Unsettled Christianity

One blog to rule them all, One blog to find them, One blog to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
June 5th, 2012

Black holes as evidence that God is still creating

The ejection of the black hole actually took place about 4 billion years ago, as astronomers observe the radiation from galaxy CID-42, which is 4 billion light years from Earth. Astronomers reviewing data from the Hubble Telescope first noticed something interesting was going on. The visual data was then confirmed by telescopes on the ground.

via A Supermassive Black Hole Was Ejected Out Of Its Home Galaxy – Forbes.

A few other stories have circulate recently that black holes have been shown to contain the beginnings of other universes. Indeed, this is the multiverse theory.

Our universe may exist inside a black hole. This may sound strange, but it could actually be the best explanation of how the universe began, and what we observe today. It’s a theory that has been explored over the past few decades by a small group of physicists including myself.

Successful as it is, there are notable unsolved questions with the standard big bang theory, which suggests that the universe began as a seemingly impossible “singularity,” an infinitely small point containing an infinitely high concentration of matter, expanding in size to what we observe today. The theory of inflation, a super-fast expansion of space proposed in recent decades, fills in many important details, such as why slight lumps in the concentration of matter in the early universe coalesced into large celestial bodies such as galaxies and clusters of galaxies.

via Every Black Hole Contains a New Universe | Inside Science.

Anyway, the god of the Hamites is one that quite being a creator on Day 6 of the length of the universe. The God of Christianity, however, albeit a Christianity enlivened by Science, is one that is still, as the creeds say, a Creator. God is not the one who simply created, but one who is the Creator.

Ht – Kevin via FB

Enhanced by Zemanta
June 5th, 2012

South Korea leads the U.S. in moving backwards

Mention creationism, and many scientists think of the United States, where efforts to limit the teaching of evolution have made headway in a couple of states1. But the successes are modest compared with those in South Korea, where the anti-evolution sentiment seems to be winning its battle with mainstream science.

A petition to remove references to evolution from high-school textbooks claimed victory last month after the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST) revealed that many of the publishers would produce revised editions that exclude examples of the evolution of the horse or of avian ancestor Archaeopteryx. The move has alarmed biologists, who say that they were not consulted. “The ministry just sent the petition out to the publishing companies and let them judge,” says Dayk Jang, an evolutionary scientist at Seoul National University.

via South Korea surrenders to creationist demands : Nature News & Comment.

Wow… I wonder if Ken Ham will be heading to South Korea to set up a Creationist museum soon? Is it too mean to hope that he lands accidently in North Korea?

HT – Dr. Cargill, via Facebook

May 26th, 2012

Ken Ham wonderfully sums up Inerrancy and plaIn readIng

If you as a Christian believe the Bible is inerrant, you’re saying it is without error. And as a creationist, I read the Bible plainly, trusting that I can believe and understand what I read. It’s unreasonable to say that inerrancy and a plain reading of Scripture leads Christians to believe falsehoods as though they are “magically true.” But what is Dr. McKnight referring to specifically here? He writes, “One of which views is that the Bible teaches science in Genesis 1–2.”

via Warning: “Inerrancy” Means We Can’t Trust the Bible | Around the World with Ken Ham.

That’s a lot of I’s in that sentence, Ken.

I read the bible how I want to and it says to ME what I think it says. I’m perfect.

That is Ken Ham’s mantra. It is a Euro-centric, anti-semitic way of reading Scripture, but that’s okay I guess.

Wow…

That is the central idea behind inerrancy and the plain sense reading, that the modern reader without any help can better understand the Scripture than the original authors and culture. What Scripture says to you doesn’t really matter. It is what it is meant to say that does.

Enhanced by Zemanta
May 19th, 2012

I’m not sure Ken Ham understands basic biology @aig

Of course, biology could be of the devil if it challenges your opinion, but anyway, Ham has gone ape over a book at the San Diego Zoo. In this book, the authors posits a well known biological fact that humans are just a few chromosomes away from being apes. I’m not sure if he knew that or not. Doubtful, because unlike nuclear energy, facebook, and using tax payer dollars to open up an adult store, this is not in Scripture.

But—this is where the world is at today.  And if the San Diego Zoo is selling this book, they must approve of its contents.  Shame on the San Diego Zoo (one of the world’s leading zoos) for promoting the false idea that we are just another ape—and we are “probably smarter than any other animals.”

Poor guy… can’t handle the biological truth.

February 28th, 2012

Yes, Kentucky, Evolution can be seen today

Though the moths are typically a mottled black-and-white color, scientists in England at the time of Queen Victoria began seeing increased numbers of all-black moths following the start of the Industrial Revolution. Studies later showed that the moths had benefited from the black color because they were better able to camouflage themselves against the trunks of soot-stained trees. Later research also showed that, as air quality improved, the moths’ evolution reversed course, and the number of black insects fell dramatically.

via Evolutionary question, answered | Harvard Gazette.

So the article goes on to show that the quick evolution and then reversal of the moths actually occurred because of environmental factors. What’s important here – the take away – is that we shows that a species is able to develop responsive genetic mutations, in a quick time, and promulgate the species. Imagine if this had gone one for many generations of these moths… and that’s how we get evolution.

Prolonged adaption will lead to a permanent change…

Enhanced by Zemanta
February 26th, 2012

The Gospel, According to Ken Ham

gospel according to ken ham

Taken from Ham's Facebook page, a slide he uses

Poor guy… and he wonders why people say what they say about him…

So, this is the Gospel? If you believe in Young Earth Creationism, then you will get to fly away… Really?

Poor guy.. doesn’t even understand the New Testament… why in the world do people continue to listen to this deluded soul?

February 16th, 2012

Is Tony Breeden Anti-Semitic?

whereunicornspeeIt certainly seems so. I mean, I’ve met him in person and he isn’t a dullard in the intelligence department… but then he writes this in response to Karl Giberson:

You see, when we ask, “Were you there?”, creationists are not claiming that we cannot determine the past unless we are eyewitnesses. Granted, we do point out that the further we go back in time, the less certainty we may have. Rather the point of “Were you there?” is to underscore the fact that we do have an Eyewitness account. This Eyewitness is God Himself who authored the Scriptures, which never came by the will of men (including the pre-scientific but nonetheless true history in Genesis). Unfortunately, this Creator (who never lies) testifies that the world did not come about by purely uniform, natural processes, a fact of the Text which Giberson chooses to ignore. He’s ignoring God’s testimony as irrelevant because modern scientists who’ve chained scientific inquiry to pure naturalism have concocted an all-natural Just-so story to replace the historical Creation account in Genesis.

The ‘Were you there’ is a stupid argument. Why? Because they are still assuming that unless the historical narrative of Genesis 1 matches up to modern Western ideas of history and other accounts, then it is wrong. Further, he is still assuming that Genesis 1 is about the physical creation. So to ask if someone was there is to dismiss the actual Scripture.  What Tony and others are doing is to take their account and their understanding, nay, their necessity of having Scripture read like they and not ancient Hebrews wrote it, and applying it to Scripture.

So, Tony, were you there? Are you an ancient Hebrew writing the hymn, sitting in Babylon, during exile, keeping the identity of your people alive? Were you there, in God’s mind, as he inspired Scripture so that you directed him was to what to inspired, and to the original authors as to tell them, which they would not have understood whatsoever, what to say? Were you there, Tony? What? No? They how about give the ancient authors there due and try not to tell them that what they wrote doesn’t mean anything unless it meets the high quality of the Western white guy.

Now, we can actually examine the passage in context because we have other writings by other authors who were actually there, but that might actually prove Tony and others wrong…

February 11th, 2012

How Ken Ham and other YEC Apologists are making Atheists

A few months ago, the Barna Group released a study which indicated that one of the reasons for the decline of the American Church is its perceived stance on science, notably, because of the likes of Ken Ham. For some reason, Ham doesn’t like to take credit for these numbers, but will look at Europe and bemoan its spiritual state, blaming it on the rise of belief in Evolution while noting that there is a rise of believe in YEC in the U.S. Anyway, read this post about a former fundamentalist baptist pastor who lost his faith… take a gander as to what helped him…

How I Answered Science Questions | Fallen From Grace.

Ham notes on his facebook page about this author, “that he probably was not taught apologetics.” Yes, because “apologetics” is what trumps all things. Apologetics is not about searching for the Truth of the matter, but about circling the wagons and making sure that you consider only your own view as correct, at least for Ham.

So many issues here… so many.

 

February 7th, 2012

Seagrass that is older than the Earth – Posidonia oceanica v Ken Ham

I hate facts. They get in the way of just so much…

Scientists calculated the age of the plants from DNA tests on clumps gathered from the seafloor between Spain and Cyprus.

They revealed the typical age of the seagrass, Posidonia oceanica, to be thousands or tens of thousands of years old, though some appeared to more ancient still. A 15km-wide stretch of seagrass lying in waters off the Spanish island of Formentera could be 200,000 years old, the scientists found, dating it to the late Pleistocene and the dawn of humanity.

Until now, a contender for the oldest living organism was a Tasmanian seagrass thought to live more than 40,000 years. (here)

February 2nd, 2012

Speaking of humility… How many mistruths can you spot?

Jason cites a ‘review‘ (polemical responses aren’t reviews; they are sad instances of someone defending their own presuppositions against anything that may cause them emotional and mental harm) by a Young Earth Creationist group on John Walton’s book, The Lost World of Genesis One. This one, by the way, is a great start to actually understanding Genesis 1 within context, but his second book on the subject, published by Eisenbrauns is a much more involved one.

I love the hypocritical presuppositionalist view point expressed in the review… First, they detest the fact that the Church may have in fact gotten more than a few things wrong. What’s wrong with this view point? First, they assume that the theologians of the Church are as inspired as Scripture. Second, their avenue of thought must undue all of the Reformation and place us all back into Rome. Third, they assume that humans aren’t fallible. Fourth, they also assume that the entire Church has always believed what they themselves believe now, when in fact, history stands against them. Another error is that they use the Creeds (honestly, a YEC’er using a Creed?) to suggest that the Church has always seen God as Creator but that Walton and others do not. This is a straw man, and in fact, a flat out lie. To this end, they suggest that ex nihilo was always the official Church stance, when in fact it was not. Indeed, it was a much needed doctrine to thwart the dualism of the age, but it is not actually found in Scripture. Not believing in ex nihilio nor in the YEC’er interpretation of Genesis 1 does not remove the central belief that God is the Creator, something Walton and others have affirmed time and time again. They also go into this “Scripture must interpret Scripture” which is the biggest pile of horse, well, you know, that I’ve seen used. Remember, not even Christ suggested that when he urged the Pharisees to look at him instead of searching the Scriptures. They go on to issue more cockamamie tripe all in the name of defending their non-existent faith.

Jason, on the other hand, suggests that what we need is humility. He then goes on to write,

Humility would lead us to go back to the Scriptures and the Early Church to see what they held concerning the matter.

I can assure you that no humble, open-minded person will come away with the understanding that folks such as Walton and Enns have presented to us.

Ironic that Jason uses the words ‘open-minded’ and ‘humble’ when he has by this very statement shown that he is against both things. Let’s turn back to the early Church Fathers like Origen and Augustine who didn’t believe in a YEC’er interpretation, nor many of the other fundamentalist doctrines. Further, Jason flat out lies when he writes,

The intellectual climate in Europe when “The Origins of The Species” was written was such that there was essentially a nominal belief in God and Christianity.

The problem with Jason, Ken Ham and Tony Breeden, among others, is that they are driven by an intense desire to guard their own faith, not realizing the often times hypocritical routes which they must take to condemn others. They fall back on Church Tradition, the Fathers, and the such, and yet roundly condemn those who do this everyday, such as the Catholics. They read everything anachronistically. Further, they don’t understand science and yet pretend that they can offer valuable insight into it. Not only that, but they make up history.

What Dr. Walton and Dr. Enns have done is to show that the actual Authority of Scripture is maintained without having to bend over backwards, become hypocritical, and condemn others who disagree as somehow denying Christ. I applauded them, and it is because of them and those like them that the Christian faith will continue to grow… and it because the apologetic YEC’ers that the Christian faith will stumble and harm others, causing the faith of many to be lost. May God forgive them

Psst… Jason… your permalinks needs to be changed to allow for the title of the post. Search Engines love this, much more so than the numbers style. 

February 1st, 2012

Ken Ham doesn’t believe in the Historical Jesus @AiG

Click to Order

Whatever do you mean, Joel?

Ken makes a logical fallacy, that for Jesus to be the Son of God, he would have to be completely inhuman. I note that Paul writes that Christ emptied himself of his deity to assume flesh, and yet, Ham argues with Paul. Surely, Ham opines, that Jesus was complete deity. For him, Jesus must have known everything and been incapable of not knowing. Scripture tells us that Christ was tempted in every way, and overcame those temptations. This is because Jesus was human. He was a Jew. A Palestinan Jew of the 1st century, no matter what else we wish to believe about him… Jesus was a Jew.

Ham allows two ‘researchers’ from AiG to write,

The idea advanced by Dr. Enns here is known as the accommodation theory and was first advanced in the eighteenth century by Johann Semler, the father of German rationalism. The accommodation theory is very popular among liberal theologians and basically asserts that Jesus accommodated (accepted and taught) the various ideas of His day, even if they were wrong.5 Allegedly, since Jesus was primarily concerned with spiritual matters, He didn’t bother to correct some of their false historical or scientific beliefs because doing so might have distracted from His real message.

Did Jesus Tell a Lie? | Around the World with Ken Ham.

If this was the case, that Jesus had to correct everything (and for some reason, Ham and others assume that the Jews of 1st century Palestine were just proto-fundamentalist Christians in believe), then why didn’t he do that about medicine? Or give the world nuclear energy? Or tell people that washing hands wasn’t just a good thing when eating, but so too for physicians? Do you know how many lives that could have saved between then and the late 1800′s when it started happening?

They must make the presupposition that the 1st century Jewish Jesus believed and taught what the 21st century Ken Ham does. Second, they must believe that unless Jesus did, then Jesus was wrong. Third, they must endeavor to make sure that other 1st century Jews believed the same way that Ham does now. Fourth, they assume that unless Jesus acted in accordance with their theology, then he was wrong. Fifth, they also must assume that the Gospels are ‘historical narrative’ of the same time which is produced by modern Western societies. It is a house of cards which protects their faith.

So, no, Ken Ham doesn’t believe in the historical Jesus; he believes in an Imaginary Jesus of his own creation.

By the way, there is a blog tour for Dr. Enns’ book…see a post of it here.

Enhanced by Zemanta