…and this is a 
So right away, you know not to trust it. No details are given, we are simply told that "a major study he commissioned by a respected researcher unveils for the first time in a scientific fashion the startling reasons behind statistics that show two-thirds of young people in evangelical churches will leave when they move into their 20s". That's actually a nice result from my perspective…so it's too bad that I can't believe what he claims.
Also, since it is Ken Ham, he knows exactly what the problem is and what we need to do to keep more kids in the faith.
The book explores a number of reasons for the findings, but Ham sees one overarching problem that is related to how churches and parents have taught youth to understand the Genesis account of creation.
Ham — who believes in a literal six-day creation that happened 6,000 to 10,000 years ago — says the church opened a door for the exodus of youth, beginning in the 19th century, when it began teaching that "the age of the Earth is not an issue as long as you trust in Jesus and believe in the resurrection and the Gospel accounts."
I get it. His "study" is actually propaganda for his "museum".
Comments
Posted by: Nangleator | June 17, 2009 8:58 AM
Also, scientific researchers at scientific laboratories in scientific universities reveal in a sciency way that science is stoopid and doesn't work and makes you look dum and science guys are poopy heads.
It's all in this secret paper the mainstream science media wants to keep from you.
Posted by: Kel | June 17, 2009 9:00 AM
Any rational person would suggest that it's because the church has failed to adapt to the zeitgeist of our time, and recognised science as a tool that gives a beacon of truth to those who seek it. But no, it's all the churches fault for failing to be dogmatic...
worst thing to come out of Australia ever
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 17, 2009 9:02 AM
Including Vegemite and Paul Hogan ?
Posted by: Rorschach | June 17, 2009 9:07 AM
No sorry mate,that was Vegemite.
But he's a close second.
Posted by: Stanton
|
June 17, 2009 9:08 AM
Given as how we're talking about the same ghoul who made a monument for lying to children in order to score brownie points with God and his own bank account, and eulogized Steve Irwin by saying he's burning in Hell forever for not having repented the two unforgivable sins of accepting evolution and not believing in God exactly how Ken Ham wants you to believe in God, then, yes, dramatically worse than Paul Hogan wearing nothing but Vegemite.Posted by: Kel | June 17, 2009 9:08 AM
Easily beats Vegemite and Paul Hogan (both are fine in small doses tbh) - the only thing which could compare is Russell Crowe, but he's a Kiwi to begin with so he doesn't really count. ;)
Posted by: Helene | June 17, 2009 9:10 AM
How can people believe that bunk, er I mean "scientific study"?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 17, 2009 9:12 AM
You do realise I am going to have that image stuck in my head for the rest of the day! But yes, evil as the image is, it is not as bad a Ken Ham.
Posted by: Stanton
|
June 17, 2009 9:21 AM
What about Paul Hogan wearing nothing but a live quokka?Posted by: Robert Madewell | June 17, 2009 9:21 AM
Well professor, what did you expect?Posted by: tz | June 17, 2009 9:23 AM
The book explores a number of reasons for the findings, but Ham sees one overarching problem that is related to how churches and parents have taught youth to understand the Genesis account of creation.
Ahh I get it, he is also promoting his book.
Posted by: raven | June 17, 2009 9:24 AM
Ken Ham is the problem not the solution.
Making believing primitive and senseless lies a litmus test for a religion works both ways. The brighter, more educated, and saner people will simply leave without much good to say about toxic, brainwashing cults.
No matter how much brainwashing or violence one employs, the truth always wins in the long term. 400 years after Copernicus, the Geocentrists are down to 20% of the population and making a last ditch stand in Ken Ham's ignorant brand of cults.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 17, 2009 9:24 AM
and the result was Alan Clarke and Ken Ham.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 17, 2009 9:26 AM
Stop! You are just evil.
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
June 17, 2009 9:26 AM
I guess I'd ask which was doing more overall harm: Vegemite, Paul Hogan, or Ken Ham? My money's on Ham, what with the "literal six-day creation" pablum, etc. Vegemite at least has the honor of being related to beer, and Paul Hogan strikes me as largely innocuous.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Zeno | June 17, 2009 9:27 AM
Ken Ham's creation museum has a display near the museum's exit that seeks to rile up the troops by with the report that "only 1 in 3 teens will continue to participate in church life". It seems that Ham's research project is in keeping with this concern. Admittedly, we can't trust anything that comes out of AiG. These are also the people who think "1 in 3" means 30%. That's creation math for you. Of course, for creationists that's way more accurate than most of their statements.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 17, 2009 9:32 AM
Any rational person would suggest that it's because the church has failed to adapt to the zeitgeist of our time, and recognised science as a tool that gives a beacon of truth to those who seek it. But no, it's all the churches fault for failing to be dogmatic... - Kel
Actually, I doubt this. I saw a report of a study recently - unfortunately can't remember where, or whether it was empirically based or just a model - claiming that religions and sects that make the cost of membership (in a broad sense) high do best in retaining their members. Because having paid the cost, members are more averse to leaving, and feel they can depend on others who have also paid it, IIRC. I'll see if I can find it again, if no-one recognises it from that vague description. Empirically, the batshit-insane cults and sects do seem to be flourishing, while the relatively sane (e.g. the CofE) wither. Ham could be right here - even though he is a piglet-rapist.
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
June 17, 2009 9:36 AM
Ah, hell, everyone else got there before I did. Slow typing strikes again. Where's the coffee?
I do get a kick out of the posting error message, though, I confess. "Were you trying to post a comment?" It's fun to think of a sort of snide Science Blogs concierge polite only as a veil for the utter disdain with which he holds visitors:
"Oh, were you trying to post a comment? Awfully sorry for the inconvenience. We at Science Blogs do appreciate you. I'm sure I can have something worked out shortly. If sir would be kind enough to wait by the house phone? No, no! Please, I insist you not try to repost by employing the back button, or doing anything else, for that matter." When you turn around the smile becomes a sneer.
Or perhaps I've been watching too many movies. All in good humor, anyway.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Billy C | June 17, 2009 9:38 AM
According to the article, the survey finds that kids who regularly participate in evangelical Sunday Schools are less likely to become Godbots later in life. That's an interesting result and for all I know it's true. (It certainly worked for me.)
Ken Ham's interpretation is that this is because evangelical Sunday School teachers tell them that the creation story is just a morality tale and should not be taken literally. This makes me think that Ken Ham doesn't visit many evangelical Sunday schools.
I think it's more likely that regular participation in Sunday schools increases exposure to scripture, which increases the likelihood that a person will identify and ponder the many contradictions, absurdities and outrages therein; and also the likelihood that a person will realize that his/her "spiritual leaders" are talking out of their collective rectum.
It certainly worked for me.
Posted by: davem | June 17, 2009 9:42 AM
Any activity forced on children, eg Sunday School, leads them to rebellion against said activity. This leads to discussion about the verity of the subject matter being forcibly taught, and hence to rationalism. Worked for me.
Posted by: Kel | June 17, 2009 9:44 AM
I suppose that could be true. Maybe more than anything I'm hoping that it isn't, because surely people can see the fruits of science in their TV and computer and cars - and still not feel that conflicts with a Jew being God-incarnate 2000 years ago.Posted by: DaveL | June 17, 2009 10:02 AM
Ol' Ken could have saved himself some money by hiring me instead. I'd tell him why young people leave evangelical churches in droves in a single sentence:
"They realized you were feeding them a steady diet of ridiculous lies."
Posted by: meloniesch | June 17, 2009 10:09 AM
People are leaving church because pastors haven't been pushing young-earth Biblical literalism? Ken Ham's interpretation of Genesis was all I ever ingested as a child - told that Genesis was the 'bedrock' for all Christian beliefs. This actually put Christianity in a very precarious position for me, because as soon as I realised there was just a bit of a problem with Genesis, by logic I had to chuck out Christianity too. Ken Ham - you are shooting yourself in the foot with this one!!!
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
June 17, 2009 10:09 AM
Oh hell yeah. Ken Ham is even worse than Yahoo Serious.
Posted by: Chris Davis | June 17, 2009 10:18 AM
Department of Redundancy Department alert!
Posted by: george | June 17, 2009 10:25 AM
I'm just going to keep saying it until people believe me.
KEN HAM IS A CAVE MAN. Look at him! He's obviously against evolution because if people believe in it, they'll see that he's some sort of ancient throwback, and they'll dissect him for scientific purposes.
DON'T BELIEVE THE CAVE MAN.
Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | June 17, 2009 10:27 AM
@NBWaW #24
Now that's just cruel. I forgot that guy even existed, and now you've gone and brought him up. feh.
Posted by: george | June 17, 2009 10:35 AM
I'm just going to keep saying it until people believe me.
KEN HAM IS A CAVE MAN. Look at him! He's obviously against evolution because if people believe in it, they'll see that he's some sort of ancient throwback, and they'll dissect him for scientific purposes.
DON'T BELIEVE THE CAVE MAN.
Posted by: MrFire | June 17, 2009 10:36 AM
Sigh, still work to be done: that's at least 21% above the ideal number :)
Ken Ham. Science. I'm pretty sure that putting those words in the same sentence tears a hole in spacetime somewhere.
Posted by: SEF | June 17, 2009 10:44 AM
That's just the same as occurs within (acknowledged) criminal organisations. There's the fact that others know your misdeeds (as you know theirs) and there's typically a separate threat of payback for leaving/apostasy too (whether real-world or imaginary, as long as it is believed). Eg the only way you leave the mob is in a coffin.Posted by: --E | June 17, 2009 10:52 AM
says the church opened a door for the exodus of youth, beginning in the 19th century, when it began teaching that "the age of the Earth is not an issue...
-->Translation: As soon as you let young people have even a speck of freedom to think, they get completely out of hand. Therefore, we need to be more vigilant in keeping their brains hermetically wrapped in our groupthink.
On the one hand, ew. On the other hand, it's kind of interesting to see that acknowledged by the other side (even though I'm sure he doesn't realize what he's acknowledging). Gives me hope, really, since it's increasingly difficult to cut people off from different ideas. The only places it really seems to be working these days are the "compounds" which don't have any interaction with the outside world at all.
Posted by: DLC | June 17, 2009 11:17 AM
It's enough to make one give up things named Ham or Hamm.
Okay, I can live without the Canadian beer, but smoked pork thigh ? Damn, you really know how to hurt a guy.
Re: things thrown from 'down under' :
I kinda liked Russel Crowe, even if he is a Kiwi.
I wouldn't eat Vegimite on a bet.
Paul Hogan ? didn't he just sort of mercifully fade away after the second Crocodile Dundee movie flamed out?
But I used to own a boomerang.
Posted by: george | June 17, 2009 11:22 AM
I'm just going to keep saying it until people believe me.
KEN HAM IS A CAVE MAN. Look at him! He's obviously against evolution because if people believe in it, they'll see that he's some sort of ancient throwback, and they'll dissect him for scientific purposes.
DON'T BELIEVE THE CAVE MAN.
Posted by: CT | June 17, 2009 11:24 AM
As a believer in God and the message of Jesus Christ (feel free insert flame here if so desired), Ham states on his site somewhere that if you don't believe every word of the Bible as it is written then you aren't (or cannot be) a Christian. (It is possible that is was another contributor and not Ham himself). Either way, while I may have lost "faith" in "scripture as dictation", I haven't lost faith in God and the message of Christ.
While science may seem to prove/disprove portions of the Bible that touches on natural science, science can never prove/disprove God.
Science, religion and philosophy all seek to answer the ultimate question(s): Why are we here?
They all come out with different answers.
There are many, many intelligent believers in God. Don't judge believers by the 'extremeists'.
Posted by: mds | June 17, 2009 11:26 AM
I will hear no more of your slanderous comments against Vegemite! Only Marmite is a better processed Shoggoth food product!
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 17, 2009 11:38 AM
That presumes there is a reason in the first place. Science makes no such assumption. It just seeks to explain HOW the Universe works.
If you want to answer the question of purpose, you must first show the question means something. It is not at all clear to me, and many others, that it does.
Posted by: natural cynic | June 17, 2009 11:43 AM
Uh, wasn't the 19th century when the literal Genesis DID become an issue?
And, unfortunately, I can't trust the sadistic that 2/3 of the fundy youth have gained some sense. Way too optimistic.
Posted by: Erp | June 17, 2009 11:46 AM
Actually a fair number of the evangelically raised are leaving either to other denominations or other religions or completely though two-thirds seems high.
A Pew Forum report has some statistics.
Posted by: CT | June 17, 2009 12:03 PM
I would argue that only observing an event and asking "Why did that event happen?" do we look at the "How".
We observe humanity. How did we get here? Well we need a planet (and subsequent life sustaining objects). How did they get here?
So, while science today may be more focused on "HOW", its built on past science that asked "WHY?"
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 17, 2009 12:09 PM
Nice, dishonest, trick you are pulling there.
"Why are we here" is a question about purpose. When science asks "Why" it does so in respect of causality. Different meanings of the word, which you have chosen to conflate to pursue your agenda.
Suppose someone came up to you and said that their grandmother had slipped and broken her arm. You could ask them "How did she slip" or "Why did she slip". The questions are the same. Neither is asking what purpose the grandmother had in slipping, they are asking what events led to her slipping. Science asks why in that sense.
Posted by: meloniesch | June 17, 2009 12:14 PM
People, quit dissing Vegemite. On a toasted crumpet with melting butter it is simply delicious. If you are really hard core you can move on to eating it straight on a teaspoon.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 17, 2009 12:25 PM
CT, science has no need for your imaginary god. It will come up with answers without one. Compare this the lack of physical evidence for the Xian god, and the fact that the bible is a huge mishmash of fables strung together. Even the existence of Jesus is in real historical doubt. Not a history/morality book by any means.
Posted by: raven | June 17, 2009 12:31 PM
Ham is just lying, Making Stuff Up. According to him the majority of Xians are Fake Xians.
Bad theology. According to the NT, salvation is by faith in jesus existence and/or good works depending on where you sink your quote mine.
According to the OT, false prophets are to be stoned to death. This has always been a problem with Judeo-Xian religion. In Ham's ideal hellhole theocracy, he would be buried under a pile of rocks by now.
You must remember. Ham is an equal opportunity hater as well as an opportunist. He doesn't like atheists because they don't provide any money for his cult. He doesn't like other xian sects for the same reason. They are competition.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 17, 2009 12:40 PM
Or more likely freed itself from focusing on questions of WHY.
Posted by: tsg | June 17, 2009 12:42 PM
If god is observable, science can answer the questions as to its nature, including whether or not it exists. If god is not observable, then nobody can know anything about it, including those who claim they do.
Posted by: Dan | June 17, 2009 12:47 PM
The survey found, much to Ham's surprise, a "Sunday School syndrome," indicating children who faithfully attend Bible classes in their church over the years actually are more likely to question the authority of Scripture.
I'm not surprised at all. My guess is that children who attend bible classes are more likely to read the Bible. The overwhelming majority of ex-christians I know lost their faith from reading the bible, since what the bible actually says and what had been preached to them growing up were so different. They were forced to start thinking about their religion, which led to rejecting it.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | June 17, 2009 12:49 PM
Let's keep the Horrors Out of Australia™ in perspective, folks: Add together Ken Ham, Paul Hogan and that gooey stuff blend with platypus venom, and you still don't have 1% of the toxicity of Rupert Murdoch.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 17, 2009 12:54 PM
You do realise I am going to have that image stuck in my head for the rest of the day! But yes, evil as the image is, it is not as bad a Ken Ham.
Fortunately for me I have no idea what vegemite looks like, so I am spared that image...
Posted by: Bodach | June 17, 2009 12:54 PM
"A major study... in a scientific fashion".
Much of my lab work was done in a "scientific fashion" which is why I often fared poorly academically.
Posted by: tsg | June 17, 2009 12:59 PM
Think peanut butter, only greyer.
You're welcome.
Posted by: Porco Dio | June 17, 2009 1:17 PM
Maybe kids that are brought up with religion are more likely to question it because they come into contact with more deranged psychopaths than people who spend more quiet time with their family and a small group of friends.
I suppose if their religious education didn't involve so much fear and punishment and hatred toward others then they wouldn't find a reason to question it in the slightest...
Posted by: CT | June 17, 2009 1:24 PM
Are you serious? You sincerely think that is what I am doing?
I was "trying" to use "WHY" in a sense of causality. My apologies if that wasn't clear.
When I say "Why are we here" - I mean - Why humanity? Why animals? Why does the Sun "rise"?
So the question of "HOW" begins with "WHY" - They are not the same.
"WHY the Sun "rises", and "HOW" the sun "rises" are different questions.
Why leads to investigating the How that leads to the discovery that the Earth rotates around the Sun.
Posted by: ShadetheDruid | June 17, 2009 1:28 PM
"Recognised science as a tool that gives a beacon of truth to those who seek it" - Kel, #2
Does me reading that as "bacon of truth" mean i've been reading Pharyngula too much?
Posted by: raven | June 17, 2009 1:28 PM
My Sunday School and church lessons were heavily censored. For the best of reasons, the mainline protestant sect was and is pretty benign. Rather than destroy Western civilization and the USA while hating a huge list of people, they were into world peace and elminating poverty.
In over a decade, there was never a word about selling your kids as sex slaves, stoning people to death for a long list of minor infractions, genocide, and treating women like the family dog. Revelations was treated like the crazy aunt in the basement.
I'm sure this is common. So when you actually get around to finding out what is in the bible, it looks like a hopeless mishmash of bronze age nonsense with contradictions every few pages especially on the main points.
Anyone who tried to actually follow the Old Testament would be doing multiple life sentences by now.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 17, 2009 1:28 PM
Fortunately for me I have no idea what vegemite looks like, so I am spared that image...
Think peanut butter, only greyer.
You're welcome.
Interesting, it's still not clicking into an image. Lucky me, could be worse, could be a vegemite covered Rupert Murdoch...
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 17, 2009 1:30 PM
nope. brown shoe-paste.
Posted by: CT | June 17, 2009 1:34 PM
Did I imply that it did?
I was stating my viewpoints on Ham as observed from a person of reasonable intellect that chooses to follow Jesus Christ and chooses to believe in God.
And I suggested that science, religion and philosophy are all about answering questions.
Does my being a person of faith offend you?
Chris
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
June 17, 2009 1:37 PM
@CT #52: I'm not seeing the difference. From your examples, asking "Why does the sun rise?" is semantically equivalent to asking "What causes the sun to rise?". They're both asking about the causal mechanism, as you stated.
As far as I can see, they only become different questions if by "Why does the sun rise?" you mean "What is the purpose of the sun's rising?"
Hmm. Looks to me like "why" questions are too vague to be useful by themselves.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 17, 2009 1:39 PM
It means that the plan I hatched and put into place a few months pack is nearing full and total success.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 17, 2009 1:43 PM
months Back that is.
And on that note, my typo virus plan is working well too.
Posted by: tsg | June 17, 2009 1:44 PM
Nice dodge.
Posted by: CT | June 17, 2009 1:46 PM
What is your definition of observable please?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 17, 2009 1:50 PM
Science is about answering questions. It has a methodology that works, and in constantly revising itself to make it better.Religion is stifled by the holy books of the various world religions. They are not changing and adapting. Religion is therefore stagnant, and is not capable of answering questions. Besides, which religion is to be believed?
Philosophy may answer some questions, but from what I have seen here, much of it involves mental masturbation which can conclude anything. Philosophy without evidence is sophistry. So philosophy can answer questions, but it needs to do a reality check on its work.
Posted by: tsg | June 17, 2009 1:52 PM
Roughly, that which can be detected, either directly or indirectly.
Posted by: CT | June 17, 2009 1:52 PM
What? He sidetracked my comments and you accuse me of dodging?
The real heart of his post was not the contents of my post but my belief.
Now, do you think I was dodging? Or getting to the real issue?
C
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 17, 2009 1:57 PM
I am quite serious. Unless you really are clueless then I think you were less than honest.
You claim "HOW" the sun rises is a different question to "WHY" the sun rises. Well it is if you think the sun has purpose. Unless you can show that the sun is an intelligent entity capable of making decisions as whether it should rise or not then HOW and WHY become the same question.
So either you are an imbecile who thinks that the sun is an intelligent entity capable of making decisions or you are playing a dishonest semantic games intending to conflate to different uses of the word "Why". Actually, no, there is a third possibility, which is that you understand English so poorly you really cannot see the difference.
Given what you have said so far, I go for the dishonest option.
Posted by: CT | June 17, 2009 1:58 PM
Ah well, not really.
Lets take maybe a smaller example.
Two metal objects stick together "magically". The observer asks, why do these two metal objects stick together.
Because of his curiousity to the "why", he examines the "how". The "how" explains the "why".
Why is motivation for discovering the how.
Does that help?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 17, 2009 2:01 PM
Come one.
You're playing a game of equivocation.
Posted by: tsg | June 17, 2009 2:03 PM
You claimed yourself a believer and assumed you would get flamed for it, thus pre-supposing that any disagreement with you would be based on your religion and not your argument. Then you said:
Alluding to the "religion is just a different way of knowing" canard, which Nerd of Redhead challenged. You took it upon yourself to be a personal attack for being religious. Your "insert flame here" remark in your initial post confirms it.
Get down off the cross. We need the wood.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 17, 2009 2:03 PM
damn it
"come ON"
bah
Multitasking is not my friend.
Posted by: Holbach
|
June 17, 2009 2:07 PM
CT @34
Science seeks to answer why we are here, philosophy muses over it, and religion already knows the answer to what it knows nothing of about the non-existent. Only religion is totally useless in seeking anything of substance from nothing. Science is all, philosophy is a musing bulwark, and religion is absolutely useless and nothing. Let's see your imaginary god come down and refute that.
Posted by: CT | June 17, 2009 2:08 PM
I would argue that your supposition is incorrect. Religion does change and goes through "revolutions" if you will. Think Protestantism - think polytheism/monotheism.
Imagine Religion much like the different branches of Science. Do they agree on all the issues? Do they vehemently disagree on many issues?
Religion is quite capable of answering questions but the questions are different than the questions science tries to answer.
Religion and Philosophy are very similar but different, though both tread into the other's territory at times. Sometimes for good reasons.
As my view of science at times has been too narrow (and probably still is), your view of religion is too narrow and uninformed. I mean no insult by that for what it is worth.
C
Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 17, 2009 2:09 PM
nope. brown shoe-paste.
That presents an image but not of ... ooooh, ewwww, *urp*...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 17, 2009 2:12 PM
But what does that say about Religion that the divine words of the Lord can be changed to mean whatever the new discoveries of man want them to?
Science changes because it's about following where the evidence leads you.
Religion is about following where the evidence takes you, as long as it is in accordance with the church's teachings, doctrine and documents.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 17, 2009 2:22 PM
As the Rev. points out, Religion's change, or "revolutions" have been forced upon them by reality. 500 years ago religion denied that the earth wasn't the center of the universe. Today, you still have people who argue that it is, that all of science regarding the nature of the earth, universe, etc., is composed of lies and that the earth is still the center of the universe and (at least for some) is flat.
Religion, at least in the western form of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic sense, is counter-intuitive, opposed to exploration of ideas, opposed to reason and science the instant they draw to light inconsistencies in their teachings.
Posted by: CT | June 17, 2009 2:24 PM
I would argue that God is only detectable/undetectable by the methods employed. Here is where we step outside of science and the scientific methods. I will leave it at that since we could discuss it for hours, and a comments section (plus the slowness of it) makes a poor medium.
Posted by: MrFire | June 17, 2009 2:29 PM
Why do two objects stick together? Because they're magnets.
How do these objects stick together? Through magnetic interactions.
That's the difference between why and how in your example. See? No abstracts required.
Posted by: CT | June 17, 2009 2:34 PM
Wrong. I presupposed that I would get flamed for being a believer, and that bringing God into the conversation would be ridiculed.
Not that any disagreement would arise based on my religion. I had hoped for a reasonable discourse without people resorting to name-calling and insults.
Would you agree that my presupposition was correct? In any forum such as this, you have the ones who are willing to converse reasonable, and those that throw around tired axioms and mantras.
So why did I bring God into the conversation? Because as a believer and dealing with Ham it become relevant. Since PZ wanted to discuss Ham (and the usual insults) it was relevant to show another side - the side of a believer who disagrees with Ham's methods.
Not at all. It is inevitable that it would happen. I called it (in humor) hoping to minimize the amount of it.
C
Posted by: Steve_C | June 17, 2009 2:36 PM
CT. You're boring the godless. Courtier's Reply. Seen it all before.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 17, 2009 2:36 PM
Wrong analogy. Religion and science are not alike and should not be presented together like that. Religion is fictional. All holy books were the early sociology to make society run in some fashion while the warlords worried about who they got tribute from and who they paid tribute to. Gods were just a stupid way to rationalize the religion.Science is a methodology that keeps looking at how, and in doing so, keeps getting closer to why.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 17, 2009 2:36 PM
Imagine Religion much like the different branches of Science. Do they agree on all the issues? Do they vehemently disagree on many issues?
Religion is absolutely nothing like "the different branches of science". Religon is irrational, science rational. Different religions make completely unjustified and contradictory claims, and there is absolutely no way of resolving disputes within religion, other than by force. Different branches of science study different topics. Where there is disagreement in science, it must be resolved by evidence.
Posted by: tsg | June 17, 2009 2:39 PM
Irrelevant to my statement. If science can't detect it, then neither can man. If man can detect it, then so can science. If man can't detect it, he can't know it's there, or even that there is a question for science not to be able to answer.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 17, 2009 2:39 PM
"Two metal objects stick together "magically". The observer asks, why do these two metal objects stick together.
Because of his curiousity to the "why", he examines the "how". The "how" explains the "why"."
You get the same result if you cut out the Why question altogether. Why cannot an observer just say "I notice the metal objects are sticking together. How is that happening ?".
Differntiating between HOW and WHY only makes sense when you are dealing with an intelligent entity. Asking WHY a crime was committed is diffent from asking HOW a crime was committed. Absent an entity capable of motivation then WHY is the same thing as HOW.
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
June 17, 2009 2:41 PM
CT at #76 wrote:
I was following the conversation (mostly) right up until that sentence. "God is only detectable/undetectable by the methods employed?" Huh?
Which prompts the question: if detecting god is outside of science and the scientific method, what good is detecting god as a means of understanding (observing) the universe (which is what we use science for)? Which further prompts: what's the use in god? Why the need for "purpose?"
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Holbach
|
June 17, 2009 2:43 PM
CT @ 78
The only reason your imaginary god exists is because your brain wills it so. If you had no brain you would have no god. Can anything be as simple as that? Why is it that so many of us rational people have no gods in our brains? Yours and our brains have the same evolutionary development, but yet yours takes on these illogical and imaginary delusions. How do you explain this? Can you explain it so that it does not smack of insanity? Please enlighten us with your erudite obfuscation.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
June 17, 2009 2:44 PM
I suppose, if that's how you personally speak. I normally start with the "How does this work?" or the "What causes this to happen?" questions myself, unless I'm asking about motivations. It works just as well as a motivator and is expressed a little less ambiguously, in my opinion.
Posted by: amphiox | June 17, 2009 2:47 PM
CT #76: If a method exists, in principle, by which god can be detected, then the existence of god is question potentially answerable by science (if not necessarily answerable by human scientists, right now), regardless of whether or not the putative method is currently feasible from a practical point of view. If god cannot be detected by any possible or conceivable method, then the question of god lies outside the purview of science.
Posted by: tsg | June 17, 2009 2:49 PM
That you take criticism of your beliefs as an insult says an awful lot about your expectations for reasonable discourse.
No.
"Pot to kettle, come in kettle. You are black. Over."
I'm not complaining about you bringing god into the conversation. I'm complaining about your insistence that criticism of your assertions amounts to personal insult.
Especially when you find it wherever you can whether or not it's really there.
Posted by: CT | June 17, 2009 2:53 PM
I would agree with MUCH of that. How much of organized religion is unscriptural? (Of any religion?)
Western Theology places way too much emphasis on the Bible being God's dictated words without ANY influence from man.
There are many growing Christians who realize that there are inconsistencies in scripture and have realized that much of it has been touched by the authors - and in some cases - overzealous scribes reworking some of the material.
When you come out of this background (as an intelligent person), you realize that this presupposition (that it is all "God breathed" is incorrect. At this point, you either make the choice to chuck it all, or do something else.
Too many people "chuck it all" instead of asking whether or not man had any influence on what is contained in it. And then asking to what degree did man influence what we have now.
Scripture is a tool. A tool to learn how to revere God for those us that do believe. Scripture is a tool to learn spiritual truths, not scientific ones. Here again we step out of science and into something else.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 17, 2009 2:57 PM
On what authority? If this is the case why subscribe to any of any particular religion's teachings if you can pick and choose what is relevant to what you want to believe?
Posted by: Steve_C | June 17, 2009 3:00 PM
Stepping out of science and into MYTHOLOGY.
Yeah we knew that already.
Posted by: Holbach
|
June 17, 2009 3:04 PM
CT @ 89
"Scripture is a tool". You mean like a toilet plunger is a tool?
Posted by: CT | June 17, 2009 3:06 PM
TSG, You're telling me that you really, sincerely think that this comment:
Was not intended as an insult? The underlying thought here is: "How can any reasonable, intelligent person believe this?"
Anyone else think I misjudged the above comment?
If so, then I sincerely do apologize as apparently I no longer know how to communicate (in all seriousness).
C
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 17, 2009 3:07 PM
""Scripture is a tool". You mean like a toilet plunger is a tool?"
A toilet plunger would be more useful. I will leave it to the reader to make their own joke about backflows of crap.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 17, 2009 3:14 PM
CT,
That's very mild for Pharyngula - no personal epithets whatever were aimed at you. Most of us think religion is pernicious rubbish, have no hesitation in saying so, and indeed can't see how any reasonable, intelligent person could believe such rubbish. If you don't like having your notions criticised in trenchant terms, you'd be better off elsewhere.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 17, 2009 3:18 PM
Nope,
is NOT an insult.
Science does not need, or indeed have a place for gods.
There is no evidence for the existance of gods.
The bible is indeed a mish mash of fables.
The evidence for the existance of Jesus as a historical figure is ambigious.
And the bible is indeed a bad source of both history and morality.
Asking why someone who is otherwise reasonable and intelligent should believe in the Christian God is a legitimate question.
I really fail to see why you are so upset at such a comment.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 17, 2009 3:20 PM
Scripture is a tool. A tool to learn how to revere God for those us that do believe. Scripture is a tool to learn spiritual truths, not scientific ones. Here again we step out of science and into something else. - CT
Urrrgh! How the hell am I going to get this off my shoe?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 17, 2009 3:22 PM
CT, you are at science and atheist blog. You find us telling you science and religion are incompatible, and you find this irrational? Science divorced god and religion a couple of centuries ago, when it found it (god and religion) was stifling research. The progress of science without god and religion has been tremendous. So our assertions that science doesn't need or will make use of religion is based on fact. What part of this do you have trouble with?
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
June 17, 2009 3:25 PM
Seems to me the explicitly stated thought -- rather than what you read into it -- was that a collection of unsupported and mutually contradictory stories isn't very useful for understanding how the world works, so is ignored during scientific research.
Posted by: Holbach
|
June 17, 2009 3:29 PM
Matt Penfold @ 94
Ha! My application might have been more than it's worth, considering the application of scripture(nonsense) to unearth nothing. I was going to say crap, but that is still something more than what scripture will unearth. And so the crap flows eternally into the black hole of nothing, waiting at the event horizon for the eternal plunger. Better stop here, as I may get mired in crap myself with no hope of a scriptural plunger to expunge me.
Posted by: CT | June 17, 2009 3:43 PM
Well, that's a little bit of a loaded question.
I would actually love to have a cohesive theology that flows easily and logically from Genesis through Revelation, but that's not going to happen.
I believe the message of Jesus Christ holds the hope for humanity to quit tearing each other's throats out. Jesus, at a minimum was a prophet or Jewish sage, at a maximum He was God's son or God incarnate).
So I believe in the message of love. Of feeding the hungry, of clothing the poor - reiterated over and over through both the OT & NT. Of seeking a right relationship to God. Of loving those who persecute you. Too seek God first. Most of all of being humble, of despising arrogance and self-righteousness. I believe in the resurrection of Christ (as absurd as that probably sounds).
So, that leads me to the God of the Hebrews and the prophets and the prophecies of Daniel about the coming of Alexander and the Roman Empire, of the prophecies of Isaiah hundreds of years before Christ.
In a nutshell, that is why I choose to believe in the God of Israel and the God of Christ.
C
Posted by: Stu
|
June 17, 2009 3:45 PM
Scripture is a tool to learn spiritual truths
Name one. *grabs popcorn*
Posted by: CT | June 17, 2009 3:53 PM
Well, I'm not "upset" by being insulted - Used to it on Atheist(s) blogs - No problem there -
I'm "upset" that we as mankind cannot converse without hurling insults, however mild.
Have I, in any of these posts, said anything derogatory?
When we allow ourselves to hurtle insults at one another without regard, are we any better than those we belittle?
C
Posted by: Holbach
|
June 17, 2009 3:57 PM
CT @ 109
In a nutshell exactly, which contains your brain matter and all that you are worth with your imaginary god. You state that you believe in feeding the hungry and clothing the poor. Why doesn't your imaginary god take care of these dire necessities? And you will forever seek your imaginary god until the day you die, and the worms that consume you will determine otherwise. You don't have a prayer in finding your non-existent god, prayers that are ranted at the wind and dispersed by the same.
Your god is nothing, as is your determined effort to impress us with your highly developed degree of insanity. The insane are not aware that they are insane, but the religiously insane are a class unto themselves as they are the motivators of that induced insanity. Does your god know that you are insane, or is that redundant?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 17, 2009 4:02 PM
Yes, you have implied that religion and god are necessary to science. That is a direct insult to science, since it is utterly false. Nobody needs your god and religion.You have been treated with respect, but not as the conquering hero you see yourself as. At the moment, you are just another tone troll with that attitude. They don't survive here long. If you want to discuss something, jump in, but be prepared to defend yourself against your illogical position, and if you don't like our refutations and remarks, find a nicer blog.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 17, 2009 4:03 PM
CT,
None of those things you complain about can be regarded as insulting.
If you are unable to defend your position without having to claim you are being insulted then that is a reflection on you, not us. We will just take it as an admission you cannot support your case with evidence.
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
June 17, 2009 4:04 PM
CT at #103:
I'd like to offer what I hope will be taken as a constructive comment, not an insult. How you choose to take it is entirely up to you, of course, but I wanted to state my intentions up front: constructive, not insulting.
The least successful martyrs are the ones that continue to check over their shoulders to make sure everyone notices their martyrdom (real or otherwise).
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: CT | June 17, 2009 4:07 PM
James 3:8-10 8 But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison. 9 With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God; 10 from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way.
Hey, you asked. :)
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 17, 2009 4:10 PM
I believe the message of Jesus Christ holds the hope for humanity to quit tearing each other's throats out. - CT
Ah yes, that message of love and harmony!
Matthew 13:41-42 "The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
Matthew 13:49-50 "So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
Matthew 25:41 "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire."
Then of course there's the Christian Churches' long record of killing and torturing people who believe the wrong things - all done in love, of course.
Posted by: CT | June 17, 2009 4:13 PM
I did? Where?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 17, 2009 4:13 PM
CT, define spiritual. We consider it a null hypothesis since it is very hard to define.
Quoting the holy babble impresses us not. A good chunk of us have read the babble cover to cover. That started our journey to atheism.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 17, 2009 4:14 PM
And the buggery. All that abuse in children's homes in Ireland would have been done out of love of course.
Posted by: Stu
|
June 17, 2009 4:15 PM
James 3:8-10 8 But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison. 9 With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God; 10 from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way.
"We use our mouths to say both nice and mean things, oh my".
That is a spiritual truth to you? Proclamations from the Department of Redundancy Department?
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 17, 2009 4:24 PM
I believe in the resurrection of Christ (as absurd as that probably sounds). - CT
Not just sounds but is absurd. Batshit insane.
So, that leads me to the God of the Hebrews and the prophets - CT
Oh, that genocidal, pathologically jealous, lying, sadistic psychopath.
and the prophecies of Daniel about the coming of Alexander and the Roman Empire, of the prophecies of Isaiah hundreds of years before Christ.
Oh yeah. The Book of Daniel was written in the second century BCE, long after Alexander, and the "prophecies" referred to the then-recent activities of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The fact that the prophecies of Isaiah seem to refer to Jesus is unsurprising, as accounts of his life were written to fit the prophecies.
Posted by: CT | June 17, 2009 4:29 PM
Of the spirit which is the immaterial part of the human personality, spirit in contrast to the outward and visible aspects of flesh and body as the seat of the inner spiritual life of man, the capacity to know God
C
Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 17, 2009 4:33 PM
CT,
I hate to break it to you, but "organized religion," spiritualism, faith, are all terms for the same basic thing. The urge to know why. But your interpretation of why isn't the same as the scientific principle or exploration of universal functions. Your understanding of "why" isn't based on evidence, isn't based on observation, isn't based on any tangible, measurable criteria. Your understanding of "why' is based on a collection of parables and poems written more than 2000 years ago that have nothing to do with absolute knowledge of anything. 2000 years ago odds are good you would reject them for whatever local Gods your people followed, 2000 years from now, perhaps you will reject them just as you do the teachings of Thor, or Zeus, or Chac.
Because of your "faith," which is really a nice way of saying it makes you feel good, you place a lot of credence in these specific teachings. But if you study the teachings of other religious (and non religious) leaders throughout history, they generally had a similar philosophy. Be a good person, don't murder others, help those who can't help themselves, etc.
There isn't anything in your chosen philosophy that isn't present in half a dozen other philosophies you reject. That means that your philosophy doesn't have any specific or special relationship with the "truth" than any of the others which means, logically, that aside from making you feel better during trying times, it's just as meaningless as those other "faiths."
Posted by: tsg | June 17, 2009 4:35 PM
Yes, I think that was not intended as an insult. It is a criticism of a belief, not a criticism of you.
It didn't show deference for your beliefs, but I guess that qualifies as insult these days ...
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 17, 2009 4:40 PM
Of the spirit which is the immaterial part of the human personality - CT
There is no such immaterial part. Mind is the coordinated interaction of the body with the world, so it's not material as flesh is material, but it's not a part.
spirit in contrast to the outward and visible aspects of flesh and body as the seat of the inner spiritual life of man, the capacity to know God - CT
You can't know a fictional character. You might as well talk about "the capacity to know Bertie Wooster".
Posted by: Stu
|
June 17, 2009 4:43 PM
immaterial part of the human personality
Which is?
the seat of the inner spiritual life of man, the capacity to know God
Spirituality is spiritual life? Right-ho. Nothing circular there at all.
Posted by: Stu
|
June 17, 2009 4:47 PM
You might as well talk about "the capacity to know Bertie Wooster".
Shut up! Me and Bertie was TIGHT!
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 17, 2009 4:48 PM
Easier I would say. Wodehouse wrote a fair few books and the character is quite well developed within them. If you had to know Wooster without reference to Jeeves, then I would agree, you are fucked.
Posted by: Holbach
|
June 17, 2009 5:22 PM
CT @ 115
Pure, insane drivel, coming from one who is unaware of his insanity. Have you any inkling of how that statement is interpreted by a rational mind? Are you just restating what you read in that bullshit bible, or repeating what a deranged cretinous mind of a sackcloth minister has puked forth for his delusional sheep in a house of insanity? Can you at all fathom that you are deranged almost beyond redemption? Can you comprehend all that I have said in the several posts directed at your mental state of mind?
Posted by: Paliban Mom | June 17, 2009 5:58 PM
CT @101:
I believe the message of Jesus Christ holds the hope for humanity to quit tearing each other's throats out. Jesus, at a minimum was a prophet or Jewish sage, at a maximum He was God's son or God incarnate).
Are you a Jehovah Witness? They deny the divinity of Jesus, which you appear to be doing.
Do you believe that God is all-powerful and all-knowing?
If you do, then you must surely agree that He knows exactly what the Bible says, and is perfectly capable of changing its contents at any moment to meet whatever "modern" people should be reading.
Therefore, if He is all-powerful and all-knowing, the Bible must say exactly what He wishes us to read.
As RevBigDumbChimp asked, on what authority (and with what special information) do you decide which parts of the Bible are for real, and which you can discard as so much used toilet paper? Why do you worship a "hippie love god" who is the exact opposite of the God of the Bible? Why do you think you can discard God's Laws, when Jesus Himself stated that all the Law must be upheld?
Have you ever actually read the Bible, or do you just make up your "faith" as you go along?
You, sir, are no Christian. You are a pagan who has created his own "god" to suit him, cherry-picking the verses you like and flushing the rest. I'd wager you don't even follow the Ten Commandments, much less the 600 other Commandments.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 17, 2009 6:02 PM
Me and Bertie was TIGHT! - Stu
Who's hiding behind that nym? Tuppy Glossop? Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright? Surely not Gussie Fink-Nottle?
Posted by: Paliban Mom | June 17, 2009 6:09 PM
Oops. The second paragraph in my comment above (#123) was also part of the quote of CT. Sorry.
Posted by: Katkinkate | June 17, 2009 6:29 PM
Hey guys, you can diss Hoges as much as you want, but don't diss the vegemite!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 17, 2009 6:38 PM
Pure circular meaningless drivel. That is why no one has come up with a good definition we can all agree on. Try again. It would help to leave out fictional/metatphysical items like god, spirit, and soul.Posted by: abb3w | June 17, 2009 6:49 PM
From the Book blurb at the WND shop: Sunday School tends to focus on inspiration and morality of Bible stories, rather than how to defend the authority of the Bible. The “Bible stories” told in Sunday school are separated from “hard facts.” As a result, children will turn to school books for facts and answers, instead of the Bible. Already Gone argues that if a child is unable to defend the historicity and fact of Genesis, then he or she will quickly be disillusioned with the church.
So: if evil Atheists observe to understand how the children are taught to defend Genesis and the Bible, it may enable Atheists to identify the flaws of the defense; and then use Science to experiment and determine the most effective ways (within society's laws) to get the children to understand and accept that the position of Biblical Inerrancy is inherently flawed. Cool.
I'm not willing to pay $13+$4S&H for Ham's book, however.
Posted by: CUBIST | June 17, 2009 7:01 PM
[to the tune of Down By the Riverside...]
When you post a Pharyngulan comment, son,
Don't diss the Vegemite!
Don't diss the Vegemite!
Don't diss the Vegemite!
The most horr'ble thing you could have done
Don't diss the Vegemite!
Sneer at Ken Ham, no one would fight;
(Or) Slag Paul Hogan, that's alright
Say that Rupert Murdoch sucks, you're right as rain
(right as rain!)
But if you dare state a benight-
-Ed view of good old Vegemite
You can't have a fully-working brain!
So when you post a Pharyngulan comment, son,
Don't diss the Vegemite!
Don't diss the Vegemite!
Don't diss the Vegemite!
The most horr'ble thing you could have done
Don't diss the Vegemite!
Posted by: Katkinkate | June 17, 2009 7:19 PM
Posted by: Dan @ 46 "The survey found, much to Ham's surprise, a "Sunday School syndrome," indicating children who faithfully attend Bible classes in their church over the years actually are more likely to question the authority of Scripture.
I'm not surprised at all. My guess is that children who attend bible classes are more likely to read the Bible. The overwhelming majority of ex-christians I know lost their faith from reading the bible, since what the bible actually says and what had been preached to them growing up were so different. They were forced to start thinking about their religion, which led to rejecting it."
This is even confirmed also by history of the Catholics. For centuries it was considered important to prevent the common people from learning to read, especially learning to read the bible as they would either 'misinterpret' what they read (as in interpret it differently than what they are told by the catholic ministry) or reject the ministry as their representatives before god cause they can read the scriptures for themselves. Even after the push for universal literacy was accepted, they encouraged lay-members to not read their bibles for themselves, but accept church interpretation instead.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | June 17, 2009 7:52 PM
A country which is responsible for Cheez-Whiz has no high ground from which to diss the vegemite.
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
June 17, 2009 9:06 PM
Originally intended as an herbicide. There was a label mix-up at the processing plant and instead of going to an agribusiness distribution center, the first shipment ended up on grocery store shelves by mistake in the 1950s. By the time the error was realized, thousands of homes had already cooked casseroles and sat down to a hearty meal. In the interest of national security, the horrifying secret has been carefully maintained ever since.
Try some in your pasta dishes. Also works great against dandelions and ragweed.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
June 17, 2009 9:11 PM
O.k., not really on the Cheez-Whiz-as-herbicide thing, but after reading through the other thread on the crazy pastor, I had to try and focus on a little humor.
Granted, it may have been a very little humor indeed, but I'm a little frizzled around the circuits.
Probably time for bed.
O.k. Bed it is.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Demitri Morgan | June 17, 2009 10:21 PM
How ironic.
I thought the "Exodus of youth" was caused by them having been taught that believing the literal interpretation of Genesis is 100% essential in order to remain in the Christian faith.
That's what turned me into an atheist, after all; studying physics in college lead me to conclude that if real Christianity couldn't work without a blind, asinine belief in the Genesis myth and its puny, unimpressive account of our grand universe's origin, then it wasn't worth believing at all.
Posted by: Demitri Morgan | June 17, 2009 10:27 PM
Ken Ham contradicts himself;
"The church opened a door for the exodus of youth, beginning in the 19th century, when it began teaching that the age of the Earth is not an issue as long as you trust in Jesus and believe in the resurrection and the Gospel accounts."
"Salvation is not conditioned on what you believe about the age of the Earth and the six days of creation," Ham said. "There are many who believe in millions of years and are Christians."
It is EXACTLY this kind of dishonesty about the necessity of belief in the literal Genesis account that made me give up my faith.
Posted by: Eyeoffaith | June 17, 2009 10:34 PM
What is the best way to describe vegemite? It is as black as the heart of the devil, as salty as all the tears of the mourning, as bitter as the worst defeat, and is quite nice spread thinly on toast.
I actually like to have peanut paste, vegemite and honey all mixed together on toast. Very yummy. Or a slice of plum pudding with butter and vegemite spread over it.
Posted by: astrounit | June 18, 2009 7:48 AM
I'm with George (#28).
Ham is a caveman.
He may well be the forerunner of a race of Morlocks.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 18, 2009 7:57 AM
A piglet raping caveman.
Posted by: astrounit | June 18, 2009 8:19 AM
"a major study he commissioned by a respected researcher unveils for the first time in a scientific fashion the startling reasons behind statistics that show two-thirds of young people in evangelical churches will leave when they move into their 20s"
That's pretty startling alright...that they've actually noticed anything changing and quantified the extent.
Whoa. Move over rover. The next GIGANTIC WAVE of Measurement/Statistical verisimilitude has arisen like an immense tsunami and in its curl is poised to take over the territory previously held by those nasty dogmatic curs who have held sway upon their little stretch of beach.
Wow. What a battle. (Maybe even of wits).
Ham obviously has a big problem with the "overarching problem that is related to how churches and parents have taught youth to understand the Genesis account of creation".
CARAMBA. I never dreamed that I could ever find a reason to agree with him on any particular point.
Posted by: astrounit | June 18, 2009 8:38 AM
I'm with George (#28).
Ham is a piglet-raping caveman.
He may well be the forerunner of a race of piglet-raping Morlocks.
[Acknowledgement of correction to manuscript to the RevBDC]
Posted by: CT | June 18, 2009 9:35 AM
Apologies for the delay in getting back as I had to head out yesterday (assuming any of you care LOL)
RE: Insanity (several posts it appears)
Yes, I know it sounds insane. You can write me off as insane if you like, no problem.
This is another topic entirely, and I'm willing to discuss at my blog if interested. (http://sharpeningiron.wordpress.com)
(And yes, I have read the Bible a few times). Yes, I may be unorthodox, but still Christian.
RE: Spiritual (and circular definitions)
I was asked to provide a definition of "spiritual". Spirit & spiritual are metaphysical elements - I'm not sure what you're complaining about.
We could spend a lot of time defining spirit & soul per scripture, but again, this isn't really the medium to do that.
C
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 18, 2009 7:34 PM
CT, if you're still here, what do you think of this list of contradictions in the New Testament on which conditions are necessary and sufficient for salvation?