 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie Date: 28 Jan 12 - 12:41 AM Nurse! P |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Date: 28 Jan 12 - 01:41 AM And just who in the hell is "Guest who is misquoting, misrepresenting, and generally screwing aroung with what I said? He, she, or it is making unwarrented assumptions about my beiiefs. Cowardly!!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona Date: 28 Jan 12 - 01:41 AM The great long one is mine, sorry, forgot to sign it....... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 28 Jan 12 - 04:15 AM "My presupposition is that God created the world. Your presupposition is that Evolution created it all. You believe that matter created itself out of nothing, or else you believe that matter is eternal and knows no beginning. I say that it makes much more sense to believe in a God who created it all just as He says He did in Genesis." So where did God get the matter from? And how do you know that Genesis is the word of God? None of that makes any sense to me. "For instance, you all abide by traffic signs (at least some of you do). You stop at red lights, etc. Why? Why would you let those people who put up that light impose their worldview on you? After all, the stoplight imposes that human life is of value (Thou shalt not kill), and that we ought not to damage other people's property (thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself). If you reject the Bible, you must reject all the worldview that you hold because of Biblical ethics." I can testify that Thai people, whose culture is largely based on Buddhism, and Indonesian people, who are mostly Muslims, stop at red lights too. They don't need the Bible to tell them how to behave. I am an agnostic and I stop at red lights because I believe that it's in society's best interests to obey and abide by commonly agreed laws and rules. I also have empathy for my fellow human beings and do not wish to cause them harm - I don't believe that that empathy comes exclusively from the Bible. Let's face it, the Old Testament is packed full of stories of fratricide, genocide and child-sacrifice, hardly a great model of how to behave. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke Date: 28 Jan 12 - 04:24 AM So much for a mere seeker for evidence. He she is a clear liar, and needs reminding that liars go to hell. A mind as tight shut as a nuclear silo. And one would be content to leave it there, were it not for the fact that these Taliban are trying to introduce religious dogma to school curricula in several US states and have made several attempts in the UK and elsewhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: akenaton Date: 28 Jan 12 - 05:19 AM Bill...You may "shrug", but there is no way of proving the existance of mental telepathy and I am one among many who firmly believe in its existance. Is my belief so far removed from a belief in god, spirituality, or creationism? I any event, people with sincerely held beliefs should not be subjected to ridicule or hatred as we have seen on this and other threads. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Date: 28 Jan 12 - 05:30 AM Luke 10:27 - 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind' Iona, to me, does pretty well under the heart, soul and strength criteria. But I don't think the insistance on using your mind let's you get away with understanding science to less than your full capability. We are all limited, of course, but surely the commandment requires those who accept it to try as hard as they are capable of. If there is a conflict between what the Bible says, and what the world says, it's concievable the world is wrong. Or that the Bible is wrong - it could be an inaccurate translation, at the least. Or, most likely of all, that I/you as a believer are simply not understanding one or both properly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy Date: 28 Jan 12 - 07:39 AM GUEST,pete from seven stars link '......mutations exhibit no information gain that is required for goo to you evolution.' ?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy Date: 28 Jan 12 - 07:57 AM .........& 'goo!' to you as well 8-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST Date: 28 Jan 12 - 08:44 AM mutations exhibit no information gain Information, passl? Do you know what the word means, or are you just regurgitating what somebody told you? Anyway, as a statement, it's provably wrong without even experiment. Very simply, DNA consists of sequences of 'bases', and there are only four of these in nearly all naturally occurring organisms*. They have not-very-long names, but they are almost always referred to as C, G, A and T. One form of mutation is when one base is substituted by another, for example a T instead of a G. This may do nothing (especially if it's in non- coding DNA), or it may subtly change the product of the gene (a protein, say), and that change may be more-or-less neutral, or deleterious (the vast majority of mutations come into these classes), or beneficial - the organism does better because of it. The rare case of an improvement is clearly an increase of information by both technical and non- technical usages of the word. Lets assume it results in a slight disadvantage, and we therefore class it as a loss of information. But then the reverse mutation is also possible- this time the T is replaced by a G. If the first mutation is a loss of information, the second one is clearly a gain. So increase of information by random mutation is possible, however you choose to look at it. *RNA also has four bases, C,G,A and U. In many organisms, some of the bases are somewhat modified. And last year some genetic scientists successfully modified a gene to incorporate a fifth base not normally found in either DNA or RNA. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Paul Burke Date: 28 Jan 12 - 09:01 AM Sorry, twas I with crumbled cookie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Paul Burke Date: 28 Jan 12 - 09:23 AM "there is no way of proving the existance of mental telepathy" Yes there is, and it's been tried many times, without success. It's truer to say that there is no way of proving the NON-existence of mental telepathy. But whenever self- proclaimed telepathics are tested under circumstances where they can't cheat or fool themselves, and the conductors of the experiment can't do that either, their power vanishes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suga foot Jack in the electron cloud Date: 28 Jan 12 - 10:18 AM But they're still bears, right? They're not turning into seals, or puffins, or lemmings (or cats). Of course they're not - why would they? A bear turning into a cat would magic, not evolution. As for half-creatures etc, this is a creationist straw an argument. Every living thing is at some evolutionary point, there are not quantifiable fractions. Methinks you're on a windup here Iona. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 28 Jan 12 - 11:25 AM "I any event, people with sincerely held beliefs should not be subjected to ridicule or hatred as we have seen on this and other threads." If you 'sincerely' believe in silly things then you run the risk of ridicule. If, on the other hand, you insist on imposing your 'sincerely' held beliefs on others - or insisting that they hold them too - then you risk opposition. If you persist in your attempts at imposition don't be surprised if that opposition turns to hatred! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona Date: 28 Jan 12 - 03:16 PM "My presupposition is that God created the world. Your presupposition is that Evolution created it all. You believe that matter created itself out of nothing, or else you believe that matter is eternal and knows no beginning. I say that it makes much more sense to believe in a God who created it all just as He says He did in Genesis." So where did God get the matter from? And how do you know that Genesis is the word of God? None of that makes any sense to me. "All things were made by him[God]; and without him was not any thing made that was made." (John 1:3) God spoke, and the world was. He created it out of nothing by speaking. I choose to believe the Bible because it is a reliable collection of historical documents. Over and over, scientists (even evolutionary ones!) have used the Bible as a base for understanding different archaeological discoveries. Places and cultures that scientists scoffed at in the Bible because there was no evidence for them were uncovered and shown to be just as the Bible said. I believe the Bible because it was written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies, and they claim to be divine rather than human in origin. The Bible is the ultimate authority: if I judge the Bible by something else (human reason, etc), then it is not the Bible that is the ultimate authority, it is that thing that I judged the Bible by. Evolutionists must base all of their knowledge by human reason. I look at the same evidence as you do, but I look at it with a different perspective, and we come out with two different interpretations. But only one of them can be right. And I propose that it's much more reasonable to believe in an eternal God who created everything than it is to believe in eternal matter that created everything by sheer mistake. "For instance, you all abide by traffic signs (at least some of you do). You stop at red lights, etc. Why? Why would you let those people who put up that light impose their worldview on you? After all, the stoplight imposes that human life is of value (Thou shalt not kill), and that we ought not to damage other people's property (thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself). If you reject the Bible, you must reject all the worldview that you hold because of Biblical ethics." I can testify that Thai people, whose culture is largely based on Buddhism, and Indonesian people, who are mostly Muslims, stop at red lights too. They don't need the Bible to tell them how to behave. "Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness.." (Romans 2:15a) Everyone knows in their innermost being that it is wrong to kill, even if they don't realize that consciously. The Law of God is imprinted upon the hearts of men, and they can't escape it. I am an agnostic and I stop at red lights because I believe that it's in society's best interests to obey and abide by commonly agreed laws and rules. I also have empathy for my fellow human beings and do not wish to cause them harm - I don't believe that that empathy comes exclusively from the Bible. Do you believe in a God? Clarify for me what an agnostic is. Let's face it, the Old Testament is packed full of stories of fratricide, genocide and child-sacrifice, hardly a great model of how to behave. Yes, the Bible has instances of the Israelites exterminating pagan cultures. Sometimes God told them to do that, and He was perfectly holy in doing so. If we as God's creation call Him corrupt for putting to death people who hated Him, then we are the corrupt ones. We all deserve death (both physical and spiritual) because we have sinned against God; we have broken His law (the Ten Commandments). I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say "the Old Testament is packed full of stories of fratricide.......and child-sacrifice, hardly a great model of how to behave." The Bible says "thou shalt not murder". Murder is the killing of a person with no lawful cause for doing so. (a lawful cause would be either self defense or else punishment for a crime, which the latter can only be administered by a civil magistrate.) Cain killed Abel--fratricide. Murder. Not a model for how we ought to live our lives, and God did not condone what Cain did. Child-sacrifice--this happened quite a bit in the Bible, but never by a God-fearing people. The Israelites committed it when they turned away from God and began worshiping the idols of other nations. "They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I commanded not, nor spoke it, neither came it into my mind:"(Jeremiah 19:5). So much for a mere seeker for evidence. He she is a clear liar, and needs reminding that liars go to hell. A mind as tight shut as a nuclear silo. And one would be content to leave it there, were it not for the fact that these Taliban are trying to introduce religious dogma to school curricula in several US states and have made several attempts in the UK and elsewhere. Paul Burke What am I lying about? Because I won't believe the theory of Evolution? But they're still bears, right? They're not turning into seals, or puffins, or lemmings (or cats). Of course they're not - why would they? A bear turning into a cat would magic, not evolution. As for half-creatures etc, this is a creationist straw an argument. Every living thing is at some evolutionary point, there are not quantifiable fractions. Methinks you're on a windup here Iona. ShugafootJack I'm simply stating that we see no animals, in the fossil record or without, that support the claim that one creature can turn into another. It's perfectly rational to say that one variation of the bear species can turn into another variation of the bear species. But there is no support for the claim that a bear can turn into another species, as Evolution says that they ought. Iona |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Date: 28 Jan 12 - 03:19 PM To follow Sugarfoot Jack: "But they're still bears, right? They're not turning into seals, or puffins, or lemmings (or cats)." To even USE that as a dis-proof of evolution is to misunderstand the very concept. Of course bears don't "turn into" totally different species. Bears came from a 'line' of creatures which have followed a totally different evolutionary path for multi-millions of years. Now, IF you go back several HUNDRED million years to single celled entities, then it is true that there are common ancestors.....but the splits occurred so long ago that we can't directly trace them. Whatever bears are, they have such distinctive DNA that they will always just be 'slightly different' bears! Most religious concerns revolve around NOT wanting to accept that we evolved from or are related to, apes, monkeys...etc. Well... we are NOT evolved from apes....however... We humans and some other primates, like chimps, had a **common ancestor** somewhere between 4-10 million years ago, depending on how we trace the details. Even today, we have more than 95% the same DNA as chimps...but that 3-5% is enough to make us VERY different, even as we see the obvious similarities. Iona... I could write 20 paragraphs describing the fallacious reasoning you are using to defend your religious stand. (though the funny thing about humans is that they can just stamp their feet and declare "I don't accept your definition of 'reasoning'"...which is almost like 'deciding' that pi=3, instead of 3.14159...) but the point is, it (your religious stand) does not NEED to be 'defended'. You can believe in the Bible and no one can 'prove' that it is not "the word of God"...but we **CAN** prove certain things about ourselves and our history that the Bible simply does not and can not deal with! We are what we are...and we evolved how we evolved, and IF you don't see all that described in the Bible, is is because those humans who wrote, translated, edited and **interpreted** the Bible had no access to the data that we have today. When you...or anyone else... demands that evolution would require "bears turning into...etc." before our eyes, that is simply, as someone mentioned before, a "straw man"... which means an obviously incorrect premise which was not claimed. Knocking down something that your opponents didn't assert is not good argument. Inventing terms like micro-evolution ...just to have a word that 'sounds' like a distinction does not change anything. Now... if you care to see & explore some amazing data and genuine, real, touchable evidence of evolutionary paths that didn't survive....Google "Burgess shale". and...ummm...be VERY glad we are not related to the organisms in THAT sample of this Earths history |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 28 Jan 12 - 03:37 PM you no doubt shimrod; note that creationists think evolutionism is a non sensible dogma lacking any evidence that cannot be otherwise interpreted [as even darwin conceded]. difference is;creationists here dont indulge in throwing insults. ever ask yourself why? i'll tell you anyway our faith informs our behaviour. we dont dispute to score points we believe evolutionism keeps people from God our wish would be to win people not an argument for it's own sake. having said that;i note that we do have some civil posters and dont want to tar all with the same brush |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Date: 28 Jan 12 - 03:38 PM *sigh*...while I was typing, another long one, beginning: "..I choose to believe the Bible because it is a reliable collection of historical documents. " THAT is the highly debatable point. There are SO many versions of the Bible, and many 'books' that were left out, that even 'reputable' scholars lament. Add to that the translation problems and the many THOUSANDS of different interpretations and "reliable collection of historical documents." becomes quite an issue. The Bible, in its many forms, has 'certain' historical value, and no doubt many people & events mentioned were quite real.... which proves nothing about their 'metaphysical' status! Humans have only been using written language for 7-10 thousand years, and clear, original texts from those early times are almost non-existent. also..." But there is no support for the claim that a bear can turn into another species, as Evolution says that they ought."\ One more time: That is NOT what evolution does...or would.. claim! If you continue to assert something that is NOT part of the basic theory of evolution, you will simply be like a mother stating "I KNOW MY son would never do something so terrible, no matter how much evidence you have!" Believe in a god... and draw comfort & inspiration from the wisdom and parables and content of your Bible... but IF you believe God created everything out of nothing, you are not so far from what cosmologists assert today. You are simply naming that first big 'creation' differently...which is fine. What happened AFTER that we can study, and as I said... it is what it is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Date: 28 Jan 12 - 03:52 PM ah, pete... "...we believe evolutionism keeps people from God" Do you know what that sounds like? "My mind is made up...don't confuse me with facts." If God is as you believe, nothing can 'keep' you from Him.... just as prayers don't need to be vocal and inflicted on everyone to be heard. If you persist in taking most disagreement and debate as 'insulting', you know that there are places where everyone will just nod in agreement. If, as you believe, God gave us reason and the ability to learn, would he not expect us to use it to explore the important issues of out existence? Is it not an insult to honest, enquiring minds to suggest that we quit thinking and accept ONE version of a story written by other humans 2000+ years ago? (as interpreted by generations of theologians with vested interest in the answers THEY produce?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Date: 28 Jan 12 - 04:40 PM we believe evolutionism keeps people from God... ...i note that we do have some civil posters and dont want to tar all with the same brush It is not civil to claim that "evolutionism" (your term) keeps people from God. It is not civil to lie, and it is not civil to smear in that way. For starters, quite a lot of believers accept the fact of evolution. You haven't even got all your own misguided compatriots onside, pete. The only reason for your saying that is that you're actually scared that the searing truth of evolutionary theory will prick your creationist bubble. "Evolutionism" is a piece of science, not dogma, and it does not concern itself with you and your God. It concerns itself, as does all science, with looking at evidence and seeking the truth. Your God is way beyond the remit of evolutionary science. He's there only because you carefully put him there. If he really did exist he'd be absolutely mad with you for refusing to use the mighty, enquiring brain he endowed you with. But don't worry. You're perfectly safe and won't be hearing from him anytime soon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 28 Jan 12 - 04:46 PM well bill-i was not referring to you as being insulting.i dont know what you think of the punctuated branch of evolutionary thought[sometimes unkindly called "evolution by jerks"]but maybe thats goulds reasoning? "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.the evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches...its ancesters;it appears all at once and fully formed" creation.com/pattquote-which discusses criticism of a patterson quote. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 28 Jan 12 - 04:49 PM long time no hear steve-hope you are well.pete |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Date: 28 Jan 12 - 04:51 PM Buford Wappler was unable to work outside because it was raining something terrible, so he stayed inside and listened to his favorite religious program on the radio. Suddenly, it was interrupted by a news bulletin. Due to the rain up north, the river was flooding and at certain points, it was overtopping the levees. The authorities were ordering an evacuation of the area. Buford looked out the front door and it was raining very heavily. But instead of getting into his truck and driving toward the hills, he got down on his knees and began to pray. He prayed that God rescue him from the flood. He looked outside again, and water was pouring into the area. A neighbor drove by and stopped in front of his house. The neighbor had packed his family and as many possessions as possible into his pickup truck, but he stopped and called Buford to come out and join them as they drove to higher ground. Buford thanked him kindly, but said, "I'm not worried. I prayed to God, and He will rescue me from the flood." The neighbor tried to persuade him to join them, but he refused. Soon the water had risen to the top step of his front porch. He went up into the attic of his one-story house, opened a hatch, and climbed out on the roof. As he sat there holding on to the chimney, the rushing waters rose several more feet until they began lapping at the eaves. Once again he prayed to God to rescue him from the flood. He heard the sound of an engine coming toward him. It was a man in a boat with an outboard motor attached. He pulled over to the edge of the roof and said, "Get aboard, man, quick!" "No," said Buford, "I prayed to God, and He will rescue me!" The man was insistent, but once again, Buford refused. The waters continued to rise. Now, Buford was straddling the peak of the roof, and the water was lapping at his shoes. Once again, he prayed. He heard a loud sound coming closer, and a helicopter appeared overhead and hovered over him. A man leaned out the open door, began dropping a rope ladder, and shouted, "We're from the National Guard! Get on board!" "Thank you," said Buford, "but I prayed to God, and God will rescue me!" "Don't be an idiot!" shouted the national guardsmen. "Get on board! NOW!" "No!" yelled Buford. "I have faith in God! He will rescue me!" In exasperation, the national guardsman yelled something unintelligible, and the helicopter veered off and headed down-river. A few minutes later, the force of the rushing water swept Buford off the roof. Not being a strong swimmer, he struggled and splashed in the waters, then sank from sight. "I want to see God right away!" Buford demanded. "Where do I find Him?" Saint Peter pointed down the Golden Avenue and said, "All the way to the end and through the Golden Door." Buford strode briskly down the Golden Avenue and when he arrived at the Golden Door, he pushed his way in unceremoniously. There, down the long aisle, he saw a large, muscular man with a full white beard and a magnificent mane of white hair, dressed in something like a toga and sandals, and seated on a golden throne, listening to a chorus of beautiful angels playing celestial music on harps. As Buford walked angrily down the aisle, God looked up. "Oh!" said God in a deep rumbling voice, "It's YOU!" "I had FAITH in you!" yelled Buford, angrily. "I prayed to you to rescue me from the flood! And you DIDN'T!!" "What do you mean, I didn't?" responded the deep, rumbling voice. "I sent you a warning on the radio about the flood well ahead of time. Then I sent one of your neighbors in a pickup truck. Then, the man in the motorboat. And finally, a National Guard helicopter!" Then, as God glowered at Buford, the skies darkened, lightning flashed, and thunder rumbled in the distance. And God, Himself, thundered: "What the hell you WANT from me!!???" #### Moral of the story: God gave us brains. I think He intends that we USE them. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Date: 28 Jan 12 - 04:54 PM I'm very well thank you pete. I see that you never took my advice to read Origin. You will find that Darwin addresses beautifully the issue of transitional forms. Wrestles with it even. I do recommend it to you, though with the caveat that it has some long words in it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 28 Jan 12 - 05:31 PM "Clarify for me what an agnostic is." An agnostic is a person who understands the fact that, logically speaking, one cannot 'prove a negative'. Therefore, I cannot prove that God doesn't exist. So, although it seems unlikely to me, there remains a possibility that God does exist. All I would need in order to BELIEVE is some proof. By the way, a few stories and statements in an ancient text of dubious provenance does not constitute any sort of proof that a scientist (or, I suspect, a lawyer) would recognise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Date: 28 Jan 12 - 05:44 PM ".."the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.the evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches...its ancesters;it appears all at once and fully formed" Pete... that is NOT a reasonable comment. "rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record" is an inconvenience, not a criticism! Did you read my comment earlier that if we DID have all those "transitional forms" there would not be enough space on Earth to study and catalogue them? Those forms are 'rare', not totally missing. The rare ones can be dated...and the dates show a gradual transition(in most species!) from one form to another. They do NOT "ave data only at the tips and nodes of their branches."...they do NOT "appear all at once and fully formed". Once again, you choose only comments and analyses from sources you already agree with. The "punctuated branch of evolutionary thought" advanced by Gould is ONE attempt to explain what we see in the fossil record and relate it to the geologic record. Many changes in the Earth required adaptation...or rather, allowed 'lucky' organisms to survive & adapt because they already HAD some features that fit the new situation. Big changes in geology didn't happen very often...crocodiles, which live & breed in water, can remain nearly the same for millions of years. 'Jerks' happen to animals which get shocked by continents shifting, weather changes, meteors landing,...etc. But even 'jerks' as they are called are not overnight changes....they may take thousands of years themselves to play out....and sometimes entire lines of beings disappear when they weren't adapted. Read more about the Burgess shale I mentioned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 28 Jan 12 - 05:58 PM "proof"is i think somewhat elusive to define inasmuch as what would contain the acceptable constituents.however many looking at the evidence have arrived at faith including at least one lawyer examining the accounts of the ressurection-frank morrison-who moved the stone? and quite a few scientists do recognize God as creator. so i suspect that the definition of an agnostic is;- one that demands proof and rejects or ignores or mocks the evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 28 Jan 12 - 07:06 PM So then, pete, to sum up, you don't have any evidence for the existence of God. Although some lawyer who moved a stone might have ... possibly? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Date: 28 Jan 12 - 07:27 PM CLICKY. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Date: 28 Jan 12 - 08:50 PM Thanks for the clicky, Don... but I'm afraid the humor of it is only evident to folk like me. Pete: "-frank morrison-who moved the stone?" is a PRIME example of a classic logical error in which the needed conclusion is contained within the premises. I read about Morrison's theory here. In it, they conclude that under the circumstances, no one man or reasonable collection OF men could have moved a multi-ton stone from Jesus' tomb. But...in order to make that relevant they had to **assume** that the accounts of the burial, guards, seal...etc. were factual to begin with! We have no evidence of all that except written references, and no clear idea of how such a stone could be constructed and put in place in the first place, if it was so hard to move. We are told that "Joseph moved the stone into place by holding it in place by a wedge, and set in a groove that sloped down. Once the wedge was removed, the circular rock rolled into place." No one explains how Joseph GOT such a stone, or how he got it into place in order to use a wedge. You see? Everything depends on 'trusting' interpretations of translations of stories...then taking all those assumptions and concluding that some 'higher power' must have intervened. You don't (well, *I* don't) take as evidence something which has not been established to 'sort of' argue for something which could also be explained in other ways. (If it took 40 men to move a huge stone, then maybe someone HAD 40 men, if in fact any such stone was in any such place in any such circumstances to begin with.) You simply do not make convincing arguments for something if the conclusions and the assumption all depend on each other... that is called variously, circular reasoning and begging the question. -------------------------------------------------------------------- (In case you refuse to look there, here are examples Interviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference." Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference." Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?" Bill: "Certainly. I can vouch for her." Bill: "God must exist." Jill: "How do you know." Bill: "Because the Bible says so." Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?" Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God." ------------------------------------------------------------- If I told you a certain bridge was built and guarded by elves, you might well ask me "Where are they?" "Oh, they are invisible when people are watching" "How do you know they are there, then?" "Because all bridges of that type are built by elves!" How do you know THAT?" "Because I read a book by an expert on elves!" ... You would not be likely to accept my... ummm... reasoned explanation. What may be harder to understand is why I bother doing all this typing... and possibly, why God lets me get away with it... ☺ Well, even though I really have little hope of making the point to pete and Iona, I just like to clarify certain argument forms for possible folks who read all this at some time in the future...keeps my brain exercised. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie Date: 29 Jan 12 - 03:34 AM Pete from somewherein the stars differentiates between those he sees ad disrespectable and those who aren't. We are all still non believers mate, and we obviously will burn in your Hell. Now, doesnt that make you feel better? I'm not sure Iona is worth arguing with, as actually reading the diatribe and illogical waffle, it seems irrational and it is not fun, maybe even cruel to bait people with problems that I suspect none of us are qualified to deal with. You know, relative to this kick about fun, it is fairly recently that it hit me what "contemplate the navel" is referring to. The bible by the way, is referred to a lot here. Which one? What was originally written and at what time was the collection of writings over a few centuries compiled and "God" told us to read it? And in which language? Piffle and waffle. What is worse s the time and effort by supposedly educated people in twisting it in all directions to suit their version of oppression. It has many verses that many take comfort from, and that is the issue. Society will never shed the repressive claptrap of religion whilst decent people need it as a crutch. So we're all buggered, even the non Catholic ex alter boys. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: akenaton Date: 29 Jan 12 - 03:57 AM Bill...i notice you have not addressed my last post regarding the similarity between my belief in telepathy and others belief in "god". Mental telepathy seems impossible, yet I "know" that it happened; I suppose for some, an experience of "god"turns them into lifelong believers; and who are we who have never had such an experience, to tell them that they are wrong. Because of my telepathic experiences, I think it is important that others take the phenomenon seriously.....most people do not. I suppose committed spiritual people(god botherers in Mudcat) feel the same. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 29 Jan 12 - 04:11 AM Re-reading your previous rant, pete, I couldn't help being amused by the following quote: "so i suspect that the definition of an agnostic is;- one that demands proof and rejects or ignores or mocks the evidence." Substitute 'agnostic' for 'creationist' and we might be a bit closer to the truth! An agnostic, by the way, is a sceptic. All scientists are (or should be) sceptics - good quality, preferably repeatable, evidence is everything. The Bible just does not provide, anywhere near, a good enough standard of evidence in support of a creationist model of the world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST Date: 29 Jan 12 - 05:28 AM What am I lying about? Because I won't believe the theory of Evolution? I'd like to hear somebody give me one--only one evidence for evolution. I'm eager to hear your replies. *smile* Pretending to be interested in evidence when you're not is lying. You'll go to hell. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion Date: 29 Jan 12 - 06:46 AM Ake ~ Telepathy seems to me a different discourse entirely. I have some experience myself which makes me believe that a certain transference of thought from one person to another may occur in certain individuals so sensitised; which I am perfectly content to call 'telepathy' The fact that science has not yet explained the phenomenon doesn't mean it is permanently inexplicable. But the existence of this putative identifiable 'creator-God' entity, his role in our existence so positively asserted, and his constant presence monitoring how the 'humanity' he has 'created' is progressing, as urged upon us by the various 'faiths' & their adherents, seems to me a form of idiocy; not of an as-yet unidentified but postulable phenomenon, like telepathy. I can't make out where you perceive any similarity between two such theoretical entities as lying. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 29 Jan 12 - 09:25 AM No-one can say that telepathy or God don't exist. They are both hypotheses awaiting definitive proof. The people responsible for providing that proof are those advancing the hypotheses. Provide that proof, in sufficiently rigorous and convincing form, and I (and hopefully the scientific world) may start to take those hypotheses seriously. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy Date: 29 Jan 12 - 09:51 AM No-one can say that Father Christmas or the Tooth Fairy don't exist. They are both hypotheses awaiting definitive proof. No-one can say that x or y don't exist. They are both hypotheses awaiting definitive proof. ********** Insert what you will as unknowns |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Date: 29 Jan 12 - 11:20 AM Ake... I do see certain 'logical' similarities in both types of belief, but as MtheGM notes, there are also differences. Similar: Acceptance of an idea or system whose data is NOT experienced or agreed to by others. Science and universal acceptance require more than anecdotes..even many anecdotes. Note that many people have 'reported' that they saw angels, the Virgin Mary, or talked to God. Why wouldn't those anecdotes be as reliable as your report of telepathy? why? because: Different: In that we know we can detect the electrical activity in brains, and must take seriously (enough to test) the possibility that other brains 'might' be able to 'feel' these.(which is still FAR from clearly identifying the source and making predictions based on the experience... and doing it on demand and with regularity) So.. brain activity IS something measurable, metaphysical experience leading to a religious conviction about the origin of **everything**, implying a 'god',is not measurable...in any way we know. The real similarity lies in the personal predilection toward 'belief' in ideas and theories which are not (easily) testable. People 'believe' in astrology, alien abductions, past lives, reincarnation, palmistry, psychic surgery, 'luck' involving rabbits feet, possession by evil 'spirits' ....and even Santa Claus . I'm never sure why, but it IS true that beliefs are an easy, shortcut way to explain things that puzzle them, or to comfort them when they contemplate the mysteries of life & death. It is easy to understand why humans would develop such beliefs, and not TOO hard to see why they (some) would hold to various theories when no one can totally DISprove them....but the principles of logic, scientific method and basic common sense are still there, whether ignored or not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 29 Jan 12 - 11:34 AM Exactly, Mr Happy - and do you have a problem with that? What, exactly, is your point? If someone told me that the Tooth Fairy exists I would nod and smile politely and await proof. If someone told me that the Tooth Fairy exists and that I should: - accept the existence of said TF without proof. - chastise myself and feel shame for demanding such proof. - automatically respect the believer. - afford the believer, and his/her fellow believers, a special, unassailable place in society. - live my life and change my behaviour in accordance with the putative commandments of the TF. I would tell that TF believer to f**k off! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke Date: 29 Jan 12 - 12:49 PM Punctuated Evolution is a theory which is about the timing and speed of evolution under particular circumstances. It is not in the vaguest way a refutation of standard evolutionary science. To see how it came that Darwin and scientists for some time after stressed slow drift rather than sudden change, you have to read up on the history of the development of evolution before (Charles) Darwin. Read about "catastrophism". Darwin stressed a slow uniform process because he wanted to show that evolution can occur without periodic catastrophes completely renewing the world. And it is as certain as any other scientific principle (like the law of conservation of matter) that his model is true. It is also true that there HAVE been major extinctions in the past, and it's fairly intuitive that when ecosystems are not full, there is likely to be rapid change as species diversify to take advantage of the opportunities*. Similarly, the tendency of species established in ecological slots is to reject change - there is merely the pressure of the constant arms race between predator and prey, so changes tend to be refinements rather than redesigns. By the way, scientists DO recognise that organisms are designed- but they are designed by the other organisms with which they interact, and with the physical environment, rather than by an external party. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 29 Jan 12 - 01:18 PM ""I believe the Bible because it was written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses."" If you truly believe that the old testament is a truthful and accurate collection of facts, then you have obviously never heard of, let alone played, the childhood game of Chinese whispers. It is not known at what point it became a written, as opposed to verbally transmitted, entity and there is no reason to suppose that there were no alterations due to the personal bias, prejudice, or intentions of the many scribes who must in 6000 years have been involved in its transmission. As to the New Testament, being based on the gospels which were written a hundred years or more after the death of Jesus, and exposed once more (as was the Old Testament too) to the machinations of generations of MEN with widely divergent ideals and interpretations of meaning. To regard it as the definitive word of "GOD" is at the very least naive, and at worst self deluding dishonesty. Assuming that there were a God, omnipresent and omnipotent, he would surely find a better broadcasting medium than several thousand years of mere men with a generous helping of bigotted control freaks, zealots, and genocidal murderers, wouldn't you think? I believe in a deity, and I believe that he found a much better and more direct method, which is IMO why Atheists and Agnostics, Muslims and Christians, can all exhibit the highest moral and ethical compass without needing to subscribe to the bible, the Torah, or the Koran. Don T. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Greg F. Date: 29 Jan 12 - 01:34 PM I believe the Bible because it was written by eyewitnesses... And there you have it - a completely delusional individual and "true believer" with no knowledge whatsoever about how the book known as "The Bible" came to be. No point in proceeding further. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 29 Jan 12 - 02:53 PM ""'luck' involving rabbits feet,"" Now that is one into which I always enjoyed sticking a pin, just for the sheer joy of watching it deflate. My response: "Why do you believe that having a rabbit's foot will bring good fortune? The poor bloody rabbit had four of 'em, and look what they did for him". Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 29 Jan 12 - 04:19 PM very fairminded of you to provide the christian link bill;even though you dismiss their conclusions. my point however was to counter shimrods assertion that lawyers and scientists would not accept bible as evidence.the link in fact cited four [i think]legals previously unbelievers' examining the text and ending up believers.presumably with their training they would have considered the objection you present also.thanks pete |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: frogprince Date: 29 Jan 12 - 05:02 PM For Pete, or Iona: I asked these in a discussion awhile back, but got no reply: If a friend of yours told you that his mule had just spoken to him, and given him a message from God, what would you think, and how would you reply? If a friend of yours told you that his plans for the day included killing his child, because God told him to, what would you think, and how would you respond? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 29 Jan 12 - 06:28 PM " ... my point however was to counter shimrods assertion that lawyers and scientists would not accept bible as evidence.the link in fact cited four [i think]legals previously unbelievers' examining the text and ending up believers.presumably with their training they would have considered the objection ..." I sincerely hope that I never get any of those "legals" on my case! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Date: 29 Jan 12 - 06:44 PM pete... you can get a FEW of any profession to agree with something that 98% disagree with. Reminds me of a saying..."The exception proves the rule, consequently, the more exceptions, the better the rule." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Date: 29 Jan 12 - 06:45 PM An agnostic is a person who understands the fact that, logically speaking, one cannot 'prove a negative'. Therefore, I cannot prove that God doesn't exist. So, although it seems unlikely to me, there remains a possibility that God does exist. All I would need in order to BELIEVE is some proof. Tsk. By that measure there would be no atheists. The person who can prove that God does not exist has not yet been born. But that is not the point. The point is that religion has deliberately put "God" into a place where his non-existence can never be proven. I can come up with all sorts of imaginative notions that you could never ever disprove. Seven-legged green men inhabit the rings of a Saturn-like planet somewhere in Canis Major. You, er, know that this is really not the case, but you can't prove it isn't, But that shouldn't stop you from taking a bold position about it (if you can be arsed, of course). If you say you're agnostic about it, you're playing their game, falling into a cowardly trap. You give them the initiative in being able to say that you've admitted you can't prove it's not true, when, in fact, you ought to be saying don't be so bloody ridiculous and stop wasting my time! The chances of its being true are vanishingly small, well below the credibility level of even the most credulous. If you think that about the probable non-existence of God, you're a good atheist. If you claim to be "agnostic," either you can't be arsed even to engage with the issue (an honourable and sensible position), or else you simply lack courage and are soliciting death-bed insurance! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Date: 29 Jan 12 - 06:49 PM Damn. I missed out a phrase from the end of a sentence, which should have read: "...of even the most credulous seeker of evidence." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Date: 29 Jan 12 - 06:54 PM Pete: and quite a few scientists do recognize God as creator. Yep. And quite a few architects design absolutely shite buildings. |
