Note: I am not posting this to convince anyone on the truth of Evolution. I am not concerned with what anyone believes. I have satisfied myself over the years, through study and observation that Evolution is true. That fascinates me and should not irritate you. Religious beliefs have their own set of needs and reasons for existence. Over the years I have accepted the fact that I am personally evidence based and not faith based. If you can't show it, you really can't know it nor should we trust that one does. They are opposites and while the cause for much debate and argument, I do not personally believe that Science and the Bible are or ever can be made compatible.
The Western world of Bible literalism has gotten stuck in Bronze and Iron Age perspectives in a world that has moved on to the Space Age. There is a price to pay for that. Dave Pack uses the same mistaken notions, scriptures taken out of context and need to believe that which is unbelievable in his theological ramblings. While going to great lengths to appear wise and , as I have been told, incredibly intelligent, he is not. Like HWA and GTA before him, he uses his supposed authority, bluster and a literal view of scripture to not see what others clearly see through studied observation.
I post this to show just ignorant David C Pack is on the topic and how incredibly unqualified and out of date he is to think that he can explain the modern evidence for Evolution away with bombastic and horribly out of date information and speculations as to how religious statements and science fit together. Just as Aron has logically, patiently and accurately taken Dave Pack apart on this topic, any well trained theologian could take him apart piece by piece for his theological ramblings that we all know will simply fall into the same wastebasket those of the Armstrongs have.
Dave has always needed a bit of peer review and accountability for making the statements he does about science and of course theology. He gets his grade card here for not doing his homework in what we now know about Evolution vs what he thinks he has always known.
I know what Dave considers to be his expertise in the topic of Creationism. He claims to have studied it 50 years ago as if 50 years ago was the peak time of knowledge on the topic. We have learned more in the last 5 years about human evolution and that of all life on the planet including the planet itself than in the previous 5000.
Dave thinks that his one class called Second Year Bible where we all simply had to read and outline The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris and that WAS the class that settled the question once and for all. That book has been debunked decades ago and wasn't fit to comment on the topic to begin with. No one taught Dave anything about Creationism at AC or why evolution was not true EXCEPT for Church Booklets , A Whale of a Tale, and A Theory for the Birds. Interestingly enough , the clear evolution of both Whales and Birds is clearly and wonderfully understood today making a fool out of Garner Ted Armstrong, who like Dave, used sarcasm and ignorance to not prove a point. We now know that even feathers preceded flying and were not "created" for flight. They were decoration and insulation at first and only later did the aid in flight.
I guarantee you Dave Pack, nor any Church of God minister has read an up to date explanation of the science behind the Theory of Evolution. (And please do your homework on what a scientific theory is before thinking it means "opinion." or "guess".)
If the posting does not appeal to you, seems foolish, anti-God, atheistic or just more of my old ministerial self rising up again to tell everyone how it all is because once a Ministurd always a Ministrud, just hang out a couple days and I'm sure you'll have something come up you like more like how your minister in the past agonized over could the air in your car tires be considered leaven because they were puffed up or was baking soda leavening. Important and life enriching stuff like that. It's the time of year for all that foolishness as we all are no doubt aware so there will be plenty of straining at gnats and swallowing camels ahead as The Days of Unleavened Bread descend upon them.
For those few of us here who might find the take down of Dave Pack a sight to behold, I simply offer this one segment for your enjoyment. Aron took the time to do 19 sessions to refute Dave Pack's shallow and incredibly outdated explanations and he put Dave more than in his place. Any young person would benefit from watching the whole series to understand what Dave Pack never has and evidently never could understand about good science done well.
For those who might like more time in the topic of Creationism vs Evolution I would recommend Aron's latest book.
Overview
Religious fundamentalists and biblical literalists present any number of arguments that attempt to disprove evolution. Those with a sympathetic ear often fail to critically examine these creationist claims, leading to an ill-informed public and, perhaps more troubling, ill-advised public policy. As Aron Ra makes clear, however, every single argument deployed by creationists in their attacks on evolution is founded on fundamental scientific, religious, and historical falsehoods–all of them. Among their most popular claims is that evolution is a religion, that there are no transitional species, that there are no beneficial mutations, and that supposedly sacred scripture is the infallible word of God. Yet, as the evidence and data plainly show, each of these claims is demonstrably and unequivocally false. There is simply no truth to creationism whatsoever, and the entire enterprise rests on a foundation of falsehoods. This book explains and exposes the worst of these lies, and should be read by all who honestly care about following the evidence no matter where it might lead in pursuit of the truth.
Or for the more in the know in the Churches of God perhaps Ken Ham's Book will suffice.
27 comments:
Cool. I personally had resolved these issues in my life years ago, but I can certainly understand them becoming a recurring theme in other peoples' lives. This is important stuff that many people do need to re-examine. Over at Painful Truth, James has put up a series about the discontinued WCG/HWA/AC booklets, some of which were formative elements in the life and theology of Dave Pack. Check it out, it's a worthy read.
Far be it from me to criticize the longhairs. I suppose we all have some in our lives, and most of them are good people. Back in the '70s, in the aftermath of Armstrongism and the great disappointment, Lynyrd Skynyrd pretty much became my lifestyle. The plane crash was devastating. I spend some of my time on youtube videos, and one of my new faves is Rickey Medlocke taking apart, explaining and demonstrating the "Freebird" solo. Probably a lot of people don't remember this now, but at the time that song came out, nobody had ever played guitar quite like Allen Collins had on that solo, not even Eric Clapton or Jimi Hendrix. I'd worked out the rhythm parts sometime in the mid '80s, but now, at last, there's an opportunity to learn the solo. Or have a lot of fun and frustration trying.
BB
This has been debated so many times here. Yawn, yawn.
"They are opposites...."
This is a popular and tendentious viewpoint among atheists. It is based on a certain model or viewpoint. It is not the only, inevitable model. There are others that do not lack cogency.
To borrow from Werner Heisenberg: "What we observe is not the Bible itself but the Bible exposed to our method of questioning."
If you have an interest in a well-defined and extensively developed contrapuntal model that harmonizes science and faith, check out the Biologos website. Be forewarned that it does support evolution.
Yawn yawn you quickly missed the point of the post. It's about the brilliant DP's poor grasp of the topic. It's not meant to reopen the debate. That indeed is a yawner here on Banned. For Dave to put the original Neanderthal off as a case rickets puts him about 150 years out of touch. That's the point. His theology never has been in touch.
I'd almost guarantee you yawn yawn didn't read the post nor watched two minutes of the video. He's waiting to debate whether baking soda is leavening or not.
"This has been debated so many times here. Yawn, yawn."
Yes, it has, but the faith/lie addicted still come back with their inane BS. The universe and everything in it evolved slowly and we're understanding more about the process every day, but if you're addicted to book of ignorance and superstition, your mind becomes warped and blocked.
For the sake of balance...
Atheism...
The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs!
8.17 AM
My Yawn here. I will never forget the mental strain of some of the engineering projects that I worked on. Yet all around us we have design on a super higher plain that supposedly evolved. And it's people like myself who are accused of being ignorant, superstitious, etc.
It appears that those who studied science at school have a natural advantage over the humanities people. Only the science crowd comprehend its complexity.
Again, this posting is not about believing or not believing something. Although if I had seen this as a kid going into WCG, it might have given me pause. Dave Pack claims his brilliant parents taught him logic and exposed him to the best minds etc. Dave fails miserably in these areas and is kidding himself. Let's face it, no minister in any Church of God can allow himself the luxury of a logical and inquisitive mind. The "truth" is set and you can't ever back out of it and admit being mistaken and in tune with the bosses beliefs wrong though they be. For Christ sake (literally) Dave claims to be Elijah the Prophet to Come. Dangerously delusional and God Haunted.
Not even close Tonto
"And no bullshit about Aron's hair or look please. You simply prove yourself most shallow and divert yourself from the content."
Oh, what a shallow feint! Rather, when I cleverly wise-crack about the need for Aron to get a hair cut, I show myself a humorous and civilized person. It might divert Aron and Dennis's readers from the content, but not me. That's because I never listened to his videos anyway. I read Darwin's book instead.
Good work Aaron. Now, go thee unto the Jews and Muslims.
If Dennis really wanted to reach Pack's followers, wouldn't he have posted this on Pack's website?
Aron Ra still needs a good haircut (No bullshit!).
David Pack still needs a good exorcist, or seven of them (Seriously!!!).
Aron Ra might be right about professing Christians misquoting and misrepresenting the views of evilutionists. After all, most professing Christians misquote and misrepresent the Bible too.
Ahhh...scholars...what is one to do with them?
Catholic scholars come to the required Catholic conclusions.
Protestant scholars come to the required Protestant conclusions.
Muslim scholars come to the required Muslim conclusions.
Evilutionary scholars come to the required evil conclusions.
214 plenty of RCG folk check out Banned. You can't so much as leave a comment on Dave's Irrefutable Proofs videos or sermons. Why do you think anyone could post on his website. Gerald Flurry was in Portland this week and there was no way the incident could find out where without the Key of David or some such key to the website.
Dave either knows nothing of Aron's rebuttal or does and prays to YHVH, Joshua, That Prophet, Elijah and himself the members don't.
Is AronRa still a 3rd wave feminist?
DBP
"Atheism...
The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs!"
Nice try at the usual ridicule, but you still believe an omni-everything god came to be out of nothing. Your god gives no evidence for its coming into being except the bloviations of a bunch of desert nomads. The universe is there, and we're understanding more about it with every passing day. Where was your vaunted god at Dachau when his "chosen people" were being massacred wholesale?
3:01 - "Catholic scholars come to the required Catholic conclusions.
Protestant scholars come to the required Protestant conclusions."
Yes, they - real scholars - come to a close consensus on (orthodox)Christianity that differs from PACK's Armstrong/Adventism because he will not engage scholarship.
...just like he will not engage with scientific consensus.
Aron does an excellent job taking this apart.
Aron usually goes for soft targets though. To say he is such an expert is to simply apply wcg tactics to a different man. Be careful you aren't just replacing Herb with Aron. Think for yourself too.
"Your god gives no evidence for its coming into being except the bloviations of a bunch of desert nomads.""
Al
I have to protest this jab at the Mormons in Utah!!
nck
"Atheism...The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs!"
Nice try, Tonto, but you went totally off the rails after just 3 words. Atheism isn't a belief at all, but the lack of one. If atheism is a belief, then off is a TV channel.
You are right, 5:22, it's the absence of belief. But, it's a bit more confusing than that. Atheism today offers a considerable amount of support information for the atheist, complete with answers to questions raised by people of faith. Because people actually "study" atheism, church people interpret this as being the same sort of activity in which they themselves indulge to secure their faith. It goes without saying that Aron Ra is part of the atheist support system, and there are those who would look to Aron in the same fashion as a Christian might look to his pastor. Atheists come in degrees. There is the inert or benign atheist, who simply goes about his life without believing in God, and there is the evangelizing atheist who provokes debate rather than simply allowing another's expression of faith to pass unchallenged, the activist atheist who wants all vestiges of God removed from the world around him, and the militant atheist who believes that religion is the cause of all of the evil and discord in the world, and works to stamp it out as if it were some sort of scourge.
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. One good thing that my multi-decade atheist stage did for me was to provide a buffer during which I was able to become cleansed from all of the toxicity, falsehoods, and evils of Armstrongism, so that I could once again take an objective approach to God and Christianity. It cleaned the slate, so to speak. . It also made it possible for me to see the things which were missing in my life that God brings to the party. I'm also able to be tolerant of atheists, because I know that the stereotypes people hit them with are not at all accurate. Atheists are not even monolithic as a group. There is quite a variety in opinion and behavior amongst nonbelievers. "Atheist" is not a synonym for "Satanist".
BB
Byker, it might be useful if people would distinguish between "non-theism" and "atheism." To the non-theist, God's existence is irrelevant to how one carries out one's daily life. To the atheist, God's non-existence is a vital part of one's value system and belief structure.
In these discussions throughout the past, I’ve always said that there is a huge difference between what I called the “WCG atheist”, and what I called the “science-atheist”. This is largely because the WCG atheist (and WCG is a worn out term because WCG is now GCI and the many splinters hold to versions of whay WCG used to embody) arrived at conclusions that were influenced or spawned by having been burned by a very toxic religion, while the science-atheist for the most part arrived at his through neutral deductions and conclusions made as a result of research in his particular field.
I like your model, 12:07. My “science atheist” would be your non-theist, and my “WCG atheist” would be your atheist, often evangelical about his non-belief because God’s non-existence is a vital part of his belief structure. (I left value system out because the atheists who comment here appear to be good people for the most part).
By the way, in most discussions throughout the past, WCG atheists have protested that neutral science and logic had actually led them to atheism. However, the fact is that except in the case of Alzheimers, we cannot unknow or unexperience the things which we have been taught or have experienced and go back and arrive at our conclusions in the same neutral manner as has the scientist. Past Armstrongism remains as a modifier, like it or not.
BB
Post a Comment