move along, because I've wasted enough
          > time responding to someone who ought to know better, but
          > who is determined to "have his cake and eat it too."

          I think the public record will show that you are at this
          point far from being through "wasting time" responding
          to me. (Indeed, now that I'm not able to respond to you
          on the ChristianEvidences list, you seem to be obsessed.)

          > 11) I had pointed that Rick was suggesting the Jesus was
          > perpetrating a fraud in His handling of the Genesis
          > account in Matthew 19. Rick stated:
          >> > "You have not established that Jesus *did* handle the
          >> > Creation account as literal, as you use the word. Far
          >> > from it. And suggesting that Jesus was "perpetrating a
          >> > fraud" is something I don't want any part of."
          > Daniel Here: I then responded:
          >>> "Rick's approach to the Scriptures is
          >>> to force them into his preconceived theistic
          >>> evolutionary mold. If a text just does not
          >>> accommodate easy compliance with it, he will do
          >>> a number on it to make it fit. Every text is clearly
          >>> then figurative to Rick that does not easily fit the
          >>> mold. Rick, what else would you demand Jesus to have
          >>> said in order for Him to have used the text as an
          >>> accurate, historical Record of what actually happened?"

          >> "Daniel Denham, you have a bad habit of making a bunch
          >> of untrue, sniping, personal remarks about the person
          >> that you are debating instead of dealing with the
          >> argument itself."

          > Daniel Here: Rick, I answered your "argument." You are
          > twisting the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:16) to fit your dogma
          > of evolution. The language of Genesis 1 and 2 will not
          > permit it, and neither will that of Matthew 19:4-6.

          Your Bible verse of 2 Peter 3:16 does not lend your
          argument any weight. Anybody can point to a Bible verse
          and make out like the other person is guilty of violating
          it. You say the language of Genesis 1 and 2 do not permit
          the story being allegorical. You are wrong. It very well
          *does* fit the language of allegory, and particularly that
          of an oral tradition. Which is a good thing, because the
          Earth most assuredly was not producing plants and animals
          within 6 24-hour days after it was formed, and it most
          assuredly is much older than any 6,000 years. You just
          as well to forget that nonsense.

          You also just as well to forget making claims that Jesus
          endorsed your nonsense. If the Bible is true and Jesus
          is true, you are certainly false.

          > You admitted that the Lord was NOT using Genesis 2
          > as a myth.

          Go back and read what I *really* said.

          > That leads to only one option, Rick, and that He was
          > indeed speaking of it as an historical event, which
          > is my psoition, and not yours.

          Here is my option: All Jesus said was that the Scriptures
          teach God made male and female humans from the beginning.
          I can say exactly the same thing myself: From the beginning
          God made male and female humans, and they were mated for
          life. That is the lesson that Jesus was teaching -- that
          couples become one flesh and should remain together. To
          say that Jesus was teaching anything more than that is wrong.

          > If you admit that the Lord was handling the text as
          > though it is historical and yet He knew, granting for
          > the sake of argument only your assumptions, that it
          > was not, then why is He not guilty of trying to teach
          > the truth with false information, which you have
          > railed against time and again?

          What I have railed against time and time again is using
          lies ("young-earth creation-science") to teach another
          lie (that the Earth is 6,000 years old).

          And Jesus was teaching spiritual lessons, not history
          lessons. We cover the parables below.

          > What do the Scriptrues say about doing "evil that good
          > may come," Rick?

          They say it's wrong. (Romans 3:8, 6:1)

          How much more so, to do evil that evil may come? And how
          about those whose feet are swift to shed innocent blood?
          And how about those who cast a stumblingblock before their
          brother, causing their brother to offend? How about those
          who would sit in judgment of another man's servant?

          > Before you answer you need to think soberly about the
          > theological and christological implications of what you
          > say before you add more blasphemy to your lists of
          > blasphemous statements!

          I defy Daniel Denham to produce a single blasphemous
          statement which I have made. It should be easy enough
          for him to do, since he says I have "lists" of them. Let
          him produce just one.

          (As I wrote to Robert in another thread, since these guys
          make out like they are speaking in the stead of God Himself,
          anytime you disagree with them about anything is "blasphemy"
          as far as they are concerned.)

          Daniel Here:
          > "Jesus, who was in the beginning with God the Father,
          > surely, would know whether or not it actually
          > occurred! You talk about having to be eyewitnesses
          > of the creation in Genesis 1 and 2 to prove young-earth
          > creationism, what about the credible testimony of the
          > Son of God who was the active Agent in the creative
          > work itself (John 1:1-3; Heb. 1:1-3; Col. 1:15-17).
          > As a member of the Trinity, Rick, He would certainly
          > know what happened and be in position to repot it
          > quite clearly and distinctly. And He did so. You just
          > don't like the implications of His testimony to your
          > obsessive theories and speculations on origins! The
          > testimony does not fit your paradigm."

          Your paradigm of the testimony does not fit the evidence
          from the Creation itself. And since God's inspired
          Creation disproves your paradigm, that means your
          interpretation of the text is wrong. It's as simple as
          that. You are making real-world claims about what the
          Bible says, but the real world does not verify your claims,
          therefore your claims are wrong. Plain as day.

          >> "I notice that you completely ignored this part of my
          >> statement (not only did you ignore it, you snipped
          >> it out):
          >> Jesus said, "My Father worketh hitherto."
          >> Now, Daniel Denham, what else would Jesus have had to
          >> have said to tell you that God was still at work?"

          > Daniel Here: Rick, I did not respond to it, because one
          > of the most asinine uses of a passage of the Holy
          > Scriptures I have ever seen! I did not deign it worthy of
          > even notice, but since you have decided to make an issue
          > of it, please give the verse reference and context, Rick,
          > where the Lord made that statement!

          It is in the 5th chapter of John. Jesus healed the
          crippled man and told him to take up his bed and walk,
          and the Pharisees accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath.

          But Jesus answered them, "My father worketh hitherto,
          and I work." (John 5:17)

          You can go to any translation you like and read exactly
          the same thing: "My father has worked even until now."

          It is a plain-spoken straightforward statement, and you
          are going to have a hard time getting around it. Creation
          is still taking place.

          > Friends, we are going to see how this man just butchers
          > a text and makes it apply to anything he wants despite
          > its context and structure. Rick, are you claiming that
          > Jesus was saying "My Father is working through Darwin's
          > theory of evolution"? What work is Jesus referring to Rick?
          > CONTEXT PLEASE! No, you do not believe the Bible! No wonder
          > the atheists get along so well with you. Friends, this is
          > "Christian Evidences"? A view that makes a mockery out of
          > the very Word of the living God?!

          You're really on a roll here, Denham. Rend your heart
          and not your garments.

          And get out your Bible and read the 5th chapter of John.

          12) Rick had asked:
          >> > "Was He {Jesus}deceiving people when He taught in
          >> > parables? Were the "rich man and Lazarus" real people?
          >> > The "good Samaritan"?
          >> >
          >> > "Jesus wasn't deceiving us. The lessons from those
          >> > stories are much more important, and applicable,
          >> > to us than whether actual dogs licked the sores of
          >> > an actual beggar named Lazarus."

          > Daniel Here: I responded:
          >>> This is, as Guy N. Woods would say, "lame logic and
          >>> fallacious reasoning." First, how do you (Rick Hartzog)
          >>> KNOW that the account of the rich man and Lazarus is
          >>> a parable?"

          >> "Let's keep this on the subject, shall we? Whether
          >> the "rich man and Lazarus" is a parable or not,
          >> the point is that Jesus *did* teach in parables
          >> and that the value of the parable was not in whether
          >> it was literally true, but rather in the lesson
          >> that it teaches."

          > Daniel Here: I am on the subject, and is not what
          > you want to discuss, which is the nature of the
          > Biblical language. YOU are the one who claimed that
          > the account of the rich man and Lazarus was a parable.
          > I aksed you, "How do you (Rick Hartzog) KNOW that" it
          > is? It is a proper question that deserves a proper answer.
          > You made a big deal out of it, and what you're showing
          > by your attempted (conative force for incompleted action)
          > ducking of it won't clear you of scrutiny on this matter.
          > Rick, you are showing that you know virtually nothing
          > about the use of language in the Bible. You try to spout
          > off like an authority and then make a mess of it. When
          > your hand is called, you want to change the subject. The
          > parable ALWAYS Rick related to things that were true in
          > the physical realm, to which Jesus referred to extablish
          > His case. The people KNEW they were parables. No, He did
          > not deceive anyone by such language. What you need to
          > prove, Rick, is that the rich man and Lazarus is a parable.
          > But even then you would still imply that the "parable"
          > hearkened to a factual, historical event! For the parable's
          > lesson to be true, the event it draws upon for force must
          > also have been true, Rick. You can't even prove it was a
          > parable.

          Here are the words of H. Leo Boles:

          | Some have thought that this is not a parable, but a
          | record from real life; they say that the name of one
          | of the principal characters is given, which is not
          | done in any of the parables of Jesus. Others claim
          | that it is a parable; commentators generally have
          | treated it as a parable. It does not matter whether
          | it is regarded as a parable or not; the lesson taught
          | by Jesus remains the same. There is no change in the
          | points or in the lesson taught by regarding it as a
          | parable or regarding it as a simple narration in real
          | life. It is treated here as a parable. Luke records
          | this, and he is the only one who does; he places it
          | in close connection with what Christ had taught with
          | respect to the proper use of riches and the ridicule
          | and scoffing of the covetous Pharisees against His
          | teaching; it may be regarded as a further reply to
          | the scoffing of the Pharisees.
          | from: "Luke", by H. Leo Boles. 1991.

          Now, of course, Denham is free to disagree with Boles,
          as I'm sure he will on this point, in spite of Denham's
          respect for Boles he has made known elsewhere. I feel
          quite certain that, because of the vividness of the torment
          and the flames of hellfire, Denham treats the story of the
          rich man and Lazarus as the real deal in threatening his

          > And you have admitted that the Lord did not speak of
          > the text of Genesis 2:24-26 as a myth.

          > He spoke of it in matter of fact terms. If He did
          > so, Rick, was He not implying that it was a factual,
          > historical event to which He was referring.
          > MOST CERTAINLY, and His audience would just as
          > certainly understand it that way!

          He seems to have taught about the rich man and Lazarus
          in matter-of-fact terms as well. Yet the audience
          seems to be divided. And as Boles said, the lesson
          remains the same whether it was a parable or a factual
          account. And so does the lesson remain the same
          whether the Genesis account is parable or factual.

          And that has been my point all along: Jesus taught
          real spiritual lessons using stories that were not
          necessarily literally true.

          > If you teach that He knew, as you must believe to
          > hold to your error, that it was not a truly fact
          > historical event, then, Rick, you IMPLY that He used
          > information that He knew was wrong to teach some truth.

          But even from my perspective, it is true that God made
          male and female humans. This would all have been a
          lot easier for you to understand if you hadn't been so
          flummoxed about what a "human" really is.

          > You have ranted and raved about those on this site
          > and others for doing that according to your claims!
          > Now deal with your hypocrisy!

          As I said above, what I have ranted and raved against
          is using flat-out lies ("young-earth creation-science")
          and presenting them as truth to teach another lie
          (that the Earth is 6,000 years old, and there is scientific
          evidence for it). The hypocrisy here does appear to be
          your own, Mr. Denham.

          > Daniel Here: I asked further in pressing the point:
          >>> "Second, BTW what is a parable, Rick? Does not a
          >>> parable necessarily correspond to a condition of
          >>> things that does in fact exist or may exist so as
          >>> to draw its illustrative force? What say ye?"

          >> "Are you saying that since a talking snake does not
          >> exist and may not exist, that the Creation account
          >> cannot be a parable, and the serpent must therefore
          >> be a literal talking snake, even though such a thing
          >> does not exist and may not exist?"

          > Daniel Here: Rick, talk about convolution! A parable
          > by definition reflects in figurative language a
          > principle drawn from an actual event or events. The
          > parable of the Sower, Rick, had a corresponding
          > (para "alongside"; ballo "to cast, to throw," for the
          > sake of comparison) factual event or happening that
          > gave its its vividness.

          But the "sower" was not really somebody sowing seed,
          and the "seed" is not really wheat.

          Likewise, the "serpent" is not really a talking snake.

          > The sowing of seed is a factual event, one demonstrated
          > time and again. Now, you want to make the Creation
          > account a parable! What happenend, Rick, the myth idea
          > wouldn't work out?

          I have said the Creation account is allegorical, and made
          the comparison that Jesus often taught using parables.
          You have stressed that Jesus was there at the Creation
          as an eyewitness. I think it would be just like Him to
          tell us about it all in an allegorical way.

          > Rick, the question for you is: Was there a real,
          > live talking sanke in a real, live garden called
          > the Garden of Eden? Your calling it a parable would
          > imply that there was!

          No, the snake wasn't a real snake. It was the Devil,
          that old "serpent". Yes, the Garden of Eden is a real
          place, but *you* can't see it! Me calling the account an
          allegory, similar to a parable does not imply the snake
          was a snake, it implies that your definition of what the
          elements of a parable must be is screwed up.

          > That's my position, Rick -- not that the Record is
          > parabolic, but that it speaks of a real, historical
          > event that is completed and thus in the past.

          I know what your position is. Your position is in
          error. That's what I've been trying to explain to you.

          > Daniel Here: I wrote further:
          >>> "Third, are you saying that Jesus was using a
          >>> parable when He spoke in Matthew 19:4-6?
          >>> On what basis do you make that determination, if so.
          >>> It definitely does not follow from the context, Rick!"

          >> "No. I am saying that Jesus asking the Pharisees if
          >> they had not read the Creation account does not
          >> mean Jesus was saying the Creation account was
          >> *literal*. We use the parables of Jesus ourselves,
          >> asking "Haven't you read about the unprofitable
          >> servant who buried his master's talent in the
          >> ground? The lesson is *in* the analogy."

          > Daniel Here: More convolution and confusion from
          > Rick! It was not a parable, but Jesus used parables,
          > therefore Matthew 19:4-6 does not mean the Creation
          > account was literal! Follow that, if you can!

          It's simple enough to follow: We use the very real
          lessons from the parables of Jesus, knowing that
          the spiritual lessons that are embodied in them is
          not dependent on the literal truth of the example.

          > Rick, I've read a whole lot of parables and some
          > very scholarly works on the nature of parables, like
          > many of the folks you are trying to snow on this
          > [ChristianEvidences] site, and it is obvious that you
          > have no ideas what you're talking about. I know and
          > they know! The utter bankruptcy of credibility for your
          > view in handling of the Scriptures is evident to all,
          > except seemingly to you and your cohorts. And if they
          > are really watching and honest about it, they can't be
          > too happy either.

          Your very scholarly reading seems to have missed the
          fact that most scholars consider the story of the rich
          man and Lazarus to be a parable. I expect some, if not
          most, on the ChristianEvidences list are aware of that.
          If they had a shred of honesty about them, they must not
          be too happy with you right about now. As a matter of
          fact, most of them seem to have abandoned the field, and
          turned the list over to you and your devices.

          > Now you say that Matthew 19:4-6 is an "analogy." Please
          > define that, Rick. I suspect we are going to find you
          > don't know anymore about "analogies" than you know about
          > parables.

          I never said at all that Matthew 19:4-6 is an analogy.
          I said that Christ is using the Scriptures to teach a
          Spiritual lesson. You are just lying again.

          > Daniel Here: I asked:
          >>> "Friedns, this is "Christian evidences," to treat
          >>> the Scriptures in such slap-dash, carve 'em
          >>> fashion, as Rick is doing?"

          >> "We can always go back to talking about "young-earth
          >> creation-science" if you want to, so we can get away
          >> from my supposedly heretical interpretation of the
          >> Scriptures and back on to a subject that I can show
          >> conclusively should NOT be used as "Christian evidences".
          >> Then, once you all know that there is no scientific
          >> evidence anywhere that the Earth is only a few
          >> thousand years old, you can figure out for yourselves
          >> how you want to approach interpreting what is written.
          >> I expressed this concern early on in my campaign
          >> against the false science of creationism, that if
          >> some of these old folks who know so much about the
          >> Bible would have put a stop to creation "science"
          >> twenty or thirty years ago, we could be that many
          >> years ahead of where we are now in explaining the
          >> Scriptures in light of the real-world evidence.
          >> But, no, nobody wants to hear that. As soon as I
          >> start criticizing the ridiculous moon dust argument,
          >> everybody wants to jump on me about what the Bible
          >> says."

          > Daniel Here: Rick, you are in a quagmire of your making.
          > You are just fine where you are.

          Actually, this quagmire is NOT of my own making. I just
          came along and jumped into the middle of it.

          We have the likes of Daniel Denham to thank for wallowing
          out mudhole like this here on the World Wide Web. I
          thought all this "young-earth creation-science" foolishness
          had been put to rest years ago. Yet here they are, flaunting
          their ignorance in front of the whole wide world, trying
          to make all of Christianity look like a religion for abject
          morons with their "the Earth is 6,000 years old" nonsense.

          And let me point out something once again, for the
          I-don't-know-how-manyeth-time: It does not matter one
          whit what my take on the Scriptures may be, or would it
          matter if I thought the entire Bible was just a bunch
          of made-up folktales and I didn't believe any of it, or
          what Denham thinks or what anyone thinks when it comes to
          the topic we are supposed to be discussing here. No matter
          what I or anyone else may believe about the Scriptures, the
          ancient age of the Earth and the fact of biological
          evolution is not going to go away.

          Notice that Denham doesn't want to talk about that,
          pretending that if he can discredit what I say about the
          Bible it will somehow discredit the science.

          > You are demonstrating to one and all by your approach
          > that you cannot harmonize what you claim is the
          > "scientific" explanation with the Bible's historical
          > Record.

          I am demonstrating to one and all that you are unable to
          refute my position. And even if you could, you would still
          have the science to deal with. You're still going to have
          to come up with *something*! What's it going to be? You
          can't go on like this forever! You're 200 years behind the
          times already -- how many souls, by now, have you alienated
          from the Gospel of salvation with your foolishness?

          > And poor old creationists scientists like Faraday, and
          > Lord Kelvin, why, imagine what they might have been able
          > to do with Rick as their teacher!

          So why aren't you defending *their* science, rather than
          the pseudoscience of such as Austin and Oard? Whose side
          do you think Faraday and Kelvin would be on, if they could
          see what Austin and Oard are trying to pass off as science?

          > Rick, whether you like it or not, the historical Record
          > of the Bible has evidentiary value as well. It comes down
          > to the fact that you really do not believe the Bible.

          Of course I do. I just know that you are a false teacher.
          It is Daniel Denham who I don't believe is "true".

          > Rick, you got onto a "Christian Evidences" site, not an
          > "Atheistic Evidences" site. Maybe you were just confused
          > when you clicked your mouse to join.

          My first post to the ChristianEvidences list says otherwise:

          13) Rick also said:
          >> > "Because understanding the allegory is truer to the
          >> > real world than the literal reading. How could the
          >> > man who penned the Creation account for the Hebrews
          >> > have possibly known all these things that we are only
          >> > learning now?"

          Daniel Here: I responded:
          >>> "I had asked, how his view promotes
          >>> "Christian evidences." As we can really see, it
          >>> most certainly does not, despite Rick's claims to
          >>> the contrary. Observe, that he has totally ruled
          >>> out the inspiration of the Scriptures and the
          >>> credible testimony of the Creator Himself to the
          >>> inspired penman of Genesis 1 and 2!"

          >> "Maybe I need to repeat myself here: I asked above,
          >> how could the man who penned the Creation account for
          >> the Hebrews have possibly known these things that
          >> we are only learning now?
          >> Also in this same message (although Daniel Denham
          >> snipped it out without comment) I wrote:
          >> "I don't know how the ancient writer could have
          >> possibly known these things without revelation..."
          >> Now, Daniel Denham, please explain for us how it is
          >> you can read these two quotes and somehow have the
          >> gall to turn right around and claim that I have
          >> "totally ruled out the inspiration of the Scriptures".
          >> I want to hear your justification for that.

          > Daniel Here: First your question bears an assumption
          > that is not granted -- that Genesis 1 and 2 realtes
          > to your evotionary assumptions.

          That is neither here nor there. If I believed the
          inspired word of God taught that the moon is made
          of green cheese, whether the moon is made of green
          cheese or not does not mean that I don't believe the
          Bible is the inspired word of God.

          And it is not up to Daniel Denham to decide which
          "assumptions" are granted. I can make all the
          assumptions I want to, and argue from that position,
          and Daniel Denham is going to have to do more than
          just say he doesn't grant the assumptions. He's
          going to have to point those assumptions out and show
          why they are wrong. This he has shown himself unable
          to do. He seems uninclined to even make the attempt.

          This tactic of claiming questions contain "assumptions
          that are not granted" is the way Daniel Denham managed
          to avoid answering my questions on the ChristianEvidences
          list, in spite of that list's stated rules. But why
          should Denham have to answer questions, if the moderators
          themselves don't have to answer any? I think we can now
          clearly see that, as on similarlists run by like-minded
          individuals (ContendingFTF, CFTF), the list rules apply
          only to those with whom the list moderatorship disagrees.

          But then, we already knew that, didn't we?

          > I have already demonstrated a few problems posed by
          > the Genesis text for your supposed harmony.

          OH? Where was that? I must have missed it. The only
          thing I've seen out of you along those lines is the
          plants-before-sun thing, which I have answered, and
          your assertion that the Big Bang theory is "under attack",
          which I rebutted as well. That leaves you a dozen or so
          other points which you have not even begun to address.

          > So you are begging the question here.

          This might be more accurately stated, "You are begging
          me to answer questions, Rick, that I have no intention
          of answering. Indeed, I cannot."

          > But as to the origin of the Genesis Record, Rick,
          > there is a thing called inspiration.

          Everything I have written about the Genesis Creation
          account has acknowledged its Divine inspiration,
          whether you like it or not, and no matter how you may
          wish to misrepresent me, and no matter how you may
          wish to misrepresent what the text itself actually says.

          > Maybe you read about it (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16-17)?

          This verse is one of the most abused and least understood
          of all the verses in the Bible.

          The verse *does not* say that everything in the King
          James Bible is inspired of God, and it *does not* say
          that everything that is inspired of God is in the
          King James Bible. And at the time it was written it
          was specifically referring to the books of the Old
          Testament -- very little, if any, of the New Testament
          other than Paul's own words had even been written at the
          time. (Peter does acknowledge Paul's inspiration in
          the Pauline epistles as "the wisdom which has been
          given unto him" in 2 Peter 3:16.)

          So what does the verse really say? This: What God has
          inspired is profitable for us.

          And profitable for what?

          "For doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in
          righteousness" does not mean word-for-word literalist
          history and it sure does not mean science.

          And it most certainly does not mean that it can be
          improperly used by the likes of Daniel Denham to beat
          me over the head with the Good Book and say that if I
          don't believe what Daniel Denham says about the Bible
          then I don't believe the Word of God.

          So Daniel Denham is here guilty of exactly that which
          he has accused others: *reading into* Scripture
          something that is not there at all -- that's right:
          *eisogesis*. And not only of reading it into the
          Scripture, but of trying to make his own mistaken
          reading part of Christian doctrine itself!

          In other words, teaching the traditions of men as if
          they were the commandments of God, about which we
          have been warned explicitly.

          > That is why I have been asking if you believe
          > that Genesis is simply the product of a long,
          > handed-down oral tradition, what about it?

          I think the Creation account and the Flood account
          had their roots in an oral tradition that preceded
          the Hebrews or even the Semitic tribes. I think
          the Hebrew portion of it starts with Abraham, who
          had an oral lineage back to Eber, and that from
          Abraham to Moses was oral Hebrew history as well,
          handed down through the generations that the children
          of Israel spent in Egypt under Pharoah.

          Moses, by all accounts, would have learned to write
          as part of the education he received in the household
          of Pharoah, but there is nothing in Scripture that
          says Moses wrote Genesis. That is nothing but Jewish
          tradition. And most Jewish scholars of today know
          that, but don't talk much about it.

          > Rick, liberals, including modernists and
          > postmodernists, for years have claimed that the
          > Bible CONTAINS revelation from God and CONTAINS
          > the Word of God, but have not believed in the
          > Biblical doctrine of inspiration as set forth in
          > the Bible itself.

          There is very little in the Bible itself that speaks
          of the inspiration of Scriptures outside of the
          inspired work of the writers themselves, such as Moses
          and the prophets, e.g., "the word of the Lord came
          to me", "the Lord said unto me", etc. You don't
          find such endorsements in the Chronicles or the Kings
          or 1st and 2nd Samuel, except in specific contexts.

          There is nothing in the 66 books of the Bible anywhere
          that says the entirety of those 66 books is Divinely
          inspired, or that says Divine inspiration is limited
          to those 66 books. Teaching otherwise is "eisogesis",
          *reading into* the text something that is not there.

          You can't produce the text that validates your dogma.

          > They really do not believe the Bible is the Word
          > of God in text, but only BECOMES the Word of God
          > when one accepts its moral principles.

          There is some sense of truth in that, Daniel Denham.
          To the degree you have applied the teaching of the
          Scriptures to your life is the degree to which you have
          accepted it as the Word of God. The fact that you, and
          others, will sit here on this [ChristianEvidences] list,
          and other lists, and behave in the way that you do shows
          clearly that you do not accept the teaching of the
          Scriptures as being the Word of God, and that you think
          you can reinterpret the Scriptures any way you please
          to justify all sorts of ungodly behavior on your part.

          You accuse me of trying to fit the Bible in to the real
          world -- well, I've watched over and over how you and yours
          have taken the Bible and twisted what it says to mean all
          sorts of things that are in direct contradiction to what
          the Scriptures, and Christ, have plainly told us about how
          we are to behave toward one another, *especially those of
          the household of faith*.

          God said He would write his Law on our hearts, *not* that
          He would give us another version of the Mosaic Law
          by which to live. But turning the New Testament, through
          your own interpretations of it, into a set of commandments
          after the tradition of men is exactly what you and your
          bunch of literalist, legalistic Pharisees have done. For
          those who have no better sense than to listen to you, you
          are making the commandments of God of none effect.

          For those of you who have been ministers any length of
          time in the same place, I can just imagine what your teeny
          little congregations must be like -- little nests of vipers
          that are just as venomous as you are. You have run off
          everyone who won't put up with your malarkey. Here is a
          link to a message I wrote to David Watson on this very

          David B. Watson's reaction is included in the above post.

          So you can just save your hateful remarks. I'm not paying
          you any attention when you tell me I must accept what YOU
          say about "what the Bible teaches". I would be a fool to
          believe you.

          > They too would concur with you that the writer of
          > Genesis 1 and 2 received some sort of "revelation,"
          > and they would even use the word "inspiration" to
          > describe the process by which the "revelation" came.

          Denham is contradicting himself here. He formerly was
          saying that I denied the Divine inspiration of the
          Creation account.

          > However, the means of the "revelation," according to
          > them, was by oral traditions handed down through the
          > ages, and a very spiritually minded man simply gathered
          > up the various stories and in the kind of ispiration
          > that attended the production of other great literature
          > (e.g. Shakespeare and Milton), he then wrote it down as
          > though it were fact.

          You have nothing in the Scriptures that says otherwise.
          And Shakespeare and Milton knew that what they were
          writing was not factual, so the "kind of inspiration" was
          evidently of a completely different nature.

          > There are several key questions, Rick, that you need to
          > address.
          > A) Is this a description of the view you hold of
          > Genesis 1 and 2?
          > B) Is the Bible the product word for word (verbal) from
          > the mind of Almighty God as to the Record of the things
          > said and done which it purports to record?
          > C) Is the Bible the Word of God completely, fully, hence
          > does it possess plenary inspiration?

          Of course, I could always adopt Daniel Denham's own tactic,
          and say that these questions contain assumptions I will not
          grant... ;-)

          A) Yes, except for the part about Shakespeare and Milton,
          and the "revelation" is from God.
          B) No, not word for word for the sake of your literalist
          interpretations. Yet every word has meaning, and we are
          told to study, so we can rightly divide the word of truth.
          God *did* make the heavens and the Earth. God *did* create
          man in His own image. Man *did* disobey God, and for his
          disobedience was forced to leave the place God had made for
          him in the Creation. Yet even then, God *did* have a plan
          for man's redemption.
          C) The Bible contains God's Message to man. It also
          contains a fairly detailed history of how that Message has
          been brought down to us. The Bible does contain "plenary"
          inspiration, but not all of the Bible is of this same quality.
          And you have no Scripture that says it is.

          > Folks, I suspect we are going to see a lot of hedging and
          > dodging from Rick on these points.

          Suspect again, fella. There are your answers, right
          there above.

          > Remember he has already admitted that he can and does
          > practice eisogesis to arrive at his conclusions...

          I have done no such thing.

          > ...and this despite what the Word of God explicitly says
          > (cf. Galatians 1:6-9;

          This is eisogesis on your part, Daniel Denham. These
          verses have nothing to do with what you are talking
          about. They are talking about the Gospel of Christ,
          not the doctrine of men. The Gospel of Christ is not
          a written record -- the written record is *about* the
          Gospel of Christ. You are *reading into* these verses
          the idea that anything you, Daniel Denham, say is
          "gospel", and anyone who disagrees with you is bringing
          a "different" gospel than the Gospel of Christ. I've
          seen you pull this before, using 2 John 9-11 to condemn
          anything you, Daniel Denham, don't like.

          > Revelation 22:18-19;

          This is more eisogesis on your part. These verses
          are speaking strictly of the Book of Revelation --
          "the prophecy of *this* book". At the time of the
          writing of Revelation the Bible was not even in
          existence, yet Denham is *reading into* these verses
          a commandment to be applied to the *whole Bible*, which
          would not exist in book form for another 300 years!
          (And when the Bible was finally canonized it contained
          books that are no longer included by the Protestants, of
          which Daniel Denham's denomination, like it or not, is a
          segment. We might also ask, if the Catholics got it all
          wrong, and the "Church of Christ" got it all right, why
          is the "Church of Christ" using a canon of Scriptures
          adopted from the Catholics? And how, without Divine
          guidance hundreds of years after the death of the last
          Apostle, did the early Catholics manage to pick out the
          right books? Without Divine guidance, how do we know we
          have all the right books now?)

          > Deuteronomy 4:1-8; et al.).

          And *yet more* eisogesis on the part of Denham! These
          verses are addressed to the children of Israel in regard
          to the Mosaic Law. At the time these words were spoken,
          the Mosaic Law was the whole and sum of the Hebrew
          scriptures. Daniel Denham is *reading into* these words
          an order that everything in the King James Bible is to
          be taken word-for-word literally!

          So, Daniel Denham, what do you have to say for yourself?
          After accusing me of eisogesis, because I see where the
          Bible matches up with what I observe in the real world,
          you have proceeded to *read into* the Bible all sorts of
          things which are clearly not there. I have seen you do
          this same thing with other parts of the Bible numerous
          times in the past, on the ContendingFTF list. I even
          sent you a personal e-mail about it, for which your lack
          of a response violates *your own rules of Scripture*!:

          What a cowardly hypocrite you are, Daniel Denham! But
          then, we already knew that, didn't we?

          > Practically speaking, there is no essential difference
          > between them ["liberals, including modernists and
          > postmodernists"] and him [Rick].

          And, of course, "change agents" are most hated by those
          who most need to do some changing. But if the "change"
          is getting away from the doctrines of men and back to
          the teaching of the Bible, how is that "liberalism"?
          And speaking of liberalism, how many times did Jesus
          and Paul mention freedom and liberty in connection with
          the truth, and faith in Christ?

          > Daniel Here: I stated:
          >>> "That may pass for "Christian evidences" in the world
          >>> of the Latitudinarians, but not in the real world."

          >>"And what do you claim to know about the real world?"

          > Daniel Here: I know more than enough to deal with you.

          So you say, but your method of "dealing with" me has been
          to lie. I guess it all depends on how you, Daniel Denham,
          want to define "dealing with" something. Your method of
          "dealing with" me caused you to have to bail out of the
          discussion because your lies were pointed out and you were
          unable from there to rectify your argument. Your method of
          "dealing with" me was to suggest several times that I should
          be removed from the ChristianEvidences list, and the
          ChristianEvidences list's method of "dealing with" me was
          to ban me.

          And you will sit there and pretend to know something
          about the real world how? By saying the real world isn't

          Give me a break. I chortle at you. The daughter of
          Jerusalem holds you in derision. She has shaken her
          head at you. (2 Kings 19:21)

          14) Rick wrote:
          >> > "The Word of God is alive."

          > Daniel Here: I then sated:
          >>> "He wrote that right after his previous comment.
          >>> Having jettisoned the Scriptures in his preceding
          >>> paragraph, Rick now honors them, or does he ascribe
          >>> to this phrase "the Word of God" to the postmodern
          >>> notion of the Word of God as a subjective message
          >>> in the heart and not an inspired written Record.
          >>> We shall see."

          >> "The Word of God is alive" is the sentence that
          >> immediately follows this sentence: "I don't know how
          >> the ancient writer could have possibly known these
          >> things without revelation, and I don't understand how
          >> people today remain unable, or unwilling, to see it".
          >> Daniel Denham, how do you hope to maintain credibility
          >> in a debate if you are going to pull junk like this?
          >> You are not even trying to be truthful. Not trying at all.
          >> Additionally, you said "He wrote that right after the
          >> previous comment," but that is not true either. What is
          >> up with you, dude?"

          > Daniel Here: Rick, what is your beef? You were not
          > misrepresented.

          There are the words, right there above. You clearly
          were making false statements, knowing they were false.
          The part immediately preceding the above exchange is
          far above here in this message, where you said I denied
          the inspiration of the Scriptures, so I re-included the
          quotes from the *previous* post, which you had snipped
          away, showing your portrayal of my position was false.
          In other words, you were lying.

          > This is just another case of your carping on things
          > that do not amount to a hill of beans.

          No, I guess not. What is one more lie among the dozens
          you have already attempted over the course of this

          I admit it; I am starting to sound like a broken record:
          "Daniel Denham is a liar"... "Daniel Denham is lying"...
          "FALSE"... But what else do I need to do? I take my
          words and compare them with what you say my words are.
          There seems to be some -- *ahem* -- *discrepancy*.

          > Is that all you have to offer for this discussion. You
          > need to grow up and get a life. You had no real point
          > here, merely another blanket assertion, which I had
          > already blowb apart. All you have done in your response
          > is give me the opportunity to dust off the spot where
          > your assertion once stood.

          If you will look again, you will see that I am standing
          in exactly the same place that I have been since the
          very beginning of this discussion. You are over there
          behind some tree somewhere, saying, "Here's where he was --
          he must've run off." But I am right here in the same
          place, in broad daylight. You are pretending you don't
          see me, because you are afraid of me.

          You are unable to deal directly with what I am saying.
          So you have to pretend I have said something else, and
          go off down through the woods blasting away, pretending
          you see something to shoot at.

          I am right here, Daniel Denham. And this is right where
          I'll be if ever you get your nerve up enough to come back
          and face me.

          > And all you are wanting to do is to clog up peoples' time
          > and computers with your nonsense. Rant on all you wish
          > about deep conspiracies against you. The rrea question is:
          > What is your problem dude? Why are you such an evangelist
          > for what is essentially an atheistic doctrine (despite your
          > howls to the contrary)?

          I've already done everything I wanted to do as far as
          Daniel Denham is concerned, and that is to publicly expose
          him, by his own words, for the spineless, Scripture-twisting,
          backbiting weasel that he is. Everything from here on out
          is just gravy.

          "Deep conspiracies"? Daniel Denham is the one who is
          trying to get somebody to believe that all of science is
          just one big worldwide atheist conspiracy.

          "Evangelist of an atheistic doctrine"? Daniel Denham is
          the one who has said that if evolution is true, then God
          does not exist.

          You're pathetic, Denham. You're not even a good liar.

          15) Rick had also said:
          >> > "There are certainly latitudinarian Muslims,
          >> > Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, and even young-earth
          >> > creationists. Especially those young-earth
          >> > creationists who say they believe in the
          >> > All-Powerful God, but have to prop up that belief
          >> > with bogus science, are latitudinarians.
          >> >
          >> > Maybe you should have researched the WWCL a little
          >> > more thoroughly before you started making comments
          >> > about its doctrine, because, as I said, it is a
          >> > parody of mass-marketed feelgood religion. It lets
          >> > people say they believe anything they want to, and
          >> > then turn right around and do something just the
          >> > opposite of what their belief is supposed to be."

          Daniel Here: I said:
          >>>"These be Rick's fellow-travellers by his own admission,
          >>> though he obviously does not care for them, in the land
          >>> of the Latitudinarians."

          >> "Hey, I didn't tell them to be latitudinarians. I just
          >> point it out to them, same as I pointed your own
          >> latitudinarianism out to you. They're your "fellow
          >> travelers" too, buddy."

          > Daniel Here: I don't claim them and do not accept
          > any of your folly on such.

          Doesn't matter whether you claim them or not. You say
          you believe one thing but you do another. Daniel
          Denham, thou art that latitudinarian!

          16) Rick said:
          >> > "You have said, Daniel Denham, that it is wrong to
          >> > use FALSEHOOD to promote your theology. And just
          >> > look at you now! Welcome to the Worldwide Church
          >> > of Latitudinarianism, brother!"

          Daniel Here:
          >>> I responded: Rick, talk about a leap! You should try
          >>> out for the olympic high jump."

          >> "Your latitudinarianism -- the difference between what
          >> you say you believe and what your actions show that
          >> you really do believe -- has been amply demonstrated."

          > Daniel Here: Your foolishness is showing.

          Your numerous lies have already been shown. They have
          been pointed out one by one, one right after the other,
          in your very own words, just as you have said them.

          > 17) Rick, my questions were carefully and precisely stated.
          > They had no assumptioons involved, other than those in your
          > head. I will not do your homework and go chasing your
          > rabbits into areas that were not part of the scope of this
          > thread. I have stated that now some three times. It time to
          > move on.

          This is Daniel Denham telling me for the third time that
          he isn't going to answer my questions. I won't bother
          to re-include them here.

          18) Rick said:
          >> "Please show where I have used a falsehood to promote
          >> my theology."

          > Daniel Here: In your deliberate butchering of the Bible,
          > Rick. Your admission on eisogesis is classic!

          If you will scroll back up through this message, you will
          see that I have done no such thing. Just the opposite,
          almost. (I addressed this more specifically in my previous
          post, #9753, showing how Denham had "reinterpreted" what
          I said into an "admission" of eisogesis.) You are cackling
          over your nest egg, Denham, which is not even a real egg,
          pretending you have done something you haven't.

          > You implied that no matter what the Biblical Record
          > showed you would not accept it, it had to be wrong!

          I never implied any such thing. I would ask you to
          support that statement, but I know you are never going
          to be man enough to face me again, especially in an
          open forum such as this.

          > You have been shown that the Bible does not harmonize
          > with theistic evolution. You have implicitly rejected
          > the clear, precise testimony of the Son of God Himself
          > who was eyewitness and the Active Agent in performing
          > the miracles of Genesis 1 and 2. Yes, indeed, you have
          > repeatedly attempted to defend your theology by falsehoods,
          > but mor ethan that they are as blashemous as any haint
          > in Hell ever dared utter!

          You are using some very condemning language here, Denham,
          for somebody who has not been able to show the assertions
          for which you are condemning me are even true. You have not
          shown that I deliberately butchered any part of the text of
          the Scriptures. You have not shown that making the Bible
          applicable to the world in which we live is eisogesis. You
          have not shown that I reject the testimony of Christ. And
          you have not shown that I have attempted to defend my
          theology with falsehoods.

          On the other hand, I have pointed out your own blatant
          lies, using your own words and the demonstration of
          what you have done to mine, time after time after time.
          Your behavior is indefensible and inexcusable.

          > This closes this installment and my review and response
          > to post #152. Daniel Denham

          Next up -- Denham's response to message #153! It's long
          and convoluted rambling and snarling for the most part,
          and he included very little of my text in his reply, so
          it may take me a few days to get it all sorted out, if
          that is even possible.

          Rick Hartzog
          Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
        • w_w_c_l
          ... According to a recently departed political evangelist, he is probably a male Jew who has already been born. (see message #9733) Face it, Robert: The
          Message 4 of 24 , May 18, 2007
            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
            "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
            > Rick, you wrote, in part:
            > > "we" know that the
            > > Earth is much much
            > > older than any 6,000
            > > years.
            > > There is no going back
            > > from that. It isn't
            > > going to happen...
            > But Rick, I've been trying to help put together
            > a discussion on just that issue on the premise
            > that we could go back if we can find "David"!

            According to a recently departed political evangelist,
            he is probably "a male Jew who has already been born."
            (see message #9733)

            Face it, Robert: The "David" who can work such wonders
            as that isn't going to be showing up on any Yahoo!
            groups to piddle around with the likes of us!

            Rick Hartzog
            Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
          • w_w_c_l
            Here is my response to Daniel Denham s reply to my message #153 on the ChristianEvidences list: Denham s message in its original form is here:
            Message 5 of 24 , May 19, 2007
              Here is my response to Daniel Denham's reply to
              my message #153 on the ChristianEvidences list:
              Denham's message in its original form is here:

              I was removed from the ChristianEvidences list
              before I began composing this reply, which is
              unfortunate because it is in this message I reveal,
              at long last, what makes a human a "human" from my
              theological perspective. I'm afraid it isn't going
              to be quite what Denham was hoping for, or expecting,
              or, in fact, had even considered.

              Re: Questions for Rick Hartzog

              Daniel Denham wrote:

              > Dear List and Rick,
              > This is my review and response of Rick's post #153.
              > 1) If they wish to remove me, they may, Rick, but
              > last I heard YOU are not a moderator. This thread
              > was designed by me to lead into and deal with a
              > specific area and that is the incompatibility of
              > the Biblical record with theistic evolution. You are
              > in the midst of a discussion on that principal issue.

              Let's think for just a minute about what Denham is
              saying here, and the implications of what he is saying,
              and the consequences the world would be faced with if
              what Denham is saying were true:

              "The Biblical record is incompatible with evolution."

              Denham has already beat his way so far into the
              brier-patch of irrationality that he has proclaimed:

              "If evolution is true, God does not exist."

              In Denham's previous message, to which I have already
              posted my reply (message # 9765), he urged me to think
              seriously about the theological and christological
              implications of what I was saying, before I added
              further blasphemy to my already long list of blasphemous
              statements. I would suggest that Denham would do well
              to do some serious thinking himself.

              That the Earth is ancient, that life on Earth has been
              in existence for a long, long time, and that this life
              has gone through great changes in form over that time
              is a matter of fact. The denial of this by the young-
              earth camp is not going to change it. The world ("we",
              humanity) knows these things -- even grade-school
              children know that the dinosaurs "ruled the Earth"
              millions of years ago and are now exinct. There are no
              opposing theories, no alternate explanations, out there
              anywhere that have a shred of scientific credibility in
              regard to the dinosaurs. For Denham to say that this is
              incompatible with the Biblical record places the Bible
              under severe suspicion -- people who might happen to
              be fool enough to agree with Denham on this point may
              then reject the Bible altogether.

              > All you are wanting to do is to have me chase your
              > rabbits, do your homework on your websites, and
              > waste a great deal of time reading your rubbish.
              > I began this thread and am directling its course.
              > If that does not suit you. You do have the option to
              > leave it.

              You wish! (Or, were wishing, rather. Turns out it was
              Denham who chose the option of leaving the discussion.)
              And, as things turn out, it would have done Denham a
              world of good to have spent a little more time reading,
              and reflecting on, my "rubbish". He had all the clues
              he needed. He just failed to figure it out.

              As to directing the discussion, it does appear that
              now I firmly have the upper hand, and have had it
              for some time now, as will soon become evident as this
              message progresses.

              > As to your asking for my definition of "morality,"
              > it is actually non sequitur to the point you are
              > attacking, which is my definition of a human being.
              > I defined "moral" in the defining of a "human being"
              > as the power of reason as in "free moral agency."
              > You're just trying to chase more rabbits. Why can't
              > you stay on the subject?

              Denham has been unable to come to terms with human
              morality over the course of this discussion. He said
              a human is a "moral, mortal being", so I asked him what
              he meant by morality. I disagree that that is a non
              sequitur. I think it is a perfectly reasonable next
              question. And when I asked it, Denham changed his
              definition to a "reasoning, mortal being", suggesting
              that human morality derives from the ability to reason.
              Yet many of the traits that we consider highly "moral"
              when exhibited in human behavior are also evidenced in
              the animals -- and some of those animals' ability to
              reason is not really all that highly developed; even a
              mockingbird will put itself at great risk to protect its
              nest, even a mockingbird will work from daylight to dark
              providing food for its young -- traits that would be
              lauded when manifested in a human mother.

              So while we, as humans, may reason out *why* we do
              some of the "moral" things we do, "reason" is not the
              source of our "morality" -- much of it stems from the
              instinct of self-preservation and, if that is not
              possible, then the instinct of preservation of the
              species. So is it "moral" for the human race to prolong
              its existence? If so, why is it that everything we have
              done with "civilization" has ultimately put our continued
              existence in immediate and imminent peril?

              We were not always in such a state. When we were few in
              number, when we lived within the constraints of the
              natural systems which God had put into place, when we
              were "organisms behaving in the way God had designed us
              to behave" there was little danger to our survivability;
              our very adaptability to different environments made us
              of all creatures the most likely to survive, barring
              natural disasters of astronomical origin wiping out all
              land- and possibly sea-dwelling life on the planet.

              But we left all that behind, and that is why I have
              said that human morality *de*-volved. And until this
              de-volution occurred we were not really "human" in
              the way that all humans today share.

              > 2) Rick, you were answered, even if you don't like
              > the answer.

              Actually, no I was not answered. If you will look
              back at "2)" in message #133 on the ChristianEvidences
              list, or my reply to that message, you will see that
              Denham's "answer" was no more than a venomous diatribe
              of pretentious, self-righteous indignation which accused
              me of all sorts of bad things but managed to entirely
              miss making a response to the point: If an organism
              is behaving in the way it was designed to behave, is
              it being "morally right"?

              > Did God "design" men to murder, Rick? Or is that
              > choice arising from the wrongful use of free will?

              No, God does not want us killing each other. Yet we
              do, and the most prevalent ways we go about doing it
              are not even considered "murder". So the question
              does remain, are we really moral creatures now?

              > That is what is at issue. We're discussing the use
              > of the term "moral" as pertaining to one's will --
              > the exercise of reason, hence free choice. On that
              > aspect your statements were non sequitur. You
              > obviously either missed the point or sought to change
              > the subject, which really is of no real advantage to
              > you. In fact, you have as much, if not more, trouble
              > addressing this point.

              All these difficulties that Daniel Denham has imagined
              he has created for me! But since, according to Denham,
              morality arises from reason and is exercised by "free
              choice", we can (and will) look a little later in this
              message into this ability to "reason" and see whether
              it does lead to morality after all.

              > A non-moral thing cannot act other than how it is
              > designed to do, but free will grants to man a power
              > that he can exercise rightly or wrongly. (A non-human
              > thing therefore cannot act morally or immorally, Rick,
              > You have been reading too much from Peter Singer.)

              So, if I may draw an "implication" here from what Denham
              says, we can strip away from human morality all the
              traits that we consider "moral" which we share with the
              animals, since they are simply organisms behaving as
              they were designed to do. I would, in principle,
              disagree with Denham here, saying that organisms who
              behave as they were meant to behave, organisms into whose
              limited abilities to reason has never crept the thought
              that they could rebel against their Maker, are the most
              moral of creatures, but that is unnecessary for the moment.

              > That is what is essential to the difference between
              > man and the lower creation -- man has the power to
              > reason by which he has the power then to choose to
              > do good or do evil, to act morally or to act immorally.
              > Now, I have asked you repeatedly: Are some humans more
              > human than others? Yes or No.

              And I had answered repeatedly: "No". By this point in
              the discussion, Denham had seen that answer repeatedly: "No".
              He doesn't like the answer because it isn't what he was
              expecting and he doesn't know what to do with it from here.

              > Your gradualism will demand a "Yes" answer...

              See what I mean?

              > ...which will put you into the same camp with the Nazi
              > theorists who designed Auschwitz and Buchenwald. Is it
              > yes or is it no. You have not dealt with it, as I have
              > seen. That question has been on the table since day one
              > of this discussion!

              And the answer, "No", has been explicitly given since my
              reply to Denham's message #127, again in my reply to #132,
              and was hinted at by me in my replies to messages #114 and
              #117 back at the very beginning of this discussion. Denham
              not only cannot take a hint, he refuses to acknowledge my
              direct remarks: "No", Daniel Denham, some humans are not
              more "human" than others.

              > BTW I still note that you seem to refrain from using the
              > phrase "human beings," why Rick? Is that term abhorrent
              > to your gradualism?

              Because my "gradualism" is but an assumption on the part
              of Daniel Denham. From a theological perspective, humans
              became "human beings" suddenly, instantly, dramatically,
              irrevocably, in one moment of disobedience.

              > 3) You did not answer this point either, Rick, unless
              > you are contending for absolute predestination in
              > evolutionary activity. Hmm?

              This is where Denham asked if a non-human thing on its
              way to becoming a human thing gets killed and eaten
              by another non-human thing on its way to becoming a
              human thing, is that a moral act. I answered that if
              it gets killed and eaten, it must not have been on its
              way to becoming a human thing after all -- hence Denham's
              reference to predestination.

              The only thing in the Universe that is not absolutely
              predestined is the individual human response. The end
              has been declared from the beginning. The most
              reasonable, most sensible, response then would seem to
              be to put yourself within that Will, rather than to
              continually struggle in some degree of rebellion against

              And yes, God knows what each one of us will ultimately
              choose, but *we don't know*. Therefore, as long as we
              don't know, the only way we *can* know is to submit
              to His will. Paul addressed this very thing, saying,
              "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?"
              (Romans 9:20) You don't *have to be* a vessel fitted to

              And I'll remind us all again: God is God and not a man.
              We have to stop thinking of God as some Being "out there"
              somewhere, Who is progressing through linear Time just
              as we do. That is making God in your own image. God
              occupies all points of Time and Space, and beyond.

              > And you did not answer the question put to you here. I
              > had asked: "What about when a non-human thing on its way
              > to be changed into "a human thing," as you described it,
              > kills and eats another non-human thing on its way to
              > becoming "a human thing"?"

              I said, "If it gets killed and eaten it must not have
              been on its way to becoming a human thing after all."
              Denham has acknowledged, above, that "non-human things"
              possess no morality as he is using the term. So if a
              "non-human thing" gets killed and eaten, existentially
              it was not on its way to becoming human but rather on
              its way to becoming part of the food-chain, and its
              "moral value" lies not in speculations about what might
              have been had it survived but in its greater and more
              immediate value as food for the creature that did survive.

              > At what point Rick would it cease to be simply a
              > functioning of what an organism is "designed" to do as
              > part of its genetic programming and become "murder"?

              Once it has been given a Divine directive against murder,
              of course. "For until the law, sin was in the world, but
              sin is not imputed where there is no law." (Romans 5:13)
              And since sin *was* imputed to Adam, we know that the
              commandemnt *not to eat* of the Tree of Knowledge of
              Good and Evil was "law". We could have remained innocent.

              > Now, you are the one who has this gradualistic view of
              > the origin orf morality and ethics implicit in his
              > system. You need to address it!

              Denham's "implications" have kept him in hot water all
              through this discussion. He makes an assumption, or
              mangles up something I have said, and from thence begins
              drawing his "implications". For me to discredit his
              implications, all that is needed is for me to show that
              the assumptions or misrepresentations from which he has
              drawn them are in error. Here Denham has assumed that
              human "morality", according to me, has evolved. This
              is after I told him that "human" morality had de-volved.
              This is after I told him several times that some humans
              are *not* more human than others.

              Denham seems to be unable to draw any implications
              from those two points, or doesn't like the implications
              that can be drawn. I think it is the latter.

              > Yes, indeed, you saw where I was headed and decided
              > to jump off the freeway! And, yes, Rick, I caught the
              > error, but it is not where you think. It is in your
              > own reasoning.

              Denahm is here referring to this:

              Daniel Denham:
              >>> He saw where I was headed, and decided to jump off the
              >>> freeway. He knows he has a problem with the origin of
              >>> morality, if human beings only gradually came into being
              >>> from some ultimate, primordial soup over long eons of
              >>> time. He has to have morality, man's moral volition,
              >>> sense of oughteness, ability to distinguish between
              >>> right/wrong and good/evil, et al. being part of man's
              >>> innate design purpose given by God to the first true
              >>> human being.

              >> You have made a mistake in this paragraph. Can you
              >> find it? What about you, friends -- can you spot
              >> Daniel Denham's error?

              Denham's error, my friends, is that the "ability to
              distinguish between right/wrong and good/evil" is *not*
              "part of man's innate design purpose given by God to
              the first true human being". That is simply not according
              to Scripture. Man did not attain to this until he did
              what? -- until he ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good
              and Evil, until he disobeyed "the law" given by God.

              It was NOT part of God's "apparent"* design for us to know
              good from evil.

              That is what I kept waiting for Denham to figure out,
              that is what kept me from being more direct in my answer
              about what makes a human a "human".

              * I say "apparent" here because of God's foreknowledge
              of what was going to happen with us here in this Universe.
              However, that goes off into theological issues that are
              far beyond the present level of this discussion.

              > I pointed out in the statement that follows what
              > YOU {NOTE: Rick, you are the referrent to the pronoun
              > "he" in the statement you cite) must have in keeping
              > with and in order for your own implicit definition of
              > a human being to be true.

              Here we go with another one of Denham's "implications"...

              > I said, "He {YOU, Rick Hartzog} knows he {Rick Hartzog}
              > has a problem with the origin of morality, if human
              > beings only gradually came into being from some
              > ultimate, primordial soup over long eons of time. He
              > {Rick Hartzog} has to have morality, man's moral
              > volition, sense of oughteness, ability to distinguish
              > between right/wrong and good/evil, et al. being part of
              > man's innate design purpose given by God to the first
              > true human being."

              So we see, from my comments above, just how far off base
              Denham has allowed his assumptions and implications to
              lead him. Since the time we became "human" we, unlike any
              other organisms that have ever lived on this planet, have
              been under condemnation of spiritual death for our
              disobedience to God.

              > Maybe you need a course on the use of pronouns.

              And maybe YOU need a little lesson in the futility of
              arguing with Mr. Rick, buddy-o, from the platform you
              have chosen. I've had greater intellectual challenges
              and had to rebut more poignant points from a 3-year-old,
              trying to explain to him why we weren't going to grandma's
              house today.

              > Man's capacity to act morally flows from the power to
              > choose. The latter is essential for the existence of
              > the former. BTW Rick, which evolved first?

              Eve employed "reasoning" in deciding to eat of the
              forbidden fruit, but her reasoning was not sound. It
              was not reasoning but "rationalization". It was making
              a decision without considering all the relevant elements;
              indeed, she deliberately excluded the Element which
              would have led to her making the right choice.

              But yet and still, for as long as Adam's and Eve's
              "reasoning" had remained sound, they were organisms
              behaving in the way they were designed to behave.

              So it wasn't reasoning that led to morality, but lack
              of reasoning that led to immorality -- the human state
              to which our de-volved morality has brought us all.

              > Instant creation has no problem answering. NEITHER
              > EVOLVED FIRST, both were instantly brought into being
              > by virtue of what God created -- man, who is created
              > "in the beginning," Rick, in the moral image of God
              > (Gen. 1:22-23; 2:7).

              Evidently, "instant creation" *did* have a problem
              answering that -- a big problem. It appears that Denham
              has been so busy reading the *words* of Genesis that he
              has never caught on to the *meaning* of those words, the
              Story, the "big picture". And we see this all the time
              from Bible literalists. They gag on a gnat, but a big
              old camel goes sailing right through, in one ear and
              right out the other, without ever touching anything.

              Rick asks the question:
              >> "If an organism behaves in the way God designed it to
              >> behave, is that organism being "morally right"?

              > Daniel Here: Rick has already told us about "cat
              > morality." It is obvious that he believes that morality
              > is simply a programmed response to stimuli depending
              > upon the thing's DNA code. So, a frog eating a mosquito
              > is just as "moral" as a man saving the life of another
              > man, given Rick's evolutionary view.

              That is not "Rick's evolutionary view". It is all these
              statements like this from Denham that destroyed his
              credibility in this discussion. If he had been honest
              with us, and employed some measure of integrity, this
              discussion could have covered a lot of related topics
              in a lot more depth. The outcome would have been the
              same, but Denham could have at least emerged from it
              with some smattering of dignity.

              > BTW Rick, did the "spirit" of man just evolve?

              I guess it depends on how one defines "spirit",
              doesn't it? ;-)

              Who says the animals don't have spirits? I think the
              Scriptures indicate otherwise.

              > Folks, I predict, and I am "neither a prophet nor
              > the son of a prophet"...

              Nor are you much of a preacher, either, don't forget...

              > ...that we're going to see that Rick is a pure
              > materialist when it comes to human nature, including
              > the origin and nature of the soul.

              It is the same Spirit that worketh all in all.

              In the olden days you would have been taken outside
              the camp and stoned to death for making such predictions.

              Rick stated and asked:
              >> "We may be getting somewhere, now, at long last.
              >> Daniel Denham, are you saying the Neanderthals were
              >> "human beings"? If so, what made them human? If
              >> they used stone tools, were they human?"

              > Daniel Here: Rick, I simply granted for illustration's
              > use only the scenario following from your long and
              > drawn out misuse of Genesis 4 and the slaying of Abel
              > by Cain and other comments.

              WHAT have you granted, Daniel Denham!?! If they were
              using stone tools, were they human or not?

              Never mind! Sheesh! It doesn't matter anymore anyway!

              > You need to get back on subject and answer the
              > question that I put to you. If one of these "theorized"
              > things (using your own term) killed and ate another,
              > would it be a morally good act?

              As you yourself (dare I say it?) "*admitted*", if they
              were organisms behaving in the way God designed them to
              behave, the action would be neither moral nor immoral.
              I disagree with that, and say that organisms behaving
              in the way they were designed to behave most certainly
              are acting morally, but then again, Denham's definition
              of "morality" and mine are two different things.

              Many of the traits that we consider "moral" are shared
              with the animals, as I have pointed out before, and
              again, above.

              Either way, whether it was morally "good" or morally
              benign, it was not morally wrong. Animals eat each
              other all the time.

              > And, yes, Rick, you did bring it up, but the statement
              > is nonetheless an admission in that you acknowledged
              > that by the time Cain and Abel were around moral choices
              > were being made, which given your theory, at some point
              > had to come into existence. I keep asking you at what
              > point, Rick, did this happen?

              Except of course, I asked Denham first. And that has
              been a big disadvantage to me over the course of this
              discussion -- the failure of the ChristianEvidences
              moderatorship to equitably enforce its own rules,
              specifically when it comes to answering questions and
              avoiding personal attacks.

              I asked Denham what makes a human a "human" in my
              first reply to him, and he gave me some generic
              definition that was essentially meaningless and then
              turned the question back to me, and despite my
              repeated follow-up questions Denham has harped on me
              not answering this question and has refused to elucidate
              any further on the defining trait of "humanity" from
              the Daniel Denham theological perspective.

              > When was the first non-human thing instantaneously
              > turned into a human "thing"? Now, watch, friends, he
              > is going protest against the adverb "instantaneously."
              > Yet under the Law of Excluded Middle, which Rick cannot
              > repeal and cannot handle, a some specific point in time
              > the non-human thing suddenly, immediately had all the
              > qualities necessary for it to become a human "thing."

              I indicated above that this transformation was
              immediate, and your long-awaited answer as to "when"
              is further down in this message.

              > Again I wonder why Rick does not like the phrase
              > "human being"? Are some of the human things more
              > human than other human things? Maybe he'll venture
              > an answer!

              Once again, "No". And the reason I refrained from using
              the term "human being" is because I was waiting to see
              what you would come up with about when a "thing" became
              a "being". We don't have to wait much longer.

              >> > "As to a specific point in time, we might be able
              >> > to come up with something."

              >>> Daniel Here: We are waiting, but not holding our
              >>> breath. BTW, Rick, I defined Panentheism already in an
              >>> earlier post.I noted that Rick was hedging on the
              >>> definition of a "human being" and what makes a
              >>> "human human."

              Rick's response:
              >> "I am waiting for you to be more direct about
              >> telling us what a "human being" is; what makes
              >> a human a human."

              > Daniel Here: As I remember, Rick, I have already
              > defined that for you several times and at one point
              > you even granted the definition.

              Yes, I granted that it could apply to any creature on
              God's green Earth.

              > You haven't been able to do anything with it. I have
              > asked you repeatedly if you know of any other beings
              > on this planet that are mortal (subject to death) and
              > who have the power of reason.
              > I have yet to see your response. Now its your turn.

              As you were writing these words, my response to this
              had already been posted. Throughout the discussion I
              had given you several (very obvious) hints.

              One point that I have not mentioned, thinking it was
              overtly obvious, is Denham's inclusion of the term
              "mortal". Every creature on Earth is mortal. And,
              depending how one defines "moral" and "reason", the
              same may be said, as well, of virtually every creature
              on Earth, at least among the Animalia.

              > Daniel Here: I then noted:
              >>> "He cannot help himself out of the morass his
              >>> doctrine has placed him relative to the very
              >>> concepts of right/wrong and good/evil. Everytime he
              >>> indicts anyone for evil, how does he KNOW that such
              >>> is truly the case!"

              Rick responded:
              >> "We are "human beings" now, aren't we?"

              > Daniel Here: I was dealing contextually, Rick,
              > which you clipped away from my statement (folks,
              > remember some of his tirades about doing just that!)

              I haven't clipped anything out of any of your messages.
              As far as I know I have not removed a single word
              (although, here and there, out of the kindness of my
              heart I have done a little minor editing). I have made
              my responses point by point in the order you have
              presented them. If part of one of your long rants has
              been separated from another part by my comments, all
              anyone has to do is scroll back up a little way and
              connect the arrows. That is somewhat more than I can say
              for Daniel Denham's various chosen formats of response.

              > ...the ORIGIN of these concepts within man. Most
              > certainly we can perceive them today, but that does
              > not address topside, bottom, or the sides of the
              > point I had made, and what's more you know it! The
              > statement went with the previous statements, which
              > you sought to sever from this one. You know you
              > cannot answer the point. So, I will rephrase it into
              > a question: At what point, Rick, did the concept of
              > good/evil and right/wrong enter into that which
              > became human, according to your theory? As I said,
              > friends, we are about to be privy to a display of a
              > defense for evolved ethics!

              When that "thing on its way to becoming human"
              disobeyed God-given law. How's that for some "evolved
              ethics"? I *told* you, human morality *de*-volved!
              Did you think I was just mindlessly chattering away?
              You would have done well, Denham, to have spent a
              little more time reflecting on what I was saying,
              rather than firing off your maligned replies full of
              your own mindless chattering.

              > Daniel Here: I then added to th post to which he was
              > responding in post #153:
              >>> "It may be simply that the individual is less human
              >>> than the one against whom he oes the evil, and so is
              >>> less responsible or else totally absolved of
              >>> responsibility, simply because he was only carrying
              >>> out his biological imperative! Can you believe it?"

              Rick's response was:
              >> "Are you absolutely certain we are "moral" creatures
              >> now, Daniel Denham?
              >> If so, why have we done what we have done, and what
              >> we continue to do, to the Earth and its creatures
              >> and our fellow "human beings"?"

              > Daniel Here: Human beings are "moral" creatures as we
              > have defined the term, Rick.

              But "we" haven't defined the term! And "your" definition
              is so watered down as to be meaningless!

              > I suspect he is getting ready to launch into one of
              > his many splendid bursts of equivocation through a
              > diatribe on humanity. But where else can he go -- but
              > to equivocate. He might consider giving up his heresy,
              > but, no, he will not do that...Oh, well, I will just
              > have to call his hand on this and show the fallacy
              > of the quibble he has offered.

              Pretty funny, is it not, my friends, considering who it
              is that wrote those words? If you don't catch the irony
              at first, go back and read through them again. I think
              it is well worth pointing out.

              > Friends, Rick knows precisely how the word "moral"
              > has been used thus far. It has been used of the
              > power to reason. This is the basic definition I have
              > given, and he granted concerning what constitutes a
              > human being -- "a moral, mortal being."

              I granted the definition could be applied to housecats,
              too. Don't pretend otherwise. I asked you to define
              "morality" and "reason", too. I'm not so sure that
              morality is as dependent on the ability to reason as it
              is on intuition or "instinct". But then again, that all
              goes back to the definition of morality. If we strip
              away all our high human moral traits that we share with
              common songbirds, housecats, bears and monkeys, we seem
              to be left with very little with which to define ourselves --
              but maybe just enough...

              > We have also, by virtue of his quibbling, dealt with
              > the question of morality and have used "moral" to
              > describe the choices themselves that flow from the
              > power of reason and whether they are right/wrong,
              > good/evil, etc. He knows this quite well, and is
              > simply stalling to drag out the debate, which for all
              > practical purposes is over and has been over for some
              > time.

              Oh, it's been over for some time, all right, but not at
              all in the way Denham is indicating. When he was
              composing this message my replies to his 1st and 2nd
              "installments" of replies to message #151 had been
              posted for "some time". I knew it was over with then,
              and said as much in my reply to his "2nd installment":

              >> > Refer back to my comments at the beginning of this
              >> > post, between the lines.
              >> >
              >> > You are really squirming here, Denham. I've got
              >> > you now, don't I? You knew it when you were
              >> > writing this post, and you wrote all this nonsense
              >> > anyway. And now that I've posted the reply to your
              >> > "first installment" you see how utterly you have
              >> > failed in your attempt to deceive.
              >> >
              >> > I'm relishing this, old buddy. Don't get the idea
              >> > that I'm going to just take the hook out of your
              >> > mouth and throw you back.
              >> >
              >> > No -- this is going into the archives, the Annals
              >> > of the WWCL!

              In spite of this, Denham struggled on for a time with
              his "installments" in reply to #152, #153 (this message),
              #155 and #170, but when it came to replying to #182,
              from which the above quote is taken, he finally came
              face to face with the impossibility of his situation
              and BAILED! In spite of his braggadocio above, I think
              he knew as he was writing those words just how "over"
              (and how long the "some time" it had been "over") the
              discussion really was!

              > He knows he is hung up and does not want to have to
              > defend the concept of evolutionary ethics in the
              > light of Bible teaching.

              What yet remains, is for Denham and his "cohorts" to
              come to terms with the age of the Earth and the fact
              of biological evolution, and determine where they are
              going to take their theology from there. I would
              advise against adopting Denham's stated position that
              if evolution is true, then God does not exist.

              > He is an hinting at an essentially atheistic doctrine
              > (I suspect he's been reading too much Kai Nielsen and
              > Paul Kurtz) and it implies both subjectivity concerning
              > truth (which he has already denounced in an earlier
              > question to me) and relativism is morality.

              Denham has often suggested various sources for my
              theological outlook, and as yet not a single one of them
              has been true. I don't even know who these authors he
              mentions here are. I really don't read such things. I
              read my Bible and I think. If I have a thought that seems
              to add to the way I look at things, I go back to my Bible
              and see if it is in contradiction to Scripture.

              I have no need of reading atheistic philosophy -- that
              it is wrong is to me self-evident. From what I have
              seen, much of it builds on a similar depth of Scriptural
              interpretation used by the Bible-literalists; the
              non-believers say "There's no such thing as talking
              snakes" and reject the whole Bible, never understanding
              the Story, never seeing the "big picture". And from
              the Scriptures themselves we know this is exactly what
              we should expect, because they speak of spiritual things,
              and the natural man is unable to discern them.
              (1 Corinthians 2:14)

              > If these things are evolving within each individual
              > organism over time, then some must necessarily have a
              > higher sense of morality than others and thus a greater
              > accountability. Thus, those humans who commit murder
              > may just be doing it, because their sense of right/wrong,
              > good/evil, etc. just hasn't evolved enough! Well, we
              > shall see where he goes. The noose is drawing tighter on
              > the throat of theistic evolution's attempt to reconcile
              > itself with Holy Scripture.

              I guess by this point in the discussion, the image of me
              with a noose around my neck probably *would* have been
              pretty appealing to Denham!

              Part of Denham's error relating to human morality has
              been to assume that I held to some secular, "atheistic
              evolutionist" view of morality and how humans, as science
              defines "human", came by those traits. Denham is here guilty
              of equivocation, using "human" in one sense for himself and
              applying it in a different sense to me. That is why I kept
              bringing up the "moral" traits we observe in animals and
              asking him to define morality for us. The traits we share
              with the animals are not what make us "human".

              > 4) Rick had said in an earlier post:
              > Rick:
              >> > "No, not human "morality". I believe human morality
              >> > "devolved". But as I said, we are going to go through
              >> > this subject with you answering the questions."
              > Daniel Here: I responded that I had asked, "Do you
              > believe that morality simply evolved, Rick? He said,
              > "No, not human 'morality'." He then said "human morality
              > 'devolved'," which was a cute way to try to avoid the
              > force of the point without really dealing with it."
              > Daniel Here: Rick did not really answer the question
              > I had asked, but made a cutesy remark to keep from
              > having to deal with it, and he was aware that he had
              > dodged it. As his last sentence implicitly noted:
              >> > "But as I said, we are going to go through this
              >> > subject with you answering the questions."

              The question Denham asked, "Do you beleive that morality
              simply evolved?" required a yes-or-no response and I
              answered "No". In addition to that, I gave further
              information. Denham just didn't like the answer.

              And this may serve as a good place to illustrate something
              I have been saying about "science" and the believer's
              approach to science. I can accept, from an evolutionary
              viewpoint, the development of fossil hominids to the
              familiar human form we now possess, I can accept what
              science has to say about the traits we consider "moral"
              that we share with the animals. Yet behind all that *I
              know* that in God's sight our definitions, our
              "naturalistic explanations", are coming far short of how
              the Lord sees us, and far short of how the Lord has
              explained things to us. We want to think we are more
              "morally advanced" than the animals? Well, what animals
              have ever destroyed God's Creation left and right? Which
              among the animals has God ever told that all their
              righteousness is as filthy rags?

              The point of all this is that science and theology
              *can* co-exist; you just have to keep your terms
              straight. Denham wants me to define "human" from
              a scientific perspective, from which it would be
              easy for him to show that I am theologically wrong.
              He's trying to pull the old "equivocation fallacy"
              on me. From the same approach, I could show Denham's
              theological definition of "human" to be scientifically
              useless. But as long as it's just me, and I know
              whether I am thinking of something from a theological
              perspective or a scientific one, I have no trouble
              keeping the vocabulary of each separate in my own

              > So, Rick, if the moderators wish to remove me they may.
              > You they ought to remove, becuase you have indicated in
              > this statement your own motive. Out of your own mouth,
              > you have condemned yourself! You do not wish to have to
              > deal with a question that in one stroke decimates
              > evolutionary attempts to harmonize with Bible teaching!
              > You know you're hung up, and your hand is called. 'Fess up!

              Rick's only response was,
              >> "You are just not "getting it", Daniel Denham."

              > Daniel Here: No, Rick, you are the one who just "got"
              > it! Right in the philosophic heart of your entire dogma!

              Yakkity yakkity yak. You *didn't* get it, Denham.
              You *never* got it. I have my doubts that you will
              get it even after reading this message (which, in
              spite of it being posted to Maury_and_Baty instead of
              ChristianEvidences, I am certain you will do).

              You just ain't got it in you, boy.

              Your thinker don't think that way on its own, and your
              old heart is just too hardened to listen to anybody.
              And yet you will sit there and be pretentious with
              us. You think you're pretty slippery, but you're not.

              > Daniel Here: I then added in my earlier post:
              >>> "For it to "devolve," which is an allusion to the
              >>> evil we see in our world today committed by human
              >>> beings, then it had to start from somewhere, Rick!
              >>> It also had to come from somewhere, and by some
              >>> process."

              >> "Agreed."

              > Daniel Here: I notice, however, Rick still has no told
              > us precisely when these traits came into being.

              Just a few more paragraphs, and all will be revealed!

              > Daniel Here: I pressed the matter further by stating:
              >>> "Either humanity was endowed from the beginning
              >>> with the traits mentioned above or they evolved,
              >>> which brings Rick right back to the problem in the
              >>> preceding point #3). He cannot escape it, try as he
              >>> might!"

              Rick's response was:
              >> No, that's where you're wrong. You still
              >> aren't "getting it".

              Rick added:
              >> "I have addressed point #3, and now I have addressed
              >> point #4. Some of my comments are admittedly cryptic.
              >> But there are some things that Daniel Denham seems to
              >> be completely overlooking here, and they are things
              >> that he should already know."

              > Daniel Here: Rick, you have tried (conative force of
              > incompleted action) to answer them, but you have not
              > done so. You have run all around the subject and danced
              > on the edge a few times, but you have not answered the
              > two key queries that I have repeatedly put to you here:
              > A) At what specific point did the non-human thing become
              > a human thing? B) At what specific point did the human
              > thing acquire the concept of right/wrong, good/evil, etc.?

              Here you go, folks!:

              A) When God told it not to do something.
              B) When it went ahead and did it anyway.

              There are the answers you've been waiting for all this
              time, the ones I would not divulge earlier. Now you know.

              I think you will find that they are theologically correct.

              > Rick, either man's ethical sense was created within
              > him as part of his essential makeup or it has evolved
              > gradually over the eons?

              Not necessarily. I gave you so many hints.

              > You may take either horn of the dilemma you wish. As a
              > theistic evolutionist, you will get scewered regardless
              > of which you choose.

              I think I have shown otherwise. Daniel Denham has
              tinkered about with his definitions of "evolutionism"
              and "theistic evolutionist" and "atheistic evolutionist"
              and "science" and "philosophy" to the point where he
              doesn't understand himself what terminology he is
              using. He is here assuming that a *theistic* evolutionist
              must necessarily base his answers of what makes a human
              a human on a scientific perspective, rather than a
              theological one. Maybe Denham needs to be reminded what
              "theistic" means to begin with -- HEY DENHAM!: It means
              they believe in God! Like, duh!

              And it does appear that it is our young-earth creationist
              who has never figured out, from his own theological
              perspective, exactly how we humans differ from the animals.
              As I said earlier, they spend all this time concentrating
              on the *words* of the text and entirely miss the larger
              *meaning* -- what the Story is really saying.

              > BTW I am still waiting for the evidence of that
              > non-human thing that turned into a human thing.

              Mine is the same as yours. Yours starts as dust.
              Mine starts as "dust".

              > Since you claim to have purely empirical evidence for
              > this, we demand to see the speciman it/him-self. You
              > have claimed that you KNOW that it did happen, and you
              > have claimed that purely empirical evidence proves beyond
              > any reasonable dispute that it did happen, so cough it up!
              > Show us the specific speciman in question. Now, folks, I
              > know Rick has no such speciman, Rick knows he has no such
              > speciman, Rick's cohorts know he has no such speciman...

              I think Rick's "cohorts", such as they may be, will be
              astute enough to know that I have never made any claim of
              having purely empirical evidence for the point that humans
              became "human", or any such specimen. Yet I can still point
              precisely to the place, in Scripture, where it happened and
              offer a great deal of qualitatively evalutated historical
              fact that this is indeed what happened: we became "human"
              when we turned our back on God and started altering His
              systems to produce our own food. And this happened within
              10,000 years ago, so whatever happened before then is all

              > yet for him to know that he knows it, as he has been using
              > the term to refer to certainty drawn from purely empirical
              > evidence...

              Denham is here attempting to define "know" for me. I
              said I know something, Denham says that means I must
              have empirical evidence for it because, "as I have been
              using the term", whatever I "know" must be "certainty
              drawn from purely empirical evidence". Denham must be
              forgetting that I said, at the very beginning of this
              discussion, that I (Rick Hartzog) KNOW a Non-Human Thing
              brought forth a human thing after Its Own Image.

              I asked, "Isn't that what it says in the Bible?"

              And now Denham wants to turn that into a claim on my part
              of having "purely empirical evidence" of the first human

              > ...which he says trumps everything else...

              Denham is again here attempting to put words in my mouth.
              I told him farther along in the discussion that I have
              two kinds of evidence -- scientific evidence for matters
              of science and spiritual evidence for matters of faith.
              Denham says there is no way to reconcile the two. I say,
              and I KNOW, that Denham is wrong. Again.

              > Now, where is it? No, Rick, you have not answered #3,
              > neither have you answered #4.

              It is truly amusing to me to watch Daniel Denham
              trying to pretend that I am not answering his
              questions when there are now dozens of point-blank
              specific questions in Daniel Denham's lap that he
              has not addressed at all, and says he will not
              address because of the "assumptions" they contain.
              Truly amusing.

              And I think that now all of Denham's questions have
              finally been answered, whether he is able and/or willing
              to understand those answers or not.

              > Daniel Here: In my previous post I thus noted:
              >>> "That is why he wants me answering the questions,
              >>> because he's already hung himself."

              Rick closed by stating:
              >> "I want you to answer the questions because that's
              >> the way these things are supposed to work. If we were
              >> in a face to face situation, this could have been over
              >> with long before now, just by having you answer a
              >> few questions. But you refuse to answer -- just giving
              >> a vague generalization that could apply to any creature
              >> on God's green Earth.
              [That humans are "moral, mortal beings."]
              >> Maybe, in the responses to my previous messages that I
              >> am expecting from you, by the time you get to this point
              >> in this message we will all know much more."

              > Daniel Here: Rick wants to set the rules so that
              > they are fully advantaggeous to himself.

              The rules are already set, in the membership of this
              [ChristianEvidences] list. Not that that made any
              difference. The failure of the list's moderatorship
              to equitably enforce its own rules, the failure of
              Denham to answer the questions put to him, Denham's
              dishonest tactics in the way he has repeatedly
              misrepresented what I have said, even my ultimate
              removal from the ChristianEvidences list in the midst
              of the discussion -- none of these has made one whit
              of difference in the outcome. I had the advantage,
              regardless of any "rules", because I have the truth
              on my side. That is the single greatest advantage
              anyone can have in any debate, and in this case it has
              been an advantage that Denham has simply been unable
              to overcome.

              I will remind Denham here of the answers he gave me
              when I asked if he thought it was right to use lies
              to promote a particular theology, and whether truth
              is subjective.

              > He has experienced a complete melt down in our
              > discussion of the Scriptures as credible evidence
              > in the theistic evolution debate.

              Yeah, right. While I was "melting down", here are some
              things Denham has been unable to cope with: the Big
              Bang, and "Let there be light". The agreement of the
              fossil record with the appearance of the different life
              forms in the Creation account. The snake losing its
              legs. Humanity leaving its ecological niche. The
              fact that the Genesis Creation account treats agriculture
              as a curse, rather than a blessing as in other religions.
              The appearance of pioneer succession species -- weeds --
              in response to disruption of the natural environment.
              The murderous advantage a sedentary agricultural society
              has exercised over nomadic hunter/gatherer societies,
              and the fact that Abel's sacrifice was acceptable over
              that of Cain. Agriculture as the key component in
              making "civilization" possible, and how that has come
              down to us today. The description of traits passed to
              offspring in the cattle of Laban and Jacob. The Mosaic
              ordinance against cross-breeding and hybridizing. The
              fact that evolutionary theory, as *science* presents
              it, does not conflict in any way with creatures "bringing
              forth after their own kind", and that anti-evolutionists
              must misrepresent the science and the concept of macro-
              evolution to *create* a conflict which does not exist.

              > Clearly, the Scriptures, despite his eisogesis paradigm,
              > cannot be reconciled with macro-evolution.

              See what I mean?

              If you were to squeeze Daniel Denham until his definition
              of macro-evolution popped out of him, you would find that
              his definition can not be reconciled with *anything*.
              It certainly isn't part of evolutionary theory.

              > It is Rick who really does not "get it." My purpose for
              > beginning this thread was to show that irreconciliability.
              > That has been accomplished.

              I would beg to differ, and will point out that if Denham
              *had* been able to demonstrate irreconcilability, he would
              only have served to falsify the Scriptures. Why the young-
              earth advocates don't "get" *that* is beyond me.

              > It has also been shown, despite Rick's moans and groans
              > that evolution cannot really even account for the origin
              > of humanity and humanity's essential nature.

              I don't see where Denham has shown, or even addressed, this
              at all, anywhere over the course of the discussion. I
              don't see that Denham has satisfactorily demostrated that
              he even knows what "humanity's essential nature" is. In
              fact, Denham has been under the mistaken notion throughout
              this discussion that human knowledge of good and evil was
              created within Man, which is not according to Scripture
              and is therefore "irreconcilable" with it, as are so many
              other of Denham's assertions, as I showed in my last post
              (#9765) with his many instances of "eisogesis".

              > Only the literal account as set forth in Genesis and
              > enlarged upon in other Biblical texts provides a logical
              > explanation for these key issues in the dispute.

              The trouble is, of course, that Denham's skills in logic
              are in short supply. And on top of that is the ungetoverable
              fact that arguments from logic or theology are not going to
              be able to overcome the cold hard facts of the empirical
              evidence for biological evolution. Denham can say from now
              until the cows come home, "It *can't* be true. There must
              be some mistake," but that is not going to get rid of the
              evidence. The evidence has to be explained, and if Denham
              wants to overcome the implications of that evidence he is
              going to have to come up with some other explanation for it
              that does not carry with it the same implications. Since
              this explanation would of necessity overthrow 200 years of
              results of investigations in the biological sciences, I have
              a pretty sure idea that Daniel Denham is not going to be the
              man for that task.


              See what I mean?

              > It is a false doctrine, a misguided attempt to reconcile
              > the Bible with a flawed view of "science."
              > Daniel Denham

              Yet Denham is unable to show that the science is "flawed".
              And as I said before, if you don't like what I'm saying
              you had better be coming up with something of your own,
              and pretty fast. Some of us have figured out a way to
              accept the facts of science and yet retain our faith.
              I would recommend that course to others. Because the
              evidence isn't going to go away; in fact it is added to
              every day. Denying it exists isn't fooling anyone but

              Rick Hartzog
              Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
            • w_w_c_l
              Here is my rebuttal of Denham s response to my message #155 on the ChristianEvidences list. Denham s response in its original form is here:
              Message 6 of 24 , May 20, 2007
                Here is my rebuttal of Denham's response to my
                message #155 on the ChristianEvidences list.
                Denham's response in its original form is here:

                Re: Questions for Rick Hartzog

                Daniel Denham wrote:
                > Dear Rick and List,
                > THis is a review and response to Rick's post #155.
                > I had said:
                >>> "List,
                >>> Theistic evolutionism is a self-contradictory
                >>> attempt to reconcile belief in the existence
                >>> of God with the supposed evidences of evolution."
                > Rick's response was to throw up another website to try
                > to get people to do HIS homework in the matter.

                Rick's response to the above statement was to ask
                you a question:

                >> How, in your mind, does evolution prove that God does
                >> not exist? If God chooses to use what would seem
                >> to us to be billions of years, what is that to Him?

                Where is your answer? Denham here not only doesn't answer
                a direct question; he refuses to even acknowledge that
                one has been asked! At this point in the discussion he
                has already come completely out of the closet, declaring:

                >>> > Yes, I believe that IF (a mighty big if) [evolution]
                >>> > were true, WHICH IT IS NOT, then God would not exist.
                (from message #169)

                I think opinions like this are appallingly near-sighted,
                and that Denham is here making a play to the emotions of
                the readership. I had rebuked him for taking this position
                in previous messages. Do you think God is just going to
                disappear in a puff of irrationality? But Denham doesn't
                want any part of explaining himself here, saying instead:

                > Rick's response was to throw up another website to try
                > to get people to do HIS homework in the matter.

                By this, Denham means, "I don't have any intention of
                answering questions and providing explanations for
                real-world evidence."

                Same thing he's been doing since this discussion began.

                Here is the link to the website again:

                Evolution: Converging Lines of Evidence:

                I don't think Denham can "deal with it"!

                > He asserts that the material is "irrefutable," but
                > he himself will not set forth the syllogistic
                > argument from the supposedly "irrefutable"
                > information to prove the case. I do not have the
                > time to do his homework.

                There is no need for any kind of logical syllogism for
                the evidence presented in this paper. I have said before
                that arguments from logic and theology are going to be
                wholly incapable of overthrowing the real-world evidence.
                The link above describes some of that real-world evidence,
                and how various *independent* lines of research all converge
                on the same explanation: species do change over time, and
                the longer the time (and more varied the environmental
                pressures requiring a response), the more dramatic the

                Here's the thing, friends: If you let them, the
                young-earth creationists will throw up one bogus
                pseudoscience claim after the other, and expect you to
                spend all your time patiently explaining to them once
                again why the "moon-dust" argument, or the "moon recession"
                argument, or the "Earth's-declining-magnetic-field"
                argument are, in the first place, irrational arguments for
                establishing the age of the Earth and, in the second place,
                wholly unsupported by the actual science anyway.

                They will do everything in their power to keep from being
                confronted with the *real evidence* for the age of the
                Earth or the theory of biological evolution. And if they
                are confronted with it, their response will be just like
                Denham's above, or some similar flimsy excuse:

                "I don't have time to do YOUR homework for you."

                What a laugh!

                Look back through Denham's posts and see how many times
                that has been his answer when I have asked him to
                explain, from his young-earth perspective, some bit of
                actual science!

                And that is why you will never ever see any of the
                "young-earth creation-science" types come forward for
                a formal, public, written debate on the issue. They know
                good and well that all of their pseudoscience can be shown
                false (most of it has already been falsified for decades)
                and they know good and well that they are not going to be
                able to refute any part of the real science with which a
                debate on the matter would put them face-to-face.

                In other words, when they make the claim that "there is
                far more scientific evidence for a young Earth than for
                an old one", as Skip Francis recently did,

                > I [Denham] also said:
                >>> "However, if one grants all of the presuppositions
                >>> of the latter [biological evolution], then the
                >>> former [God] is not necessary."

                Rick stated:
                >> "This is the sort of statement that might be made
                >> by someone who has never thought things through
                >> very well.
                >> The presuppositions of the latter only deal with
                >> biological life. There is more to the Universe
                >> than biological life. If the Universe has a
                >> Creator, then it seems reasonable to conclude that
                >> the same Creator made biological life. However
                >> that Creator chose to bring about biological life
                >> is not so much an issue as the fact of life and
                >> the Universe in which it exists.
                >> No, Daniel Denham's statement about God not being
                >> necessary for biological evolution just doesn't
                >> logically hold up.
                >> Sorry."

                > Daniel Here: Rick is the one who has concocted a
                > dogma that one moment has God in the process and the
                > next minute kicks [God] out of the process. God is in,
                > and God is out...

                Once again, for about the hundredth time, false. And
                Denham knows, yes, he absolutely KNOWS, that he is
                making a false statement here. In other words,
                *he is lying*. Again. Yes, friends, yet again.

                Not to mention ignoring his responsibility of dealing
                with my rebuttal of his shallow-minded logic in saying
                that biological evolution would mean God is "not necessary".

                > Now he tries to confine evolutionary forces to biological
                > forms. But Rick postulated that someday someone will
                > create life in the laboratory, friends! Now Rick is it
                > really created if it involves already existing life as a
                > source? If so, then that would not be the big deal Rick
                > tried to make of it.

                Here is what was said:

                >>> > We are not talking about a tad-pole turning into
                >>> > a frog as part of the life cycle of the frog (or the
                >>> > chemical change involved in producing photosynthesis),
                >>> > and you know that!

                >> > Oh, but we are! Because there was a time when the
                >> > growth of plants and the transformation of a tadpole
                >> > into a frog was just as mysterious to us as the building
                >> > blocks of life on Earth are now. And that is one of
                >> > the main criticisms for the "God-of-the-gaps" idea.
                >> > Suppose the scientists should somehow manage to bring
                >> > forth "life" of some sort in a laboratory. Would
                >> > that disprove the existence of God? Not to me it
                >> > wouldn't -- not even close.

                Now, in the first place, biogenesis and biological evolution
                are two different things. You can plop any population of
                organisms down, as they are, already in existence, and
                evolutionary processes will be at work in them. So evolution
                takes place regardless of how or when life began. In the
                second place, notice that I did not use the word "created"
                and I also put quotation marks around "life" and said "of
                some sort", indicating doubt that it would be actual life
                that would be able to survive and reproduce out in the
                world on its own. In the third place, the "big deal" I was
                making was pointing out that even this would not in any way
                mean that God does not exist -- a faith which Denham has
                already given up on just because of the fact of biological

                And the overarching point of what I said above is just this:
                Every time you relegate God's activity to some unexplained
                natural phenomenon, once an explanation is found that only
                decreases the domain of what you see as God's activity.
                That is what is wrong with the "god-of-the-gaps" idea.
                That is why it is justifiably criticized. But Denham will
                try to pretend that it is my own position, which it is not,
                and which I have explained, patiently, many times that it
                is not.

                > If not so, then Rick is implying that evolutionary
                > processes must work on inanimate chemicals to produce
                > life. There would have to be some form of evolutionary
                > activity even on non-biological things taking place.
                > Thus, he is just cavilling here.

                This is the kind of nonsense you get out of young-earthers
                when they try to make everything under the Sun "evolution".
                No, Denham, evolutionary processes work on existing biological
                organisms, not on chemicals to bring life into existence.
                You are talking about two different areas of inquiry.

                > I suspect his atheistic colleagues would also strongly
                > disagree with his attempt to limit the scope of evolution
                > only to biological systems.

                Denham is here committing yet another fallacy of *equivocation*.
                If someone is talking about evolution, they are generally
                talking about biology. Yet if someone says something about
                the "evolution" of a solar system, that is a process entirely
                unrelated to biological evolution. "Evolution" does not mean
                the same thing in both contexts. So yes, evolution *is*
                limited in scope to biological systems. And yes, when Denham
                uses the word "evolution" to apply to everything under the
                Sun that shows an ancient age, it is an "equivocation fallacy".

                I wonder if Denham is familiar with that term?

                > And why all the hub-bub over geological formations, etc.?


                I don't see anything about geology in this post anywhere.
                If this is something Denham is dragging in from somewhere
                else, I am assuming I have already addressed it there. It
                seems as if it may have something to do with Denham's misuse
                of the term "uniformitarianism" and his insistence on
                wrongfully attempting to apply it to biological processes,
                which has already been covered.

                > The fact is, friends, he cannot have evolutionary activity
                > affecting only biological systems, which is his attempt to
                > shoe-horn God back into the process.

                The theory of evolution is biology. The mechanisms that
                are at work in evolution are biological processes.
                Whatever Denham means by "evolutionary activity" -- it
                could be anything. Another "equivocation fallacy" no doubt.

                > Evolutionary activity, if it were true, would have to
                > affect every inter-connected system as well either
                > directly or indirectly.

                False. The birth of stars, the erosive forces of wind,
                the speed of light, the rate at which objects fall in
                response to gravity, the electric charges of atoms and
                their role in forming molecules -- none of these things
                are affected by the presence of life. Life has to exist
                within, and abide by, the laws of physics already in place
                in the Universe. Unless Denham wants to say that physics
                itself is "evolutionary activity"? That would be about
                like him. It is an "equivocation fallacy".

                > Also, he has stated that naturalistic explanations rule
                > out supernatural activity...

                False. See the comments below my signature.

                > ...while maintaining that God directly and immediately
                > fashions even the smallest snow flake and controls even
                > the orbits of each electron. Do biological systems have
                > electrons and atoms, Rick?

                Yes, and these electrons and atoms obey the laws of physics
                whether they are in a tadpole or in a rock.

                > So, God controls each one of these, including their
                > evolution, right? And He does this directly and
                > immediately, Rick?

                That is correct if you are talking about biological
                systems still. But snowflakes and rocks don't evolve.

                > NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS, according to Rick!
                > Therefore, friends, since evolution is a naturalistic
                > explanation for biological systems, then God cannot be
                > involved in its function, given Rick's teaching.

                False. And illogical, too. Denham is equating how
                something works with our *explanation* for how something
                works, which would be similar to saying that how gravity
                functions (which we really don't fully understand) is the
                same as our explanations for gravity. See the comments
                below my signature.

                > Thus, Rick has Him in and out AT THE SAME TIME.

                False. See the comments below my signature.

                > HIs dogma involves, logically speaking, a self-
                > contradiction. It therefore is false.

                All I have to do to refute this continued foolishness
                on the part of Daniel Denham is to include the statement
                I put at the beginning of three of my replies to his
                "installments" responding to message #151. So that is
                what I have done. It is at the end of this message, and
                shows how Denham is deliberately misconstruing God's place
                in every process that occurs in the Universe, and trying
                to limit God's activity to only those processes of the
                Universe for which we have no scientific explanations.

                > BTW is Rick admitting that the existence of God is
                > absolutely essential to the operation of evolution?

                "Admitting"? Rick has never said anything BUT that the
                existence of God is essential to *everything*! Which
                Daniel Denham well knows.

                > He has claimed that the invoking of God into the
                > discussion is philosophical and theological and
                > not "scientific" and ought not be part of the
                > discussion.

                Miracles are not an explanation.

                Excluding "discussion of God" from scientific explanations
                does not mean science has to be excluded from theological
                discussions. As I said in my last post, it is necessary
                to keep your terms straight and understand from which
                paradigm you are speaking when you use a term. Otherwise
                you are liable to fall off into one of those "equivocation

                > It is amazing how the rules he makes for others
                > simply do not apply to him!

                I'm pretty sure we're about to find the rules that
                haven't been applied to anyone else on this list
                are going to be appied to me. [And we did!]

                > I then noted in the post that Rick was trying to answer:
                >>> "What theistic evolutionists are forced to do in
                >>> order to try and reconcile the particulars of their
                >>> oxymoronic dogma is to begin qualifying every aspect
                >>> of evolutionary theory."

                >> "FALSE. I don't have to know every aspect of evolutionary
                >> theory to arrive at the conclusion that whatever is done,
                >> is done by the Creator."

                > Daniel Here: Rick, you have already been re-qualifying your
                > dogma throughout this discussion, and even did it in this
                > post when you limited evolution to biological systems only.

                Biological evolution is biology.

                I have been insisting on you correcting your use of terms
                *throughout the course* of this discussion. You refuse.

                I have been limiting the use of the term "evolution" to
                biological systems since this discussion began. I have
                not requalified anything. As a matter of fact, I have
                been forced to reinclude my "between the lines" statement
                at the end of this message to show that I have said the
                same thing over and over throughout this discussion, and
                it is Daniel Denham who has attempted, at every turn, to
                "requalify" what I have plainly said many times.

                > Atheistic evolutionists, as well as creationists, would
                > definitely consider that a re-qualifying of evolutionary
                > theory in seeking to harmonize the two opposing doctrines.

                We are all well aware of what creationists do. They misuse
                terminology left and right, seeking to keep everything in
                a state of constant confusion about exactly what is being
                said, just as Daniel Denham has so ably demonstrated for
                us over the course of this discussion. And I don't care
                what "atheistic evolutionists", whoever they may be in
                Daniel Denham's mind, are saying: Evolutionary theory has
                to do with biology and biology only. Calling anything else
                evolutionary theory is an "equivocation fallacy".

                > It is clear that you do not have any idea what is involved
                > in your own theory concerning God's proposed activity and
                > naturalistic explanations.

                What is clear is that Denham has no intention of letting on
                that he understands very clearly what I have been saying,
                nor does he have any intention of dealing with my argument
                as I have presented it, but instead has every intention of
                indulging in one false statement after another in an attempt
                to misrepresent everything that I have said, time and time
                again, from the beginning of this discussion. I understand
                very well that God's place in my "theory" is continuous,
                immediate, active and unmovable. I understand very well
                that God is doing all that gets done. I have said that
                over and over. Denham just doesn't seem to be able to
                grasp that.

                > Rick, friends, has placed himself in this position -- he
                > is saying I know that theistic evolution is true, and I
                > do not have to reconcile the two ideas to know it.

                Another thing Rick has said since the beginning of this
                discussion is that he doesn't even like the term "theistic
                evolution" because it is so vague and can mean so many
                different things to different people, especially, as I
                pointed out to Daniel Denham early in this discussion, to
                people like Daniel Denham who will deliberately attempt to
                apply their own ideas of what "theistic evolution" is to
                my own view of things, which is what is known as a "fallacy
                of equivocation", that is, using two different definitions
                for the same term in the same discussion.

                > Well, isn't that a convenient dogma that puts all the
                > burden of proof on your opponent regardless of which
                > direction his position turns or assertions it makes!

                I've tried telling you that there is nothing that science
                can discover that will prove that God does not exist.
                I've tried telling you that what we know by science is
                from evidence and what we know by faith is not --
                empirical evidence is not knowing by faith. What we
                know by faith are things that science is unable to

                > Postmodernism at its best! That is why he can contradict
                > himself so often and contend he was right on both sides of
                > the contradiction! And this is "ChristianEvidences"?

                I've been thinking of making a little list of the "evidences"
                for Christianity that the ChristianEvidences list has so far
                managed to rustle together -- let's see; there's Daniel Coe's
                fossilized fencepost, and Skip Francis's moon recession
                argument, Keith Sisman's photograph of a dragon painting...
                a regular little museum you folks have got started over there.

                Plus of course all the exemplary behavior...

                My contradictions exist nowhere but in Denham's head.

                And "postmodernism" is another one of those terms that may
                mean just about anything. Strictly, it is a reactionary
                response to modernism in art and architecture, a return
                to less simpler times, more decoration, less austerity.
                It probably has little relevance to theology or logic.
                I think Denham is just trying to give something a
                prejudicial label.

                But take comfort, Daniel Denham, your buddy Richard Dawkins
                is critical of "postmodernism", too:

                > Daniel Here: I then added:
                >>> "They wind up with evolution (and thus blind chance)
                >>> doing part, and God doing part, and somehow it all
                >>> just works out."

                >> FALSE. "There is no such thing as "blind chance"
                >> in a Universe controlled by God. Just because
                >> we are able to arbitrarily define some basic
                >> relevant parameters does not mean we have arrived
                >> at true randomness."

                > Daniel Here: Again, Rick makes an assertion, but wait
                > a little while and he will assert just the oppposite
                > when he feels it suits his dogma. Atheistic evolutionists
                > would accuse him of not being a true believer in evolution.

                I think I can demonstrate to anyone, who has half a grain
                of sense, that "blind chance" does not exist in a Universe
                controlled by God, and that "randomness" is merely a
                convenient term which varies from study to study in the
                researchers' attempts to remove selection bias. In defining
                a sufficiently representative sample, parameters are assigned
                which only *approach* randomness to some degree, and the
                effect of extraneous variables on the research results are
                minimized to a level of "no significance".

                As to Denham's last sentence; atheists don't believe in God.
                My "assertion" would be self-evident to a fellow believer.
                But Denham is here letting us know which side he comes down on.

                Daniel Denham, do you really think I'm worried that some
                atheist may say I don't truly believe in evolution? You
                are committing another equivocation fallacy here, pretending
                that the science of biological evolution is somehow different
                from the science of "atheistic evolution" or the science of
                "theistic evolution". The science is the science.

                > Daniel Here: I also stated:
                >>> "Serious atheistic scientists ridicule such a
                >>> hybridization of evolutionary theory as fatuous
                >>> at best. They are the ones who pointed out that
                >>> the God envisioned by theistic evolutionists becomes
                >>> a "God-of-the-gaps" to make up for the missing parts
                >>> in the evolutionary ideas of the theistic evolutionists."

                Rick responded:
                >> "One would think that we had learned long ago to expect
                >> to be ridiculed by atheists for having Faith.
                >> And you are misusing the term "God-of-the-gaps".

                > Daniel Here: The atheisitic evolutionists are some --
                > in fact many -- of the sources that Rick gets his
                > supposed "evidence" for evolution.

                Rick gets his evidence from the same place everybody
                else does -- the results of standard scientific research.
                As I have repeatedly pointed out, the philosophical
                perspectives of the researchers have no bearing on the
                outcome of the research. If they do, the data is flawed
                and those flaws and the source of the error are subject
                to being exposed by future research.

                > And, Rick, are you saying that atheists have no beef
                > with theistic evolution's attempting to plug God in
                > at certain points in its version of evolution?

                No, I am saying that Denham is here guilty of yet another
                *equivocation fallacy*; that of defining "theistic
                evolution" in terms of the "god-of-the-gaps" strategy used
                by young-earthers and IDists, and attempting to apply that
                definition to me, which will not work.

                As I have said many times, I do not "plug God in" as
                an explanation for anything -- God is already "in". As
                I have said many times, I accept the science *as it is*.
                Whatever science comes up with is fine by me. If they
                don't have it quite right to start with, the very nature
                of scientific exploration will cause their explanations
                to become more and more accurate as further investigations
                are carried out. Science is self-correcting, by its own
                built-in demands. Contrast that with your "young-earth
                creation-science" which refuses to correct itself, even
                after having its errors pointed out many times in public,
                and still promotes the same old, tired, discredited
                arguments for decades after they have been shown false.

                > BTW the phrase of "God-of-the-gaps" is an expression
                > I have already defined as very descriptive of this
                > plugging and unplugging of God into evolution. In fact,
                > it is evidently too descriptive for Rick's taste.

                It isn't that it is too descriptive, it is that it is
                wildly innaccurate when it comes to describing my approach
                to science and theology. What Denham is talking about here
                is the method used by Behe and others with such concepts as
                "irreducible complexity", who say that since no explanation
                exists, no explanation *can* exist and therefore "God-didit".

                I have already posted a link criticizing this approach,
                written by a creationist and about Behe in particular.
                Here it is again:

                Denham bailed from the discussion before he ever replied
                to the message that contained this link, but it was posted
                before he wrote the present message to which I am responding.

                Denham is also well aware of how many times I have told
                him the "god-of-the-gaps" has no place in my apologetics,
                yet he dishonestly continues to insist that it does.

                > Daniel Here: I then wrote:
                >>> "Everywhere the theistic evolutionist cannot provide
                >>> a natural bridge in the evolutionary process they have
                >>> to resort to the notion of a God who comes in and gives
                >>> the process a little jolt so that a form of punctuated
                >>> equilibrium takes place but totally void of a natural
                >>> cause, according to atheistic evolutionists."

                >> "This is a false statement. The gaps in knowledge
                >> of how biological evolution occurs can not be just
                >> arbitrarily filled in by saying "God-didit."
                >> You are talking about a strategy that "young-earth
                >> creation-science" and "Intelligent Design" attempt to
                >> use here, saying that everything that has not been
                >> explained yet proves their position, NOT what
                >> scientists do, whether they are "theistic" or not."

                > Daniel Here: Rick, you are the one who said that
                > naturalistic explanations exclude supernatural activity.


                (Sorry to be blunt, folks, but I have corrected this lie
                of Daniel Denham's so many times that he is now just being
                moronic about it.)

                > You still haven't gotten out of that pickle.

                What pickle? You just made it up.

                > And neither have you dealt with the obvious gaps
                > that exist -- non-life to life; single celled to
                > multi-celled regarding living organisms; non-human
                > to human; sexual distinctions ; etc. These are huge
                > gaps and yet give a gradual naturalistic explanation
                > must be bridged at one key point in time instantaneously
                > under the Law of Excluded Middle as applied to the
                > identity of things and their definition.

                I covered this in this very post, above, where I said
                that I don't have to know every aspect of evolutionary
                theory to know that God is behind it all. Nor do any
                of the things Denham has mentioned here invalidate what
                we do know. And Denham has so little understanding of
                biology that his talk of any Excluded Middles is just so
                much gas -- he has no idea of the "identity" or "definition"
                of things when it comes to biology, as he has repeatedly
                demonstrated with his misuse of the vocabulary.

                > You cannot escape that, Rick, it is a millstone around
                > theistic evolution and evolution in general.

                This is just another unsubstantiated assertion on the part
                of Daniel Denham. He is pretending that since not everything
                is known about the mechanisms involved in keeping life going
                on this planet for the past several hundred million years,
                the whole thing must be false. That is like saying that
                although we know a great deal about cancer and have various
                means of effectively treating different kinds of it, since
                we haven't found an overall cure for cancer, cancer must not
                exist! It's the exact same thing! Our lack of knowledge is
                a millstone about the neck of this whole idea that there is
                any such thing as cancer!

                Yes, Mr. Denham -- our esteemed logician. Right you are,
                sir. (Not.)

                > Daniel Here: I then added:
                >>> "The only use the atheists have for the theistic
                >>> evolutionists is as minions to attack creationists,
                >>> much the same as Communists have used intellectual
                >>> elitists and amoralists as, in their own words, "useful
                >>> idiots" to further their political agendas."

                >> "Daniel Denham:
                >> This is just shy of being hilarious! I didn't *think*
                >> you were using the "God-of-the-gaps" concept the right
                >> way, and now I know it for sure! You're making yourself
                >> look foolish, fella, writing things like this.
                >> We will cover your error more thoroughly in my
                >> following post (Please feel free.)"

                > Daniel Here: Friends, theistic evolutionists often are
                > united with the atheists in their efforts to kick God
                > out of the classroom...

                In case you hadn't noticed, Denham, this is America.
                We have something called a Constitution. Keeping God
                out of the classrooms isn't what you're worried about
                anyway -- it's getting YOUR VERSION of God *into* the
                classrooms. But since you appear to be unaware of
                something here, I'll tell you: The *main thing* that has
                worked against you in getting your nonsense into the schools
                is just how ridiculous "young-earth creation-science"
                really is, and how obvious are its many lies. You are
                your own worst enemy. And thanks to young-earth
                creationism, Intelligent Design never stood a chance.

                You're just throwing good money after bad.

                > ...and have been involved with the atheists in efforts
                > not to permitting creationism or even intelligent design
                > to be taught in the classroom.

                These things don't belong in the classroom. It isn't
                science. Here is an excerpt from one of my old messages
                on the coCBanned list:

                > > And think about this: suppose the law was passed
                > > and the creation science textbook was delivered,
                > > and the science teacher reads through it and finds
                > > all this same kind of nonsense we see all over the
                > > web. Suppose that science teacher is reasonably
                > > devoted to teaching scientific concepts to young
                > > people. Suppose that science teacher decides to make
                > > lemonade from the lemon that has been handed him,
                > > and uses the examples in the creationism text to
                > > demonstrate what wild results you can come up with
                > > when you don't follow scientific procedure. I'm
                > > telling you, friends, the whole thing could fatally
                > > backfire on the YECs (though it might make for a
                > > sharpened interest in science class on the students'
                > > parts).
                > >
                > > Example test question:
                > >
                > > 13. (a) What is the rate of the accumulation of
                > > cosmic dust on the moon's surface?
                > >
                > >
                > > (b) What do young-earth creationists say this rate is?
                > > ___ 55 miles per hour
                > > ___ 7 decades per cubit
                > > ___ pure speculation
                > > ___ whatever it has to be for the Earth to be 6,000 years old
                > >
                > > Isn't learning fun!
                (from: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/886)

                And here's a question: If you want to use the Bible to teach
                an "alternative" view of science, are you willing to allow the
                Book of Mormon to be used to teach an "alternative" American
                History, or the Koran to teach an "alternative" Civics? Or
                do you think the freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution
                mean that everyone is only free to believe as YOU believe?

                Denham concludes:
                > They are in cahoots with one another, and have been. How
                > does it feel toting the water for Richard Dawkins, Rick?
                > Daniel Denham

                Long as the water's being used to put out the fire y'all
                started trying to burn the Church down, I don't care.
                I can take care of Dawkins. But first I need to get rid
                of y'all.

                Rick Hartzog
                Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism

                P.S. Here is the statement I placed at the beginning
                of three of my replies to the "installments" Denham
                posted in answer to my message #151, which shows how
                Denham has continued to make false inferences from
                deceitfully attributing to me views which I do not
                hold, and Daniel Denham knows that I do not hold:


                I have repeatedly, from my first reply to Daniel Denham
                in this thread, said that God is actively involved in
                everything that has ever happened in the Universe, from
                the first moment that He brought it into being, right
                down to the orbit of every electron in every atom, the
                path of every photon of light, and every instance of
                cell division.

                Please keep that in mind as I restate this next point:
                Just because we may be able to explain something that
                we see going on in the Universe in some small way, that
                does not mean that God is not actively involved in what
                we are observing even if our "naturalistic" explanations
                do not include "supernatural" acts as part of the
                explanation. I used snowflakes as an example. We know
                a lot about snowflakes -- how they are formed, what they
                are made of, their general structure. Using what we
                know about snowflakes, any time we see snow we can offer
                some explanations about where it came from (out of the
                sky) and make some predictions about what kind of
                characteristics it will have (six-pointed crystals of
                frozen water). These are perfectly natural explanations,
                as far as they go, and they are true as far as they go,
                but they are incomplete. Only God knows the complete
                truth about each and every snowflake (where the atoms
                that made the water originated, exactly what configuration
                each six-pointed crystal will look like, where each
                molecule of water will go once the snow melts, etc.).
                So even in our "naturalistic" explanations there is still
                God behind the scenes, although our explanations for
                snowflakes do not go far enough to pull back the curtain
                and include the "supernatural". Nor do they need to
                for us to be able to predict that it is going to snow and
                the snow will be made of frozen water and when it gets up
                to a certain temperature it will melt. So our
                "naturalistic" explanations do not rule out God's
                activity; God's activity is the domain of the Universe
                itself and we are only explaining an infinitessimally
                microscopic aspect of it.

                Research explains what it can. Research reports describe
                how that explanation was arrived at. For a research
                report to include the "supernatural" domain and all
                the things we *don't* know would be redundant -- the
                research report is about the research -- how it was
                conducted and what it revealed.

                Now, I have explained these things before in my previous
                posts, but Daniel Denham is determined to make it seem
                as if I am saying something altogether different than
                what I have said, and what I have said again here.

                So over the course of this and my remaining replies
                to Daniel Denham, I would refer the reader back to
                these comments I have just made. God is not "in" and
                then "out", naturalistic explanations do not exclude
                the possibility that God is actively involved, and no
                matter how much science may ultimately be able to
                understand about the Universe there will always be a
                "beyond", a domain of "knowing" where science can not
                enter, which can only known by Faith.

              • Robert Baty
                Rick, It seems to me that one of the fundamental points to remember when attempting to understand Denham s approach to the issue is to recognize his NTS
                Message 7 of 24 , May 21, 2007

                  It seems to me that one of the fundamental points to remember when attempting to understand Denham's approach to the issue is to recognize his NTS fallacy (i.e., "No true Scotsman" / "No true science") way of handling things.

                  In substance, Denham's position appears to be squarely that of Dr. Fox and briefly summarized as follows:

                  > I, Daniel Denham, have my
                  > interpretation of the text
                  > regarding the real world
                  > and that trumps any real
                  > world evidence to the
                  > contrary.

                  In effect, Daniel Denham has come to agree with us that "young-earth, creation-science" cannot be affirmed based on real world evidence and that it cannot defeat its opposition based on real world evidence.

                  In order to defeat the real world evidence, Denham merely invokes his interpretation of the text and claims the contrary real world evidence is an "illusion".

                  To know such is the sum and substance of Denham's position can save us tyros a lot of time and trouble when such as Denham starts to wax their elephants on the subject.

                  > I, Daniel Denham, have my
                  > interpretation of the text
                  > regarding the real world
                  > and that trumps any real
                  > world evidence to the
                  > contrary.

                  > Affirmed: Daniel Denham

                  So it be!

                  Now, if we could only get Daniel Denham to "come out" of his hiding place and quit himself like the man he thinks he is and deal with his "equivocation fallacy" charge against my "Goliath of GRAS" according to the example Gil Yoder has set for him.

                  Or, we could even play this continuing game and invite Denham to deal with his "equivocation fallacy" charge against my "Goliath of GRAS" from his hiding place on the ChristianEvidences list.

                  How about it, Denham, try to prove up your "equivocation fallacy" charge on the ChristianEvidences list and I'll follow with replies here!

                  Denham...Denham...are you listening?

                  DeLong...DeLong...how about you; you also made the "equivocation fallacy" charge?

                  Robert Baty

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • w_w_c_l
                  ... Robert, Thank you for pointing that out. It is something that we have seen so much, so often, and from so many of the young-earth crowd that oftentimes I
                  Message 8 of 24 , May 21, 2007
                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                    "Robert Baty" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
                    > Rick,
                    > It seems to me that one of the fundamental points
                    > to remember when attempting to understand Denham's
                    > approach to the issue is to recognize his NTS fallacy
                    > (i.e., "No true Scotsman" / "No true science") way
                    > of handling things.


                    Thank you for pointing that out. It is something that
                    we have seen so much, so often, and from so many of the
                    young-earth crowd that oftentimes I don't even notice
                    it anymore, but what it boils down to is that all of
                    science is "evolutionism" -- physics is "evolutionism",
                    geology is "evolutionism", astronomy is "evolutionism",
                    palaeontology is "evolutionism", genetics is "evolutionism",
                    etc.; no "true" science would contradict their interpretation
                    of the Word of God so all of it false, false, false; all of
                    it interpreted according to "evolutionary scenarios"; all of
                    it controlled by the worldwide atheist conspiracy.

                    There *is* a way out, though.

                    If you could ever pin one of these young-earth promoters
                    down for a legitimate discussion of these charges, it
                    would turn out that this idea that all of science is false
                    and interpreted according to the demands of those ungodly
                    biologists is just as unsupportable as the idea of "apparent
                    age". Just as we have challenged, with little success,
                    different ones of the "apparent age" advocates to show us
                    the place in the geological record where "apparent age"
                    ends and actual age begins, those who say that all of science
                    is "evolutionism" could be similarly challenged, because the
                    empirical model of science is constructed just like the
                    geological record -- *this* rests on *that*, *this* supports
                    *this other*, *this other* supports *these* and braces,
                    connects *those*, and so on, until it all fits together in
                    such a way until it would turn out that if the empirical
                    evidence for biological evolution was shown false, your
                    internet wouldn't work, either; nor could you produce crops,
                    or depend on x-rays or antibiotics, no more television, no
                    more CAT-scans, no more chickenhouses, man never landed on
                    the Moon; until the "apparent science" promoters had endowed
                    on the godless biologists all the attributes the "apparent
                    age" advocates have placed on God Himself: it's all an
                    *illusion*! We've been hoodwinked!

                    I don't think that'll fly.

                    > In substance, Denham's position appears to be squarely
                    > that of Dr. Fox and briefly summarized as follows:
                    >> I, Daniel Denham, have my
                    >> interpretation of the text
                    >> regarding the real world
                    >> and that trumps any real
                    >> world evidence to the
                    >> contrary.
                    > In effect, Daniel Denham has come to agree with us
                    > that "young-earth, creation-science" cannot be affirmed
                    > based on real world evidence and that it cannot defeat
                    > its opposition based on real world evidence.
                    > In order to defeat the real world evidence, Denham
                    > merely invokes his interpretation of the text and claims
                    > the contrary real world evidence is an "illusion".

                    And, as has been noted in the past, that simply means
                    that anybody in the world can say anything in the world
                    they want to about "what the Bible teaches", including
                    that it teaches everything came into existence last
                    Thursday, and *none of them have any means of proving
                    whose interpretation of the text is correct*.

                    > To know such is the sum and substance of Denham's
                    > position can save us tyros a lot of time and trouble
                    > when such as Denham starts to wax their elephants on
                    > the subject.

                    Careful, Baty, I wouldn't get too close. Those elephants
                    may not be "real".

                    > Now, if we could only get Daniel Denham to "come out"
                    > of his hiding place and quit himself like the man he
                    > thinks he is and deal with his "equivocation fallacy"
                    > charge against my "Goliath of GRAS" according to the
                    > example Gil Yoder has set for him.

                    I'm not so sure Yoder is much of an example for these guys.
                    I think the ContendingFTF list may have taken it upon
                    themselves to mark him as a "false teacher":

                    Nevertheless, to adapt Daniel Denham's own words:

                    > [Daniel Denham], the challenge is before you.
                    > The same challenge rests at the doors of the
                    > [ChristianEvidences list]...
                    > If it is not worth defending, it is not worth keeping!

                    So maybe you should just forget about Gil and encourage
                    Denham to follow *his own* teaching, such as it may be!

                    > Or, we could even play this continuing game and invite
                    > Denham to deal with his "equivocation fallacy" charge
                    > against my "Goliath of GRAS" from his hiding place on
                    > the ChristianEvidences list.
                    > How about it, Denham, try to prove up your "equivocation
                    > fallacy" charge on the ChristianEvidences list and I'll
                    > follow with replies here!
                    > Denham...Denham...are you listening?

                    > DeLong...DeLong...how about you; you also made the
                    > "equivocation fallacy" charge?

                    While that may be a second-best alternative, it does leave
                    a lot to be desired. Unlike the ethics of the Maury_and_Baty
                    list, Denham, on the ChristianEvidences list, does not provide
                    context in his responses to specific remarks made here, nor
                    does he provide any links back here to the messages about which
                    he may be making his comments.

                    Realistically, for now, if we may reverse the approach used
                    by those filthy uniformitarian geologists and let the past
                    be the key to the present, I think it would be a safe bet
                    to say that no one from the ChristianEvidences list is going
                    to be coming over here to show that "interpret" and
                    "interpretation" mean two different things in "Goliath", nor
                    are any of them going to do more than continue to make vague
                    assertions to that effect on their own little list.

                    Rick Hartzog
                    Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
                  • w_w_c_l
                    Hello, friends. Here is my rebuttal of Daniel Denham s response to my message #170 on the ChristianEvidences list:
                    Message 9 of 24 , May 24, 2007
                      Hello, friends.

                      Here is my rebuttal of Daniel Denham's response
                      to my message #170 on the ChristianEvidences list:

                      I'll go ahead and apologize up front: it's long and
                      repetitious -- in some places downright boring -- and
                      contains a lot of stuff you've seen before; mainly
                      me correcting Denham yet again (and again and again)
                      for the same (deliberate) errors he has been committing
                      since the discussion began.

                      There are a few high points though. ;-)

                      Re: Questions for Rick Hartzog

                      > Dear Rick and List:
                      > This is my response to Rick's post #170.
                      > 1) Yes, Rick the early portions have nothing to do
                      > with the subject, other than showing your hypocrisy
                      > in how you and your cohorts deal with your opponents.

                      Looks to me like you were "advertising" for the
                      Maury_and_Baty list. You know that's against the rules.
                      And from Todd's quotes that you provided, I thought you
                      were acknowledging *your own* hypocrisy.

                      Sorry for the misunderstanding.

                      > 2. And, yes, Relativity is a theory, which is still
                      > often disputed by scientists in the field of quantum
                      > mechanics.

                      And, just like evolution, the dispute is not over whether
                      it is a fact but rather over exactly how it works. That
                      it does work is not in question. And this is exactly the
                      sort of behavior we encounter all the time from young-earth
                      creationists -- they find some little dispute over some
                      small fraction of the evidence which has not yet been
                      satisfactorily explained *from the scientists' own view*,
                      and cackle over that as if it means the whole theory is
                      in danger of collapsing. 'Fraid not!

                      > Yes, I do know how terminology is used, and I also
                      > know the difference between a law and a theory, Rick.

                      Then you should have demonstrated that. If you really do
                      understand the terminology your misuse of it is just so
                      much attempted deception on your part.

                      > I have been putting on you in the filed of epistemology
                      > a couple of the Laws of Thought. What about those laws,
                      > Rick. Now watch, friends, as Rick proceeds to attack
                      > the principle of valid reasoning to try and undermine
                      > the Law of Excluded Middle.

                      It has also been demonstrated that you haven't quite
                      got a handle on logic, either. All of your "Excluded
                      Middles" except one have been false dichotomies, and
                      the only reason that one wasn't (human vs. non-human) is
                      because I assumed we were talking about the same thing.
                      And even in this you committed the "fallacy of equivocation",
                      attempting to restrict me to one definition of "human" while
                      you used another. (Denham is continuing to do this in his
                      present posts against "theistic evolution" on the
                      ChristianEvidences list, to which I am, of course, unable
                      to respond.)

                      > Daniel Here: I had stated:
                      >>> You will recall that he stated that he KNEW that
                      >>> a non-human thing had been transformed by way of
                      >>> evolution into a human "thing."

                      >> That is not what I said. I said I knew a non-human
                      >> thing had been transformed into a human thing, and
                      >> asked if that wasn't what the Bible said as well (as
                      >> in non-human "dust" being transformed into a man).
                      >> I am very well convinced that evolution is the way
                      >> that God did it.
                      >> Yet whatever was done I know was done by God.

                      > Daniel Here: You just said it again, Rick. "That is
                      > not what I said. I said I knew a non-human thing had
                      > been transformed into a human thing..." That was the
                      > point that I was making.

                      What point? I asked if that wasn't what the Bible
                      says, too. If you played the whole history of the
                      develoment of life on Earth like a movie in (very, very)
                      fast forward it would look just like what you read in

                      > Now, God created a human being from the dust of the
                      > earth, Rick, but He did not create a human "thing"
                      > as you have been using the latter term.

                      Then where did all these fossil hominids come from?
                      Who created *them*? Who put those stone tools with
                      them in their palaeontological context? What is your
                      explanation for them? (Note: Pretending something
                      doesn't exist is not an explanation for something that
                      clearly does exist.)

                      And I showed in my previous post that you, with all your
                      supposed attention to detail and your Bible-literalism,
                      didn't even know the qualities of the humans which God
                      had made. Your understanding of the Scriptures even as
                      they are written seems rather paltry, in my opinion.

                      > We have moved on to the fact that your dogma requires
                      > a non-human thing itself by the naturalistic processes
                      > of evolution without supernatural activity being
                      > transformed into a human "thing."

                      And where would you ever get the "fact" that that is
                      what my "dogma" requires, after I have told you so many
                      times that God is right here involved in everything?

                      I'm going to have to disagree that we have moved *anywhere*
                      in this discussion. I am still trying to make you
                      understand the most basic concepts of my theological outlook
                      from my first post in this discussion. We have to get that
                      through your skull before we can "move on" to anything else.

                      > Now, friends, "whatever" was done is his fall-back story!
                      > Here is a man who ridicules people for not believing his
                      > dogma, but he cannot even deal with something so
                      > fundamentally obvious.

                      It isn't the "fall-back"; it is THE Story. God made all
                      of this. How God brought it about is nothing that we
                      need to be afraid of, and it is certainly not for us to
                      be bearing false witness against, Daniel Denham. In this
                      discussion you have not hesitated to misrepresent me, the
                      Creation itself, and the Bible itself in order to cling to
                      your mistaken interpretation of the Scriptures. You are
                      making out as if Daniel Denham's word is the infallible
                      word of God.

                      > Evolution cannot logically be true, Rick.

                      You will never be able to employ logic or theology to
                      overcome the cold hard facts of science. Your logic
                      is so skewed anyways, simply because you attempt to use
                      logic to conduct an irrational argument. Hint: That
                      won't work.

                      And later on in this post I am going to present you
                      with a syllogism you are going to have to overcome.

                      > It must therefore be the case that you are misreading
                      > what you the supposed "scientific evidence."

                      Adopting that position leads to problems in logic and
                      theology that are beyond your wildest imaginations.
                      You invariably must end up calling God a liar, if you
                      remain unwilling to accept that it is you, and not the
                      Lord, who is in error. Somehow I don't really put that
                      past the likes of Daniel Denham.

                      > Rick does not like having to discuss this from the
                      > standpoint of philosophy and epistemology, but those
                      > areas are fundamental to the discussion.

                      Like I pointed out about Eve in the last post, it wasn't
                      "reasoning" that led her to sin, it was "rationalization",
                      that is, unsound reasoning without taking all things into
                      consideration. Likewise, Denham is failing to take anything
                      into consideration other than his own interpretation of
                      the text.

                      I also showed in the previous post that the epistemology
                      of Daniel Denham is *irreconcilable* with the plain
                      teaching of Scripture.

                      > Sorry, Rick, I know its a problem for you, but what
                      > are going to do?...Repent, that woiuld be a good place
                      > to start!

                      "Repent" to follow the teaching of Daniel Denham? I
                      don't think so! I hope some of my posts in other
                      threads have shown exactly what kind of respect I have
                      for Daniel Denham's "teaching". He would have us to
                      repent of the truth to adopt a theology that can only
                      be supported by indulging in one lie after the other.

                      No thanks!

                      > Daniel Here: I asked:
                      >>> "How can you know something to be true that
                      >>> may or may not be true, Rick?"

                      >> "Your thinking that evolution may not be true because
                      >> it is called a theory is misguided. Like the theory
                      >> of relativity, the theory of evolution holds up under
                      >> empirical testing. We keep finding out how more and
                      >> more pieces of evidence fit into the theories of both
                      >> relativity and biological evolution.
                      >> The fact that both theories do continue to hold up
                      >> under repeated testing demonstrates the validity
                      >> of the theoretical models. The fact that the
                      >> theoretical models can accommodate new evidence as
                      >> it arises lends further support. Just because they
                      >> are still called "theories" is no reason to expect
                      >> that they may suddenly be invalidated by some future
                      >> finding, and the longer they withstand testing the less
                      >> likely it is that something will come up that causes
                      >> them to have to be significantly modified."

                      > Daniel Here: Again, note, friends, there are "theoretical
                      > models" involved in testing, which implies that it is not
                      > a done deal, despite Rick's assertions.

                      What is not a "done deal" is the complete model. That
                      evolution has occurred, and continues to take place, *is*
                      a done deal. Denial will not change it.

                      > In fact, more and more scientists are calling evolution
                      > into question, while Rick continues to hold on to it. If
                      > its such a done deal, while are these scientists abandoning
                      > it for the intelligent design movement, which Rick
                      > denigrates? Hmmm? Why are more and more evolutionists
                      > admitting the failures of the evidence in their own fields?

                      The "failures" are failures of certain mechanisms, such as
                      natural selection, to explain *everything*. That evolution
                      has taken place over hundreds of millions of years is not
                      in question. Similarly, few scientists who promote
                      "intelligent design" deny that or the age of the Earth.
                      Also, of the very few legitimate scientists who have "sold
                      out" to creationism and have begun to misrepresent their
                      own research, their misrepresentations are easily pointed
                      out. One guy, I can't remember his name right now, retired
                      from a distinguished career as a plant geneticist, and now
                      allows his research to be used to show that genetic information
                      decreases, rather than increases or remains constant, down
                      through the generations. The only trouble, see, is that he
                      is using data from crop plants and the lack of genetic diversity
                      is because the crop strains have been separated from their
                      natural selection pool. The effect has been known, and has
                      been a subject of concern, for years. Yet this guy will
                      pretend that it is evidence against evolution. And people
                      will believe it. Pitiful.

                      I would challenge Daniel Denham to bring forth a few of
                      these scientists -- no wait -- I already did that and he
                      came up with *nothing*!

                      (By the way, that plant geneticist's name is John Sanford,
                      who worked at one of the crop experiment stations out of
                      Cornell University. He is now a young-earth creationist.
                      His research data, from what I have seen, comes exclusively
                      from domesticated crop plants which have not had any genetic
                      input from their natural genome for many decades, or more.)

                      > Several years ago, Thomas B. Warren wrote to a considerable
                      > number of scientists, who were evolutionists, and asked
                      > them to set forth the simple three point syllogism from
                      > their respective fields that proved evolution.

                      Can Daniel Denham set forth a simple three-point syllogism
                      proving the sun is powered by hydrogen fusion?


                      Well let's try something a little simpler then. Can Daniel
                      Denham set forth a simple three-point syllogism proving
                      that catfish use their whiskers to locate food?

                      I don't think so! Syllogisms don't prove anything, the
                      are logical constructions that show how proof must be
                      obtained. For Denham to prove that catfish use their
                      whiskers to locate food he has to prove that his premise
                      is true and then, logically, the conclusion will follow.

                      So what of Warren's supposed challenge to the scientists?

                      How about this for a syllogism?:

                      Major premise:

                      If independent methods of scientific inquiry
                      show that species change morphologically and
                      genetically over many generations to the point
                      that offspring populations are able to reproduce
                      among themselves but no longer able to reproduce
                      with parent populations, biological evolution is
                      shown to be true.

                      Minor premise:

                      Independent methods of scientific inquiry (several
                      of them, in fact) do show that species change
                      morphologically and genetically over many generations
                      to the point that offspring populations are able to
                      reproduce among themselves but no longer able to
                      reproduce with their parent populations.


                      Biological evolution is true.

                      Does Daniel Denham entertain even the slightest hope
                      that he might disprove the minor premise?

                      I think not!

                      Does Denham think for one moment that the amount of
                      evidence that "biological evolution did it" would
                      not be considered convincing "proof" in a court of law,
                      with the verdict returned as: "We have, your honor:
                      Guilty. Biological evolution did it."?

                      I think not!

                      I win! I win!

                      > Not a one of them made an argument. Those who answered did
                      > not attempt a formal argument, but IN EACH CASE appealed
                      > to another field outside of their own to state that thus
                      > and such proved it. Paleontologists appealed to biology.
                      > Biologists appealked to chemistry or paleontology. Yes,
                      > indeed, Rick, it is a theory and its losing ground even
                      > among its scientific adherents.

                      Daniel Denham should know by now to provide references
                      for such remarks. It does appear that no one is paying
                      any attention to Warren's claims. Notice that my proposed
                      syllogism appeals to *all* the relevant fields of inquiry,
                      because when you take the evidence from palaeontology
                      with the evidence from biogeography with the evidence from
                      cladistics with the evidence from genetics with the evidence
                      from morphology, you come up with an *overwhelming body of
                      evidence from independent lines of research* that all
                      converge on a single conclusion: biological evolution has
                      occurred and continues to take place. Somehow, Denham
                      neglected to include any mention of genetics. Somehow
                      Denham and Warren both overlook the fact that no "appeals"
                      were made to physics, astronomy, or geology -- you know:
                      those "uniformitarians".

                      And the theory of biological evolution, despite what you
                      may hear from the creationists, is NOT losing ground.
                      (See: The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running
                      Falsehood in Creationism:
                      Also see Todd's links to journals at the end of this post:
                      Denham's claim is false.)

                      What is being questioned at this point is the sufficiency
                      of random mutations coupled with natural selection to
                      explain the observed changes. That the changes have
                      occurred, and that this has taken place over hundreds of
                      millions of years is not in question (except by those like
                      Daniel Denham who don't have enough sense for their opinions
                      to have any bearing on the discussion). Even most IDists
                      accept that biological evolution has taken place over a
                      long period of time, and some have proposed what they call
                      "front-loaded evolution" as the mechanism to explain what
                      they feel random mutation and natural selection cannot
                      (in other words, "God-didit" -- that's right, the old
                      god-of-the-gaps approach).

                      > Notice his next statement:
                      >> "These guys don't arrive at their conclusions about
                      >> the existence of God from the data, they arrive at
                      >> those conclusions from their own philosophical
                      >> perspectives. Who knows, maybe somewhere along the
                      >> line, some creationist said to them, "If you believe
                      >> in evolution you don't believe the Bible!" and they
                      >> said, "Fine."
                      >> And the same thing is going on now. But let's
                      >> break it down a little bit:
                      >> "If you believe in evolution, you don't believe the
                      >> Bible" becomes "If you believe something that is true,
                      >> you don't believe the Bible."
                      >> Yet if the Bible is true, believing something else
                      >> that is true does not make the Bible false. It
                      >> just means you may have been interpreting the
                      >> text the wrong way.
                      >> Since the world quite obviously is older than some
                      >> few thousand years, those who would contend
                      >> otherwise, based on their reading of the text,
                      >> are wrong."

                      > Daniel Here: Your illustration [begs] the question.
                      > It is not the case that "the world quite obviously is
                      > older than some few thousand years." That is an assertion.

                      It is an assertion that is well-supported by the evidence,
                      and your ignorance of the evidence and your denial that
                      the Earth is quite obviously much, much more than a few
                      thousand years old is an assertion that has no evidential
                      support. Therefore, your insistence that the Bible, as
                      God's Word, teaches a young age for the Earth is false.

                      > The whole issue of the text centers on the question:
                      > Can it mean what you have asserted it to mean? The
                      > answer is clearly: No, it cannot not!

                      That is a position that falsifies the Scriptures as being
                      the word of God. If the Biblical account truly taught
                      that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, it would
                      have been proven to the world beyond any shadow of a doubt
                      that the Bible was false nearly 200 years ago.

                      That would put your theology on a par with Scientology --
                      worshippers of a made-up fiction.

                      Every time you assert that the Bible teaches a young age
                      for the Earth you are saying to the rest of the world that
                      the Bible is false. Hopefully people will know better
                      than to believe you.

                      > You have not addressed the many blunders that you have
                      > made, besides the damning admission that the text really
                      > does not mean anything to you other than what you need
                      > it to mean to fit your evolutionary theories. Remember
                      > that eisogesis remark, Rick. You gave up the Biblical
                      > text, then and there! Anyone who can see through a ladder
                      > can see that!

                      I have shown how Denham manipulated that "eisogesis remark"
                      into a "damning admission" and how Denham himself is the
                      one who is guilty of eisogesis in previous posts:

                      > I further pointed out:
                      >>> "Victor J. Stenger, professor of physics and astronomy
                      >>> at the University of Hawaii, has issued a very recent
                      >>> book published by Prometheus books titled "God -- The
                      >>> Failed Hypothesis" is filled with attacks by
                      >>> evolutionary scientists justifying the rejection of God,
                      >>> at least in part, on the theory of evolution."

                      Rick responded:
                      >> "And George F.R. Ellis, professor of mathematics and
                      >> applied mathematics at the University of Cape Town,
                      >> is a cosmologist who is right up there with Hawking,
                      >> and who is a Christian."

                      > Daniel Here: Big, whoopy tah! It is debatable whether he
                      > is a Christian, Rick. A Christian is one who has OBEYED
                      > the Gospel of Christ (Acts 11:26; Heb. 5:8-9), but it is
                      > not our purpose at present to deal with this point.

                      Ellis is recognized as a prominent scientist who has
                      maintained his faith. Denham is here committing the "No
                      True Christian" logical fallacy. Denham and others on
                      the ContendingFTF list have also condemned to hell those
                      children who clap their hands while singing Bible songs
                      in the church-house. I don't think Christianity is going
                      to be leaving it up to the likes of Daniel Denham to decide
                      who is and who is not saved.

                      > The point we are dealing with is the fact that many
                      > evolutionists (in fact most) are atheists and believe
                      > firmly that evolution implies atheism. Stenger is a case
                      > in point.

                      And so is Daniel Denham, if you will look back through this
                      discussion and see where he has said that biological
                      evolution makes God unnecessary and that if evolution is
                      true then God does not exist.

                      As I said then, that is an irrational argument. It is not
                      a scientific argument, either; it is a philosophical one.

                      > You demanded evidence of any who did so, as though none
                      > did.

                      And I showed that the quotes you produced were philosophical,
                      rather than scientific, statements and rebutted them from
                      my own philophical perspective.

                      > I've blown your quibble away and the evidence is there
                      > for everyone to see.

                      Well, from what I myself am able to see, you haven't blown
                      away a single thing in this discussion other than your
                      own credibility. And even that took but a zephyr.

                      > The uniformitarians whose research you use to justify
                      > your conclusions would mainatin that you are not properly
                      > using their research, Rick, even as you claim that the
                      > creationists scientists do not!

                      I don't use *anybody's* research to maintain my faith; I
                      keep my faith *in spite of* the research, without having
                      to lie about the research or deny what the research tells

                      > That makes you a hypocrite in your behavior toward
                      > Austin, Oard, and others, and if you don't see that,
                      > your're probably the only one who doesn't, except
                      > possibly for your cohorts Todd Greene and Robert Baty.
                      > It was your hypocritical sniping that led to this
                      > part of the exchange.

                      And the exchange has illuminated how you have completely
                      misrepresented my approach to the research, suggesting
                      that I am guilty of the same bogus nonsense that the
                      young-earth creationists try to pan off. In other words,
                      Daniel Denham, you are once again supporting the lies
                      of "young-earth creation-science" after having explicitly
                      said that it is wrong to use lies to support your theology.

                      Which turned out to be just the first of the many lies
                      you have resorted to in this discussion, trying to support
                      and unsupportable position. You have no other recourse
                      but to lie about it, and then when your lies are pointed
                      out, to just pile some more lies on top.

                      Daniel Denham, it is you, buddy-o, who are the hypocrite.

                      So right back atcha.

                      I then added:
                      >>> "The subtitle of the book {Stenger's book} states
                      >>> simply "How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist."

                      >> "And I have a book right here titled "God: The Evidence",
                      >> subtitled "The Reconciliation of Faith and Reason in
                      >> a Post-Secular World" that is full of evidence from
                      >> various lines of research that argue that God does exist."

                      > Daniel Here: You're still just trying to evade the fact
                      > that you are hypocritical in how you deal with
                      > creationists and evidences.

                      You are evading the fact that for every book and every
                      quote you can produce from an atheist that claims science
                      proves God does not exist, I can match with a book or a
                      quote from a prominent scientist who does, in one way or
                      another, believe in God.

                      > Daniel Here: I then added:
                      >>> "Ricahrd Dawkins, in praising Stenger's work, states:
                      >>> "Darwin chased God out of his old haunts in biology,
                      >>> and he scurried for safety down the rabbit hole of
                      >>> physics." He then notes that Stenger's book dealing
                      >>> especially with physics from the evolutionary
                      >>> perspective means that "God is running out of refuges
                      >>> in which to hide."

                      >> "There is no such thing as "physics from the
                      >> evolutionary perspective" if "evolutionary" is
                      >> referring to biology.
                      >> And although Dawkins clearly has no respect for
                      >> creationists, his main problem with religion is with
                      >> fundamentalist ideologies (not necessarily limited
                      >> to Christianity), which he considers dangerous to
                      >> humanity. I tend to be in agreement with him about
                      >> that. When your religious ideologies become so skewed
                      >> that you think some god is going to reward you for
                      >> killing innocent people, and you potentially have the
                      >> technology to kill a *lot* of them, that is indeed
                      >> dangerous."

                      > Daniel Here: Well, well, well, Richard Dawkins and
                      > Victor Stenger would tend to disagree, Rick. It's right
                      > on the back of the slip-cover for the book!

                      So where's your quote and reference? I see a claim
                      from Daniel Denham and that is all I see. Daniel Denham
                      should be figuring out by now that I am not going to just
                      take his word for *anything*. Why should I? He has
                      certainly given me no reason to think his word is any

                      > Friends, Rick poses himself as THE authority on what
                      > evolution is and entails, but when other evolutionists,
                      > who are far more known and respected than he is,
                      > disagree with his assessments, then we are to ignore
                      > them and bow to the genius of Rick!

                      I think you would have been better off listening to me
                      than to accept the idea that if evolution is true that
                      would prove God does not exist. Just my opinion...

                      > Dawkins says a whole lot more than you are willing to
                      > notice. It is simply too inconvenient for you to do so.

                      How is Dawkins supposed to know what I know about the
                      nature of the Deity? How is Dawkins supposed to be some
                      kind of authority over defining my faith? He doesn't
                      know anything about God, other than the nonsense he has
                      heard from creationists. Maybe you've never stopped to
                      wonder if it isn't your own foolishness which put Dawkins
                      off of the God idea to start with. He certainly doesn't
                      have any respect for your views about "creation".

                      > Daniel Here: I then presented several quoations from
                      > atheistic evolutionists who claimed implicitly that
                      > evolution was atheistic. Rick tried to quibble about
                      > their quotations, but he needs to take up his argument
                      > with them as to whether it is atheistic in nature.

                      I did. I rebutted each of their statements, which were
                      philosophical in nature, from my own philosophical
                      perspective. They cannot effectively show that my
                      perspective is false, either.

                      > I simply stated that there were a number of prominent
                      > atheistic scientists -- certainly, far more prominent
                      > than Rick Hartzog and his companions -- who have openly
                      > stated that evolution is atheistic, at the very least by
                      > implication. If he wants to dispute why Dawkins said what
                      > Dawkins did say, then let him take that up with Dawkins.
                      > Let's let them "duke it out." He can also deal with Wilson,
                      > Stenger, and Futuyma. Simpson is already dead, and now
                      > knows better on both counts -- his atheism and his evolution.
                      > His fussing about why they said what they said does not
                      > refute the fact that they said it, which is my point!

                      But your point is that people should not believe in
                      evolution simply because of what some people may say it
                      implies. That is like saying you shouldn't believe in
                      nuclear physics because somebody might make a bomb.

                      Denham, you need to get your head out of the sand or
                      wherever you have it stuck and get a grip on reality.
                      You are trying to deny that one of the foundational
                      concepts of modern biology is true. You are living off
                      in some fantasy world because of your mistaken
                      interpretation of the Bible. The Bible has never told
                      you anywhere to deny reality.

                      > So, his comments along that line are non sequitur.
                      > My point has been established and Rick is proven
                      > to be a hypocrite in his dealing with creationists.

                      I'll just point out here the irony in Denham thinking
                      the flimsiest of his assertions counts as "proof" while
                      the last 200 years of scientific investigation is all
                      nothing more than hypotheses and assumptions and

                      > 3) Daniel Here: I confronted Rick with a definitional
                      > problem that he cannot get past. I stated:
                      >>> Rick, there is either atheistic evolution or theistic
                      >>> evolution. What other form can there be, given the
                      >>> Law of Excluded Middle?

                      Rick responded:
                      >> That's like saying there can be "theistic
                      >> relativity" or "atheistic relativity". Relativity
                      >> is relativity. It is empirical science.

                      > Daniel Here: Most certainly that same distinction can
                      > be definitionally made relative to the theory of
                      > relativity, Rick, if each sought to appeal to it as
                      > "evidence" of their specific interpretation.

                      > The atheist looks at the impersonal nature of the
                      > theory of evolution and concludes that God is not
                      > necessary. The theistic evolutionists seek to reconcile
                      > the system with their belief in God, which the atheist
                      > would say is an irrational handling of the supposed
                      > "empirical evidence."

                      Make note here, friends!: After Denham has continuously
                      insisted that "theistic evolution" and "atheistic
                      evolution" are dichotomous, he fails to show dichotomy
                      in the conclusions! The dichotomy, as I have said so
                      many times, is in the philosophical perspective, not the
                      science. So look at Denham's words: "The atheist looks
                      at the impersonal nature of the theory of evolution and
                      concludes that God is not necessary." The antithesis
                      of that remark should be, "The theist looks at the micro-
                      managing mechanisms of the theory of evolution and concludes
                      that God is necessary," or "The theist looks at his own
                      existence in terms of the theory of evolution and concludes
                      that it isn't so 'impersonal' after all"!

                      Most atheists consider faith "irrational" anyway, and most
                      theists consider it highly rational -- nay, the only rational

                      And these are all philosophical statements based on the
                      existing scientific evidence *as it is*.

                      Your argument here falls flat, Denham, as does your premise
                      that "theistic evolution" and "atheistic evolution" are
                      scientifically dichotomous.

                      > It is simply the case that no such distinction has thus
                      > far arisen between two groups over relativity, which
                      > tends to suggests there is far better evidence for
                      > it than evolution -- though there are some who even
                      > doubt relativity, as I have noted.

                      But of course the distinction has arisen! Are you
                      denying that there are atheists who work with relativity?
                      Are you denying that there are theists who work with
                      relativity? Then surely there is "theistic physics"
                      and "atheistic physics"!

                      But once again, it is a matter of philosophical perspective
                      and not a matter of any difference in the actual evidence,
                      so the fact remains that there is the science of physics,
                      and that science does not change dependent on the personal
                      beliefs of the researchers about the existence of God.

                      Likewise biological evolution. And likewise the evidence
                      for biological evolution is not going to go away just
                      because the philosophical perspective of Daniel Denham
                      is unable to accommodate it.

                      > BTW, I have already dealt with the fact that the
                      > "evidence" is not so "empirical" as you would have
                      > folks to believe, Rick. We are dealing with definitions,
                      > and I am not going to grant your assertions.

                      You will either "deal with" my assertions or you will
                      be standing here with the hide smoked off the backside
                      of your argument.

                      You have to show that the empirical model is wrong. You
                      can't do that, so you try to pretend that "empirical"
                      in scientific terms means something that it does not.
                      That is not going to be effective.

                      We can take the word "empirical" out of it all together
                      and call it "forensic" evidence. That may actually work
                      better in this situation. Denham, how are you going to
                      deal with the "forensic" evidence? You are going to have
                      to offer some kind of evidence in rebuttal. You are going
                      to have to show that the forensic evidence has been wrongly

                      Good luck.

                      >> Additionally, the "false dichotomy" I was talking
                      >> about was the false dichotomy of "thorough going
                      >> uniformitarian" or "God-of-the-gaps". I have quite
                      >> adequately shown that this either/or situation is
                      >> something that exists only in Daniel Denham's own
                      >> mind using Daniel Denham's own misguided definitions
                      >> of the terms.
                      >> Whatever he means by the terms, I have adequately
                      >> explained my own perspective, which falls neither
                      >> under his definitions of the terms nor the standardly
                      >> accepted definitions.
                      >> So any more talk of me not answering any of the
                      >> questions Daniel Denham asked in his first post
                      >> to me under the "Questions to Rick Hartzog" thread,
                      >> and any more denial that question #2 was indeed a
                      >> false dichotomy, I am going to treat as irrelevant
                      >> yakking on the part of Daniel Denham.
                      >> I realize that irrelevant yakking can be an effective
                      >> way of avoiding relevant issues, if you are able to
                      >> lead your adversary off the track and down one of
                      >> those rabbit-trails, but I have little patience and
                      >> no respect for such strategies myself.
                      >> Daniel Denham needs to get focused on the relevant
                      >> issues: the existing scientific evidence for the
                      >> age of the Earth and the process of biological
                      >> evolution, and how, in light of that, we are to
                      >> interpret the text of the Creation account.

                      > Daniel Here: Talk about yakking! Just one long, boring
                      > diatribe with no substance. Rick wouldn't know a logical
                      > argument if it bit him on the knee. I have defined the
                      > terms I am using. He's not been able to answer the case
                      > I have made, and that really bugs him. He just needs to
                      > get over it, and stop crying. Repentance on his part
                      > would do him good.

                      I'll let my "diatribe", and Denham's subsequent remark,
                      stand as is, and let the record speak for itself.

                      > Daniel Here: I noted:
                      >>> "This is amazing, friends, in Rick's world there
                      >>> seems to be some sort of middle ground between
                      >>> atheistic (non-theistic) evolution and theistic
                      >>> evolution. Maybe, if we ask him again he will
                      >>> present just what that may be?"

                      >> What is amazing is Daniel Denham pretending that
                      >> scientific procedure differs between the theist
                      >> and the non-theist.
                      >> The science is the science. It has nothing to do
                      >> with proving or disproving the existence of God.
                      >> I and an atheist can look at the exact same evidence
                      >> and see the exact same thing. Yet I know that God is
                      >> behind it all. The atheist doesn't believe in God.
                      >> (Yet if you press the atheist hard enough, sometimes
                      >> he will admit the possibility of a "First Cause".)
                      >> You can take a Christian, an atheist, a Muslim
                      >> and a Jew, put them all in the laboratory with the
                      >> same materials and equipment, have them all
                      >> independently run the same experiment and they
                      >> will *all get the same results*.
                      >> Are you going to pretend there is "Jewish chemistry"
                      >> and "Muslim chemistry" and "Christian chemistry"
                      >> as varying subsets of "theistic chemistry", as opposed
                      >> to the patently false "atheistic chemistry"?
                      >> Respond to this point, please."

                      > Daniel Here: Already answered above! Rick's already
                      > admitted that there were geologists who called themselves
                      > UNIFORMITARIANS.

                      Clarification: Rick pointed out that over 200 years ago
                      geologists figured out that the geologic record was the
                      result of uniform processes over long periods of time.
                      The argument over whether what we see in geology was the
                      result of uniformitarian processes or a single great
                      Deluge has been over among professionals for two

                      Every time Daniel Denham says "Rick has admitted" something
                      you had just as well go back and see what Rick really

                      > Would that not imply a uniformitarian view of geology,
                      > Rick? Hmm? Would it be permissible, given your own
                      > admission, that they be referred to as uniformitarian
                      > geologists and their attempted arguments as
                      > uniformitarian argumements, and their attempt to pull
                      > the field of geology in their direction as to
                      > investigative emphasis, hence, uniformitarian geology?

                      I suppose it would be "permissible" if you were wanting
                      to pretend that there remained any controversy among
                      professional geologists that the geologic record is the
                      product of uniform forces acting over long periods of
                      time. Today they are simply called geologists. Their
                      investigative approach has nothing to do with "arguing
                      for uniformitarianism" -- that argument has been over for
                      200 years. Rather than deceitfully pretend that there is
                      disagreement in the field of geology over the ancient age
                      of the Earth, and that this ancient age is well-documented
                      in the Earth's geology, Denham is going to have to come up
                      with some other explanation for how what we observe in the
                      geologic record could have possibly come about in some few
                      thousands of years. He is trying to talk up a controversy
                      that does not exist.

                      > What if biologists do the same thing?

                      Do *what* same thing? The geologists are not doing what
                      you are pretending they are doing -- are we now supposed to
                      pretend that the biologists are doing the same thing you are
                      pretending the geologists are doing? Why all the
                      make-believe, Denham? Why is it you can't "deal with" things
                      the way they really are?

                      And even here there is another layer of deception: you are
                      wanting to lump biology under the "uniformitarian" label,
                      which I keep telling you won't work. You are pretending
                      that all of the fields of science are all part of one big
                      conspiracy that exists solely for the purpose of proving
                      God does not exist. That is just sick paranoia.

                      > Are you saying there are atheistic biologists who believe
                      > that the fielkd of biology confirms atheism, Rick? Would
                      > it be accurate to call them atheistic biologists?

                      Not in a scientific sense, no, it would not be accurate.
                      It is simply a propagandistic label designed to advance
                      your conspiracy theory. You are living in a fantasy world.

                      > If they insisted that the "science" of biology demands
                      > atheism and that sought to prove the same, would it not
                      > be reasonable to refer to them as teaching atheistic
                      > biology? Now, answer it. I have responded. Let's see you
                      > confront the Lw of Excluded Middle. Atheistic evolutionists
                      > are not on your side the way you may think!

                      What Denham has not answered, and what I have pointedly
                      asked, is how he expects science to disprove the existence
                      of God. Denham is making out like it can be done, and the
                      atheists are bent on doing it with their scientific research.

                      But all science has really done is to have falsified
                      Denham's interpretation of the Genesis Creation account and
                      validated -- *vindicated* -- mine.

                      According to Scripture, Christianity -- the Church -- will
                      still be in existence when Christ returns. Christianity
                      has nothing to fear from science. It is preachers such
                      as Daniel Denham who do far more damage to the believability
                      of the Christian message than science will ever be able to do.

                      We have to get rid of such men.

                      > Daniel Here: I then noted:
                      >>> "Notice, friends the obvious self-
                      >>> contradiction by Rick. "That naturalistic
                      >>> explanations of things exclude supernatural acts
                      >>> from the explanation does NOT in any way rule out
                      >>> the existence of God, or the possibility that God
                      >>> is the driving Force behind nature." Rick affirms
                      >>> that the explanations are "naturalistic," and yet
                      >>> as part of the explanations he tries to weasle in
                      >>> supernatural acts! Someone, please, define for
                      >>> Rick the meaning of the prefix "super" attached
                      >>> to the word "natural!"

                      >> "We will cover this point, below, as it relates
                      >> to germ-theory.
                      >> And let me point out here that Daniel Denham,
                      >> from his inclusion of my quote above, convicts
                      >> himself of misusing what I have said when he later
                      >> rewords and truncates the quote. I know he has
                      >> read it, I know he knows what it says. He will
                      >> later change it from the form you see here."

                      > Daniel Here: Indeed, it is the clear implication of
                      > what said. Now. if you want to take it back, then
                      > proceed to do so, Rick. You stated that naturalistic
                      > explanations excludes supernatural activity. You
                      > have argued that evolution involves naturalistic
                      > explanations, which is a statement with which I agree.
                      > I did not "truncate" the sentence as quoted in my
                      > previous paragraph.
                      > I then drew the conclusion demanded by what YOU said,
                      > Rick. I didn't say, YOU said it! That you reject the
                      > implication, I am not surprised, but you nonetheless
                      > implied it.

                      I said that naturalistic explanations do not use
                      supernatural acts as part of the explanation, and Denham
                      changed that to mean that naturalistic explanations mean
                      that God is not at work. Denham did truncate the quote
                      as my subsequent messages showed over and over again,
                      because he used the truncated quote to "imply" "God-is-in,
                      God-is-out" over and over again, which is nothing even
                      remotely close to what I was saying and Denham knows
                      what he did. It was because of this that I included
                      the "between the lines" statements in my subsequent
                      messages, and it was that statement that completely
                      undermined the dishonest way Denham had attempted to
                      advance his argument -- which led to Denham bailing
                      out of the discussion.

                      > Daniel Here: I then said:
                      >>> "No wonder Todd Greene and Robert Baty appear upset
                      >>> with Rick over the way things are going in this
                      >>> discussion. He goes from one blunder to the next;
                      >>> one self-contradiction to another; one repudiation
                      >>> of the canons of reason to yet another; seemingly,
                      >>> ad inifinitum."

                      >> Irrelevant yakking.

                      > Daniel Here: Irrelevant yakking.

                      So we are in agreement here.

                      > Daniel Here: I wrote:
                      >>> "Rick wants evidence that there are atheistic
                      >>> scientists who believe that evolution rules out
                      >>> God, friends."

                      >> "I don't care whether there are or not, nor have I
                      >> asked you for such evidence. I simply doubted your
                      >> quote that you attributed to Simpson and it appears
                      >> I was correct -- you are quoting the wrong guy.
                      >> There are many biologists who study evolution, such as
                      >> Kenneth Miller, who know better than to think that
                      >> evolution rules out the possibility of God's existence.
                      >> It is simply illogical thinking.
                      >> I am well aware of Dawkins' campaign against religion
                      >> of any kind. It does not affect my belief in God."

                      > Daniel Here: Already answered and refuted above.

                      No, this was not answered. There is nothing above here
                      in this message where you acknowledged that you were
                      quoting the wrong guy, there is nothing above here where
                      you do more than suggest that scientists who believe in
                      God aren't really true believers, and there is nothing
                      above here where you have shown that I should listen to
                      Dawkins as a spiritual guide.

                      > The record speaks for itself. Rick sought to deny that
                      > there is any disharmony or fighting going on among
                      > evolutionists over its implications. He wants to believe
                      > that they are all one big happy family trying to stem
                      > the tides of these low-brow creationists and intellignet
                      > design folk. He does not like the fact that the dirty,
                      > little secret of their disharmony is becoming more widely
                      > known. Rick, you did ask for proof, and I gave it to you.
                      > Now all you can do is carp and cavil (viz. your SOP).

                      All in all, the science is not paying any attention at all
                      to the "low-brow creationists" and "intelligent design folk".
                      Science is secure. If the "low-brow creationists" or the
                      "intelligent design folk" ever actually managed to produce
                      any empirical evidence for anything it would be duly
                      incorporated into the empirical model and would exist as
                      simply more science.

                      > Daniel Here:
                      >>> I guess he does not even watch the Discovery and History
                      >>> Channels, or any of the PBS science programs on evolution.

                      >> Actually, no I don't see much television. It has been
                      >> over twenty years since I owned one.

                      > Daniel Here: But folks earlier he denioed that atheistic
                      > scientists were doing this with evolutionary theory! Now
                      > he admits he has not even been watching their propaganda
                      > campaigns wherein they have flagrantly been doing it!
                      > Amazing! Simply, amazing!

                      I did make it a point to watch the "Ape to Man" series on
                      the History Channel a couple of years ago. I wonder if
                      Denham saw it. I wonder what he thought about that. I
                      wonder how he hopes to ever explain it away. He says that
                      evolution cannot logically be true. What is his logical
                      explanation for the fossil evidence?

                      > Daniel Here: I also wrote:
                      >>> "Besides the statements given above, we are inundated
                      >>> by the ponitifications of atheistic scientists about the
                      >>> theory of evolution and its implications for cosmology
                      >>> on an almost daily basis and yet, somehow, Rick seems
                      >>> totally unaware of this! Simply, amazing!"

                      >> "Biological evolution has no bearing on cosmological
                      >> theory. Biology and physics are wholly independent
                      >> fields."

                      > Daniel Here: So, Rick asserts. Atheistic evolutionists
                      > would disagree most vehemently, as also would creationists
                      > and intelligent design scientists.

                      We are all well aware of how young-earth creationists and
                      IDists misuse terminology. And you are going to be hard
                      pressed to find any biologist -- atheistic or not -- who
                      will agree that evolutionary mechanisms work on anything
                      besides biological life. There may be some "far out" ideas
                      out there that the entire Universe is "alive", but that
                      does not negate the fact that species here on Earth have
                      changed, through biological processes, over hundreds of
                      millions of years -- and that is the real thing you don't
                      want to face up to.

                      You are only trying to confuse the issue.

                      > In my review of his post #155 I addressed this point more
                      > in an indirect way and demonstrated the absurdity of the
                      > assertion that evolution is limited to biological systems
                      > only, upon which this quibble by Rick rests.

                      Yeah, and in my rebuttal to that post I made you
                      look like an idiot for saying such nonsense:

                      What Denham is doing here is trying to get away with the
                      old "equivocation fallacy". That is a term with which he
                      has claimed some familiarity, so I am going to assume that
                      his attempt to do so here is deliberate.

                      Sorry, Denham, you're busted.

                      > He wishes to separate biology and physics from one another
                      > as though they have no points of interesect or correlation.
                      > So, Rick, biological systems have no real interface with
                      > non-living (hence non-biological systems) environmental
                      > conditions (e.g. amount of rainfall, erosion, etc.)? You
                      > are the one who said that biology and physics are "wholly
                      > independent" of one another.

                      > I know, you will say, "that is not what I said."

                      No, I'm going to say, "Now you're just being ridiculous,
                      Denham." If I thought I would ever get a rational response
                      from him, I would ask how an "interface" between two
                      systems means that they are both the same system operating
                      in response to the same mechanisms.

                      And really I can, and have done so before, draw a circle
                      around the entire Universe and let the whole thing be one
                      "organism". That only changes the meaning of the words
                      "evolution" and "life" and "awareness" so that everything
                      in the Universe is "alive", and "aware" of everything else
                      in the Universe by the forces of gravity and electromagnetics
                      and so on. But I don't think Denham is prepared to start
                      talking about such things on a cosmic level. He'd better
                      stay on Earth with his talk of "evolution", and he'd better
                      grab a clue and restrict evolution to biology, or I'll just
                      equivocate with him and take him places he surely does not
                      want to go.

                      > But Rick that is what you implied in your response to my
                      > point. My point related to the inter-relatedness of all
                      > systems, biological and non-biolgical, in the functioning
                      > of the Universe in general and this world in particular.

                      It would do Denham a "world" of good to study up a little
                      on these terms: "hydrosphere", "atmosphere", "lithosphere",
                      and "biosphere". These are the four Earth systems. They
                      are all interconnected but operate according to different
                      forces acting upon them, and because they are different
                      materials they respond in different ways. For the most
                      part there is no significant exchange of materials between
                      the systems. If Denham wishes to combine all of these
                      into one system, then we get "Gaia", which, since it is
                      "alive" makes the entire biosphere part of a larger

                      > Whatever view one holds must in someone account for this,
                      > and this gets back to the issue of cosmology, despite
                      > your attempt to separate biological systems from that
                      > discussion.

                      I would suggest that the best way to account for it as
                      science accounts for it already -- by separating materials
                      and processes into manageable systems. That way you can
                      have biologists studying biology and physicists studying
                      physics and chemists studying chemistry instead of expecting
                      everybody to know everything about everything, as your
                      "everything is evolution" would have.

                      > You tried an end-run around the problem by appealing to
                      > the idea of biology and physics as distinctive fields in
                      > science, academically speaking. At best your comment was
                      > non sequitur to my point. At its worst it was deliberately
                      > designed to deceive.

                      The attempt to deliberately deceive is on the part of those
                      who will label anything about science that shows the Earth
                      to be ancient as "evolutionism" or "evolutionary scenarios".
                      The only reason they do this is to prejudicially mark as
                      suspect anything that disagrees with their interpretation
                      of the Bible.

                      > Daniel Here: I then noted:
                      >>> "Now, I predict, friends, that Rick is going to
                      >>> retreat to the theistic evolutionists' fall back
                      >>> position of quibbling about the supposed distinction
                      >>> between "methodological naturalism" and "philosophical
                      >>> naturalism," as though there is a huge difference
                      >>> between the two."

                      >> "This was covered in the previous post by my comments
                      >> regarding the snowflakes."

                      > Daniel Here: Yes, it was and your nonsense was clearly
                      > refuted.

                      Where? I must have missed it. (When Denham wrote
                      these words he didn't realize that I would be including
                      my statement "between the lines" in each message so
                      it would be easy enough for people to see how he was
                      trying to misrepresent what I had been saying since
                      the beginning of the discussion.)

                      > The atheists do not consider the distinction that
                      > the theistic evolutionists make as a valid criticism.

                      The "theistic evolutionists" don't consider the atheists'
                      idea that evolution disproves God as a valid argument,
                      and I don't consider Denham's remarks about what atheists
                      and theists believe to be even remotely accurate.

                      > They view the methodology as implicit in the philosophy
                      > and vice versa, as the quotes I provided from Dawkins,
                      > Simpson, et al. show.

                      The quotes you provided have nothing whatsoever to do
                      with scientific methodology. The scientific method of
                      inquiry is standardized. It does not change according
                      to the personal worldviews of the researchers, as I have
                      pointed out in this and many other messages. I offered
                      logical rebuttals to the opinions expressed in the
                      quotes. Either accept the rebuttals or argue of the
                      side of the atheists.

                      > Daniel Here:
                      >>> "It is interesting that genuine atheistic
                      >>> evolutionists, whose data Rick and his buddies
                      >>> love to use, do not seem to accept that distinction.
                      >>> They are pretty definite that science has gotten
                      >>> rid of God."

                      >> "That doesn't change the data, which is empirical and
                      >> value-neutral.
                      >> If God exists, how can science get rid of Him?"

                      > Daniel Here: That is my point, Rick! You are trying
                      > to interpret the "data" according to your own bias,
                      > but won't admit it!

                      You have no idea how I interpret the data. You have
                      no understanding at all. You are making assumptions
                      about me you are wholly unqualified to make. You
                      have said one untrue thing after another about me,
                      about my views, about my faith, and about my sincerity
                      since this discussion began. What you want me to
                      "admit" -- whatever it is -- has nothing to do with me.

                      I look at the data and it has no adverse effect on my
                      faith. You refuse to look at the data, saying it doesn't
                      exist, and claim that if it did exist, then God would
                      not exist. Your head ain't screwed on right.

                      > Science can't get rid of God. He does in fact exist,
                      > and that makes evolution not only unnecessary, but,
                      > given His own eyewitness testimony as to the origin
                      > of everything (including biological systems), it also
                      > makes macro-evolution a false doctrine.

                      Macro-evolution is a false doctrine according to
                      evolutionary theory as well. You are simply
                      misrepresenting the science. And yes, God could have
                      done things any way he chose. He chose to do it as
                      He did. Your interpretation of Scripture is in error,
                      and you are willing to misrepresent *everything*,
                      including the Lord and His work, to keep from admitting
                      your error.

                      > Daniel Here: I also stated:
                      >>> "Again, please give the evolutionary alternative
                      >>> that exists between atheistic evolution and
                      >>> theistic evolution."

                      >> Science. The science is the science, whether you
                      >> are believer or an atheist. Water freezes just as
                      >> predictably at 32 F. for either one.
                      >> This was covered above. Is there "Jewish chemistry"?

                      > Daniel Here: Rick ignores in practical terms the
                      > distinctions that atheists make in evolutionary theory.
                      > Let him go and "duke it out" with Dawkins and Stenger.
                      > They do make the distinction, despite Rick's claims.
                      > But I doubt seriously if they even know he exists.

                      Their "distinctions" do not change the science.
                      Whatever you want to be making out of the fact of
                      biological evolution, you had better be figuring it
                      out. Your continued arguing against it is not getting
                      you anywhere.

                      *There* are some "practical terms" for you.

                      > Yes, Rick there is a sense in which there is "Jewish
                      > chemistry" in that there are Jewish chemists. Their
                      > teaching may be the exact same as "Flemish chemists,"
                      > but that's the way definitions may and do work, Rick.

                      Therefore, the science does not change with the belief

                      > Atheistic evolutionists believe that evolution is
                      > atheism, and they would conclude that you and
                      > theistic evolutionists are perpetuating a myth that
                      > God must be involved in the process.

                      But that is not science. It is philosophy.

                      > Now, friends, this aspect of the discussion all started
                      > because of Rick's hypocritical condemnations of creation
                      > scientists like Austin and Oard, who are seeking an
                      > explanation of the supposed "data" that would be in
                      > keeping with creation science and/or intelliegent
                      > design.

                      No, they are lying about the data, and the data is not
                      "supposed". They are not practicing science, they are
                      imposing their belief systems on the science. The science
                      of chemistry does not change between Jewish chemists and
                      Flemish chemists; the science of biological evolution does
                      not change between the theist and the non-theist. The
                      science is the science. When the theist or non-theist
                      begins imposing their belief system on the science, and
                      begins to misrepresent the science as Austin and Oard
                      most certainly do, they are not practicing science.

                      For me to point out that Austin and Oard are
                      misrepresenting the science to advance their theological
                      views (that is, deliberately lying), it is not hypocritical
                      of me at all. I don't try to change the science; I don't
                      present false results as being science.

                      > Rick has been using the same approach in seeking to
                      > harmonize his evolutionary assumption with his belief
                      > in God, hence his theistic evolution.

                      At this point in history I would hardly call biological
                      evolution an "assumption". Denham's ignorance of current
                      science does not justify him expecting everyone else to
                      be as ignorant as he is, just so he can cling to his
                      erroneous interpretation of Scripture and small-mimded
                      conception of God.

                      In the past few days Daniel Denham has been so busy
                      bashing "theistic evolution" that I am glad I told him at
                      the beginning of this discussion that I didn't like the
                      term because of its ambiguity, and the way that ambiguity
                      could be exploited by such as Daniel Denham, which he has
                      certainly tried to do. No one could read Daniel Denham's
                      rants on the ChristianEvidences list and get the slightest
                      idea of my theology, or even what all different theologies
                      "theistic evolution" may include.

                      > Atheistis evolutionists maintain that that cannot be
                      > done, and is actually faulty "science.

                      That is a non-scientific statement. It is a philosophical
                      one. It is also pure propagandistic nonsense from the
                      mouth of H. Daniel Denham.

                      > Rick is being hypocritical in the matter, to say the
                      > least. He simply refuses to acknowledge his obvious
                      > hypocrisy.

                      Daniel Denham quite obviously holds a different view
                      than I do as to the definition of "hypocrisy".

                      > So, he denied at first that atheistic evolutionists
                      > held that view, and now is quibbling over its
                      > implications for the dichotomy that arise from it.

                      I have shown that the view is not a scientific one, and
                      is instead a philosophical one. What Daniel Denham is
                      going to have to do is show that I am attempting in
                      any way to dispute or misrepresent what the science is.
                      Until he can do that (which he cannot) he is unable to
                      effectively contend that the science itself is any
                      different for me than it is for anyone else who accepts
                      the science *as is* without imposing their theological
                      "reinterpretations" on it.

                      The science does not change between the "theistic"
                      and the "atheistic"; therefore the dichotomy is false,
                      as I have shown several times.

                      > Daniel Here: I wrote:
                      >> "If you reject the former, which you do, then the
                      >> latter is your only option, which, ultimately, leads
                      >> to a "God-of-the-gaps" view necessary to make
                      >> evolution work, while keeping God in some limited
                      >> way in the picture. The atheists are laughing at you,
                      >> Rick! They believ that you do not really understand
                      >> the system you're trying to defend."

                      >> "God is not "in the picture" in some "limited way".
                      >> God is involved right this moment in everything that
                      >> is happening in the Universe.
                      >> And if atheists are really laughing at me about that,
                      >> why should I be more concerned for myself than for
                      >> them?"

                      > Daniel Here: Yet, Rick has said that evolution involves
                      > naturalistic explanations, and naturalistic explanations
                      > exclude supernatural activity. Go, figure!

                      By now, statements like that aren't fooling anyone. By
                      now, you are no longer even fooling yourself.

                      > Daniel Here: I then observed:
                      >>> Rick needs to check the quotations give above from
                      >>> atheistic evolutionists on the force of evolutionary
                      >>> theory, especially that of the late paleontologist
                      >>> George Gaylord Simpson.

                      >> And Daniel Denham ought to make sure that biological
                      >> evolution is not a fact of life before he starts
                      >> promoting the philosophies of atheists who say that
                      >> evolution proves God does not exist.
                      >> And since biological evolution *is* a fact of life,
                      >> no amount of theological mumbo-jumbo out of Daniel
                      >> Denham or anyone else is going to change it.
                      >> Daniel Denham might as well be saying that if the
                      >> Earth is a globe that orbits the Sun, then that
                      >> disproves the existence of God.
                      >> Ignoring the evidence is not going to make it go
                      >> away. Saying that the evidence cannot exist, when
                      >> it does, is not going to make it go away. Daniel
                      >> Denham and the young-earth crowd need to come on
                      >> out into the light and figure out where to go
                      >> from here.

                      > Daniel Here: I do not promote the philosophies of
                      > atheists, Rick.

                      I would say that agreeing that "if evolution is true,
                      then God does not exist" is not only promoting the
                      philosophy of atheists but using unsound reasoning
                      to do so.

                      > You are and its called "macro-evolution."

                      I've already explained to you about macro-evolution --
                      that what appears to be macro-evolution is just
                      micro-evolution carried out over millennia. What is
                      your problem with that?

                      And how can you say it is atheistic? All you are
                      really saying is that if your interpretaion isn't the
                      one that is right -- if people won't play the way you
                      want to play -- you're going to take your ball and go

                      > The rest of your statement is just pure assertion.

                      I think there is a lot of good sense in that statement.
                      I would urge you, and others, to read it again.

                      > You cannot even tell us at what point a non-human
                      > thing suddenly, instantaneously became a human "thing,"
                      > much less a "human being."

                      Well, I have now, at long last, in my previous post.
                      Your behavior since then on the ChristianEvidences list
                      has failed to acknowledge what I said in that message
                      in fact what you have been saying indicates you are
                      willfully ignoring it, and deliberately saying things
                      about me that you know to be untrue.

                      > At this juncture, Rick takes a bit of a detour,
                      > which seems to be SOP when he is getting pummeled
                      > on a point.

                      Looks to me it is Daniel Denham who took the detour,
                      running clean off the field away from the discussion,
                      and now that I am banned from the ChristianEvidences
                      list he sits over there making his personal remarks
                      without having enough manliness about himself to
                      make his remarks here on the Maury_and_Baty list where
                      I can pummel him some more.

                      Rick re-posted this quotation:
                      >> "Evolution provides a naturalistic explanation
                      >> for what we observe, without relying on
                      >> supernatural explanations."
                      Then he added:
                      >> "Later on in this post (as well as the next one
                      >> that Daniel Denham has now posted) Daniel Denham
                      >> is going to misquote what I say above, changing
                      >> its meaning, and ignore the comments which
                      >> follow the above statement:
                      >> It does not "rule out the existence of God", it
                      >> rules out unexplainable miracles as part of the
                      >> explanation, just like we now have ruled out the
                      >> idea that angels push the planets in their orbit
                      >> around the sun. Ruling out the angels as an
                      >> explanation for planetary motion did not rule out
                      >> the existence of God.
                      >> And the theory of biological evolution is just
                      >> science, based on the same principles as any other
                      >> science. It is value-neutral, like the technology
                      >> that brings you television.
                      >> It is neither theistic nor atheistic. Like the
                      >> technology, you have a choice about how to use it."

                      > I had posted in response to that statement,
                      > as Rick noted: "Daniel Here:
                      >>> So, there is no supernatural operations involved
                      >>> in the evolutionary process at all, according
                      >>> to Rick..."

                      Rick quibbled:
                      >> "Already it begins. The deliberate twisting, the
                      >> deliberate refusal to understand what I have just
                      >> plainly said, for about the dozenth time. A
                      >> naturalistic explanation does not rule out
                      >> supernatural operations. They are simply not part
                      >> of the explanation.
                      >> I gave the snowflakes as an example, showing that there
                      >> are true things that we can know about the snowflakes
                      >> without knowing everything about them, which God alone
                      >> knows."

                      > Daniel Here: In his original post he said,
                      >> It rules out unexplainable miracles as part of
                      >> the explanation, just like we now have ruled out
                      >> the idea that angels push the planets in the orbit
                      >> around the sun."
                      > I knew that he would entrap himself on the definition
                      > of a "miracle." Is a "miracle" super-natural activity,
                      > Rick? Yes or No.


                      > Does a "miracle" involve a direct and immediate
                      > operation of Deity? Yes on No.


                      > Now, watch the transverse, friends. You have admitted
                      > that God works directly and immediately in forming
                      > each snowflake as it were with His very finger. In fact,
                      > you have claimed that the existence of the Universe itself
                      > is an ONGOING miracle. You have just kicked God out again!
                      > Thanks for the repost! Down goes your dogma, Rick! If you
                      > don't see it, you can rest assured everyone else on this
                      > list does!

                      I'm afraid I don't follow your line of thought here. I
                      think the reason for that is that you don't have one. I
                      suspect "everyone else on this list" is scratching their
                      heads over this just as I am.

                      > Daniel Here: His quibbling over the distinction he
                      > makes between "operations" and "explanations" is fatuous.
                      > He has been trying to involve God in the explanation of
                      > how evolution works from the very beginning of this
                      > discussion. Notice this statement: "A naturalistic
                      > explanation does not rule out supernatural operations."
                      > There are no "miracles" involved in the explanation,
                      > but it is all an ongoing miracle! In other words, it is
                      > necessary for the miracle to exist to account properly
                      > for evolution to occur, but it is not necessary, because
                      > there are natural explanations sufficient to account
                      > properly for evolution to occur!

                      Just take the word "evolution" out of this and put
                      "snowflakes" in its place, and refer back to that statement
                      I inserted into all those other messages "between the lines".
                      That's all you have to do.

                      > No, Rick, you have not been misrepresented.

                      The public record shows otherwise.

                      > You have been found out. In order to attack creationism,
                      > you must invoke God into the process, lest you be accused
                      > of atheism.

                      I can attack the false science of creationism from *any*
                      paradigmatic position. As I have said before, it doesn't
                      matter at all what someone's beliefs may be, creation-science
                      is proved false by science itself. Why, as a believer, should
                      I not be opposed to these lies being wrongfully associated
                      with my theology? Why does Daniel Denham hold that anyone
                      who opposes these lies is opposing Christianity? Does
                      Daniel Denham, in spite of earlier statements, believe that
                      it really is all right to use lies to support his theology?

                      Yes. He does. That has become obvious over the course
                      of this discussion. Daniel Denham will lie about anything,
                      in every way imaginable, to support his beliefs. It should
                      be readily apparent that a theology supported by lies is a
                      false theology.

                      > Yet the very dogma of evolution in its explanation makes
                      > God unnecessary, as I have argued all along.

                      And I have argued all along that your argument is illogica<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.