Are science and technology nuts. You'll know when you've met one by the feel of their quantum foam.

For Balaam read Baa Lamb - New Zealand is a small country in the south pacific with volcanic soil and a coastal maritime climate which combine to provide lush pasture for one of the world's largest and tastiest flocks of baa lambs.

Everyone in my life is an atheist with the single exception of my mother. When I was younger she was atheist. No one I know believes in evolution or cares for science. They are mostly into music or politics. I know that there happens to be people who are respected in their field of science and are theists, in fact I can name you a half or dozen who are Jehovah's Witnesses and believe very nearly the same theology as myself. I have also had discussions with a few atheists who were theists and like you abandoned it for science. Do you think you had to choose or that perhaps you are more informed about science than you were God?

I can tell you this for sure. If Jehovah God came down to me and transported me through space and time to show me all of the things that science can only speculate about I would be bored within 15 minutes. It just isn't my thing. I don't care about it. Maybe that is the way you are with theology. To each his own. I would logically think you are missing out and you would think that I were missing out.

Hmm . . . well, 99% of creationism is as poor theology as it is science, and I don't at all like the idea of the Bible and creation account being dictated, indoctrinated - spoon fed, if you will - to a bunch of disinterested children to make me think the future is so bright I have to wear shades. However, on the other hand I see a dogmatism in your words and think that you think your approved science is the unquestionable truth and all others should be dismissed. As much as I don't like Creationism - intelligent design as it is propagated, I see it as no less certain that your own propaganda. It is just a matter of how you look at it. Still - having said that, I would rather the Church of Richard Dawkins be taught in science classes as I have alluded to above than have some bastardized version of the Bible being taught by bored arrogant underpaid armchair scientists. Christendom has done enough damage, thank you.

 22“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurelye but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

David,

Whatever the Hebrew word is this doesn't sound like a medical procedure. Men are fighting and a pregnant woman is injured. The woman was not a willing participant. So using this text is a farcical twist in the same way using Thou Shalt Not Murder. Murder is with criminal intent. Abortion is not performed under the same condition.

While abortion was practiced during the time of Christ it was not an issue and the crazed Christians today cannot use the Bible as a foundation for it. Need I go to the text where God command Israel to kill every man, woman and child in a town such as Jericho. You know there was at least one pregnant woman there. Also the flood and the destruction of Sodom and G. would have included pregnant women. And of course God's "design" of miscarriages which is not uncommon even today show he doesn't fret over it.

God, evolution just make so much more sense here. Miscarriages take care of weak individuals so that they don't have to suffer a short, miserable life outside the womb.

Know the feeling well, myself, it sucks.

I didn't, actually.

What I said was that your interpretation is based on an assumption of something not stipulated in the text. You have assumed the implied injury refers to the child. You have, even, admitted as much in your blog by saying : we could assume it referred only to the woman if the text said "lah" but it doesn't so we assume it refers to both.

The only support for your assertion that it refers to both, therefore, is an appeal to the extreme possibility of a violently forced, premature, birth resulting in a live healthy baby. This is special pleading, you're conveniently ignoring the fact that the default case for a violently forced premature birth is death to the infant.  

In reality it stands more to reason that injury to the child is not mentioned explicitly in the text because the child is presumed dead by default.

You're misreading my modesty. I'm giving you solid points in refutation, you should not ignore them simply because I have tried to be gracious in debunking your hard work. I'm tempering my reply, only, out of respect for your diligence, don't mistake it for weakness.

No worries, you are welcome.

EDIT: Added link to article with statistics on infant mortality in the case of pregnancy trauma.

NB -- "Direct fetal injury is relatively uncommon because the maternal soft tissues, uterus, placenta, and amniotic fluid all tend to absorb and distribute the energy of the blow. The most common cause of fetal death is maternal shock, which is associated with a fetal mortality rate of 80%. This explains why efforts to assess fetal well-being are secondary to resuscitation of the mother.

Placental abruption is the second most common cause of fetal death, with fetal mortality rates as high as 30-68%. Placental abruption occurs when shearing forces lead to a separation of the rigid placenta from the elastic uterus. Up to 30-50% of patients with major traumatic injuries and as many as 5% of patients with minor injuries have placental abruption after trauma. Blunt injury in pregnancy does not appear to pose higher risk for death than it does in nonpregnant patients, with most deaths occurring as a result of either head injury or hemorrhage. "

Andrew K Chang, MD, Associate Professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center

See also:

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2700213

You realize this is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. We have 1 or 2 others that claim to be"True Christians" on this forum. I wonder if y'all have the same belief as to what that means?

If you really don't go on missons to bring 'the good news' to the non-believers aren't you ignoring the directive of Jesus to some extent? I realize he commanded only y'all bring the word to all the world and in fact indicated if the people (especially those in Judea) didn't receive them they were to knock the dust from their feet and walk away.

I have wandered over to your web site and did a look see to get an impression of exactly what it is that you consider as support for your position and see little there that sets you apart from most believers other than extremists and fundies. Perhaps in future discussions we can get into more regarding why you accept ancient writing as reality based and not conjecture to explain those things that ancient man was unable to understand and thus attributed to a higher power they labeled as a god in various forms.

Wolf-Ekkhard Lonnig

“Over the past 28 years, I have done scientific work dealing with genetic mutation in plants. For 21 of those years, I have been employed by the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, in Cologne, Germany. For almost three decades, I have also served as an elder in a Christian congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

My empirical research in genetics and my studies of biological subjects such as physiology and morphology bring me face-to-face with the enormous and often unfathomable complexities of life. My study of these topics has reinforced my conviction that life, even the most basic forms of life, must have an intelligent origin.

The scientific community is well aware of the complexity found in life. But these fascinating facts are generally presented in a strong evolutionary context. In my mind, however, the arguments against the Bible account of creation fall apart when subjected to scientific scrutiny. I have examined such arguments over decades. After much careful study of living things and consideration of the way the laws governing the universe seem perfectly adjusted so that life on earth can exist, I am compelled to believe in a Creator.”

Byron Leon Meadows

"I live in the United States and work at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the field of laser physics. Presently I am involved in the development of technology to improve the ability to monitor global climate, weather, and other planetary phenomena. I am an elder in a congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Kilmarnock, Virginia, area.

In my research I often work with the principles of physics. I seek to understand how and why certain things happen. In my field of study, I find clear evidence that everything I observe has a cause. I believe that it is scientifically reasonable to accept that God is the original cause of all things in nature. The laws of nature are too stable for me not to believe that they were put in place by an Organizer, a Creator.

If this conclusion is that obvious, why do so many scientists believe in evolution? Might it be that evolutionists look at their evidence with presupposed conclusions? This is not unheard of among scientists. But observation, no matter how convincing, does not presuppose conclusion. For example, a person researching laser physics could insist that light is a wave, similar to a sound wave, because light often behaves like a wave. However, his conclusion would be incomplete because the evidence also indicates that light behaves as a group of particles, known as photons. Similarly, those who insist that evolution is a fact base their conclusions on only part of the evidence, and they allow their own presupposed conclusions to influence the way that they view the evidence.

I find it amazing that anyone accepts the theory of evolution as fact when evolutionary “experts” themselves argue over how it is supposed to have happened. For example, would you accept arithmetic as a proved fact if some experts said that 2 plus 2 equals 4, while other experts said it was believed to total 3 or possibly　6? If the role of science is to accept only what can be proved, tested, and reproduced, then the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor is not a scientific fact.”

Kenneth Lloyd Tanaka

“I am a geologist presently employed by the U.S. Geological Survey in Flagstaff, Arizona. For almost three decades, I have participated in scientific research in various fields of geology, including planetary geology. Dozens of my research articles and geologic maps of Mars have been published in accredited scientific journals. As one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I spend about 70 hours every month promoting Bible reading.

I was taught to believe in evolution, but I could not accept that the immense energy required to form the universe could have originated without a powerful Creator. Something cannot come from nothing. I also find a strong argument in favor of a Creator in the Bible itself. This book gives numerous examples of scientific facts in my field of expertise, such as that the earth is spherical in shape and hangs “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7; Isaiah 40:22) These realities were written in the Bible long before they were proved by human investigation.

Think of the way we are made. We possess sensory perception, self-awareness, intelligent thought, communication abilities, and feelings. In particular, we can experience, appreciate, and express love. Evolution cannot explain how these wonderful human qualities came to be.

Ask yourself, ‘How reliable and credible are the sources of information used to support evolution?’ The geologic record is incomplete, complex, and confusing. Evolutionists have failed to demonstrate proposed evolutionary processes in the laboratory with the use of scientific methodologies. And while scientists generally employ good research techniques to acquire data, they are often influenced by selfish motives when interpreting their findings. Scientists have been known to promote their own thinking when the data are inconclusive or contradictory. Their careers and their own feelings of self-worth play important roles.

Both as a scientist and as a Bible student, I search for the whole truth, which reconciles all known facts and observations to reach the most accurate understanding. To me, belief in the Creator makes the most sense.”

Paula Kincheloe

“I have several years of experience as a researcher in the fields of cell and molecular biology and microbiology. I am presently employed by Emory University, in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A. I also work as a volunteer Bible teacher in the Russian-speaking community.

As part of my education in biology, I spent four years focusing on just the cell and its components. The more I learned about DNA, RNA, proteins, and metabolic pathways, the more amazed I became with the complexity, organization, and precision involved. And while I was impressed with how much man has learned about the cell, I was even more amazed at how much there is yet to learn. The obvious design evident in the cell is one reason I believe in God.

My study of the Bible has revealed who the Creator is—namely, Jehovah God. I am convinced that he is not only an intelligent Designer but also a kind and loving Father who cares for me. The Bible explains the purpose of life and provides the hope of a happy future.

Young ones in school who are being taught evolution may be unsure of what to believe. This can be a confusing time for them. If they believe in God, this is a test of faith. But they can meet that test by examining the many amazing things in nature that surround us and by continuing to grow in knowledge of the Creator and his qualities. I have personally done this and have concluded that the Bible’s account of creation is accurate and does not conflict with true science.”

Enrique Hernandex-Lemus

“I am a full-time minister of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I am also a theoretical physicist working at the National University of Mexico. My current work involves finding a thermodynamically feasible explanation for the phenomenon known as the gravothermal catastrophe, which is a mechanism of star growth. I have also worked with complexity in DNA sequences.

Life is simply too complicated to have arisen by chance. For example, consider the vast amount of information contained in the DNA molecule. The mathematical probability of the random generation of a single chromosome is less than 1 in 9　trillion, an event so unlikely that it can be considered impossible. I think it is nonsense to believe that unintelligent forces could create not just a single chromosome but all the amazing complexity present in living beings.

In addition, when I study the highly complex behavior of matter, from the microscopic level to the movement of giant stellar clouds through space, I am impressed by the elegant simplicity of the laws governing their motion. To me, these laws imply more than the work of a Master Mathematician—they are like the signature of a Master Artist.

People are often surprised when I tell them that I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Sometimes they ask me how I can believe in God. Their reaction is understandable, since most religions do not encourage their believers to ask for proof of what they are taught or to research their beliefs. However, the Bible encourages us to use our “thinking ability.” (Proverbs 3:21) All the evidence of intelligent design in nature, together with evidence from the Bible, convinces me that God not only exists but is also interested in our prayers.”

Bernd Oelschlagel

“My search for the meaning of life took 20 years. Two things helped me find it: science and the Bible. My study of science confirmed that life must have meaning. But the Bible revealed that meaning to me and helped me understand it.

You may have heard some people claim that science contradicts the Bible. I have studied both, and I cannot agree with their claim. My study of physics gave me a deeper grasp of the natural laws of the universe. I had hoped that science would ultimately reveal to me what life is all about. However, my search for the meaning of life went beyond physics.

Some may wonder how a person who has spent years studying science can believe what the Bible says. Well, I find no contradiction between science and the Bible. As a physicist, I have studied the laws governing life, and these laws give evidence that they were designed by a superhuman intelligence.

For example, there are many theories in physics, chemistry, and biology. And although the theories may basically be simple, the mathematics associated with them can nevertheless be very demanding. Brilliant scientists suggest theories and are awarded the Nobel Prize for their work. How much more brilliant must be the intelligent Being who designed and brought into existence the universe, which scientists try so hard to understand!

To suggest, as many evolutionists do, that life developed by chance is stretching credibility too far. To illustrate: Place ten soccer balls in a straight line on a soccer field, each ball three feet [1　m] from the other. By kicking the first ball, try to make each ball hit the next one in line, so that all ten balls are hit. Furthermore, try to predict the final position of each ball. The probability of success is so remote that most people would likely regard the feat as impossible.

That being the case, how can anyone claim that the development of the human cell—involving processes far more complex than kicking soccer balls—could ever be achieved simply by chance? The most reasonable explanation is that a super intelligent Being created humans and all other forms of life on earth. Would this Being, who is the Creator, do such a thing without having a purpose? Of course not. He must have had a purpose, and that purpose is revealed and made understandable in the Bible.”

Six people who's arguments for the theism and against evolution are...puddle fitting the pothole, incredulity and ignorance, total misunderstanding of what evolution is (talks about evolution being the creation of the universe!!!) and incredulity, God of the gaps, more incredulity, even more incredulity, and finally more incredulity.

I hope you have some better resources than that to work with, or this will get embarrassing fast.

I like the last guys point the best...."The most reasonable explanation is that a super intelligent Being created humans and all other forms of life on earth."  Indeed.  When faced with something unlikely, most scientists automatically assume goddidit.

It goes to show that you need to do more for your kids than keep religion away from them, you actually need to teach them to think so they don't get sucked in by obvious tripe.

Is it that difficult for you to believe that there are people out there actually in the field of science who don't believe in the ridiculous dogmatic evolution?

The September 22, 2006 Awake! (Watchtower Bible And Tract Society)

Of course! That is all of your defense against anyone who disagrees with your monkey bullshit, it doesn't matter if its someone who knows almost nothing about it or someone that knows a hell of a lot more than you. You have to have faith in your quasi science and start freaking out when someone dares question it.

This somehow ended up as a double post.