 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Young Earth Creationism
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 07 Jan 11 - 12:24 AM Just couldn't pass this one ... QUOTE Subject: RE: BS: Us elections/lunar orbit/tides From: katlaughing - PM Date: 06 Jan 11 - 10:46 PM I know this is years later, but it seems to be a good fit for this thread: How 'bout them tides?! (Newser) – Apparently, Bill O'Reilly has never heard of the moon. In a debate Tuesday with Dave Silverman, head of the American Atheist group behind this, the Fox host tried to prove the existence of God by citing the unknowable mysteries of the tides. "I'll tell you why [religion is] not a scam, in my opinion," he told Silverman. "Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that. You can't explain why the tide goes in." Silverman looked stunned. "Tide goes in, tide goes out?" he stuttered. O'Reilly pressed on. "The water, the tide—it comes in and it goes out. It always goes in, then it goes out. … You can't explain that. You can't explain it." Of course, Raw Story points out, people who passed high school science might tell you that tides are caused by the gravitational pull of the moon as it orbits the earth. But Silverman had a better response: "Maybe it's Thor up on Mount Olympus who's making the tides go in and out." UNQUOTE |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Little Hawk Date: 07 Jan 11 - 06:01 AM It all depends on how you define "God". But what's the use even trying to get people to look at that...? ;-) Everybody just immediately leaps to their own favorite prejudice (their inner notion of what they think other people mean by "God") when it comes to that, and they seem to have no inclination to look beyond it. Too bad about that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Penny S. Date: 07 Jan 11 - 06:34 AM Pete, have you read the whole of the historical part of the Old Testament? I can't believe you haven't, but can you honestly claim that the god who commands the extirpation of whole peoples like the Amalekites is decent? Or is in any way likely to be the father of Jesus, who claims that if one has seen Him, one has seen the Father? Or indeed, likely to be the God who inspired Hosea and Amos? I know you live your life according to the latter. I can imagine you very easily arguing like Abraham did with the angels about sparing people from destruction, and I can't imagine you acceding at all readily to what seemed a divine command to kill anyone. (I look back to merrily singing a children's hymn "Who is on the Lord's side?" with no knowledge of its context in the Levites slaughtering some of their brethren who had offended YHWH, and shudder.) I appreciate your dislike of the idea of evolution being based on death and disease, but if there were less of that sort of thing in the OT, that argument would be more convincing. Wiping out most of creation in a flood is not so different from things being eaten, is it? Killing all the first born of Egypt, when only the Pharaoh was concerned with decision making? But evolution may not be depend on that as much as is presented, anyway. It is to do with not passing on genes rather than being devoured. In my family, the last two generations have included at least five women who will not be contributing to the future of the human race - we never managed to meet the right man at the right time. None of us, as far as I can make out, were in any way deformed or diseased, and the two who are dead had reached their full span. I've bookmarked that article and will read it when I have time. But I don't believe that it is an essential foundation for belief in the Gospels to accept the OT as literally true. The essence of the gospels, I believe, is the witness of Jesus and his followers, and the action of the Holy Spirit in them. If that were to fail because of references to a history which cannot be confirmed in the real world, it would be much much weaker than the last 2000 years has shown it to be. And it would be falling into a trap seen by Augustine of Hippo. He was very concerned by those of his fellow believers who rooted their faith in matters which the pagans around could easily see to be untrue. The universe has a very convincing appearance of great age. If faith in Christ is to be hung on its reality being much shorter, but being made with that appearance for some reason, such as Gosse's suggestion, which brings into question the creator's desire for the salvation of all, it is going to become impossible to spread that faith. Kent, I don't think you entirely took in my argument about authorship. The writer who includes a back story for a narrative's character is not dealing with the same situation as a deity who creates a backstory for a world, and without any indication that that is what it is, expects people to see that that is what it is, as opposed to the "real" situation. With a book, we select it from the shelves, with a film, we go to the cinema, or put a DVD in the player. There is a framework in which we engage with the author. With life, we do not have any such choice, and only one source to suggest that we are in a work of fiction. The result of failing to accept that is eternity in hell, is it not? The God who so loved the world that he came down to show us that, and to save us, would He set up a misleading trap? Because that is what YEC's are claiming. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Jan 11 - 12:19 PM G'day, Ed. More bluster, I see, filled with inaccuracy and faulty observation. I clearly touched a raw nerve pointing out that your link directly contradicted your own approach, something you clearly hadn't noticed, but hey ho. My requests for evidence are not unreasonable. Read what I said to Georgiansilver on the other thread. That sets out my minimum standard, and I think it's exceptionally fair, don't you? Or do you go around gullibly believing every yarn peddled to you by strangers "because they said so?" You think I'm bullying/whining/whatever because I want at least some corroboration? In science, someone's say-so is just one possible starting point for further observation, experimentation and interpretation of evidence, and research must be reliable enough to be repeatable and peer-reviewed. And that's for work done which all falls within the laws of physics. In religion, someone's say-so appear to be an end-point, not the start of further investigation. End of. It must be true because he and his mates all said so. The "evidence" that you and your like-minded allies are inclined to accept consists of claims of miraculous interventions by beings who have never been seen and who break all the laws of physics - yet you set the evidence bar ludicrously low for them! Perhaps it is rather tedious reading to see this constant attack on the gullibility of believers, of their reliance on faith instead of evidence - but it is the whole crux of the matter. It wouldn't be a tenth as important if religion didn't use this as a springboard for ensnaring billions of people into accepting mythology as truth, but that's what happens and that what does the damage. Incidentally, if you want to direct quote something I've said, please copy and paste in future, or at least leave out the speech marks: I note you frequently "promote" that you are "a believer in the way of science". Never said those words, Ed. Hey, preserve accuracy and preserve your credibility is my advice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Ed T Date: 07 Jan 11 - 12:49 PM Talk about blithering bluster, you sure give a good demonstration. Not used to be taken to task for your schoolyard bullying Steve? "Filled with inaccuracy and faulty observation" Where is your "evidence" to that, Steve? "Your link directly contradicted your own approach", Where is your "evidence" to that, Steve? "You and your like-minded allies" Where is your "evidence" to that Steve? "Incidentally, if you want to direct quote something I've said, please copy and paste in future, or at least leave out the speech marks: I note you frequently "promote" that you are "a believer in the way of science". Good try, Steve. I did not directly state you made that direct quote, as you allege. When I do so, I will say so, Steve. There is no convention in Mudcat indicating that putting " " before and after words meaning it is a direct quote. If there is, please provide the evidence to support your accusations. Sorry Steve, I don't have time to look through your thousands of BS posts that are mostly, if not exclusively, on religious topics. If you have the time, which you seem to have) cut and paste it here yourself. BTY, do you have any time for anything else but your war against religion? Have you thought of taking up other post retirement exploits? Bowling may help you get some of that excess frustration out of your mind? Just a thought, not a direct suggestion O:>)) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Bill D Date: 07 Jan 11 - 12:57 PM Oh, guys! C'mon.... ...never mind... who am I to interfere in a feud fueled by dueling quotations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 07 Jan 11 - 12:58 PM In defence of Steve, if rational people don't make a stance and tackle religion head on, we will be back in the dark ages before we know it. Do you know there are people who sit in the upper house (Lords) by dint of their pointy hat who want government to reintroduce blasphemy laws? If that isn't an opportunity to do my "Jesus on a rubber cross" impression when on stage, I don't know what is. Look, its alright humouring people by debating but when one side has a problem with reality and the other side knows religion is all fairy stories and population control, it does mean that occasionally, just occasionally, some, myself included, wander back to reality and point out that it is all hogwash, dangerous bullshit and there is no such thing as God. Grow up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Ebbie Date: 07 Jan 11 - 01:16 PM "There is no convention in Mudcat indicating that putting " " before and after words meaning it is a direct quote." Ed T Ed T, I have no idea what else quotation marks could mean other than a direct quote. I think that is as true on Mudcat as on any paper. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Ed T Date: 07 Jan 11 - 02:43 PM Well Ebbie where is noted as the only format/use of to be used on Mudcat, which is not a "paper", but a internet discussion forum? Regardless, I do see where someone could easily interpret it as such. It wasn't intended to be a direct quote, and "that is that". Anyway, it is easy to see this is merely a "red herring" put forward by Steve, as a diversion. Steamin' Willie, Indeed is very credible to question people and ideas put forward. But, IMO, it is another thing to "bully and belittle" those who are merely putting their ideas and beliefs forward (BTW, I dont preach any beliefs that I may have or not have, which Steve alleged). My point is Steve's approach has not stimulated open discussion, but has done the opposite. It is just as easy to do it in a respectful way (which I put forward, that Steve does not). There is no loss doing that, and who knows, occasionally it results in someone learning something new. Why can a religious discussion not be civil? I have not detected any of the folks putting their concepts forward as the "nasty people" (careful,that is not a quote) who are trying to impose them on others? So, how does it hurt to be respectful, hear people out and be questioning at the same time? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Penny S. Date: 07 Jan 11 - 02:53 PM Re: the guy who didn't know about tides - did he come from an inland state. people on coasts can see the connection, and the seeing sticks. If you don't listen to science lessons for ideological reasons, or you're just bored, maybe it wouldn't get into the noddle. Not to excuse him for being an ignorant idiot, of course.... Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Penny S. Date: 07 Jan 11 - 03:07 PM Re: responses to people saying they will pray for others - it rather depends on what they are praying for. If they are praying for the others to recover from some illness or other setback, it's one thing. If they are praying for conversion from a position of perceived superiority, it's quite another, and well worth resenting. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Penny S. Date: 07 Jan 11 - 03:22 PM Pete, I've read that article, and it doesn't help. It wrongly characterises evolution as an entirely bloody business, which it is not. Admittedly some have characterised the survival of the fittest in that way, possibly for political reasons, or because of the way men of the time viewed the competition of males as vital for development of society. Then it places that violent view against the nature of a loving God. But that really ignores the Biblical matter that lies between Genesis and the Gospels, where the loving nature of the deity it portrays is often hard to distinguish. It's not an effective argument. The premises are weak. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Penny S. Date: 07 Jan 11 - 03:43 PM RE: carbon dating. Rocks are not dated by radiocarbon but by other isotopes with longer half-lives. They are also dated by other techniques - the way rocks lie on each other, cut across each other and push into each other. These allow the order of formation to be deduced. Then there is the observation of modern processes. If you have depths of hundreds of feet of a deposit which had to be formed in calm water and at the rate of less than a centimetre a year, times can be well estimated. And then they have to be buried, cemented, and hardened. Some show the signs of having been pressed, and heated at depth. The isotopes are only one strand of the dating processes which all combine to confim each other in establishing great ages. Or, if that must be believed, the appearance of great age. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 07 Jan 11 - 03:52 PM penny.i just managed to lose a long response i one finger typed you so i will be brief. i accept all the OT because the NT is built on it ,quotes it, and alludes to it, even if parts of it are difficult. little hawk-similar to above as regards adam and eve.if the NT did,nt speak of them as real people you might have a point about them being figurative,but a good question.Jesus referred to them in his teaching regarding divorce, and paul also bases much of his teaching on the entrance of sin and death into the world following adams fall. the narrative itself suggests a literal reading.the phrase"these are the generations of"used in introduction of those following begins with the eden story.gen2 4. i know you "dont buy it"but thanks for asking why i do. richard-i have been reading about 14c but i,m not competent to give you the YEC explanation and if i try i shall look silly trying to rehash scientific discussions. just so you know i was,nt ignoring you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Bill D Date: 07 Jan 11 - 04:32 PM Willie...and by implication, Steve Shaw "... if rational people don't make a stance and tackle religion head on, we will be back in the dark ages before we know it. That is just a mite of an exaggeration, perhaps.... There is a huge difference between being alert to attempts to force various arbitrary religious stuff into secular realms...(such as prayers at public meetings or the '10 commandments' being plopped down in government buildings, as was attempted in the South several years ago)... and taking on anyone who mentions their religion or states their belief just to show general antagonism to religious beliefs. I have, for 10-12 years here at Mudcat, attempted to show the flaws and errors of certain claims & assertions about many metaphysical issues, from Astrology to Reincarnation to Creationism and beyond...and I suppose I'll do so again at times. I WANT bad logic to be noted and I seriously desire an end to attempts to impose religious doctrines on the country in general thru alteration of text books and embedding of biblical 'teachings' in public institutions...and yes, I DO want "In God We Trust" taken off my money and the original Pledge of Allegiance restored. When I learned it, there was no 'under God' in it. However....as I indicated above, I have many friends who are quite religious but who do NOT pressure ME about it, and who are NOT trying to convert or proselytize others. I am of two minds about a lot of these recent threads, because a few years ago, several dedicated Christians here voluntarily restricted their overtly religious posts and bowed out of directly arguing pros & cons of 'belief' in general....and it would be nice if those of us who are NOT religious could restrict the number of complaints and condemnations of religion. I realize that it is hard to see what seems like an obviously irrational claim or scientifically bogus 'fact' tossed out...and to refrain from comment. *I* do not refrain from comment...but little is gained by direct insults...either to the motives or the intelligence... of others. (I seriously wonder if the same things would be said face-to-face). I argue positions and reason, not character and sanity...and I have to say, it is hard to **agree** with some posters here...even when I have almost identical basic views on 'basic truth'..... so....**shrug** |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: saulgoldie Date: 07 Jan 11 - 05:57 PM One "believes" in religion. One "accepts" the findings of science. Science is a well-established process of forming and testing hypotheses. If a hypothesis does not work and cannot be reproduced with consistent results, then it is not true. Science has consistently pushed back the boundaries of the unknown. Religion starts with the results, and through rhetorical gymnastics attempts to "prove" its hypotheses. It cannot support well-researched hypotheses with consistent results, and therefore is "belief" and "faith." Doesn't matter what the hypothesis is or what religion is promoting its own version of "truth." Early on in human development, religion was useful for attempting to explain the unknown. However, it has consistently impeded better understanding of the world in which we live, and it has outlived its usefulness. "Values" is another topic. Many religions share certain values. But some religions disrespect other religions by claiming to be "the only true religion" and by aggressively attempting through various means to "convert" others to their religion. Any religion that is not self-confident enough to allow others to freely choose it without any form of coercion should be ignored by reasonable people. Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Ed T Date: 07 Jan 11 - 06:12 PM While I find your statements interesting and mostly compelling, I suspect some will difficulty with the following direct quote. "However, it has consistently impeded better understanding of the world in which we live, and it has outlived its usefulness". I suspect the your definition of the "usefullness" of a religion, to those who follow "a religion", to be personally broader than you state. But, since I do not adhere to an organized religion, I will leave that debate to others who do so. I am merely identifying what may be an omission. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Ed T Date: 07 Jan 11 - 06:21 PM Some of the possible areas where religious people may feel it is useful, I suspect there are many more? A personal feeling of belonging and fellowship (one may consider joining a service club). Charity and good works (again, some of this is done by charity groups not bound by religion). Family related benefits (we all know it is a benefit, but not exclusive to religion). Spiritual feelings, Nirvana(Some meditation classes may provide this,and I wont mention drugs). A route to heaven, life beyond death, closeness to a God (well, if it exists, maybe, but then, there are no guarintees). Morality and social (are atheists not just as moral)? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 07 Jan 11 - 06:59 PM I always use double quotes and italics for quoting others verbatim. I use single quotes for other purposes and for emphasis. It seems to me that many others here do the same. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Ed T Date: 07 Jan 11 - 07:01 PM Thanks Don Makes sense. I shall do that in the future, to ensure no misunderstanding. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Bill D Date: 07 Jan 11 - 07:06 PM "... (are atheists not just as moral)?" Immanuel Kant spent a long time showing how & why morality could be shown to be the best path thru reason alone....others have done similarly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Dave MacKenzie Date: 07 Jan 11 - 07:25 PM David Robertson of the Free Church of Scotland recently wrote: "The trouble with the atheistic anti-God secular philosophy is not that it turns all of its proponents into Nazis. Thankfully, most atheists live inconsistently with their philosophy. And most of our Western Atheists are in fact Christian Atheists - wanting the fruit of Christianity while rejecting the roots. The problem is that once the philosophy of the blind, pitiless, indifferent universe without good or evil is adopted, there is no basis for hating evil and loving good. How can you hate what does not exist? That is why the atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell stated 'Dachau is wrong is not a fact.' But that was just a feeling. But for the Christian, 'Dachau is wrong' is a fact. We hate the evil of the Holocaust because it was real - not because it was a passing feeling or a temporary fashion of philosophy. 'God is dead', said Hitler's favourite philosopher, Nietzsche. 'We have killed him and the whole of Europe is filled with the stench of his corpse.'" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Bill D Date: 07 Jan 11 - 07:52 PM I take it David Robertson of the Free Church of Scotland has not read Kant... ;>)... or ignores him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Don Firth Date: 07 Jan 11 - 07:58 PM The Bible is a most interesting book, provided it is taken as what it is: Judeo-Christian mythology. And like most mythology, it contains much wisdom and a great deal of truth. Provided one does not make the very prevalent error of accepting it as literal truth or historical fact. In fact, some of it is just plain wrong! The following has been floating around the internet recently. Kind of puts things into perspective. Laura Schlesinger is a US radio personality, who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. She recently said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination, according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstances. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura which was posted on the Internet.Your welcome,Dear Dr. Laura: Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 07 Jan 11 - 08:07 PM ""I take it David Robertson of the Free Church of Scotland has not read Kant... ;>)... or ignores him. I take it David Robertson of the Free Church of Scotland has approximately the cognitive faculties of a cockroach. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Jan 11 - 08:33 PM Thankfully, most atheists live inconsistently with their philosophy. Jeez, Dave, I suppose the fact you can post this tripe is some kind of testament to the fact that you somehow agree with it. Numero uno: There is no atheist philosophy. The only reason atheists have to exist at all (and it's painful) is that believers exist. There is no philosophy. We just want evidence. Secondo: you can blithely post this rubbish and totally ignore the fact that huge numbers of Christians/Jews/Muslims/whatever are Sunday/Sabbath/whatever (excuse my ignorance) adherents and no more. They go to church/synagogue/mosque for an hour or two then come out and behave just the same as they did before they went in. Go into any church/synagogue/mosque and you will find (among large numbers of very good people, I hasten to add) bankers, capitalists, Tories, bigots, racists, warmongers (Blair?? Bush???), right-wing evangelists, fascists (Franco was a daily communicant), potential suicide bombers, paedophiles, and you name the rest. I suppose you will say that, thankfully, most believers live consistently with their philosophy? Places of worship are generally places of posturing. Atheists have to breathe the heavily-polluted default religious air. Just like socialists still have to use banks. Think for a change, Dave. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Jan 11 - 08:50 PM I have many friends who are quite religious but who do NOT pressure ME about it, and who are NOT trying to convert or proselytize others. These are the good guys. But there may be fewer of them than you think. They may not pressure you - but do they have their kids christened at birth, do they send them to faith schools, do they make them attend Sunday School and religious services? Do they peddle myth as truth to their kids? I am of two minds about a lot of these recent threads, because a few years ago, several dedicated Christians here voluntarily restricted their overtly religious posts and bowed out of directly arguing pros & cons of 'belief' in general....and it would be nice if those of us who are NOT religious could restrict the number of complaints and condemnations of religion. Well I don't agree. For millennia, religion has had its own way. It has insisted that demurral should be punished by law, even by death, and, at best, by social ostracism and by having the fear of God and hellfire instilled into its adherents lest they should even think of wavering. It has built up riches beyond compare whilst praising the virtues of poverty (and ensuring that its adherents suffer just that). It is intolerant and authoritarian, no more than a blunt instrument of control. I think religion deserves all the attacks it gets, and more. We shouldn't keep quiet just because we know that many believers are meek and mild, which they are. Religion in all its forms is a very bad thing, and I'm not one for holding back on the criticism. Give me one good reason why I should. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Jan 11 - 09:07 PM Some of the possible areas where religious people may feel it is useful, I suspect there are many more? A personal feeling of belonging and fellowship (one may consider joining a service club). Charity and good works (again, some of this is done by charity groups not bound by religion). Family related benefits (we all know it is a benefit, but not exclusive to religion). Spiritual feelings, Nirvana(Some meditation classes may provide this,and I wont mention drugs). A route to heaven, life beyond death, closeness to a God (well, if it exists, maybe, but then, there are no guarintees). Morality and social (are atheists not just as moral)? Save for the penultimate point here, which in any case is mere mythology, all this can be just as well attained without religion, and often is. Of course, we atheists don't club together as much as believers do (heaven forfend), so I suppose we could try harder. But don't go pretending that these things are the territory of religion. They are not. Nothing annoys me more than to hear, from a preacher-type person usually, that such-and-such's sense of fair play and morality was instilled into him by his religious upbringing. Cobblers! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Don Firth Date: 07 Jan 11 - 09:58 PM Reality sandwich: Charitable groups notwithstanding, in my city—in fact, in my fairly immediate neighborhood—there would be several hundred jobless people going hungry, along with sleeping in the park, were it not for Central Lutheran Church's free meal program, and LATCH, the Lutheran Alliance to Create Housing (dedicated to finding or building low-cost or no-cost housing). And there are about a half-dozen churches within a ten block radius of Seattle's Capitol Hill area who are doing the same sorts of things. And none of them make you pay for the soup by listening to a sermon. No proselytizing at these free meal gatherings. If these churches hadn't take it upon themselves many years ago—as a moral duty—it wouldn't be done. And that's a rude fact! Don Firth P. S. I am not particularly religious. I'm just describing what I see. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Kent Davis Date: 07 Jan 11 - 11:36 PM Sugarfoot Jack, I appreciate your post from yesterday which said, in part, about dating creations "With some scientific analysis you could deduce when a picture was painted. You could use the wooden frame to establish a dendrochronology, ...All someone has to do is apply their mind to the problem." Your point applies to dating a creation from the "outside". Many people do not believe that the universe is a creation, of course, but, IF it is a creation,then surely we are INSIDE the creation. You can analyse the Mona Lisa and estimate it's age. If ol' Mona herself were to become sentient, SHE could not estimate the age of the painting she was inside. She was twenty-three on the day Leonardo finished painting her. Penny S., I don't THINK I missed your point, but maybe I did. If God had not revealed the age of the universe to us, He could hardly have expected us to deduce it. But if He did reveal it, then there is no question of deception. Young Earth Creationists may be wrong in thinking that He did reveal it but, as far as I know, ALL of us think that He did reveal it. No one thinks that the creation was some sort of trick. Smokey, Sorry you found the analogies condescending. That was certainly not my intention. Everyone, My goal has been to explain what Young Earth Creationism is. I could have simply referred you to some website that explains it. I thought something interactive would be more useful and more interesting. I hope you found it such. Good night. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Smokey. Date: 08 Jan 11 - 12:31 AM Sorry you found the analogies condescending. That was certainly not my intention. I know it wasn't, and I apologise for saying that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 08 Jan 11 - 05:28 AM Whatever one thinks about the validity or otherwise of his arguments, Kent Davis has achieved one very important result. He has given us an object lesson in presenting a generally unpopular viewpoint calmly, politely and with unwavering good humour. I have the greatest respect for the man, while reserving the right to disagree with the argument. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Jan 11 - 06:32 AM Well, Don, I know that and I agree with you and I fully acknowledge that religious people do good works. I did say that churches, etc., were full of very good people and I did say that perhaps we atheistic types could try harder. It's easier to do good work on a substantial scale within an organisation and atheists tend not to be in those kinds of organisations. That isn't sour grapes, it's an acknowledgement that we've allowed religion to dominate that particular territory, and, as far as I'm concerned, all power to their elbows. The world isn't black and white (and yes, it was me typing that). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Jan 11 - 06:33 AM That was a response to Don Firth, Dons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 08 Jan 11 - 08:37 AM i,ve not read kant either. is it at all possible to summarize his ideas?.i appreciate that might not be practical,but one cant read everything. all i can say is that i would,nt trust me if i were not a christian;you atheists must have evolved better!. and yes i do know there are hypocrites in religion. thanks don firth for your post regarding churches welfare programs.just goes to show how dangerous religion is! can anyone verify the truth or otherwise, of a US survey finding that believers gave more to charitable causes[and not always specifically christian ones]? as to levitical laws;it would be interesting to have dr lauras response of clever criticism.the christian position i think would be that the censures of leviticus only applied under the theocratic gov in OT times. penny-thanks for reading suggested article.rejection noted. re dating methods;do you claim there are not examples of anomalies and inconsistencies? steve-it still interests me that one so anti religion, accepts[ the fruit of relgion]religious music and architecture-though glad you do,as its the nearest you get to accepting christianity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Stu Date: 08 Jan 11 - 09:25 AM "Thankfully, most atheists live inconsistently with their philosophy. And most of our Western Atheists are in fact Christian Atheists - wanting the fruit of Christianity while rejecting the roots." What a pile of utter crap. How condescending and arrogant some people can be; this bloke would not be out of place being in the Taliban. It's demonstrative of the complete lack of empathy and imagination some religious and dogmatic types have, regardless of creed (including atheists of course). "accepts[ the fruit of relgion]religious music and architecture-though glad you do,as its the nearest you get to accepting christianity." Why Pete? Art is universal and can be admired regardless of what the motivation for making it was. I love churches and other places of worship although I am not religious. They provide a connection with our history and ancestors in the same way a stone circle or castle might. "Many people do not believe that the universe is a creation, of course, but, IF it is a creation,then surely we are INSIDE the creation." It is a creation of some kind, although I would argue natural processes created it rather than some omnipotent being. However, you have a point that we are inside this universe. This is the incredible bit: If at the very least we are beings evolved as a result of physical, chemical and biological processes then we are the universe made conscious. We are made of starstuff, and each individual one of us can look out at the universe and say 'this is me, I am an integral part of this incredible place'. We are the universe contemplating itself, trying to understand itself and that is, to my mind, more wonderful and awe-inspiring than anything any religion can articulate. Here is the basis for a religion-free moral code such as our Scottish friend quoted above can't conceive outside his narrow, myopic and somewhat pitiful viewpoint. Science and art both provide us with a way of articulating this wonderful, incredible and quite remarkable understanding of our place as the universe made conscious. In time, we will continue more and more to recognise and understand we share the planet with many animals that also are the children of the universe and deserve equality and the freedom to live in peace and in our own way we all desire and (mainly) work towards. In some way, I think religion is a way of articulating this wonder, the understanding that our physical existence is unique as far as we know (although I'm sure it isn't) and we are something special, that we can see we are children of the stars themselves. It's feelings are genuine, it's just it becomes mired in superstition and dogma and hung up on the words of men who weren't there recording events they never saw. We had a thread about this previously and some of the comments made actually changed my mind a little. I do not believe in God, and see Jesus as a historical figure rather than a messiah. However . . . it's not impossible there are beings out there whose existence could be explained by science who, to us might appear godlike. Perhaps we sense their presence but cannot contemplate the nature of their being, as ants on an anthill might feel observed by a naturalist studying them as they labour but whom can't conceive of the enormous complexity of that naturalist's life. Perhaps we see their workings in the stars and in some primitive way recognise the presence of another intelligence (or many intelligences). It's a wonderful universe, and we are unique within it, yet we are not separate from it and everything will, though perhaps not for millennia, eventually be explained by science. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Ed T Date: 08 Jan 11 - 10:01 AM Pete, If you are really interested in Kant, there are likely summaries that can easily be found through a Google search. Someone may be able to help you get a summary. But one "to your liking" and interest level should not be that difficult to find. However, Kant dedicated much of his life and career to religious philosophy (or related persuits). I don't believe he summarized his considerable works. To capture it all, (if you are interested) you may wish to go into a "deeper" read. I believe you may find his material interesting and thought provoking, as Kent would also. I attach a link that may assist you. However, parts may require a "slow read" to get his concepts. But, to get a summary, you can either pick the parts you are interested in, or skip the areas that require more effort and time to read. Good luck Kant |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Bill D Date: 08 Jan 11 - 10:06 AM About Kant: There used to be a comic strip in the US, called "Li'l Abner" telling stories of a bunch of rural folk we call 'hillbillies'. Abner Yokum's mother was a wise little woman who used to say "Good is better'n evil, 'cause it's nicer." Kant spent many pages in turgid German saying essentially the same thing, but 'proving it' with complex philosophical language, which included stuff we would recognize as essentially "The Golden Rule". You might 'guess' that the Yokum family were Christian, but such was never mentioned and it just seemed like a good idea when Mammy Yokum said it. Many religions have a version of The Golden Rule, and of many other ideas of right and virtue similar to what is found in Christian teachings....Kant just tried to explain WHY almost everyone who thought much about it decided that 'goodness' was a sane, reasonable path, whether any Prophet or "god" told us so or not. Today, there are atheists who behave in a sane, fair, honest, loving manner towards others...without needing to be 'threatened' with eternal punishment.... and thus, they don't appreciate being threatened with eternal punishment for not 'believing in Jesus & the bible', when they are living good lives already. Most atheists treat all the layers of theological complication about 'original sin'...etc... as stories created to convince and scare people who can't comprehend Kant's...and Mammy Yokum's... basic idea. That's the best I can do as a quick summary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Ed T Date: 08 Jan 11 - 10:09 AM Just a caution: Kant was a philosopher. And, IMO (which I have stated before), philosophers take a lot of time to get to what they see as truths. Other philosophers try and shoot them down. If you take philosophy too seriously, you probably would not get out of bed in the morning, uncertain that you could philosophically do the task. Kant wrote his stuff a time ago, and I expect many of his works have been contected, and possibly even debunked by more current philosophers, or deep thinkers. But, I cannot attest to that one way or the other. Possibly Don would know, as I suspect he would have more expertise than I in this area.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Stu Date: 08 Jan 11 - 10:09 AM Just to help with the philosophers: The Philosopher's Song (Monty Python) Immanuel Kant was a real pissant Who was very rarely stable. Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar Who could think you under the table. David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel, And Wittgenstein was a beery swine Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel. There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya' 'Bout the raising of the wrist. SOCRATES, HIMSELF, WAS PERMANENTLY PISSED... John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill. Plato, they say, could stick it away; Half a crate of whiskey every day. Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle, Hobbes was fond of his dram, And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart: "I drink, therefore I am" Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Jan 11 - 04:16 PM can anyone verify the truth or otherwise, of a US survey finding that believers gave more to charitable causes[and not always specifically christian ones]? Let's just suppose someone verifies that for you. What would it prove? What if I told you that there are many Christians in positions of political power who serially act to ensure that there will always be huge numbers of people who need these charitable causes? Two of the most explicitly prominent Christians in recent political life, Blair and Bush, plunged tens of millions in Iraq into poverty and misery and in need of charity, and had quite a bit to do with allowing Gaza to happen to boot. Do you think I'm going to contemplate using that as an argument against Christianity? No, I'm not. But I might use it as an argument to expose hypocrisy. Be careful what you fish for, Pete. steve-it still interests me that one so anti religion, accepts[ the fruit of relgion]religious music and architecture-though glad you do,as its the nearest you get to accepting christianity. So, you want me to believe that great art and music can actually be the "fruit of religion." You'd better be careful there, otherwise I might just start listing some of the less desirable "fruits of religion," which are many and virulent, but which I tend to avoid rattling on about (I can't bear it when people rant on about the evils done "in the name of religion", because usually they were done for other reasons unnamed), and I prefer to be honest about that than to jump on to it opportunistically, as you appear to be doing here. There are many reasons why some people made religious sculptures or set religious texts to music, but direct inspiration from God was not one of them. Witness the rather obstinate and inconvenient fact that the self-same were just as adept at creating great works in the realms of the profane as well as the sacred. As ever, your reasoning in these matters seems woefully incomplete. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Jan 11 - 04:18 PM self-same people |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Bill D Date: 08 Jan 11 - 06:06 PM "Possibly Don would know, as I suspect he would have more expertise than I in this area.. " Gee, Ed...*I* know, having had 130 hours of university Philosophy... undergraduate & graduate....and Kant has not been at all "debunked". Fads develop, but Kant was and is one of a dozen or so major influences on Western philosophic thought, due to his depth and precision and 'completeness' of the major topics he covered. "If you take philosophy too seriously, you probably would not get out of bed in the morning, uncertain that you could philosophically do the task. " ... oh, pooh! *grin* I know of NO Philosopher who has trouble "getting out of bed"...or even in walking & chewing gum. Even David Hume, who tried to posit something approaching Solipsism, admitted that he 'acted as though' things were real. Philosophy, in it myriad forms, is an attempt to understand, and as such, has provided some invaluable insights into 'what we are'. Much of it cannot be easily 'simplified', and my attempt to do that for pete from 7 stars was about as basic as can be done. Don't marginalize serious Philosophy with silly remarks if you already admit you don't have depth in the topic....hmmm? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 08 Jan 11 - 06:50 PM ""the christian position i think would be that the censures of leviticus only applied under the theocratic gov in OT times."" If that is indeed the Christian position it would of necessity surely also apply to the description of homosexuality as an abomination? You can't pick and choose which bits apply and which do not. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: MGM·Lion Date: 09 Jan 11 - 01:42 AM Re Bill D's last post ~~ old Will Shax, as usual, had something pertinent to say ··· "There was never yet philosopher that could endure the toothache patiently" (Much Ado About Nothing). Re comic strip definitions of The Golden Rule, I prefer The Wizard Of Id's to Li'l Abner's ~~ "The Man who has the Gold makes the Rule". ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Penny S. Date: 09 Jan 11 - 03:44 AM Pete, I am astonished that you say you wouldn't trust yourself without the restraints of your belief. There is absolutely no way you come across as someone who is a seething mass of violence held back by external forces. I think you are underestimating yourself there. (Though I appreciate you may attribute that to the action of God in your life.) It is one of the things I feel worrying about certain versions of Christianity that it teaches that so many people would be dangerous without it. Most people are not like that, whatever their personal fallings short of what they should be might be. Most people, once past their youth (and most people in their youth), are pretty steady. They might not stop to help someone in need, but they certainly wouldn't stop to join in beating someone up. With or without any sort of religion. If we were like that, then evolution or no, we wouldn't be here to argue the issue. And we wouldn't deserve to be, either. As for anomalies and inconsistencies, I'd be an idiot if I denied it. For instance, a friend of mine studying sea level changes found that the evidence for the sinking of South-East England all came from three tide gauges, Southend, Sheerness and Southampton. I'm sure you can spot that Southend and Sheerness aren't exactly measuring separate evidence, though you may not have spotted that both they, and Southampton are in troughs where the rocks are folded downwards. Measurements from areas of uplift give different results. During the same study, he looked at results from the Dover tide gauge. There were odd jumps in these, which I, having lived there, spotted as being related to building in the harbour. We checked it, and found that it had been moved, and the jumps related to that. but that is what scientific method does, uncovers things and corrects them. I was taught how to calculate error margins in work. However, the error margins in dating are not such that a rock component dated as 3650±50 million years old (in Greenland) is going to be less than 6000 years old. Not with an error margin of 50 million either way, which is what ±50 Ma means. And as scientists do check each others' work, anomalies and inconsistencies would be uncovered and published. You know that Piltdown was a fake because of that process. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Ed T Date: 09 Jan 11 - 03:59 AM ""Don't marginalize serious Philosophy with silly remarks if you already admit you don't have depth in the topic"" Well, Bill D, there would be little discussion on many aspects of life, possibly yourself included, (humourous, or otherwise), or on Mudcat, if everyone was asked to adhere to that rule you just mad up. I suspect we aren't all "experts" on everything we discuss throughout our lives. And, there is ample "evidence" for that on Mudcat, if you would want to seek it out. ":)" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: DMcG Date: 09 Jan 11 - 04:33 AM Kant was a philosopher. And, IMO (which I have stated before), philosophers take a lot of time to get to what they see as truths. Other philosophers try and shoot them down. Quite so: and that is exactly analogous to 'peer review' in science. You present your view, others criticise it and then third parties get to choose which is the most convincing. That is one of the reasons that philosophy and science are not simply 'belief systems'; the reasons why you to propose your view must be open to a full and detailed examination of the reasons you believe it and while you are free to continue to believe whatever you like, what you as the proponent end up believing is not the point of the process. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 09 Jan 11 - 04:50 AM "Whatever one thinks about the validity or otherwise of his arguments, Kent Davis has achieved one very important result. He has given us an object lesson in presenting a generally unpopular viewpoint calmly, politely and with unwavering good humour." I'd have to disagree with you there, Don. It's true that Mr Kent has been polite, but the 'argument'/explanation that he presented at the top of this thread was really designed to shut down debate (God created the Universe recently; mere mortals can't understand the mind of God; anyone who says different is deluded; the end). To my mind that is mere 'mindless' dogmatism - no matter how calmly, politely or humourously it may be presented. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Ed T Date: 09 Jan 11 - 04:58 AM DMcG An interesting perspective on this matter Why can't philosophy be like science?" |
