BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 02:05 AM

Well, I posted a brilliant response to Pete in the "Church joins real world." I posted there because I was answering Pete, but I see he's saying the same thing here. The other thread should have died long ago, so let me say what I said:

Thread #155013   Message #3655342
Posted By: Joe Offer
30-Aug-14 - 04:39 PM
Thread Name: BS: Church joins real world
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world

Pete, I can't see how you think Jesus regarded Jonah as "real." Where do you get that impression? And then, of course, what do you define as "real"?

In this day and age, we have a vastly different standard of "historicity" than that of ancient times. Philosophies are different, languages are different, methods of collecting information are different, everything is different.

Does this mean that ancient writings are unreliable, and of no value to us because they do not meet modern standards? Are Homer and Virgil, the Greek and Roman and Egyptian and Celtic mythologies, the Histories of Josephus and Tacitus, all false and misleading? Certainly not.

These ancient writings are what they are. If they are read in the spirit the authors intended, they are of infinite value. And, though they maybe in part fictional, they are of extraordinary historical value. I think, my friends, that the line between fact and fiction may not be as clearly defined as we think it to be. Oftentimes, fiction may be a better conveyor of truth, than can be done by what we consider to be "fact."

Now, the absolutists on both ends of the discussion, will never understand this. The religious absolutists, or fundamentalists, will tell you that their scriptures (and only their scriptures) are incontrovertibly true from all perspectives, and therefore must be binding for all the world according to their most simplistic interpretation (although these fundamentalists may deny even the possibility of "interpretation"). And the atheistic absolutists will argue that these documents (particularly the ancient documents of their target groups) and incontrovertibly false and intended to deceive and control people - and thus they must be suppressed so they can do no further damage.

I don't think there's much value on either extreme of the discussion, but I do think there is great value in learning to study ancient documents, especially ancient sacred documents, with a critical eye. We need to understand historical context, literary forms, the philosophies of the times, and the original intent of the authors. And in our critical study of ancient documents, we must always keep in mind that our interpretation may be wrong or only partially correct; so we must be open to alternate interpretations and perhaps a wide spectrum of interpretations in some circumstances.

But there are no absolutes in the study of ancient writings. If you think your understanding is absolutely correct, then I can tell you with certainty that you are absolutely wrong.

-Joe-

---

And in fairness, allow me to post how Musket responded.
Thread #155013   Message #3655364
Posted By: Musket
30-Aug-14 - 06:22 PM
Thread Name: BS: Church joins real world
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world

Brendan. You ask me not to mock you, but when a person with the benefit of education and books, a few hundred years of scientific discovery and shared experience prefaces such debate with "I believe in God," we are not having the same debate.

Hey Joe! You describe me to a T! I don't see it as negative though. Religion fucks up vulnerable people. Not everyone has your intellect and ability to use faith rather than be captured by it. Worse still, those in control of organised religion prefer the petes of this world rather than the Joes.

At the end of the day, I can do more than smile and patronise when people say they believe in magic and expect me to respect it in the same way I may respect a differing political view.

Fundamentally, that's it. Not faith as a comfort blanket or moral compass, not even a sense of belonging and comradeship. But an elephant in the room based on magic and supernatural beings.

Asking rational people to respect such nonsense at any intellectual level is far more insulting than any god botherer, imaginary friend or other derogatory term I might use.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 03:31 AM

Massaging my ego ain't going to get my boney arse on a pew Joe.

I did like your reply. Replies don't have to be nice though. Sometimes they have to be uncomfortable.

The alternative can only be to say things you don't actually believe to be the case in order to not offend. I genuinely feel that this approach is wrong. If someone says they believe in magic, there is no point whatsoever discussing related matters with them. If it walks like a delusion and quacks like a delusion...

pete and his belief have no room for the likes of Joe. If they wish to argue over the last deck chair on The Titanic, go ahead. I'm stood on dry land.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 05:06 AM

" ... data and evidence are interpreted according to the researchers worldview and/or peer pressure ..."

Talk about the 'pot calling the kettle black'! That's exactly what 'creationists' do!!

"but if you have specific evidence of deep time, other than more assertion that all the data and disciplines agree........."

What?! Evidence is evidence, pete. If "all the data and disciplines agree" that's bloody good evidence!

Now provide us with some evidence that God exists and created everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 05:14 AM

Cue pete quoting Descartes...

Or he would if he could find it on creation.com.......

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 05:31 AM

Reminds me of the man trying to improve bad women's morals by giving them lectures in philosophy: putting Descartes before the whores.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 07:34 AM

I give in. Are you reading my posts or not? I agonise over different ways to wind you up, so need to know if my endeavours bear fruit..

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 07:54 AM

I can't see how you think Jesus regarded Jonah as "real." Where do you get that impression? And then, of course, what do you define as "real"?

Jesus gives very clear support of the OT scripture : 'For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.' (Matt 5:18). Very much a man of his time, there's little reason to believe he took the OT stories in any sense other than literally, as all good Christians should of course instead of adopting a secular scientific view of the godless Cosmos as part of their Godly cause. In this sense I'd say Pete from Seven Stars Link has it absolutely spot on.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 09:09 AM

Very much a man of his time, there's little reason to believe he took the OT stories in any sense other than literally

Of course, two millennia later, most humans have evolved past such primitive superstition.

Some have not.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 09:21 AM

Yeah, you tell them there Christians to behave more like pete! No room for secular science eh Jack?

Reminds me of the two week hiatus on bells at a church not a million miles away last year when the new vicar moaned that none of the ringers stayed for the service and said they had to if they wanted to ring the bells.

After two weeks of silence and a bollocking from his church committee, Bristol Maximus rang out again and the cafe down the road got its Sunday morning business back..

You see, if you want religion to flourish, you have to be pragmatic.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 10:27 AM

" Are you reading my posts or not? I agonise over different ways to wind you up, so need to know if my endeavours bear fruit."

I suspect that he is reading your posts, Musket. But I've realised that he has this little tactic which he uses all the time. He posts a load of tosh and then when challenged he shuts up and keeps his head down. Then, when everyone has had time to forget that particular exchange, he posts another load of tosh. So shifty and dishonest these fundamentalists!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 10:44 AM

Here is an interesting new article about the role of DNA in the domestication of various animals

Pete... this is just one more small study showing how we are gradually learning how evolution actually works. The ability to study DNA and map specific genes directly allows science to comment on issues that Darwin only wondered about.
Who knows... perhaps God created Darwin to stir us up and make us think.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 01:57 PM

well thankyou jack, I believe you are not sympathetic to creation, so very fair of you.
joe, my reply re Jonah on other thread.
" I posted a brilliant response........." and I thought you was such a humble fella ! -grin-
would you care to give an example verifying your charge, shimrod ? ! "exactly what creationists do..." yes, freely admitting our bias, unlike evolutionists who don't recognize, or refuse to admit, their own bias. and certainly creation scientists are swimming upstream against the flow of origins belief in academia.
I tend to skim muskets posts, just in case there is anything of any substance that is,nt clothed in mockery or vulgarity.
bill, I will look at new link, but your previous short response still needs, imo , a counter response,-
"....interpretations of carefully selected data..." those to which I refer, relate to data that accords to observational science.
if you care to look again on creation sites ,you will find articles on many aspects, covering much data, including existing problems for creationism.
"...when all other data shows otherwise"    unless you can demonstrate, bill, that remains just an assertion. I reckon the other scientists must have said the same to galilieo.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 02:08 PM

Nothing more vulgar than trying to put fantasy on the same level as reality and demanding normal people to consider it as an option pete.

I don't mock. I do however play the part of the little boy who points out the emperor's willy on show.

Ok. The joke about how to get Jesus off the cross may have been distasteful in principle, but as the Jesus who died yet came back never existed, poking fun at delusion is fair game.

Mary ! You can see our house from up here !

Etc

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 02:10 PM

This standard-form reply, held in my word-processor memory, is the only response I propose to make to your recent post, Shimrod:—

It is my principle to make no further answer than this to merely abusive posts addressed to me, as I take your last one to be.

No further correspondence will be entered into.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Blandiver (Astray)
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 02:17 PM

Yeah, you tell them there Christians to behave more like pete! No room for secular science eh Jack?

Damn right! We owe the current enlightenment to the work of scientific objectivism Carl Sagan describes as A Candle in the Dark. I meet too many Christians who want their cake and eat it - i.e. expect their God 'n' Son soap-myth to fit into the wonders of Atheist Cosmology from which they were ousted by Ionian Philosophers hundreds of years before e'er Jesus blathered his platitudes on Mounts and Plains.

*

well thankyou jack, I believe you are not sympathetic to creation, so very fair of you.

I'm not sympathetic to Creationism or Religion, but I am as sympathetic to Christian Individuals to any sufferer of psychosis - as long they don't feel that anything they believe applies to ANYONE else other than themselves. That said, I feel Christians ought to fly their true colours. If they can believe in any sort of God or Supernatural dimension, or that there is any currency whatsoever in Religion, then why not accept the rest of it as integral to that faith?

That said, I'd make it a criminal offence for Christians to proselytize in any public context or have any say whatsoever in matters of education, even of their own children.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 02:30 PM

As you've been told umpty million billion times, pete, science is not about 'belief' - it's about evidence! And the evidence in favour of an evolutionary model has been accumulating for 155 years plus. Meanwhile you creationists have NO evidence to support your rigid beliefs. Note that the Bible doesn't count as evidence because it merely contains unverifiable, often ambiguous (not to mention preposterous) anecdotes with no known authors.

And let's get this 'science is all a conspiracy' out of the way. It's highly unlikely that the corridors of academe are full of closet creationists all shaking in their boots in case their true predelictions are discovered and fudging results in order to placate their peers and appease their funders. You really do live on another planet, don't you pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 03:26 PM

at least, jack, you are perfectly honest about your bias and desired censorship of alternative thought. but don't you think there is a contradiction between saying Christians ought to fly their true colours on the one hand, and then on the other hand, suggesting that they should not talk about it to others.
shimrod, don't you have anything specific to bring out of your storehouse of scientific knowledge. it is getting hard to keep coming up with original answers to these assertions and appeal to numbers of scientists who believe the same as you. I might be on another planet, but you seem to be sticking your head in the sand in this one.
ps, I can laugh at myself.....can you ?
pps todays article on the aig site is about blue whales.....swallowed Jonah....?...maybe him, maybe not, but he certainly could swallow a man.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 03:42 PM

ps, I can laugh at myself.....can you ?

You ought to be ASHAMED of yourself. Jocularity doesn't enter into it.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 04:06 PM

Pete: "...when all other data shows otherwise"    unless you can demonstrate, bill, that remains just an assertion"

I could say the same thing to you, Pete, about both the veracity of the bible and the claims of so called 'creationist science'. I could cite 379 sites and tests and collection of data that show the basic evidence for evolution, but you would do that circling back to your assertion that we are just 'believing' such things as a matter of 'faith' in science because we are lacking ALL relevant data. Why, someone 'might' dig up a human in the jaws of a dinosaur!~

To shorten this post, I can simply say "yes!" to Shimrod's post above. Your way of changing the accepted sense of basic scientific & logical terms to validate your own opinions is not only unfair, but unsound. I can't say it much more politely than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 04:07 PM

And then there's my impersonation of Jesus on a rubber cross...

My bodily contortions are nothing to the linguistic ones on this thread though.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 04:19 PM

Woah... I thought Jesus on a Rubber Cross was my thing???   Curse this wretched oral tradition & folk process!!!

*

Contradiction, Pete? Not at all. Just stick to your guns. Discussion - fine. Shouting on street corners, going door to door & indoctrinating innocent minds - not fine. Nothing to do with censorship any more than opposing other forms of crime, violence and child abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 04:54 PM

yes bill, you could say the same thing, but can you demonstrate your claim to the veracity of evolutionism. it is you who are circling round, just saying it in slightly different ways, and it amounts to appeal to numbers of scientists who you agree with. I am not claiming that everything must be known before a theory can be considered sound, but just saying it is , because you could cite any or all of 379 sites, is not providing any other evidence than that 379 sites say it is true !. I have rarely quoted bible, so that part of your charge is hardly relevant ..straw man , maybe...I have always admitted my faith position. however, I regard it as bolstered by the evidence...according to experimental, observational science....against the evolution story.
if you can bring evidence ,other than appeals to numbers/authority you might make a case, otherwise we will just keep repeating our positions.
I don't mind that too much, as there might be open minded people looking in who can assess which of us has the sounder argument.
at a singaround last week someone [not a practising Christian] commented on the weakness of one of shimrods posts, quite out of the blue.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 06:24 PM

"shimrod, don't you have anything specific to bring out of your storehouse of scientific knowledge. it is getting hard to keep coming up with original answers to these assertions and appeal to numbers of scientists who believe the same as you."

Oh dear! Here we go again! It's not about belief or faith, pete, it's about evidence. My "storehouse of scientific knowledge" (scant as it is - evolutionary biology is not my field) is not at issue here. Creationism is a faith position whose adherents believe that they are in possession of absolute truth. Science, on the other hand, is a system for investigating reality. Scientists can never be in possession of absolute truth - there is no such thing. But the accumulation of evidence in support of hypotheses can bring them to a better and better understanding of how reality 'works'.

"at a singaround last week someone [not a practising Christian] commented on the weakness of one of shimrods posts,..."

I'm sure that some of my posts are weak - but then I'm not in possession of absolute truth!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 07:28 PM

Why try to reason with those who reject the relevance of reason to their beliefs?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 08:16 PM

Posted By: Jack Blandiver
31-Aug-14 - 07:54 AM
Thread Name: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion

I can't see how you think Jesus regarded Jonah as "real." Where do you get that impression? And then, of course, what do you define as "real"?

Jesus gives very clear support of the OT scripture : 'For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.' (Matt 5:18). Very much a man of his time, there's little reason to believe he took the OT stories in any sense other than literally, as all good Christians should of course instead of adopting a secular scientific view of the godless Cosmos as part of their Godly cause. In this sense I'd say Pete from Seven Stars Link has it absolutely spot on.

---

OK, I gotta repeat Jack's post to refute it. I don't think that "literal" interpretation at the time of Jesus, was the same as the literal interpretation of modern-day fundamentalists. I picked Jonah because of all the books of the Bible, Jonah is one character that is most clearly identifiable as fictional, because the entire book is written in language that is clearly fictional (it's a great story, and I think it's the funniest book in the Bible). I would imagine that Jesus took the story of Jonah much as Americans take the semi-mythological stories of George Washington and Abe Lincoln and Johnny Appleseed and Paul Bunyan. We know there are elements of both fact and fiction in those stories, and we don't bend over backwards to separate fact from fiction. The stories are part of our culture and we more-or-less respect the integrity of those stories without really bothering to carefully define what is fact and what is fiction. I mean, why bother? They are good stories and they serve a purpose, so why not just tell the stories and not go to the trouble of careful explanation of what is what?

And then if you go to the creation stories in Genesis (there are two), you may note that both Adam (human) and Eve (living one or source of life) have very generic-sounding names that could well be translated as "everyman" and "everywoman." Those are really big clues that these people with symbolic names are very likely to be mythological. I think the Jews of the time of Jesus had an understanding of their sacred stories that was similar to the understanding that pre-Columbian Native Americans had of their ancient stories. The stories were part of who they were, and they were told as factual - but with an understanding that they were not "facts" as modern-day Europeans and Americans understand fact.

It seems pretty clear that there were fundamentalists at the time of Jesus, but their fundamentalism was expressed in legalism, in seeing the Law as governing every moment of life. And Jesus and his followers were forever getting into trouble for transgressing the restrictions of that legalistic fundamentalism.

Now, I'm sure Jesus didn't spend any time trying to refute what we call the "biblical account of creation" - evolution was most certainly not part of his vocabulary [so, you want to blame Jesus for not teaching evolution?]. But on the other hand, there is no evidence that Jesus followed the anti-intellectual, anti-scientific literalism of current-day fundamentalists.

So, that's my point. I suppose you could argue that ancient peoples took a literal view of their mythology - to a point - but I just can't bring myself to believe that their literalism was anti-intellectual and anti-scientific like current-day literalism.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 08:36 PM

> I just can't bring myself to believe that their literalism was anti-intellectual and anti-scientific like current-day literalism.

Of course it wasn't, because when it came to the Big Questions, the communally agreed-upon authority of tradition was all they had. The only "science" that existed was "common sense." And we know how unreliable that can be. ("Of course the sun goes round the Earth. You can see it with your own eyes!")

There are still unanswered Big Questions, but evolution isn't one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 11:35 PM

Pete.. I typed an answer just as the storms knocked Mudcat off the air for awhile, and I lost my post. Maybe tomorrow.

(yes..I know it's ALWAYS a good idea to compose in a program and save it if things look chancy.... but I've had such good luck lately. Must be my 'faith' getting in the way,)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 01:46 AM

An excellent post, if I may say so, Joe?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 01:52 AM

Jack, it's been part of my "bugger about till I think which song I am supposed to be singing next" since about the mid '80s. I'd love to know where I got it from but like the others , (pigeon coming home from the chippy and the mating call of the giant deep sea clam,) I have no idea.

So yes, it is living tradition. Although judging from Jim 's comments on another thread, I could hardly collect royalties for it on that basis.

Sorry. Religion. Let's see. Not much more to say hopefully.

Joe sees the bible as a book of bedtime stories. pete sees it as a documentary. Both defend the principle of a sentient creator who gives a shit. Me? I believe the result against Nottingham Forest on Saturday was a test of my faith, what with my eldest brother attending that particular church rather than the true church forty miles North of his heretic turf.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 04:46 AM

You think I see the Bible as bedtime stories, Musket?

No, not at all. The Bible is sacred, and rightly so. It's the product of people over a period of a thousand years, who pondered the questions of life very deeply.

But it's a document of faith, not a scientific or historical document.

And my faith is important to me. If it's not important to you, that's fine. But I do wonder why you're so cynical and combative about it.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 04:58 AM

I don't think that "literal" interpretation at the time of Jesus, was the same as the literal interpretation of modern-day fundamentalists.

It never pays to second guess how people felt 2,000 years ago. Their understanding of the observable Cosmos was very different to our own and their myths had arisen in direct response to this - the myth of God, for example, which derives from the illusion of a Geocentric universe coupled with the Patriarchal supremacy of a species more concerned with fabricating answers than asking questions simply because it hasn't yet acquired the nous or technology to do so.

We can look back and see how we invented God and trace the evolution of religious 'thinking' over the last 10,000 years and more (though the Abrahamic God is a relatively new kid on the block). We can despair that humanity's brilliance as storytellers goes hand in hand with our capacity for believing our own hype and massacring those who disagree with us. This is the church's true foundation!

Religion is the measure of the capacity for Mythological Literalism that persists into our own time as a quite frightful anachronism. If it it like this now I shudder to think what it was like back then, especially for a man who believed himself to be the son of a non existent (though to him very literal) God to the extent he was prepared to accept death on a cross. To Jesus, the likes of Jonah and Job would have been veritable role models; not just stories, but literal truths enshrined by a sacred scripture that was the very word of a very God.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 05:03 AM

PS - I love the way you have editing privileges, Joe. It's a shame the same courtesy can't be extended to other members of this forum.

---

You caught me. I did correct an error I made above. I had left out one word, and that reversed the meaning of what I wanted to say. If you make a mistake and need to have it edited, just let me know. -Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 07:21 AM

"I regard it as bolstered by the evidence...according to experimental, observational science....against the evolution story."

You've been presented with evidence on other threads Pete, I have linked to papers and articles explaining current evolutionary research, but it all falls on deaf ears. None of the current research bolsters the Biblical creation myth, otherwise it would be the leading theory of how life got to this point. Your apparent imperviousness to evidence speaks volumes; just because the truth at any one point in time doesn't fit our own beliefs doesn't lessen the fact it is the truth nonetheless. There are no absolutes.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 08:52 AM

> To Jesus, the likes of Jonah and Job would have been veritable role models; not just stories, but literal truths enshrined by a sacred scripture that was the very word of a very God.

Emphatically so.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 09:32 AM

I reckon, stu, that the same or similar sentiments could be addressed to you........and be just as meaningless.
you keep insisting that you have thoroughly refuted my arguments. my memory must be so bad , though of course you suggest it is more likely dishonesty. I do know though that when I give arguments supported by experimental science ,you just resort to the pious sounding get out, of science not being sure of everything.
yet the obvious attack against creation belies the claim of open mindedness.   "there are no absolutes"......are you absolutely sure of that? !.
shimrod...firstly credit for a clever last line, that made me smile.
other than that your post is just a variation of stu,s. you keep saying that belief does not enter into science, and your objection is noted....and rejected, and I could find quotes by evolutionists who admit the belief and faith dimension of their atheist thinking.
yeh, bill, frustrating is,nt it. I did read the rabbit link , but that appears to be about artificial/natural selection, and that figures into the creation model anyway, but if I missed something, please do point it out.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 09:45 AM

Not only do they reject reason in matters of faith, it is virtually a tenet of their religion that they do so.

More back and forth. To what end?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 09:47 AM

" though of course you suggest it is more likely dishonesty"

No pete lad, it's dishonest to suggest scientists are working to some agenda other than the truth, simply because you're blinded by belief (wait for it . . .). I'm not so naive to think everyone is, but I know plenty who work on earth and biological science and who are interested in finding out the objective truth, where ever that leads us. Just because it doesn't chime with your own myopic viewpoint isn't an issue. You're the one losing out with your clingy, simplistic, absolutist world view.


"you just resort to the pious sounding get out"

Yawn.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 09:50 AM

There are no absolutes ... but because I don't believe in absolutes, I can't be absolutely sure of that!

"you just resort to the pious sounding get out, of science not being sure of everything."

It may sound 'pious' to you, pete, but it's an inescapable fact.

By the way, pete, if you attack evolutionary biology - which is based on the accumulation of evidence and hypothesis testing - you attack the whole edifice of modern science. You not only attack Darwin and Dawkins but also Newton, Einstein, Hawking etc. The fact is that by steadily revealing the true nature of reality, modern science threatens the whole edifice of religion - and has done for several centuries now. That is, of course, why the Inquisition put Galileo under house arrest.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 11:10 AM

That is, of course, why the Inquisition put Galileo under house arrest.

...And why the Vatican didn't admit they were wrong to do so until 1992.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 11:40 AM

Joe. Does your faith also require to read my threads in a light of what you think I put rather than what I do?

How many times have I said that idiots such as pete do the church (s) no favour as they are an embarrassment to those who see religion as a part of themselves rather than a set of medieval instructions by men who wished to control society a couple of thousand years ago?

I agree with everything you say about the history of the bible and how it helps understand the evolution of human understanding as well as a fascinating insight into times when superstition and fact intertwined.

I'd fall short of the word "sacred" though if its all the same to you. It elevates the bible with baggage and at the end of the day, it is no more than a book of stories.

You think I have a fascination with questioning religion Joe? No. I am far bemused by the fact that to get to the bit where I paraphrased your approach to the bible, you had to read about my impersonation of the mating call of the deep sea clam.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 12:57 PM

it is virtually a tenet of their religion that they do so[ i.e., reject reason]

More of a prerequisite.

And not only in matters of faith, as amply proven by the ten thousdand and one repetetive threads on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 08:58 PM

Jack Blandiver says: It never pays to second guess how people felt 2,000 years ago.

...and the alternative, of course, is to understand nothing about them and to view our current age, and only our current age, as the pinnacle of all wisdom.

---

Musket says: Joe. Does your faith also require to read my threads in a light of what you think I put rather than what I do?

I can't figure out what you're talking about there, Musket. Sorry. I do try to read and understand your messages, but sometimes I just can't follow what you're saying.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 06:02 AM

What we really need here is a special thread on the Evolution of Religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 06:07 AM

And editing privileges, it goes without say - and a little less of the Papal Bull that appears in the form of red subscripts. But I'm forgetting, such policies are absolute and must never be raised on open forum.

---

Shitfire, Jack, I only offered to edit something for you if you needed it. Don't get all bent out of shape.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 09:37 AM

Joe. That being the case, it doesn't appear to stop you from forming an opinion of what I say.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 05:52 PM

well, shimrod,..not so sure there are no absolutes ? that's quite an admission for you.
perhaps you would like to give an example of evolutionary science that threatens the bible. as theology is not your area of expertise, and by your own admission, neither is biology, your assertions are only second hand. i'm no scientist, but I give specific arguments anyway, which you and your fellow believers can only dismiss by hoping that currently held observational science is sometime future proved wrong.
and, btw, I think galileo got into trouble, not for his science , but for
                                                                     portaying the pope as "simplicico" in some writings.

lighter- "..reject reason in matters of faith..." unless you can demonstrate Darwinism is true ,it remains a faith position, as much as creation. in fact , at least creation can point to causation, even if that cant be fully proven.
in the mean time, you all seem to believe it, because it is the accepted dogma. if I,m wrong, prove it by producing evidence, rather than further assertions.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 06:06 PM

Considering Galileo was in trouble for his celestial observations, I think pete is trying, rather unsuccessfully to be revisionist.

That he picks on a well recorded trial just shows the shallowness of his argument.

By the way pete, you keep falling at the first hurdle, calling observation "belief." Just because you have to cram things into a "belief" it doesn't mean that normal rational intelligent people have to.

You're the one with the delusion, remember?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 06:51 PM

Contrary to what some have stated here, many people do hold srongly onto beliefs, even where science contradicts these beliefs with evidence. I recall taking a course I the philosophy of science in University, many moons ago, which discussed this in great detail. In many cases hanging onto beliefs which contradict science is a personal choice and does little harm (beyond intensively annoying those that see things differently-nit I did not say Musket:) . Where it does really matter, in daily lives, I suspect people make adjustments to reduce negative impacts.

I link an interesting article on one perspective on why this happens:


Why Many Don't Believe In Science 

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 08:15 PM

Funny how the religious claim that all forms of understanding are "faith-based" boils down to the nihilist creed that every form of interpretation is "just your opinion."

Religious "faith" is not the same as "faith" in scientific procedures and results. One is based mainly on authority and the imagination, the other exclusively on logic and the meticulous examination of evidence.

There are few resemblances in either procedure or the proven quality of the results.

And at some point, one simply throws up one's hands and realizes that further discussion on either side is a waste of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 08:44 PM

""And at some point, one simply throws up one's hands and realizes that further discussion on either side is a waste of time.""

Many wise people state in the past that science and religious belief discussions ard just that, discussions-sharing personal perspectives. Only the unwise, approaches such discussions intent on converting either side to "their beliefs, or way is thinking". That approach most likely leads to frustration, and possibly unintentional loss of respect for other folks and nice people, who merely see things differently (for one reason or another).

I note that Bill D participates in the discussion, and gets his points across in a straight firward way in a most respspectful fashion. A "tip of the old sou'wester" for him in doing so, and adding to what is , at times, an interesting discussion of a potentially divisive topic.