tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2978485750390455025.post6985096648429413107..comments2023-05-25T07:17:05.918-04:00Comments on Abide in My Word: Ken Ham WonRev. Thomas C. Messer, SSPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13740553600700598394noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2978485750390455025.post-86755441728451692942014-04-09T12:36:23.093-04:002014-04-09T12:36:23.093-04:00Lucretius argued, in Latin, for the "reality&...Lucretius argued, in Latin, for the "reality" of evolution -- with no greater convincing evidence (or "proof") than has the "Science Guy," at his disposal. I presume Darwin knew of the Roman's meanderings, which may well have suffered some two thousand years or so of Victorian English, "Telegraph" distortion.<br /><br />Lucretius huffed and puffed and postulated from <i>appearasnces</i>, however ... which throws the "Inteiliigent Design" cabal uncomfortably and perilously close in intellectual kinship, with the incorrigible pagan lyricist.<br /><br />In the end, dear Lutheran, FAITH is the evidence of things not seen, not a calculus of complexities or statistical odds-making ... and truth is, neither Bill Nye <b>or</b> Jim Pierce were around to eye-ball the Word at work ... the precious Word, by Whom all things were made. NONE of the aforementioned gentlemen were around to witness the Creation's instant. That includes Mr. Hubble, or at least his telescope, that thing out there reaching back into time (supposedly).<br /><br />The written Word's purpose is not to provide us with a textbook of mechanics or biology, but to point to the Word Incarnate. The blessed Creation account does just that, and gloriously so (as does all of Scripture) ... if you have the ears to hear, and the eyes to see. What the fundamentally flawed, 3000 years of cerebral deductions by the likes of Messrs. Lucretius, Darwin, Teilhard and Nye are, should matter but little to us in whom Christ tabernacles ... except for the sake of personal amusement, perhaps ... which venue of hilarity far exceeds that of bungee-cord jumping by a mile, or however deep the Grand Canyon is. True examples of Baconian scientific rigor, the deuctions simply are not. <br /><br />Based on their shared seriousness, I suspect that all the overly strained-thinking "Intelligent Design" guys wear bow-ties, in cahoots with Mr. Nye ... which occurrence, if it be true, is a grievous slight to a much-loved personal affectation, along with pipe-smoking.<br /><br />Rest assured fellow redeemed, that I do eschew the monocle, however.<br /><br />Your (unworthy) servant,<br />Herr DokorMichael L. Anderson, M.D., Ph.Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13158953802996685938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2978485750390455025.post-34302996751484808122014-02-06T18:19:29.075-05:002014-02-06T18:19:29.075-05:00Dear Pr. Messer,
Thank you for this article. But,...Dear Pr. Messer,<br /><br />Thank you for this article. But, I have to disagree on a point you make. I don't think Mr. Ham won the debate. The premise of the debate was whether or not Creationism is a viable model of origins. I don't there is any possible way to "win" a debate where the very premise of it implies that creationism, in order to be "viable," must be testable and falsifiable.<br /><br />From the very opening of the debate Mr. Ham went into Fundamentalist "Chick Tract" mode of discourse. He was trying to win a debate within the realm of natural reason through appeal to understanding the Scriptures, which is revelatory truth. I may be wrong, but I don't think rationalists and secularists are terribly interested in appeals to revelatory truth in development of a model for the origins of the universe. <br /><br />I don't think Mr. Ham won. I think Nye made Mr. Ham look like a redneck bible thumper, ignorant of modern day science. Of course, that isn't true, but as I sat and watched the debate, I knew that all my old pagan friends were probably laughing at Mr. Ham, since they are secularists who rule out any appeals to the supernatural in explanations for the origins of the universe.<br /><br />I would have liked to see Mr. Ham stick it out with arguments from natural reason like we see with the Intelligent Design guys. There are so many reasons why the neo-Darwinism of Nye fails where I don't think Mr. Ham would have even needed to bother with a 4k year old earth argument.<br /><br />Thanks for reading and blessings to you! :)Jim Piercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05833221283041770220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2978485750390455025.post-37051710744915459702014-02-06T15:17:48.363-05:002014-02-06T15:17:48.363-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Rich G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04666075844805615545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2978485750390455025.post-9168783905756650222014-02-06T15:17:09.201-05:002014-02-06T15:17:09.201-05:00You wrote about Mr. Ham: " He is a scientist ...You wrote about Mr. Ham: " He is a scientist himself." This is not true - he is an evangelist, with a BS in Applied Science (equivalent to Engineering in the US).Rich G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04666075844805615545noreply@blogger.com