SOME PARENTS FEEL GENDER IDENTITY IN CHILDREN IS UNCLEAR
In one of those stories that make you pull your hair out. The story notes “Children as young as 5 who display predispositions to dress like the opposite sex are being supported by a growing number of young parents, educators and mental health professionals.” (NY Times) Dr. Albert Mohler, examining this article (AlbertMohler.com) wrote on the topic in the past, “Transgender children" in kindergarten? We can only wonder what can come next. The logic cannot stop at age five.” (AlbertMohler.com)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Why would you pull your hair out? Your blog seems to indicate that you're a Christian American, yet you don't seem to support free will choice? Does the Constitution or the Bible somehow make this decision by parents and health care professionals any of your business?
Rob, in all fairness, there's a big difference between gender identity disorder and an intersex condition. I'm about as left wing as they come, but lets not muddy the waters between the two conditions.
GID isn't something that's just dreamed up in the heads of the parents. It's a known, mental disorder that is treatable. What this debate centers around is science vs faith. You're talking about a group of people that believe that carbon dating is conspiracy against God, and the Earth is 4000 years old. If you can't agree on carbon dating, then there's no way you're going to come to a concensus on this.
This a battle of reason verses faith. Plain and simple. Well, unless you're trying to carbon date something....
Especially since Carbon dating has proven unreliable for it's previous usage.
That's why I wrote very carefully and specifically,
"unreliable for it's previous usage."
The way it was used to date items previously has been discovered to be completely off track. There may still be a use for it in that field, but it still needs to be completely recategorized before it can be relied upon again.
(Don't worry, Powerball likes science stuff! :) )
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp
and from here: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/aa7dcb90-5b20-11db-8f80-0000779e2340.html
"If you want to believe in carbon-14 dating you'll be logical, you'll get a consistent answer. But what will 40 days and 40 nights of rain do to your carbon-14 method? It will ruin your carbon dioxide cycle. And if you can't assume the carbon dioxide cycle is the same, you're stuffed."
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html
http://www.shroudstory.com/breaking02.htm
I give you all that information and whether you agree with it or not, the best response you can come up with is "Total nonsense".
Haven't you accused us Christians in the past of doing and saying things without being able to back them up? I guess we aren't alone.
Where exactly would you like to discuss this since you don't want to do it here?
Wow. You should really double-check the basis on which you're calling yourself Christian. We were talking about the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of Carbon dating and you've launched into an assault on Creationism. If you don't believe Genesis, you might as well throw out the rest of the Bible because it makes no sense to believe part and distrust the rest. 1 Timothy says all Scripture is God-breathed, so to call part of it false is to call Him a liar.
Bottom line: You've refused to debate it with me and while trumpeting your "knowledge" have STILL not shown any facts. Look back at what you've written and you'll see what I mean.
I had considered asking if you'd like to talk about it over coffee of pizza or something (my treat even), but should I wait until you are less angry?
"I accept that Scripture is God-breathed. I do not accept that it can be mindlessly turned into something it's not. The Bible is not a scientific textbook. It wasn't meant to be.
You're promoting a satanic teaching that is full of lies and designed to destroy faith and you wonder that I have strong opinions on it? Creationism is a tool to destroy the Gospel."
~To say that you believe all Scripture to be God-breathed and immediately say that believing that the account of creation is true is satanic is very dangerous Rob, especially without proof, and logically inconsistent. I agree that the Bible isn't a scientific textbook nor was it meant to be, but it is also not something that can be twisted to private interpretation as you accuse me of doing.
If it is God-breathed, then we submit to it, we don't try to force it to submit to what we believe. Some portions are historical record, some imagery, some metaphoric and so on. Once you compare and contrast it with itself in humble respect, you see that it isn't something that allows for shaping, but instead shapes us.
Before I touch on the specific problems of evolution vs. creation, let me ask this: do you believe God capable of, as the Word says, creating us out of the dust of the ground, or you do think that beyond His ability?
Back to Carbon dating, which is where I was to begin with, your challenge shows me that you are indeed incredibly wise and learned, and I have no hope of debating you.
Please, for this foolish man I am, tell me in words that I can understand (surely one who has thoroughly understood a topic can reduce it to a form that a high school graduate can understand), why all the evidence against the effectiveness of Carbon dating is wrong and it still holds the accuracy it was previously believed to hold.
Please do not tell me what you could tell me if you wished to. Please enlighten me from your own vast study. I am not the learned man you are, so please condescend to help me understand why Genesis is a lie.
I will offer no more debate until you have shown me my error.
I have asked, nearly BEGGED you to stick with what I asked. Here, I'll cut and paste myself:
"Especially since Carbon dating has proven unreliable for it's previous usage."
I greatly appreciate that you hvae come much closer in this last response to actually addressing that than before, thank you. I'm not averse to discussing science at all, but you took it to name calling and a discussion of creation. I merely linked articles where in some, creation was discussed.
Here's the thing: the value or non-value of Carbon dating will not affect my belief in a literal creation any more than any other tool of men because my belief in it was never grounded in the accuracy of Carbon dating.
If my faith was grounded in human discoveries alone, it would be subject to falling apart with the bi-annual disputation/recategorization of almost every known discovery.
"And you have not attempted to answer any of my questions. How about the "Why were Creationists caught lying for God in the Dover Trial?"
~Perhaps BECAUSE they were lying, if they were? I say "if" because I haven't re-read the story. Their lying doesn't hurt me any more than the crimes of some Black people in this country. It only serves to influence the views of others, not me.
As far as answering questions goes, you haven't said if you believe God to be powerful enough to have skipped evolution. Do you?
In addition (as much as I hate to give you opportunity to skip a question) when compared to each other, the preponderance of evidence still favors a sudden creation of humans.
"I believe that God could have skipped evolution; I believe the overwhelming and clear evidence from every branch of science indicates He did not."
~Are you honestly saying that there is more evidence for a single-cell to human evolution than the sudden appearance of humanity? If you are, then you are intentionally ignoring the evidence that disagrees with you.
"The theory of evolution is on a par with the theory of atoms, quantum theory (demonstrated out to an absurd number of decimal places) and the theory of relativity (also demonstrated to be accurate to a ridiculous degree). The question is not did humans evolve, but exactly how they evolved.
The preponderance of evidence favors evolution, not a sudden creation of humans. Your statement is not supported by any generally recognized facts."
~Except for the complete lack of transitional forms among other facts. Every skull or skeleton purported to be "something between" has been thoroughly debunked, leaving us with nothing but "Suddenly human".
"I did, in fact, answer your question. I explained why carbon 14 dating is exceedingly reliable and to be believed when it shows dates for modern humans over 50,000 years! That is exactly what I answered. If you can't see that, then as I said, I'm not a great teacher of this stuff, or I simply had to leave out too much for you to understand what I was saying."
~First, you did not clearly present ANY evidence until your recent comment. Only your opinion. If someone asks me whether an undergravel filter in their aquarium is really detrimental to the growth of plants I answer them with known facts, examples, and personal experience. Simple.
2nd, I'm asking God constantly to help me with my attitude because I am truly beginning to resent your continued assumption of my ignorance. I was reminded tonight that Darwin's evolutionary theories are quite racist,and I'm trying to avoid thinking that you've fallen for the "inadequate negroid" teachings but we have wrestled with that issue before. It's an inherency of evolution that something must develop better traits than something else. Therefore one type of human must be better than others, and that is antithetical to Scriptural teaching.
"The Dover Creationists were caught lying because they'd gotten used to lying. Lying is a chronic habit with the Creationists. They can't support Creationism without lying, and so they've gotten used to "lying for God."
~It's stunning that you would say that as someone who claims to be a Christian and should be filled with the Holy Spirit and His gifts.
"Their fruit was lies, born of lies. Who is their father? The Lord of Truth? Or someone who's known as the Father of Lies?"
~You are taking wuite a risk for someone who wasn't there when the world was formed. It's clear that you won't stick to discussing Carbon dating, so here's a Creation discussion with which you can argue.
http://www.sfpulpit.com/category/creationism/
“-Yes, I am saying there is more evidence for single-cell to human evolution than the sudden appearance of humanity. There is no reliable evidence for the latter, and I've worked through much of the former myself.”
~Then you are smarter than most people who get paid to do this type of study. Congratulations.
“-Yes, I have seen the attempts by Creationists to deny this and present their own "evidence," but it's nonsense and misinterpretation.”
~Another accusation without proof.
“-There are plenty of transitional forms. It has not been thoroughly debunked -- DNA evidence has even proven the suspected link in a number of cases, although it's also forced a re-evaluation and a re-drawing of the links in others.”
~Now you’re just making things up.
“-There is no "suddenly human" needed.”
~”Suddenly human” is what the situation stands as, not what’s “needed.”
“-You asked me to simplify the argument. I did. I didn't go into the math, but I pointed out that there are numerous ways of cross-checking the carbon dating, and that these alternative methods, which do not rely on the same methods, mechanisms, or environmental conditions all produce the same answer.”
~Ok, so you said “there are ways”. I could say “there are ways” about lots of things. Perhaps we should settle that you are just not capable of teaching the things you believe, as you yourself have said, and accept the consequences of that truth.
“I answered you with known facts -- there are sedimentary layers which produce similar results to the carbon 14. There are other radioactive decay paths. There are tree rings. There's the steady decay of DNA in old samples that acts as a rough clock. There's SNP inheritance patterns in DNA that act as a clock. There's chemical markers from known events and parallel events either region-wide or world-wide that also help to establish dates. They all work together. They all fit. They don't contradict each other.”
~You offered some contradictory evidence, which I noted. Yet you offered very little. Am I to change my opinion because of a few possible contradictions or would I be wiser to wait until the strength of the evidence is overwhelming? A scientist would wait.
“--The "inadequate negroid?" I'm negroid, partially. Perhaps Darwin was racist. I've not studied his biography. What turned out to be wrong about his theory gets dumped. Science changes and grows as more is learned, and what we now know is that human beings came from a very small population, the "mitochondrial Eve." We are all closer related than most species on the planet, and as such, saying that one race is inferior makes no sense.”
~You’re right, it doesn’t, yet you follow the beliefs championed and largely formed by a man who thought that way, and used evolution theory to back it up. I strongly suggest you read his biography and outside critiques of Charles Darwin’s work.
“Not only is there little variation in DNA between humans, but there's an interesting property to that variation. Take two indigenous people from Africa and someone from anywhere else in the world. Statistically, the DNA between the "rest of the world" person is likely to be more similar to each of the individuals from Africa than the two individuals from Africa are likely to be from each other. How can one race be superior when the DNA is so close?”
~Again, it’s a component of the evolutionary belief you champion. You should have a more thorough grasp of what you try to push onto others.
“That's YOUR problem with race and evolution, not mine, and it's based on misinformation. Strange, you pull the race card. It never occurred to me because I know enough to realize it's not true.”
~You clearly don’t know enough about what you believe.
“I do believe that you have been taught a load of rubbish, a load of rubbish that is inaccurate and does not make sense. Unfortunately, I do think that you have not studied the areas I have, and as a result, I can't dive into the mathematics to demonstrate.”
~Right. Because you are a bad teacher. What good does that do anyone?
“I gave you the opportunity to discuss one topic on the necessary level, and YOU were the one who said he couldn't.”
~Yup. Yet your vast knowledge has proven incapable of clarifying it, so I still have no reason to believe it in the face of known evidence.
“You could have simply Googled the answer. I found it in one try and four clicks, using two key words: Thermodynamics Evolution. In one variation of the equation, the math involved only requires grade school algebra. Well, for me it was grade-school…”
~Or, you who believe it so strongly and so quickly castigate those who disagree, could climb down off your mountain and make it plain to us non-illuminated folk.
“You're getting angry? That's your problem, not mine. Be angry but sin not.”
~Spoken with such grace and understanding. Thank you.
“-I'm taking quite a risk because I read the court transcript. The Dover Creationists were caught in lies after testifying under oath. Obvious lies. The judge called them on it and it made the national news. Rick Santorum disassociated himself from the Creationist group that was pushing for Creationism to be taught in the schools, it was such an embarrassment. Santorum got caught lying about his residence, and I honestly believe between the two, it's why he was defeated.”
~Ok. People, even Christians, lie and do stupid things. Not an argument.
“I stuck mostly to carbon dating. You've responded to none of it.”
~Not at all true. Perhaps if you stop just looking for points to disagree with and actually read what I’ve written, you’d see that.
“Like I said, I am not a good teacher for things technical unless I can get into the math and the equations. You asked me to simplify, and I did. That does not make what I know any less true.”
~Ok.
“I also took comments on your reply, such as the Dover incident, where you commented on my reply.
I am taking no risk. I simply pointed out the behavior of the Dover Creationists and evaluated them using basic Biblical principles. They lie to support their view of how God created the universe. That says something major about them.”
~Ok.
“The Heavens and Earth declare the Glory of God. I worship a God so powerful he created infinite multiple universes, each at least 160 billion light-years in diameter (and probably a couple orders of magnitude bigger than that) 14 or so billion years ago, yet knew the result would include Earth, humanity, and the need for His Son Jesus Christ to die on the Cross. He could have created a bubble 10,000 lightyears or so in diameter 10,000 years ago, but that would have been a jury-rigged universe. The universe I see works, and to me it's the difference between someone who builds a plastic model of the space shuttle by themselves and someone who builds a space shuttle by themselves. The first is tiny and doesn't really work, the latter is the real thing.”
~According to evolution, the first didn’t really work and developed into the real thing.
“I don't think you give God enough credit.”
~Riiight. You’re the one saying He didn’t get it right the first time, not me.
“I am willing to face the data honestly and change my mind as needed. Not everything that I believed when I took biochemistry back in 1979 is accepted today. Back then, junk DNA was thought to be useless. We now know it performs vital functions in the human genome, and that 8% of it is the remains of ancient retroviruses that have been brought under control through evolutionary progress. Scientists learn.”
~I’m willing too, but I have not been shown enough evidence (and believe it or not, I love natural sciences) to believe otherwise.
“What I have not found, despite the best efforts of the Creationists, is anything that contradicts the existence of God or of Christ's saving work.”
~Why would it? I don’t understand what you’re trying to accomplish by that statement.
“As for the link you gave -- I disagree with them. Scripture and science cannot be in conflict. If there is a conflict, either the science is wrong or the interpretation of scripture is wrong. With so many separate chains of evidence leading to the concept that the universe is billions of years old...I was forced to reconsider my interpretation of Genesis. The fault was not with God nor the Bible but with my understanding of it.”
~As for all men, your disagreement doesn’t make you right. As you clearly state yourself, science is not infallible, and we are regularly learning new things that contradict the old. Scripture IS infallible. The two MUST disagree at many places by all logical viewpoints, however, science if honestly practiced, will come more and more into agreement with Scripture all the time. Perfect agreement will not be sen until His return because flesh is flesh.
5:56 AM
Rob said...
“BTW: You seem to question whether someone is a Christian if they accept evolution as how God created the universe.”
~I absolutely did not. It’s your attitude and actions. that makes me question the presence of The Holy Spirit within you. I can’t and won’t even try to say “Rob is/Rob isn’t saved” because that is far beyond my place and ability. Only God makes that call. At the same time, He tells us that salvation reveals itself through the saved person. A belief in evolution is merely an evidence of need for further Scriptural education and doesn’t mean a person isn’t a Christian.
“Does that mean you question whether the Roman Catholic Church is Christian? Their leaders (including the current Pope and the one before him) have said that they see no conflict between evolution and Genesis.
I'm wondering how Powerball would take that... “
~ANY person who is a leader of other Christians who has not studied enough of the Word to know that Genesis (not only Genesis but also the rest of Scripture-note the places in the New Testament where the early chapters of Genesis are treated as history, not allegory) is the truth is in need of re-education in the Word of God.
See how you attempt to stir unnecessary trouble? That is why I wonder about not some group of people who believe a thing, but you.
I'm sorry. I had no idea this discussion was going on. I've been so busy and I still have not read every comment.
I will say that I'm in no way calling for abortion. I'm not sure where you got that Rob.
I also let you in on a secret. I don't have all the answers. I believe that life was created by God. I also believe that life evolves. We are born in one form and die in a very different form. I see no conflict in accepting evolution in a Christian way.
As for debating carbon dating you are on your own.
Rob, for all your intelligence I'm sure you knew that "Hey Powerball,what do you think?" would have been inviting someone into the conversation. You're not fooling meguy, I've spent too much time around doublespeak.
MICROevolution, sure. MACROevolution to create people from slime? Never.
I haven't the time or the inclination to read this whole exchange. Suffice to say that Rob and I may disagree on a lot of theological issues, but the absurdity of Creationism is not one of them.
Creationism is bunkum. Genesis doesn’t present how the universe came to be except to say that God made it. It’s primarily about why the universe exists at all. That’s explained through the use of pagan myths of the time, retold to make clear that the universe wasn’t created from petty squabbles among gods or by accident, but by the deliberate choice of a single god who created from nothing.
Belief in Creationism requires a tortured reading of Genesis and complete failing to recognize the literary style in which it is written. NOTA BENE: I will not debate this issue here. If you wish to debate the meaning of Genesis, feel free to write a blog post putting forth your interpretation and let me know about it. I or one of my guest bloggers would be happy to respond to it.
BTW, as a Christian scientist with degrees in engineering and nearly a degree in intelligent systems, I have no problem whatsoever believing that God creating evolution. Nor do I have a problem with it being a random process. Actually, I believe that it's a pseudo-random process; God shaved the dice, so to speak. ;)
P.S. In case you'd be tempted to think so. not debating here is not meant as a cop out. I'm a grad student swamped with work as I wrap up my masters project and lack the time to check this thread and respond. Besides, this conversation is WAY off topic from the post.
a brain teaser:
Are the digits of pi a random sequence?
Post a Comment