BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 02:12 AM

Paul,
I haven't gotten around to answering all of the arguments that have been brought up, but I am working on it. One person trying to answer the arguments of several people is time consuming. I apologize if my 'slowness' is causing confusion. I do intend to answer as many of you as I can. But, ladies and gentlemen, time.....give me time. :)

Iona

Who is a 'she'. {smile}

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 02:58 AM

The Bible, including the Old Testament, had not yet been assembled when Plato and Aristotle were writing.

No, they weren't all bound up in a book and branded "The Bible" or "The Old Testament". But the laws of God did exist (It's very possible that Adam wrote some of the Old Testament), and have been existent as long as man has. Josiah found the 'lost book of the Law' in 2 Kings 22. It wasn't called 'the old testament', but it was still the word of God.
It doesn't matter whether Plato ever read what we call the Bible or not. What matters is that he presupposed concepts of absolutes, of laws of logic, of absolute right and wrong, et cetera, when those things can't be justified without a Christian worldview. Because in any other worldview, (it's hard to generalize because it's a different argument with different types of worldviews) there is always an inconsistency with good and evil being defined. But with Christianity there isn't.

.....we are still awaiting any sort of evidence that it wasn't from any of the other contacts the Greeks had or - perish the thought - something they developed themselves? But I suppose you would declare that to be really christian as well. Oddly enough, you seem happy to call everyone as essentially Christian who says the aren't, except for those people who think they are ...

Okay, so taking your scenario, what if they *did* borrow the concepts of Christianity from some other venue. Where did they get it? You can't escape the question just by suggesting that it came from some other source.....because we still have to ask, then where did it originally come from? Anyway, where is the evidence that they did get it from 'some of the other contacts'? What other religion gives a basis for good and evil?
Good and evil dates back to the garden of Eden, when God first told Adam and Eve not to touch the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. They didn't obey. And since all men are descended of Adam and Eve, of course all men have a sense of good and evil.

"you seem happy to call everyone as essentially Christian who says [they] aren't, except for those people who think they are......"
*chuckle* no, I'm just pointing out that most Western culture atheists must borrow from a Christian worldview in order to reason. But that does not make them 'essentially Christian'. Just because I borrow some sugar from the neighbor in order to make candy doesn't mean that I am essentially 'neighbor', if you follow me.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 04:20 AM

The wellsprings of Religion / God are pretty basic:

Good = life, light, warmth, sex, food, day, summer, sun etc.

Bad = death, dark, cold, no sex, no food, night, winter, no sun etc.

This is 50,000* years ago; humanity emerges from Nature and looks upon Nature as other. So what does we do? We give things names & personify them accordingly, then we begin to tell stories that will become myths & religions. I might say: Myth = Good / Religion = Bad. Myth was just storytelling, but religion got hung up on truth and putting people to the sword & enslaving them accordingly.

No Religion = Good. We just see the sunrise over the hill and are glad enough of that, like the birds and bonobos, none of whom ever bother going to church.

* Or somewhen.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 04:25 AM

Glad you enjoyed the joke, Iona. I was afraid it was a little too snarky.


I'm not intending to avoid the question of where the Greeks the good/evil concept from. If two cultures, say Greek and Hebrew, have a concept of good and evil that has much in common [e.g. its frowned on to kill members of your own tribe, but everyone else is fair game] but also major differences [e.g. Homesexuality is normal and natural versus an abomination], then its fair to consider whether the Greeks got their ideas from the Hebrews, or vice versa, of if one or both got them from somewhere else, or whether they both developed the ideas independently. You have decided that it is simply God-given and that's all needs to be said [but so often! *smile*]

For those who don't think that's an answer, there is the question where it does come from. And actually there are pretty reasonable, purely scientific reasons: some of them are reviewed here. I say 'pretty reasonable' rather than anything stronger for the usual reasons: early days of the research, and so forth. Pursued more from a social sciences perspective there are papers like this and this. So the concept of good and evil does not automatically imply God. Which of course, all those of a non-religious disposition knew anyway.

When considering the question of good and evil, its worth thinking about the Trolley problem. I'd be interested in hearing what your exact actions would be based on your interpretation of the bible. [I'll be disappointed if you say "it's hypothetical, so I won't answer", but I can learn to live with that!]

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 06:50 AM

As I've said before I'm not a philosopher by training, and I've just spotted I've fallen into the trap of assuming too close a correlation between good/evil and right/wrong, or at least the good=right part. Sorry, but that what happens when you talk about things outside your expertise.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 06:54 AM

"Good and evil dates back to the garden of Eden, when God first told Adam and Eve not to touch the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. They didn't obey. And since all men are descended of Adam and Eve, of course all men have a sense of good and evil."

Iona,

To everyone except the religiously brainwashed and literalist zealots 'The Garden of Eden' stuff is a METAPHOR, not a description of the actual origin of the human species! I bet even the author(s) of Genesis knew that!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 07:00 AM

Yes, and, of course, the doctrine of Original Sin is the perfect tool for demonstrating that we all start off as miserable, guilt-ridden wretches who must conform to the rules of religion in order to be saved. I know a good few people who could teach this God chappie a thing or two about fair play and justice!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 07:05 AM

It would have to be a metaphor, as genetically, the offspring of Adam and Eve couldn't have populated the world without humans suffering serious inbreeding problems! Similarly, Mr & Mrs Noah and their sons & their wives would've been hard put to do it either. (We're told they were the only survivors of The Flood.) Similarly the 'two by two' animal species couldn't have restarted the entire fauna of the Earth. It so obviously isn't literally true.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 10:33 AM

the offspring of Adam and Eve couldn't have populated the world without humans suffering serious inbreeding problems

In light of the antics of the Republicans and the Tea Potty in the U.S., I'm not sure that's a persuasive argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 11:00 AM

"Similarly the 'two by two' animal species couldn't have restarted the entire fauna of the Earth."

But devoted believers in the literal words of the Bible, when confronted by such concerns, simply state that God 'guided' the process and intervened when necessary to get us where we are now. An omnipotent God is assumed in every discussion, and every problem is resolved by stating some version of "God works in strange & wondrous ways!". If that is an unspoken premise in all analysis, those who think that way have the comfortable position of 'never being wrong'.

"I don't understand the details, but it IS this way, so God must have intended it to be this way." ...very neat.

------------------------------------------------------------------

And the "trolley problem" mentioned above is a simplified version of issues faced every day...such as sending soldiers into battle where we are sure some will die....in order to 'save our country'...etc. That's why some religious folk have no problem rationalizing 'killing a commie for Christ', while others invoke 'moral absolutism' and become conscientious objectors.
The ultimate form of " conscientious objector" is Jainism, whose adherents try to avoid even stepping on bugs.

Here is a real example of rationalization:(reposted from an earlier discussion)

Many years ago, I knew a woman who considered herself to be a 'Buddhist'...but was really trying to practice 'Jainism', which teaches reverence for all life..she even worried about eating eggs, and had to be sure they were unfertilized.....

well, she was noticed one day scooping up cockroaches in her kitchen,and, since she would not squash them or spray them, tossing them outside----into below freezing temperatures!

"All I'm doing is getting them out of my house", she said,"what God does with them after that is not my concern"......

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 11:15 AM

Adam and Eve, according to Genesis, had at least four sons and at least one daughter. If anyone needs the citations I can look 'em up.

That said, I think that Iona is a nice person. I was able to help her with some song lyrics--along with Jim I think--and she was very happy about that and said so in her thanks. I don't really understand Creationism that flies in the face of logic, but then we can prove a person can never walk from one side of a room to another side of the same room despite people doing it in fact.

The Bible cannot claim to be the ultimate authority when The Book was amended, emended, notated, heisted and selected from the various writings at the time (Nag Hammadi for instance). Along with prophets come their baggage.

I think that people who believe deeply in The Book's truth are entitled to believe that. However, I object to that being taught in publicly funded schools along side science as if they were of equal value. Many states and provinces have made provision for a 'type' of religion to be taught in schools, and as long as they are private schools, I have no problem with it. But there is no way on Earth I will have it taught to MY kids in a public school system.

I recall one of my kids asking me about Adam and Eve. I directed her to Genesis, King James version, although at that time I had seventeen different Bibles including one in plain English. She came back to me and said, "Yeah, right!" It was a good experience for her because today she tends to back-check data, and while the social sciences are as important as religious studies or science or art, things should make sense, and the Genesis explanation left that particular aspect of human history somewhat confused, at least to an eleven-year old. I'm sixty-four and it still confuses me.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 11:27 AM

"...but then we can prove a person can never walk from one side of a room to another side of the same room.."

One of Zeno's paradoxes. When analyzed, it is not too hard to see why it fails.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 12:16 PM

It broke down for me years ago when I walked across the room and touched the other wall.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 12:26 PM

I quite agree that one has the right to believe anything. But to withold from pupils and students the science behind evolution etc is morally wrong. With regard to the argument that 'God saw to everything, in spite of the impossibilities' - as you say, Bill, one could defend anything on that basis!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 12:30 PM

The Bible cannot claim to be the ultimate authority when The Book was amended, emended, notated, heisted and selected from the various writings at the time (Nag Hammadi for instance). Along with prophets come their baggage.

But as Bill D said in his 07 Feb 12 - 11:00 AM post, the response is probably that God intervened to ensure exactly the right amendations, selections and so on took place so that [their preferred version of] the Bible is exactly as it should be. There are no quick wins with True Believers, whatever their faith [religious, political or otherwise]. So the best you can do is show third parties that there are alternative answers to those being asserted.

Someone said Iona is a nice person. Certainly within the discussions I have had with her I've seen no reason to doubt that in practise, even though we have quite a few differences of opinion [believe me, I haven't responsed to everything that made me raise an eyebrow!]

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 12:33 PM

Yes, I know, I didn't proof read it properly again!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 12:46 PM

Oh, my.

Guest,Iona said
No, they weren't all bound up in a book and branded "The Bible" or "The Old Testament". But the laws of God did exist (It's very possible that Adam wrote some of the Old Testament), and have been existent as long as man has. Josiah found the 'lost book of the Law' in 2 Kings 22. It wasn't called 'the old testament', but it was still the word of God.
It doesn't matter whether Plato ever read what we call the Bible or not. What matters is that he presupposed concepts of absolutes, of laws of logic, of absolute right and wrong, et cetera, when those things can't be justified without a Christian worldview. Because in any other worldview, (it's hard to generalize because it's a different argument with different types of worldviews) there is always an inconsistency with good and evil being defined. But with Christianity there isn't.

I'm just pointing out that most Western culture atheists must borrow from a Christian worldview in order to reason. . . .

I knew there was a good reason for avoiding this thread. Someone who so confidently sets the rules and appropriates the thoughts and motivations of others in such a naive fashion is bound to keep a thread going with illogical arguments for a long time. As long as you let her tell you what you're doing and define the playing field. Heaping logical fallacy upon logical fallacy.

Back to your Arguments already in progress.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 01:03 PM

Oh, but you'll miss all the fun. For instance, did you notice that Iona declares there's a higher authority than God and the Bible, in at least situation? That's pretty unusual for a creationist, you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 01:06 PM

... at least one situation... (I never learn, do I?)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 01:39 PM

I'm having a little trouble with the image of Adam writing the first draft of the Bible. . . .

And texting copies of it to Plato and Aritistotle. . . .

And the Grand Council of Bonobos, of course.

Don Firth

P. S. Sorry, folks. I really don't have time for this. I've been through these arguments too many times before. As Pastor Anderson said, "The Bible is a book of questions, not answers."

Historical fact? No. Myth and Metaphor? Yes.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 02:20 PM

did you notice that Iona declares there's a higher authority than God and the Bible, in at least one situation? That's pretty unusual for a creationist, you know.

*gasp* When did I say that, DMcG???? I said once that the Bible (God's word) is the ultimate authority, and if an ultimate can be judged by something else, it's not ultimate (whatever judged it is), but I do NOT believe that there is any higher authority than God's word.

I am seeing a lot of confusion because I have not answered some of y'alls critiques, so I guess I'll sign off now and see how many I can tackle during my free time.

Iona
"Let God be true, though ever man a liar" (Romans 3:4)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 02:41 PM

"The simple believeth every word, but the prudent man looketh well to his going." (Proverbs 14:15)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 02:57 PM

OK, Iona! Look at your definition of murder. You are quite clear it is the civic law that decides whether it is murder, or lawful killing, which can also be the penalty for a crime. And of course, the civic law can decide any killing is lawful if they choose. Without reference to the Bible or anything else. It is also civic law, not biblical law that decides things are crimes.

So while the words 'Thou shalt not commit murder' are preserved, the authority and meaning you have given completely to the civil state.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 03:06 PM

You got it, Don.

Man created god in his own image and told creation stories through the millennia as a way to explain mysteries (that science has been addressing for a while now) and to manage community resources and help people get along. Human evolution advanced to the point where cooperation was managed, among other ways, through religion. Philosophers (Callicott, Lyotard, Levi-Strauss) and anthropologists (Ruth Underhill, Keith Basso, for quick examples) observe that cultures understood that storytellers (before the written word) spoke in generalities, giving examples, analogous to what could happen if listeners behaved in a certain way. Trickster stories weren't meant to be taken literally, and it makes as much sense to take the bible literally as to take trickster stories literally.

This is a philosopher's view of the evolution of human religion.

An excellent reason for keeping religion out of politics and public schools is because there is more than one religion. If you let one religion in, you put it above all other religions, when in fact, they all are equally important as far as adherents are concerned. You know those bumper stickers that are out there on christian fundamentalist's cars: "My God is Better than Your God" - people's religions (or dismissal of religion) are personal and private, not to be codified into laws or into textbooks. They all deserve equal consideration and that means, at least in the US - a secular nation with a constitution - the most prominent religion may not attempt to supplant all other religions.

ALSO - and it's a BIG also - since religions get a total tax break on property and income by being religions and not participating in supporting those public schools, roads, governments, etc., with tax dollars, they have no business trying to muscle into those operations and supplant other religions or unbelievers.

In your country, your mileage may vary.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 03:26 PM

tia-i did click on the fish to tetra page but apparently my browser is too old to clearly access.
i did however notice in the key words"tiktaalek.
only today i was reading that tiktaalek and his mates have been consigned to the evolution dead end bucket since the discovery in poland of animal tracks "dated" some millions of years too early.
not being able to access article sufficiently;i suppose it could be that i,m guessing the content,or its all been rejuggled again.
best i can do with your challenge at present.
regards pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 03:36 PM

tiktaalik

Google that, Pete, and it'll take you to several articles about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 04:15 PM

I agree with that verse, Don, and it doesn't come in conflict with Romans 3:4. :)

I have a post on Tiktaalik and friends coming up soon, but today is rather busy for me, so I shan't have much of a chance until tonight (PST)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 04:53 PM

At one time, religious authority declared that the earth is the center of the Universe and that the Sun, the Moon, the planets and all the stars revolved around it. This had the authority of the Church.

And to disagree with the Church was heresy. And heresy was punishable by hanging or being burned at the stake in an auto de fé (literally, "Act of Faith"). A public execution. As an example and a warning to any would-be heretics.

Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543), the Polish astronomer, formulated the idea that the universe was not geocentric, but heliocentric. Everything, including the earth, revolved around the sun. This explained the motion of the planets, which did not fit the geocentric mold, earning them the name "planet," which means "wanderer." The Church had a wall-eyed hissy-fit, but autos de fé were not as big in Poland as they were in Spain and Italy. Also, Pope Clement VII found the theory "interesting."

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), a century later, also found the theory interesting, and turned his improved telescope (a device normally used for spotting ships at sea) on the skies, first, the moon, and discovered that there were mountains, valleys, and other "earthlike" features there, and concluded that the moon, rather than being a perfect crystal sphere (it was in the Heavens, after all), was a world, quite like the earth (the smooth plains he took to be seas, hence mare).

He then turned his telescope on Jupiter, and among other fascinating features, he noted that there were four worlds orbiting around it! They were orbiting around it like Copernicus said the earth was orbiting around the Sun! He also discovered that Venus had phases much like the moon, so the Heavens were NOT, perfect, permanent, and unchanging!

This caused much controversy, and because Pope Urban VIII did NOT find it interesting, eventually Galileo was brought before the Inquisition and given the opportunity to choose between recanting and denying what he had seen with his own eyes (and other astronomers were verifying his observations, but discretely keeping their mouths shut) or attending his own barbecue! Galileo chose not to be a martyr and recanted, thus saving his own life, but he knew that history would prove him right in the long run.

Which it did! In spades!

The University of Washington has a small observatory just inside the north entrance to campus. The seeing is not great there due to all the light pollution from the University business district just a few blocks away, but on a clear night it's passable for the use of students taking astronomy classes.

Fulfilling my science requirements, I took a couple of astronomy classes in the mid-1950s. One evening, a couple of spectacular planets were clearly visible, and the prof had the class convene that evening in the observatory. Saturn was beautiful! Rings clearly visible. And then we turned the 60-power refracting telescope on Jupiter. Everybody ooh-ed and ah-ed as they took their turn at the eyepiece.

Then my turn came. It was, indeed, spectacular! It's one thing to look at photographs of the planet, and these days, with photos taken in close space-probe fly-bys, one can see a great deal of detail, which we couldn't see nearly as well back in the Fifties.

As I looked, I notice a small orb near Jupiter. Then another. Then, two more. Four altogether. "Aha!" I hooted! I called the prof's attention to them. He looked for several seconds, then said, "The sharp-eyed Mr. Firth has just duplicated Galileo's discovery. He's spotted the four Galilean moons!" And he had the class all take another look.

I've seen with my own eyes. And I don't have to demand that you take it on faith. I can put a telescope into your hands and say, "Look for yourself!"

The Church—the Christian Church—said one thing. But observation—REPEATED (and repeatable) observation—said, and continues to say, something else. Eventually, the Church had to give way to Science, or simply look foolish.

In the same way, any church—or religion—that denies the massive amount of proof for the age of the Cosmos, and for evolution, will simply look foolish. And be dismissed as irrelevant.

Which would be too bad, because the Christian church (and other religions) DO have SOME good things to say. But they endanger those messages when some of their adherents insist on holding onto medieval and untenable beliefs.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 05:46 PM

"I have a post on Tiktaalik and friends coming up soon"

Excellent. I'd be grateful if you could provide a specific criticism of the paper to which I linked.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 06:20 PM

The Creationists are reacting to the tiktaalik the same way that the Church reacted to the theories of Copernicus and the observations of Galileo. Kneejerk denial!

Same thing with Lucy, poor lass! (She wasn't much to look at by our standards today [CLICKY], but I'm quite sure she had admirers in her own time [otherwise, we'uns might not even be here now!]).

Fortunate that autos de fé are outlawed by secular law. I have a hunch that there are some Christian sects that would dearly love to bring them back.

Not all, however!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 07:21 PM

I just read the creation.com article on the tiktaalik. I have no doubt Iona's post will reflect it.
They all do exactly the same thing... they assume creationism and intelligent design as a first premise, then interpret and twist every find and analysis to fit their standard model.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 07:24 PM

..I kinda envy those who just say "Oh, I like THIS answer...I'll just believe it from now on, and avoid all that tedious thinking and juggling."

There is a cartoon strip called "Hagar the Horrible", about a silly Viking type with very modern problems. One Sunday saw him visiting the local wizard, Dr. Zook, who had a huge stone ring leaning against the wall, (like that 'money' on Yap Island).

"What's this?", asks Hagar.
"That's my new scientific measuring device." replys Dr. Zook, "Step in!"
....so Hagar squirms into the center of the stone ring....

"More...hunch down...squeeze tighter..." Zook says, as Hagar tries to cram himself into the tight space. Finally, he is in, awkwardly peering out at the pleased wizard.

"There!", says Dr. Zook with authority, "You are exactly 5 feet tall!"

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Feb 12 - 10:04 AM

Some Korean Christian evangelists have just attempted to convert me! How about that then?

I told them, as kindly as possible, that I had no religion and wasn't particularly interested in it (I didn't mention Mudcat or this thread or that I was opposed to all forms of proselytising, evangelism and religious extremism). They went away - presumably to seek out more gullible peop ... sorry ... more 'fertile pastures'!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Feb 12 - 01:34 PM

.... more 'fertile pastures'!


I think I must have a sign on me...or a little cloud over my head. I once discovered a real Salvation Army band and stopped to listen to several songs, along with 7-8 other folk. When the concert ended, the band put down their instruments and split up to minister/evangelize...etc. to the onlookers...... except for me. I had watched/listened politely, but it was like I was invisible...they totally ignored me! After several minutes, I shrugged and walked on. I was not sure whether I should be insulted or gratified.....

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 08 Feb 12 - 01:38 PM

Maybe they'd run out of wicked women and hadn't saved one for you?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Feb 12 - 01:46 PM

A. J. Jacobs, author of My Life as an Experiment, has written a book entitled The Year of Living Biblically - CLICKY - in which he describes his attempt to live for an entire year faithfully following the precepts of the Bible. I haven't read the book (probably absolutely fascinating!), and I may, just for kicks. But I have heard him on a couple of radio interviews.

He described to the interviewer how, during the time he was "researching" the Living Biblically book, a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses came to his door. He welcomed them in warmly (possibly to their surprise) and proceeded to join enthusiastically in the discussion. He engaged with them so enthusiastically, so eager was he to discuss various aspects of the Bible that, as he described it, within a half-hour, their eyes were darting around the room, desperately looking for an escape route!

Yeah, I think I'll read his book. Oughta be a real hoot!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Feb 12 - 06:22 PM

no pleasing some people bill!poor sally army ;they just cant win;try to witness to you or leave you alone.one thing for sure ,the things they do are widely recognized as praiseworthy.the atheist roy hattersley among their admirers.
i did look up tiktaalek etc on wiki and it seemed to me that what i got from creation.com was confirmed there.since you seem to have read same article it will be interesting to get your specific objections rather than generalized assertions that creationists dont think.
it also seems to me that evolutionists do exactly what they accuse creationists of.that is assuming their model[which may be neo darwinism ,punctuated equilibrium or mixture]as true and making the data fit.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Feb 12 - 07:03 PM

No, Pete...they simply do NOT "do the same thing". They begin (at least the intelligent ones) by evaluating real *scientific* data/evidence and making judgments that seem to follow FROM the evidence....and being willing to change their opinions IF better real data comes in.
I suppose you will claim that creationists do something similar, but there are stark differences between what each side considers to BE evidence. Fossils, dated by radioactive carbon decay and other strict geological rules is one type, whereas 'sacred' texts in obscure languages, with no identifiable author, passed down for several thousand years on tattered manuscripts and enduring variable translations and editing by theologians with a vested interest in the wording....are another type of 'data'.
   You simply cannot assume that 'data' produced by MEN, based on stories, hearsay and cultural attitudes can have the same status as 'neutral' data found in nature! The stories in the Bible probably reflect some real historical events and people (I have no doubt that they do), but even granting that there were historical people such as Lot, Moses, Abraham, Peter, Joseph....and Jesus... there is no way of testing and metaphysical/religious claims about them. That is why we say 'belief' when talking about religious claims.
People 'believe' in God, the virgin birth, transubstantiation, miraculous 'healing', world-wide floods, visitations by angels...and a host of other things.-- and most of the major stories about those events and people are said to have occurred several thousand years ago...when record keeping was not well developed.
I even understand how & why people would tell and pass on stories which seemed inspirational and which seemed to fill needs and answer thorny questions about 'life'. (We STILL tell kids stories about the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus...and even the Tooth Fairy...and the kids believe them.. but we don't insist that the retain that belief as adults, or that they base their life on them.)


So.... my "specific objections" to creationist arguments is as I have said... that they use a slippery and flawed idea of what data & evidence really are.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Feb 12 - 07:26 PM

""it also seems to me that evolutionists do exactly what they accuse creationists of.that is assuming their model[which may be neo darwinism ,punctuated equilibrium or mixture]as true and making the data fit.""

No, you can't have that one free of opposition Pete. That is exactly what evolutionists (scientists would be a better word) do not do.

Relying on reproducible evidence is not faith. IT IS SCIENCE!

It is Creationists who shoehorn evidential truths to fit their preconceptions.

It is scientists, by careful and controlled experiment, who produce that verifiable and reproducible evidence. It is scientists who are willing, when presented with fresh and contradictory evidence, to accept it and change their conclusions to accommodate it.

When did a Creationist ever even consider fresh evidence, let alone accept it.

Don't bother Pete I'll tell you.......NEVER! That's when.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Feb 12 - 07:35 PM

One thing Creationists gloss over on a regular basis. According to the bible they regard as the definitive word of God, Jesus himself stated that his stories were illustrative parables.

Do any of you Believers know what a parable is?

OED definition

parable (par|able)
Pronunciation: /ˈparəb(ə)l/noun
a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, as told by Jesus in the Gospels:
the parable of the blind men and the elephant

a modern-day parable

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Feb 12 - 07:42 PM

""OED definition

parable (par|able)
Pronunciation: /ˈparəb(ə)l/noun
a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, as told by Jesus in the Gospels:
the parable of the blind men and the elephant""

And that is as good a definition of the bible as you will ever find.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Feb 12 - 10:16 PM

And that's exactly the way I regard it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 08 Feb 12 - 11:41 PM

pete:

Here is the possible? difference between you and me - falsifiability.

I will state quite explicitly the evidence required to make me change my position RE creation vs. evolution.

If you can do the same, there is no difference between us, and we will wait to see who is correct.

Deal?

If you are correct, I need to see an exposure of a single sedimentary layer -- a single parting in one formation -- that exposes a trilobite, jellyfish (Hi Iona!), a dinosaur, and a human. If you can point me to this, I will completely change my view. I will even accept two out of four.

Now it is your turn. What evidence would falsify your belief in YEC?

Please state with a specificity approximating mine above.

NOW, we have a logical, fact-based conversation going. Thank you.

TIA

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Paul Burke
Date: 09 Feb 12 - 01:49 AM

Rename the thread's subject line so it's palindromic:

Paranoid Iona rap.

Possibly a good name for a rapper dance side?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 09 Feb 12 - 02:48 AM

600 years before Christ and half a world away, Gautama Buddha promulgated a moral and ethical code which became Buddhism. It developed and expanded to the point, 265 years before the birth of Christ, when it led to the establishment by the king of the world's first major Buddhist state, of free hospitals and free education and also the first recognition of human rights.

First of all, I don't think that Buddha is a fantastic example. After all, Buddha was the one that told his followers to believe only their own experiences, not what others told them. So even if Buddha did 'promulgate a moral and ethical code', that code only applied to him (because of course he 'experienced' it-- after all, when he was a monk he nearly beat himself to death. That of course must have played a part in his own personal 'ethical code'). The followers of Buddha can't do what Buddha told them to do for the sole reason that Buddha told them not to do it just because Buddha told them to do it. The whole Buddhist system of beliefs is founded upon personal experience, and according to them you can't believe anything unless you've experienced it yourself. So a good Buddhist can't say "Well, Buddha said that murder[or you-fill-in-the-blank] is bad, therefore it is bad". For the good Buddhist, the attitude must be, "I haven't experienced murder to be bad, so I don't believe it to be bad."
And it still comes back to the question: what is good and evil? Who defines it? For the Buddhist, you 'create your own reality', and that includes your morals--what you believe to be good or bad. The atheist is in the same boat, since there is no 'higher authority' to define good and evil. The ultimate authority is the human mind, which we all know to be finite. (at least, I'm assuming we all know that...... ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Feb 12 - 04:19 AM

"For the Buddhist, you 'create your own reality', and that includes your morals--what you believe to be good or bad."

Which is exactly what humans have been doing for millenia!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Feb 12 - 08:27 AM

Hi Iona. I notice you've responded to Don T's comment, but forgot to cover the main point he raised: 'Iona, please explain how that relies in any way at all on your world view, on Christianity, or on the Bible.'

I'm sure you wouldn't want to overlook that. After all, whether you or anyone else thinks Buddha is a fantastic example was not the question, and the fact remains that the Buddhist states had the aforementioned free hospitals, eduction and whatnot, arising out of their belief system whatever the mechanics of transmission from one person to another.


No doubt you'll also get around to the question of whether God or the civic state decides whether the commandment concerning murder has been broken in due course. No rush!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Stu
Date: 09 Feb 12 - 11:11 AM

"For the good Buddhist, the attitude must be, "I haven't experienced murder to be bad, so I don't believe it to be bad."

Iona, this such a total misunderstanding of how Buddhism works it's asinine (like your understanding of science).

Buddhism can be summed up in one phrase: compassion towards all living beings. HH Dali Lama tells us we don't need to believe in Buddha, or bodhisattvas or any other beings to practice. We need to develop our sense of responsibility for ourselves and others, to see as well as look, to listen as well as hear. Be curious; question everything, strive for the truth.

A buddhist knows murder is bad because a conscious, sentient, living being is suffering. A buddhist will question everything (even his own teachers) to try to find fault in their arguments because like scientists they are interested in fundamental truth; they want to understand the real nature of everything. They do this through meditation (stillness of the mind) and personal experience, through mindfulness, contemplative meditation and living in the moment - just being. They take no-ones words for granted and eschew the sort of theist claptrap spouted by the deluded, fanatics and established churches alike. Their motivation is love and the well-being of all sentient beings, and the fact this is a personal responsibility and not the instruction of a supreme being.

Try reading some D.T. Suzuki and you'll find your eyes being opened. Try reading some of HH Dali Lama's texts and try to gain an understanding of your subject before posting complete tripe like the above on forums. At the very least, cultivate a desire for the truth and widen your horizons as you do yourself no favours talking this sort of shite. The world isn't contained in one book, or many books or in all the books ever printed - it's out there and incredible, complex, beautiful, dangerous, humbling and utterly fantastic, as is the rest of our universe, who we are part of. The internet is a wilderness of mirrors ready to snare the unwary and let themselves be led from reality and is a distraction from the real, which is far more interesting.

You owe it to yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Feb 12 - 11:25 AM

""And it still comes back to the question: what is good and evil? Who defines it? For the Buddhist, you 'create your own reality', and that includes your morals--what you believe to be good or bad.""

That, if it were true, makes the case even stronger, giving us a sizeable proportion of the human race who have established a very moral and ethical stance on just about every facet of life based, by your own admission, purely upon their personal experiences, and devoid of any input or influence from the bible, Christianity, or any other source.

Kind of shoots your statement that nobody can distinguish good from evil without drawing on the bible or your world view (a rather good example of arrogance and hubris, putting yourself on the same plane as God, who according to that bible should now strike you down with a bolt of lightning).

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Feb 12 - 11:42 AM

I have a basic uneasiness with anyone who speaks on behalf of deities. I used to hear in answer to questions I had for two Mormon missionaries that IT WAS REVEALED!

I'd read the Book of Mormon and found it to be a plagiarism of The Bible in style and some instances substance. I asked how Smith came to write the B o M and was told, IT WAS REVEALED!

I then revealed I thought it was a load of horsesh#t and have a nice day. I dislike proselytizers because they have a basic premise that I have lived my life by happenstance and seldom read anything or even had a thought in my head. The kids doing the mission were in their early twenties and I was near sixty at the time. I hope they don't come try again when they're sixty.