tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post3973251848131777883..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: My last post on BioLogosPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger272125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-21236063138202047252010-09-18T10:29:02.483-07:002010-09-18T10:29:02.483-07:00And with that, thus endeth the thread. Eveyone ha...And with that, thus endeth the thread. Eveyone has had more than their fair say here.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-48864979103137964102010-09-18T10:26:32.001-07:002010-09-18T10:26:32.001-07:00Glenn --
Let's be very careful (in spite of t...Glenn --<br /><br />Let's be very careful (in spite of the blogginess of this all here) about what I believe, what I would teach and/or advocate, and what I think others of good faith have said and can be at least listened to without our ears being damaged.<br /><br />I believe in One God, Six Days, One Adam, One Eve, One sin, one judgment, one punishment, and one promise pointing at Christ. I would not teach or advocate for anything else.<br /><br />In his latest book, no less than D.A. Carson calls the interpretation of Genesis difficult because of the mixed bag of genres. D.A. Carson said this -- and he's one of the stringiest inerrancy guys out there. So if Dr. Carson can have the generosity to say, "Let's at least be honest that the genres are more than one here," I think the rest of us lesser mortals can at least have open ears on the subject.<br /><br />That said, Glenn, as Jim pointed out, you have the causality of Genesis backwards. Plainly, it is because "Adam" is named "Adam" that mankind is named "Adam". I know, I know: the objection here from the non-traditionalist is that the <i>writer</i> calls "Adam" this because he's supposed to be the metaphorical firstman/everyman who could be any of us. The problem is that the word "Adam" was not invented by the Bible writer: it was used by him. If he had invented the word and then it caught on, I'd have more sympathy for your point.<br /><br />That said, the problem with saying that Moses meant "everyman" or "Man the Myth" when he wrote Genesis is that <i>this naming convention isn't present in the rest of Genesis</i>. If "Adam" was named as the "first man", why aren't Cain and Abel named "Faithful" and "Unfaithful" or some other such prototypical label to show they represent archetypes rather than historical people? Why the gap in this type of story telling?<br /><br />I understand the question: I think it is not a great question for people who read the rest of Genesis (and then the Bible) to ask based on the way the rest of Genesis (and the Bible) works as literature.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-66054895490716706872010-09-18T08:19:46.350-07:002010-09-18T08:19:46.350-07:00Jacob - I thought the same thing. Good observation...Jacob - I thought the same thing. Good observation.<br /><br />Also, a plain reading of Genesis presents the account of Adam as factual rather than allegorical. One must try to develop a non-intuitive hermeneutic to dismiss Adam as an actual person. That's telling. What I never hear is how such a hermeneutic accounts for the genealogies. Since a key genealogy linking Adam with Jesus is in Luke 3, one would have to dismiss the historicity of Christ as well.Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-4069494208674567402010-09-18T05:59:43.835-07:002010-09-18T05:59:43.835-07:00How could Adam be named after something when he wa...How could Adam be named <em>after</em> something when he was the first? <br />Wouldn't it be more logical that the name Adam, because he was the first of his kind, came to be used as a term to label his kind? i.e., that we are called humans because his name meant that?<br /><br />(Btw, I thought his name meant reddish or something like that related to the color of his skin.)Jacobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17084189036334133951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-18904596902764080002010-09-18T04:24:08.671-07:002010-09-18T04:24:08.671-07:00OK, it looks like I'm unlikely to make progres...OK, it looks like I'm unlikely to make progress on this one with some of the folk here. We've got Robert replying by telling me that if someone examines the evidence and concludes that early Genesis is not historical then ipso facto he's not conservative, and we've got Christopher telling me that it has to be literal history because it's at the beginning!<br /><br />Frank, at least, is willing to allow alternative understandings of Genesis 1 and 2.<br /><br />Frank, do you think there's perhaps some significance in the fact that Adam is a character whose name actually <i>means</i> humanity? If, for example, Adam is so named because in this (non historical) account he represents the human race, would you grant that the theological teaching would remain intact, even if the historical veracity did not?Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15365045662764795503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-78377263899773078562010-09-17T21:27:35.464-07:002010-09-17T21:27:35.464-07:00donsands: "I would imagine they also think No...donsands: <em>"I would imagine they also think Noah wasn't a real person, and his ark; the flood, etc.<br /><br />But they still want the rest of the Bible, and Christ. Odd."</em><br /><br />But only until they "evolve" to a point where they feel they no longer need a Savior. ;)<br /><br />Claiming to be wise they became fools...Jacobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17084189036334133951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-50348110398318599122010-09-17T21:15:42.421-07:002010-09-17T21:15:42.421-07:00A surprising number of "Reformed" folks ...A surprising number of "Reformed" folks (the prototypical Calvinistic but amillennial lot) apparently fall for the idea of allowing for (read: trying to shoehorn) evolution in(to) the Genesis creation account. <br /><br />Perhaps it's a product of their over-emphasis on education and scholasticism inherent in their preferred brand of Christianity that leads them to put more weight on science so-called than is proper. Who knows.<br /><br />I do know it causes me extreme dislike for them and an extra measure of thankfulness for folks like Phil, Dan, and Frank who have properly synthesized Reformed theology with a faithful rendering of the text and a careful avoidance of the secular pitfalls that seem so common in Reformed circles.<br /><br />If I ever read another amillennial or evolution-can-fit-in-Genesis blogpost it'll be too soon. Thanks for being a breath of fresh air in this festering world.Jacobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17084189036334133951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-19899051783571478592010-09-17T15:00:33.622-07:002010-09-17T15:00:33.622-07:00"Don't think so?"
No. I sure wouldn..."Don't think so?"<br /><br />No. I sure wouldn't bet on it. Read Lamoureux's book. They're not going to deny the hisoricity of Jesus, even if you think they ought to for the sake of consistency.<br /><br />As for "You didn't think they'd reject Adam as a historical person, either" that sort of baffles me, since I've been following them from the beginning and knew all the while where they were coming from. Falk and Giberson are the guys running the deal, and they've always been upfront on that. Denis Alexander, a collaborator, disagrees. So do a smattering of other authors on the site. But the official stance is very similar to Lamoureux's.<br /><br />What DID take me by surprise was their pointless shotgun on inerrancy.Garrett Leaguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07418221622445775232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-85057507711055935662010-09-17T14:22:52.327-07:002010-09-17T14:22:52.327-07:00Bill R., consider yourself officially, secondarily...<b>Bill R.</b>, consider yourself officially, secondarily quoted. IOW: thanks for the quote-gravy; I posted that lil' nugget from Mr. Gould on facebook.<br /><br />(c:IB Dubbyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14110161040854928853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-53369903352877165192010-09-17T04:48:20.622-07:002010-09-17T04:48:20.622-07:00Bill,
What is sad is that Darwin is wrong about t...Bill,<br /><br />What is sad is that Darwin is wrong about the true definition of science. Science is there to observe facts and gather data and then test the hypotheses that people put forth. If the hypotheses can not be proven, they should not be accepted as fact. Of course, that just kills the whole theory of evolution, though.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13987985549747283669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-88093467476405701202010-09-17T04:34:38.243-07:002010-09-17T04:34:38.243-07:00"It is easy enough to make up stories of how ..."It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test." <br /><br />Personal letter (written 10 April 1979) from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to Luther D. Sunderland; as quoted in "Darwin’s Enigma" by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Books, San Diego, USA, 1984, p. 89. <br /><br />"For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible." <br /><br />Charles Darwin, 1859, Introduction to "Origin of Species," p. 2. Also quoted in "John Lofton’s Journal," "The Washington Times," 8 February 1984. <br /><br />"Facts do not ‘speak for themselves’; they are read in the light of theory. Creative thought, in science as much as in the arts, is the motor of changing opinion. Science is a quintessentially human activity, not a mechanized, robot-like accumulation of objective information, leading by laws of logic to inescapable interpretation." <br /><br />Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "The validation of continental drift" in his book "Ever Since Darwin," Burnett Books, 1978 pp. 161-162. <br /><br />Just thought I would leave these quotes by evolutionists here re: the 'fact' of evolution...Bill R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16938922140995146034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-19345316301030679092010-09-16T17:45:48.756-07:002010-09-16T17:45:48.756-07:00Jugulum,
My response to Steve has less to do with...Jugulum,<br /><br />My response to Steve has less to do with the merits of either ICR or Kirt Bertsche (whoever he is) and more to do with the “faith” behind his (and others) comment(s). It never fails to amaze me just how much “faith” an unbeliever (or nominal believer) can demonstrate while at the same time making fun of (or just taking issue with) those that have complete “faith” in Gods word.<br /><br />I am constantly encountering unbelievers who have themselves convinced that they have chosen the facts vs. faith route without even for a moment noticing just how much faith the “supposed” facts they believe in require.<br /><br />The only group more ridiculous than this is the professing Christians who are supposedly trying to prevent Christianity from becoming “a laughing stock” by finding someway to reconcile every fallible idea of man with the infallible word of God… i.e. BioLogos.<br /><br />I cannot look into the hearts of these people to tell what their “true” motivation is but it’s pretty obvious to me that the only real concern they have of something becoming a laughing stock is that it could be them. Poor babies, so worried about what man might think that they are willing to twist and bend Gods word as needed.<br /><br />My advice to them is simple, assuming their motives are pure; Christianity doesn’t need their help, it will be around long after they’re gone. If their motives are what I think they really are… they need to do themselves a favor and stop trying to serve two masters or at least be honest about what team they’re really on!Ron (aka RealityCheck)https://www.blogger.com/profile/03274921909241630662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-42315642393194326392010-09-16T17:32:56.324-07:002010-09-16T17:32:56.324-07:00Tim (Jugulum),
That said, however, the C-14 in dia...Tim (Jugulum),<br />That said, however, the C-14 in diamonds was part of an extensive eight year research initiative that included the c-14 in diamonds as only one aspect. The other aspects included radiohalos in granites, helium diffusion in zircons, fission tracts in zircons, assumptions of isochron dating using K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd and Pb-Pb, and isochron discordances of radioisotopes in the earth's mantle and crust. <br /><br />All of this supporting data leads to severe problems with the current uniformitarian understanding of earth's geology and the belief that the earth is billions of years old.<br /><br />In contrast, they point to a young earth, (relative to secular geologists proclamation of one that is old). <br /><br />The research initiative by ICR was quite a scholarly piece of work (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth), and I recommend you taking a look at it, before jumping to conclusions that Bertsche has conclusively shown their research to be invalid.<br /><br />The age old cliche comes to mind here, brother, 'whose bias are you going to be biased with', as all investigators have a bias before starting their studies and all experiments are chosen and conducted within that bias.Steve Drakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17435371814330595643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-22110584410214798632010-09-16T17:19:46.787-07:002010-09-16T17:19:46.787-07:00Jug,
I am no scientist, but I did read the paper o...Jug,<br />I am no scientist, but I did read the paper on RATE radiocarbon dating by Bertsche, then did a little searching to see what the response would be. There is a great response from a credible scientist (the author of the original research being critiqued) which takes Bertsche to the woodshed. Only one comes back.<br /><br />http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/11/30/feedback-rate-contaminationMagister Stevensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15507216978994361047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-64227797491404827022010-09-16T16:29:33.423-07:002010-09-16T16:29:33.423-07:00RealityCheck,
Careful there. That link wasn'...RealityCheck,<br /><br />Careful there. That link wasn't an authority claim, ala "Well, <i>Kirt Bertsche</i> says 'nuh-uh'." (Well... Maybe it was. See [1] at the end.) It was a discussion of the details of ICR's testing, and an argument that the specifics of the data <i>do</i> point to contamination and instrument background. An argument to be evaluated, not an authority claim.<br /><br />ICR is arguing that "Their own standards for evidence actually point to a young earth." Bertsche is responding, "Ur doin it wrong"--arguing that there are identifiable problems with ICR's testing procedure. He's either plainly correct, or it's arguable, or he's plainly wrong. I don't know.<br /><br />But we have no basis for waiving away his response, or acting as though "ICR's procedure was flawed" is an unknowable he-said-she-said. Even if we conclude that C14-dating is meaningless, that doesn't mean it's impossible to tell whether someone measured the C14 badly.<br /><br />As a relative layman, it looks to me like a credible critique. (I've got a physics MS, and worked in a lab for a year. But no directly relevant experience or training.) It's not hand-waving, or flippant, even if he's wrong; he points to specific data features. If I were going to pursue this, my next step would be look for ICR's response, and find out if they address his critique. Or I'd study C14 measurement so that I could evaluate what Bertsche said, myself. Barring that, I'm not going to put weight on C14 being in those diamonds.<br /><br />The truth of the Word of God and the youth of the earth doesn't tell us that they really did contain C14, or that it just comes down to picking a competing authority.<br /><br />Automatically preferring ICR on this is no better than an atheist leaping on the flimsiest "debunking" of the Bible.<br /><br /><br />[1] Actually, if Steve Gentry leapt on Bertsche's review without understanding it, without having good reason to think the critique was valid, then it <i>was</i> pretty much an argument from authority--and your response might work.Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-76662989879938762642010-09-16T14:33:53.445-07:002010-09-16T14:33:53.445-07:00Cont:
All that to set up this comment: whatever h...Cont:<br /><br />All that to set up this comment: whatever hermeneutic we could develop to deny the existence of a literal Adam and Eve, if applied consistently, would result in a summary denial of the veracity of the rest of the Bible, too much of which we have evidence is true. Add to that the acknowledgment of the Holy Spirit in the lives of those he regenerates as to its truth and life-changing nature and we have no choice but to accept its accounts and teachings as true. Once that happens, it becomes clear to us that there is no hermeneutical tension and even scientific and philosophical machinations tend to harmonize because we allow for the actions of an eternal Creator.<br /><br />It is presumed by naturalists that evidence gathered by purely physical means can only bear the import of physical conclusions. However, this presumption is logically flawed. We regularly communicate intangibles via tangible representations in language. It's unreasonable to assume that observable physical patterns can't speak of a metaphysical intelligence.Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-66252417012824549472010-09-16T14:33:13.337-07:002010-09-16T14:33:13.337-07:00Wow! Hot topic. I can only skim through the commen...Wow! Hot topic. I can only skim through the comments so forgive me if my comment repeats what has already been said. I usually hear it alluded to, but never fully addressed so I'll address it here.<br /><br />One can presume that genealogical detail, as a matter of hermeneutical principle, can be construed as fictional. After all, Tolkien developed detailed genealogies for Middle Earth. However, nothing Tolkien writes could be misconstrued as true history. The Bible is inextricable from its history. The writing of the Bible is interactive with the historical account. To some extent Tolkien did this also, but the lands and languages don't match our lands and languages like the Bible does. The Bible makes historical references that are externally verifiable. Besides, Tolkien wrote all his stuff inside of a lifetime ans we have external evidence that he did so as <b>fiction</b>. The Bible was written from the beginning as history.<br /><br />Aside from claims to speak face-to-face with God, Moses had access to the same Egyptian library that Joseph would have contributed to. Joseph was born years before Abraham died. Abraham was born long before Noah died. Noah was born long before Seth died and Noah's father was born long before Adam died. In Abraham's day there was writing. We know this because excavations of the civilization he came from reveal schools and libraries.<br /><br />cont...Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-85333922186044546842010-09-16T14:32:15.088-07:002010-09-16T14:32:15.088-07:00Wow! Hot topic. I can only skim through the commen...Wow! Hot topic. I can only skim through the comments so forgive me if my comment repeats what has already been said. I usually hear it alluded to, but never fully addressed so I'll address it here.<br /><br />One can presume that genealogical detail, as a matter of hermeneutical principle, can be construed as fictional. After all, Tolkien developed detailed genealogies for Middle Earth. However, nothing Tolkien writes could be misconstrued as true history. The Bible is inextricable from its history. The writing of the Bible is interactive with the historical account. To some extent Tolkien did this also, but the lands and languages don't match our lands and languages like the Bible does. The Bible makes historical references that are externally verifiable. Besides, Tolkien wrote all his stuff inside of a lifetime ans we have external evidence that he did so as <b>fiction</b>. The Bible was written from the beginning as history.<br /><br />Aside from claims to speak face-to-face with God, Moses had access to the same Egyptian library that Joseph would have contributed to. Joseph was born years before Abraham died. Abraham was born long before Noah died. Noah was born long before Seth died and Noah's father was born long before Adam died. In Abraham's day there was writing. We know this because excavations of the civilization he came from reveal schools and libraries.<br /><br />All that to set up this comment: whatever hermeneutic we could develop to deny the existence of a literal Adam and Eve, if applied consistently, would result in a summary denial of the veracity of the rest of the Bible, too much of which we have evidence is true. Add to that the acknowledgment of the Holy Spirit in the lives of those he regenerates as to its truth and life-changing nature and we have no choice but to accept its accounts and teachings as true. Once that happens, it becomes clear to us that there is no hermeneutical tension and even scientific and philosophical machinations tend to harmonize because we allow for the actions of an eternal Creator.Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-70606317882417705712010-09-16T14:30:14.277-07:002010-09-16T14:30:14.277-07:00Wow! Hot topic. I can only skim through the commen...Wow! Hot topic. I can only skim through the comments so forgive me if my comment repeats what has already been said. I usually hear it alluded to, but never fully addressed so I'll address it here.<br /><br />One can presume that genealogical detail, as a matter of hermeneutical principle, can be construed as fictional. After all, Tolkien developed detailed genealogies for Middle Earth. However, nothing Tolkien writes could be misconstrued as true history. The Bible is inextricable from its history. The writing of the Bible is interactive with the historical account. To some extent Tolkien did this also, but the lands and languages don't match our lands and languages like the Bible does. The Bible makes historical references that are externally verifiable. Besides, Tolkien wrote all his stuff inside of a lifetime ans we have external evidence that he did so as <b>fiction</b>. The Bible was written from the beginning as history.<br /><br />Aside from claims to speak face-to-face with God, Moses had access to the same Egyptian library that Joseph would have contributed to. Joseph was born years before Abraham died. Abraham was born long before Noah died. Noah was born long before Seth died and Noah's father was born long before Adam died. In Abraham's day there was writing. We know this because excavations of the civilization he came from reveal schools and libraries.<br /><br />All that to set up this comment: whatever hermeneutic we could develop to deny the existence of a literal Adam and Eve, if applied consistently, would result in a summary denial of the veracity of the rest of the Bible, too much of which we have evidence is true. Add to that the acknowledgment of the Holy Spirit in the lives of those he regenerates as to its truth and life-changing nature and we have no choice but to accept its accounts and teachings as true. Once that happens, it becomes clear to us that there is no hermeneutical tension and even scientific and philosophical machinations tend to harmonize because we allow for the actions of an eternal Creator.<br /><br />It is presumed by naturalists that evidence gathered by purely physical means can only bear the import of physical conclusions. However, this presumption is logically flawed. We regularly communicate intangibles via tangible representations in language. It's unreasonable to assume that observable physical patterns can't speak of a metaphysical intelligence.Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-56901300447959680712010-09-16T09:26:44.523-07:002010-09-16T09:26:44.523-07:00Steve Gentry said;
“With regard to your comment o...Steve Gentry said;<br /><br />“With regard to your comment on C-14 in diamonds, Dr. Kirt Bertsche has reviewed ICR's research…”<br /><br />Oh well... if Kirk Bertsche says there's been contamination... what else do we need to “believe”. Whoever he is I’m sure he is more qualified than any of the other PhD’s working for (or in conjunction) with ICR. I mean after all “Steve Gentry” says so and when “he” says so… it’s not a matter of trusting (having faith in) those who he agrees with… it’s automatically a matter of fact… no faith needed. lolRon (aka RealityCheck)https://www.blogger.com/profile/03274921909241630662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-62561683165394062682010-09-16T07:31:59.372-07:002010-09-16T07:31:59.372-07:00Wow, lots of comments here.
I personally don'...Wow, lots of comments here. <br /><br />I personally don't see Biologos as denying Christ's resurrection or miracles any time soon. Why? If they do, they completely show their hand and lose any ability to stealthily drop their leaven into the church. <br /><br />Since its goal is to reconcile faith and science - with science being the determinative "fact" that faith must conform - look for Biologos to soon address what has to be their next big topic - homosexuality.<br /><br />Obviously, Paul was captive to the ideas of his time on these matters, right? Genetics have proven that homosexuality is normal and beneficial to society. MTV says the same thing. The church better keep up with the times, lest it become a laughingstock.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-43775488158409357282010-09-16T07:17:23.353-07:002010-09-16T07:17:23.353-07:00"it boils down to this. You guys have by fait..."it boils down to this. You guys have by faith decided that the canonical Scriptures (at least the Protestant canon) is of divine origin and therefore it must be true in every detail."<br /><br />And Ken has faith that either "nothing made everything or that matter is eternal" which are the only two other options. One is shown to be false by observational science and the other is intellectual suicide.<br /><br />Why is Ken stuck on the impossiblility of talking snake anyway? God spoke THE UNIVERSE into existence. One talking serpent is a piece of cake.James Joycehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15983848193844746369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-66540904547521611342010-09-16T07:07:34.564-07:002010-09-16T07:07:34.564-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.James Joycehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15983848193844746369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-10657196208887262662010-09-16T06:50:15.788-07:002010-09-16T06:50:15.788-07:00Frank. With regard to your comment on C-14 in dia...Frank. With regard to your comment on C-14 in diamonds, Dr. Kirt Bertsche has <a href="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.htm" rel="nofollow">reviewed</a> ICR's research and it comes up short. No surprise there.Steve Gentryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03641751408024300010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-124435408468130932010-09-16T06:47:11.961-07:002010-09-16T06:47:11.961-07:00Ken said: "The folks at BioLogos are trying t...Ken said: "The folks at BioLogos are trying to save Christianity from becoming a laughingstock."<br /><br />Funny, there have been people in every age that have taken on that task, and always with the same result: the "saviors" invariably wind up believing less and less, until their belief is indistinguishable from unbelief.<br /><br />And the Word of God preached continues to do its quiet, constant work of converting people to believe in Christ and the Scriptures that tell of Him.Mark B. Hansonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15942591774072214556noreply@blogger.com