Free Republic

This whole “creation Vs. evolution” debate would make our spiritual fathers quite upset, I would guess.

In fact, I would guess that an exegesis of the Bible would support a guided *evolution* way more than an instant Creation.

MAIN POINT: Check out Lecture 1 here

http://www.blackhawkchurch.org/resources/events.php

No where in the entire Old Testament do they talk about God making a material universe. The Hebrew word for “Create” found in Genesis is “bar’a”. To *that* culture, bar’a meant “assign function”—NOT make out of nothing. Material structure is our concern; the ancients didn’t care about it, they cared about function/purpose.

God Bless,

Jonathan Highness

In case anyone care, I’ll write you a summary of why I am an evangelical Christian (ex: not a private belief at all), and why I incur a “cost” for my belief.

Most of what we believe and based actions on is this: personal experience. When I opened my mind to “God” three years ago, that humbling of myself, He revealed Himself through personal experience. I’m talking about very low probability events and a “understanding” that He is with me. Point is: honestly approach God, and if you are fully humble, He’ll respond to it.

Second: the sum of all human knowledge points to a Creator and that the Bible is a credible document and that Christianity is an “impossible faith”. Check out the first two speakers here:

http://www.blackhawkchurch.org/resources/events.php

About “the impossible faith” and other historical issues of the Bible:

www.tektonics.org

If you have any more questions, send me an email at

jdhighness@gmail.com

I am 1 week away from a BS in Genetics, so you can imagine what I have to do this week (finals, ugh)

Your friend,

Jonathan Highness

It is said, by Jesus, that marriage makes a man and woman "one" in God's eyes.

If Jesus and Mary married, then they would be one. So is Mary now God?

Also, recheck the wedding at Canaa. Jesus and His guests were invited

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=2&version=31

I was fortunate enough to attend USMC Boot Camp at MCRD San Diego. I believe the Marine Corps has the perfect system for Boot Camp--save the huge emphasis on close order drill as opposed to combat drills.

My platoon had 5 Drill Instructors, each with there own complementarily foci.

SDI: Taught us morals and ways around evil temptations (ex what to do when you fail)

J Belt: Mean as heck but so successful (DI awards, 2 ranks in 3 years) that we just tried to mimic him.

DI 2: a grunt who was by far the scariest but treated us how we treated him (as a platoon, so if one recruit didn't put out, then the platoon mistreated him). He was also mimicked

DI 3: our "kill" hat. A great example because he was injured at the beginning but most recruits couldn't even tell. He only enjoyed smoking a few recruits, and when you were selected as a "friend" of those few you could tell he didn't enjoy it.

DI 4: An extra DI who was to be Series Gunny next cycle and this was a refamiliarization. He was the chief game player. Everytime he was our DI for the night, we knew games would persist. His favorite was "you know what I want": two sheets, a blanket, a pillow, and our mattresses, online, deep MOVE!

Yelling was a constant at boot camp. The DIs always yelling and demanding we yell was for practical purposes that I have seen in the rest of my active duty training (I am a Reservist MP). In most areas, it is hard to hear commands, so the ability to yell is crucial.

About the "games"--they actually have a purpose. Even as a Reservist we have played games do to a lack of foresight. For instance, this last drill we must have moved our field gear 10 times for no apparent reason. Also, the enlisted life can be pretty boring--manning a post, weapon system, or just plain waiting around. The games you play at Boot Camp are far more frustrating than the games we play now, so it is not so bad.

Also, Black Friday is essential in establishing the dominance of the DIs over the recruits. It is really quite phenomenal how much obedience they get. Then again, if the DIs are power-trippy, then the recruit is likely to forget a lot of their teachings and the example they set and resent elements of the training. I have seen the products of both motivational (mean but for a purpose) DIs and power-trippy DIs, and the former are much more motivated on average.

I am not saying your overall point is wrong. But the universe's raw parts--and hence numbers of combinations--is surely not infinite.

Believe me, your complaceny gives me no comfort, only sadness.

Nice cherry picking of points to address. You have not addressed my main point: Strobel's book is heavily cited by credible sources that address your claims against Christianity.

Instead you focus on reviews, assumptions about Strobel's initial skepticism, and my personal history. All of these bear very little relevance to my main point.

When Muslims produce academics like Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, and the others cited by Strobel, I will joyfully read it. Today, they do not exist. Moreover, the history I have read about Islam makes it a fantasy. It uses a lot of widely-disproven Apocryphal versions of Christ (written centuries after the primary sources) and has a very dubious story about how Mohammed--an illiterate--received and transcribed the Koran. But please don't focus on this aside!

I have challenged you to seek the answers to the questions you supposedly pose in good faith here. It is your choice whether you do so. But, before you claim Strobel is biased, you should really look at those he cites and compare them to other experts in their fields. By your claim that Strobel (or one of his experts) said the 4 Gospels were thought to be anonymously written, it is clear you didn't really read closely or critically.

That is all.

1. Regardless if Strobel was really as skeptical as he states, he presents the common arguments against various facets of the Christian conviction, from the historicity to the philosophical. In fact, most of the arguments you've brought up are raised by Strobel.

If Strobel was lying about his initial skepticism, then he would be knowingly sinning.

2. I fully concede the point of the rebuttal book. Perhaps you could somehow procure that book and weigh it to Strobel's. From the positive and negative reviews on Amazon, it seems relatively weak.

3. Pascal's Wager was brought up only as a point that you should seek out the true nature of God and follow Him for the potential costs are infinite. Notice that not once did I say it was by default the Christian God. Only after a rigorous challening of the evidence did I settle on Christ, and I hope you will too.

My underlying point is this:

You have some objections to the foundations and arguments of Christianity. Lee Strobel asks the same questions and makes the same points you do. Renowned experts in various fields (history, medicine, philosophy) answer the the points you raise, as well as the major purveyors of those points (Jesus Seminar, Swoon notion advocates). If you hear the responses from these experts and find them inadequete, then you have at least challenged your beliefs and have vindicated them. But as it is I think you are being willfully complacent in your unsubstantiated dismissals of Christianity. I am in no way insulting you; I am merely challenging you to challenge yourself.

The point of the book was that Strobel was the skeptic. He challenged these experts with commonly held notions and got his answers. Strobel presents the arguments of the skeptics by citing them. One of those skeptical groups he cites is the Jesus Seminar. In fact, a large part of one interview is about the Jesus Seminar!

There is at least one book that attempted to rebuttal it, but that book is out of print on even Amazon.com. I think that reveals something about its validity.

With respect, you did not read enough of the book if you think Strobel or one of his expert witnesses acknowledged the Gospels were written by anonymous sources. They specifically state the 3 weren't anonymous (Matt, Mark, Luke) and that John was probably (by historical standards) written by a student of John who was citing John in many instances (much like Luke and Peter).

If you are really passionate about this topic--which it seems you are because you comment on it--perhaps you could put this book near the top of your reading list. It directly addresses a lot of what you've said here.

Or you can continue on making claims for which there are already reasonable answers for.

I know that Pascal's Wager brings up negative emotions, but I think it has overall validity. If we can find the Truth to a standard we use for other decisions (EX the rule of law), then we should endeaver to. The consequences of complacency can be infinitely greater than the benefits of living for yourself.

I don't know how you can say that about the first 20 pages. Those pages are the introduction. Have you read any of the interviews with leading researchers in the fields of ancient history and medicine? They address most of what I've seen you question in this thread.

I admit, Strobel has an unusual introduction--analogizing an assessment of Christ's credibility to a court room trial--but to disregard a highly cited book because of an obtuse introduction seems like an excuse for complacency.

I'd recommend you read either

1. Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ", or
2. Anything by William Lane Craig about the Resurrection.

If your questions about the validity of the accounts are still unanswered OR you find these scholars to be inaccurate, then I would be more that happy to devote all the time needed to ascertain what really happened. As it is, I believe history is on the side of the Resurrection occurring.

Now, before you dismiss the sources I've cited, your should note they are heavily based in reliable history (see: footnotes for Strobel and Craig's general credibility among even atheist scholars).

Yes. It has been my understanding that the overall AI community has general doubts on AI's potential to fully mimic the brain. For that matter, most of the brain's functions are unknown. We can see blood flow/ionic charge differences in the brain's regions during a given task, but does that tell us how we are able to analyze and act on sensations?

It is propability true that computers will someday surpass our raw calculation potential (depending on whose numbers you use), but the software and especially the integration of various softwares to fully replicate and outdo our abilies is very, very speculative.

One final point. The scientifically-illiterate press always has controversial headlines but little substance. For instance there was the "Creativity Machine." This supposed "creative AI" was supposed to render human creativity useless. Then I read more credible sources on the scientist and his machine. It is basically a variable integrator that has a couple algorhythms to exclude combinations that are easily excludible. Still, the human decides what combinations are worthwhile--so it doesn't have creativity after all. But the SCIENTIST called it a "creativity machines"... No doubt he was a brialliant programmer, but still seemingly as prone to overexaggeration as the non-sci media.

Kursweil's opinions are interesting, but I believe in 25 years he will still be making those same prophecies. The only difference will be more disparate software that can do isolated tasks (ex match sound wave functions like we can) and computing power will have advanced.

I believe Kursweil will indeed die someday, in his organic body.

Keep singing your song, Kursweil. Keep singing your song....

Meanwhile, in 25 years Kursweil will keep saying the singularity is coming, in 25 years.

Oh yes, two more stories.

My friend and I are in the Military as Reservists (him: Army, me: Marines).

We teach a fitness class modeled after boot camp. The local Stop the War was going to protest our class because they "thought" we were recruiting for ROTC--even though we are both enlisted! A member of that organization attended the class several times and, since followed the Golden Rule, we diffused his "passion" to protest us.

Second, the same friend of mine was in an English class and the professor referred to the US Army as "the belly of the beast."

I go to the UW Madison. I am a Junior majoring in Biochem and Genetics.

Madison's foolish liberalism is a hinderance to development only if you are in non-science, non-technical majors. I have not seen much of Madison's ugly liberalism since I have taken mostly science classes (I was blessed to pass out of those gen ed requirements).

Case in point. My best friend will attend med school and is a molecular biology and English major. He is now in a required sociology class (for the English major. During the first day of this class the "professor" (intential lower case) told a story to prompt some debate.

Paraphrase of story: A black man fell on hard times and decided to gamle his remaining money in hope of making more. He has a family BTW. Eventually, he won a lot but a racist white man accused him of cheating to win it. So the black man killed the white man. The black man fled to the desert, where another racist white cop apprehended him.

The question: who is to blame for the black man's fate.

At first I thought the professor would have said it is NOT racism, since those details were specifically added. My friend wanted to the first to say it was the black man's fault, for he consciously made the choice to committ murder.

To his and my shock, most the students looked at my friend as if he were Satan. The majority of the comments afterward were predictable: society, racism, the white man, the white cop--pretty much anything but the black man who made the choice to murder. Then the professor said something like "I'd like to explore the possibility of racism as the cause more." Then the professor claimed to have some sort of "scientific evidence" to justify the majority's claim (though he never presented it).

So in summary,

science/engineering/technical fields at Madison = good and informative.

liberal arts, useless majors, anything with words "political" = a step backward from high school learning.

Also, tell your daughter to avoid socializing with most students here: they drink from Thursday to Sunday and from Monday to Wednesday they BS all day. Just my experience....

This article's bias is glaring.

"fueled the rebellion"

What "rebellion." If they overturn the Coalition/Iraqi Alliance, what political platform do they have? They are thugs and terrorists.

"viceroy" Paul Bremer.

IIRC, viceroy means regional imperial commander.

"Christian" "Science"

Gimme a break. This article and the CS Monitor's general slant shows they do not deserve their name. They have neither the morals and dedication toward trush as true Christians do, nor do they have the rigorous challenge that science demands.

You were sprayed with Oleoresin Capsaicum, military grade, and didn't think it was bad?

I am a Marine MP. We got sprayed on a Friday afternoon. It is quite a sight to see new Marines, just a month out of Boot Camp and a week after Marine Combat training, screaming in agony. With the exception of a few, all the Marines used all of their discipline, belief in God, or whatever to not just give up and die. You can't see, can't breath, and the pain gets worse as time goes by.

Personally, I did not stop reacting until 3 days later, after 1/2 a bottle of baby shampoo. It is quite a feeling to have labored breathing 2 days after initial exposure. Oh yeah, and it is not fun to wake up with crystals under your eyelid and your eyes sealed shut. My eyes are watering just writing this.

I'm not telling this story to make myself or Marine MPs look hardcore, but that OC spray is not joke.

Of course, civilians don't get nearly the level of OC we got, and they get the fog version, not the direct spray (level 3 I believe).

I go to UW Madison. The whole concept of Halloween is a joke. It is essentially a bunch of drunk students walking around looking at drunk students. What is my favorite costume there? The sexy cat. "Girls" were very skimpy cloths and then some cat-ears headband and they are a sexy cat. Yeah right!

One more humorous observation: girls here get incredibly drunk and give up their bodies to "men" and then we see all these signs and chalkings that say "men can stop rape." Rape is a terrible sin. But come on "girls"! Don't dress revealingly, get drunk off your A, and then say you got raped.

End of Madison rant.

Gentlemen,

The reason I have not yet posted from-the-cuff evidence is that I am actually pretty careful to make sure I evidence all of my claims. Since I was making many claims, I simply put them out there as a challenge and not a proof.

I have very little time each day to relax and surf the web/listen to music. In addition to biochem classes (adv physics, adv biochem, evol of behavior, biocore) I have quite a few extra committments. So that is why I am not currently interested in a lengthy debate, though I might be in December if I am not deployed (I'm a Marine Reservists).

Here is the oppressively formatted basic thesis of why I believe in Jesus. My section on biological evolution is not very developed yet, but the section on physics is.

http://jdhighness.tripod.com ***no www

I intend to completely rehaul it at winter break, including updating the arguments made since I have learned quite a bit since I made the site.

Thank you for your assistance. I will engage this topic more thoroughly when time permits. I hope you undestand

I appreciate you post. I have heard of this Casmir Effect. Here is my question: since the metal plates are within ranges of atomic radii, is it not more plausible to say that there is an electrostatic attraction, not a particle popping in out of no where?

I'd be interested in how they can prove that experimentally.