|
02 Jan 12 - 11:46 AM (#3283446) Subject: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Somehow I got sucked into reading about half of a year old thread about an ages old argument until I skipped to the end and found that the thread had been updated to report recent news on the subject. But I did not skip until I had read the original poster opine that like an artist, the creator of the universe had created his work of art, the universe, with an "ideal time line" (His explanation of "ideal" has something to do with The Macbeths being married when the play starts) of 14 billion years a few thousand years ago. But isn't this the solution to the "evolution vs creation" debate. Can't we just go to New Hampshire and all those places trying to teach "Creation Science" and say to the school boards something like, "Hey we get that you believe that God created us and all that and have no problem with you as a school board telling kids that you believe that, but we believe that God created all of this evidence and if we don't teach it as science then in a generation or two your kids will be working in sweat shops making technology for the Chinese." |
|
02 Jan 12 - 11:57 AM (#3283455) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shining Wit Good idea. Whilst we're there we can also ask them what scientific evidence they have to support the YE/creationist fallacy. Show me a horse in the Solnhofen limestone alongside Archaeopteryx. Show me a whale fossil amongst the numerous ammonite fossils that contain the extinct reptile fossils amongst them. You'll need several, but if you're right those fossils are there. Somewhere amongst the Burgess Shale you should find a modern, bony fish. Make yourself the most famous person in the history of science by proving, by turning scientists own tools against then, that dinosaurs existed alongside horses, or rhinos or whatever. Unequivocally. Think of it! You would change the world. You'd be immortal! Palaeontologists would love you for this massive advance in our knowledge. You'll have statues of you in the halls of the world's great museums. |
|
02 Jan 12 - 12:03 PM (#3283461) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Little Hawk One has to wonder why "God" (assuming the existence of such an intervening entity in the first place) would bother creating a whole bunch of misleading scientific evidence to make His (or Her) created human beings believe they were living on a planet far older than it really is! What would be the purpose of such sleight of hand? To make both atheists AND religious people happy? AHA! That must be it! God wanted everyone to be happy and to get to be "right" (or at least feel that they were) even though they disagree with each other about really basic stuff. Animals don't have to worry about any of that. God must like them even better than He (or She) (or It) likes us human beings...although we are (in the view of some)...animals...ummm... Hmmm. Gets a bit confusing, doesn't it? Now where DID Adam's sons find those women they went off and married? Christianity's only been around for about 2,000 years. That's a very small chunk of time in the overall tale of humanity on this planet. It's amazing that a cultural phenomenon that's only been around since, relatively speaking, last week can exert this much power over people's minds, but hey....look at the effect Justin Bieber is having! And he's only been around about as long as a fruit fly. So anything's possible. |
|
02 Jan 12 - 12:04 PM (#3283462) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stringsinger Jack, there are sweatshops extant in the US today, we don't have to worry about working for the Chinese. We certainly aren't going to stop this practice through another "creationist" doctrine. If we learn anything from theology, it should be that of liberation theology, not scientific in application but a model for how we can equal the playing field for the have-nots and those cheaters who are hoarding taxpayer dollars for themselves. Again, a doctrine just to define someone's view of a god is not useful to society. |
|
02 Jan 12 - 12:08 PM (#3283469) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Little Hawk There are many differing views of "God". Some are useful to society. Some are not. I could give examples, but I'd have to go on typing for days...and I don't have time for that. |
|
02 Jan 12 - 12:18 PM (#3283479) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod There are no computers, televisions or radio telescopes in the Bible - therefore I refuse to believe that they exist! But, hang on ... I'm typing this on a computer keyboard ... which doesn't exist ...Oh, never mind, I'm sure that God knows all the answers! |
|
02 Jan 12 - 12:23 PM (#3283483) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Eliza Everyone is entitled to believe any theory they wish and to follow any religion they subscribe to. The problem I have is with the indoctrination of children, whose minds are not mature enough to form unbiased conclusions, as adults would. As long as ones beliefs do no harm to others (and that's a tall order) one should be left in peace to pursue them, and treated with respect by others. But if one teaches children that all was created at once, and even to infer that it is evil and a sin to believe otherwise, one is guilty of keeping from their young minds the scientific evidence which most of the world now accepts. However, to teach that, for example, Jesus is our Saviour or Jehovah is the One God etc etc could be viewed as similar indoctrination of children. Maybe all these tenets should be left until people are deemed old enough to assess, accept or reject them for themselves. |
|
02 Jan 12 - 12:25 PM (#3283486) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 Did you hear the one about . . . |
|
02 Jan 12 - 12:35 PM (#3283494) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mrrzy No, Little Hawk, it is all a test of faith. Then I have no issue with the YECs. Sure it was made a few thousand years ago, but it was made to Look As If, and we can study what it looks as if. Like evolution, plate tectonics, and so on. If you believe what you see, you fail the test of faith. If you believe your sacred text in the face of all that evidence, you pass. However, it is only those of us who fail who will get to find out if we were wrong! |
|
02 Jan 12 - 12:54 PM (#3283502) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jim Dixon Jack the Sailor: You're referring to the Omphalos hypothesis. I wrote a brief summary of it in a thread called Bible question back in October, 2000. Little Hawk: The Omphalos hypothesis, as expressed by Philip Henry Gosse, includes a thoughtful theological answer to your question "Why would God create misleading evidence?" |
|
02 Jan 12 - 01:00 PM (#3283505) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Amos In the dark, one crock of shit smells about the same as another. Better to light one candle than to stand about in a cloud of unknowing smelling horse manure. |
|
02 Jan 12 - 01:09 PM (#3283510) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Greg F. "Everyone is entitled to believe any theory they wish ...." You're getting very close to "fire in a crowded theater" here, Eliza. They may be allowed to think it as long as 1. IT DOES NO HARM TO OTHER CITIZENS WHO CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE IT. 2. THEY DO NOT ENDEAVOR TO FORCE THEIR IDIOTIC BELIEFS ON OTHERS. 3. IT DOES NOT RESULT IN DIRECT HARM TO OTHERS. |
|
02 Jan 12 - 01:17 PM (#3283516) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,michaelr Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one. It's fine to be proud of it. But please don't take it our in public and wave it around. And don't try to shove it down my children's throat! |
|
02 Jan 12 - 01:33 PM (#3283533) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 Doesn't this happen anyway? |
|
02 Jan 12 - 01:51 PM (#3283539) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Richard Bridge I've said it before and I'll say it again. All theories are not created equal. People who teach children stupid theories are child abusers. |
|
02 Jan 12 - 01:56 PM (#3283543) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D See my last post on the YEC thread...... |
|
02 Jan 12 - 02:09 PM (#3283552) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Greg F. See my last post on the YEC thread. |
|
02 Jan 12 - 02:13 PM (#3283556) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 You can see my last and first post on the YEC thread on THIS thread: Date: 02 Jan 12 - 02:10 PM I fail to see what an individual's belief in a supreme being has to do with anyone else. Basically, people have a right to their beliefs. That doesn't give them the right to tell me about it. When proselytizing people come to my door I politely ask them to leave. If they don't, I tell them to leave. If they still don't, I start talking in tongues. Religious, political and other. Yer gabbit shafling corderum ragables fernucormun. BEASTS! FORNICATORS! I get very very few second visits. |
|
02 Jan 12 - 02:19 PM (#3283561) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke The intellectual decline of creationists in the last hundred and fifty years is highlighted by the reception of Gosse's book when it was published. In those pre- Origin of Species days, the response of the religious world was almost as horrified as that later given to Darwin. The omphalos theory proclaims God as a liar, tempting his people into sin, a concept theologically impossible then. For the modern young- Earth fundamentalist, any tool or trick from misrepresentation of evidence, through ad- hominem attacks, to the lie direct is acceptable if it can gain a tactical advantage; there is no concept of honour or morality. The theory itself is of course rubbish (despite its author's good intentions- and he was an important scientist) as it could be used to support any arbitrary assertion. If God can lie in one matter, why not others? |
|
02 Jan 12 - 02:45 PM (#3283580) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 If God played golf or went fishing, he'd/she'd lie as often as the rest of us. |
|
02 Jan 12 - 02:59 PM (#3283593) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Greg F. Especially fishing, Bruce. |
|
02 Jan 12 - 04:21 PM (#3283643) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST "Hours are long. Wages are pitiful. But sweatshops are the symptom, not the cause, of shocking global poverty. Workers go there voluntarily, which means—hard as it is to believe—that whatever their alternatives are, they are worse. They stay there, too; turnover rates of multinational-owned factories are low, because conditions and pay, while bad, are better than those in factories run by local firms. And even a local company is likely to pay better than trying to earn money without a job: running an illegal street stall, working as a prostitute, or combing reeking landfills in cities like Manila to find recyclable goods." ― Tim Harford, The Undercover Economist |
|
02 Jan 12 - 04:57 PM (#3283659) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: gnu Yech. |
|
02 Jan 12 - 05:55 PM (#3283683) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Little Hawk Hey! Don't blame God for the Bible, folks. God didn't write the Bible. A large number of men wrote it. Further large numbers of men in Rome and Constantinople decided which books to include in it and which books to censor out of it. The latter were termed the Apocryha. Some of them contain some very interesting material. Then you have the ancient Hindu scriptures, the Muslim scriptures, the old Jewish scriptures, the Buddhist scriptures, the Gnostic Gospels, the Taoist scriptures, the Popul Voh (Mayan scriptures), etc....holy books from many traditions, some very ancient, some more modern. Men wrote all of them (although, a few may have been written by women too). A number of those traditions (but not all of them) say that God directly inspired the writings and that they are "the Word of God". That's a matter of opinion, and it's unprovable either way. But don't blame it on God, okay? God didn't do it. People did. (And I'm not saying God doesn't exist...I'm just saying that people wrote all those books.) As I'm sure you know... |
|
02 Jan 12 - 06:02 PM (#3283686) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Amos You're not being very enlightening, Hawkster! A |
|
02 Jan 12 - 06:09 PM (#3283691) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Little Hawk I'm just having some fun, Amos. For enlightenment, you must secure a private appointment...and bring mucho dinero! (grin) Note: I am all booked up right through March 31. Try for early in April, okay? |
|
02 Jan 12 - 06:13 PM (#3283694) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D hmmmppff...I'll bet the dachshund doesn't need a private appointment. |
|
02 Jan 12 - 06:13 PM (#3283696) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Ed T Why did dogs not write any "good books? 'cause they have dirty mouths, and left it up to humans to spread the good words. Dogs vs Humans |
|
02 Jan 12 - 06:25 PM (#3283701) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 I'm working on a new set of religious books right now, LH. First, there will be a revelation (OK, I need a desert to wander in, so I was thinking about Alberta's badlands). After forty-ish days and nights--I was thinking about maybe a few hours and then bullshi##ing the rest--I'd smoke a jay and have a visitation. From that we'd do up a new ten commandments. You with me on this or not? I know you don't smoke, so I'll describe what is revealed to me to you and then we figure out how to market it. Is that a plan or what? Think BIG picture here. TV stations, radio shows, ads in newspapers, all to the greater glory. |
|
02 Jan 12 - 06:31 PM (#3283703) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: gnu "Men wrote all of them". But, you are God. We are God.. if we choose to be in the sense that we extend a hand to all others... love thy neighbour and all that. God is in every one of us. We are one. Unfortunately, far too many choose to ignore the common good and think only of themselves. I understand that. Hedge your bets and don't let the other guy fuck you over on accounta he will if he gets the chance... best to either fuck him over first or pile up enough firepower to fuck him over if he tries to take your stuff. And we need our stuff. I view God as a goal, not a deity. The deity only exists in the minds of SOME men (yeah, I mean humans... womenz too). Is that cracked? |
|
02 Jan 12 - 06:31 PM (#3283704) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Ed T Ali G on Science |
|
02 Jan 12 - 06:45 PM (#3283711) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: gnu How disgusting. I watched over half of that to see if anyone was gonna say to the piece of trash what I would have said to him. Humour? Not in my books. |
|
02 Jan 12 - 06:56 PM (#3283720) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Ed T Seems very logical that we all see humour differently, as we see many things differently. What is one persons "trash", is another persons treasure:) |
|
02 Jan 12 - 07:04 PM (#3283722) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Little Hawk I agree with you, gnu, we are all God...in manifestation...whether we know it or not...and so is everything else. But that's just too cosmic for a lot of people. They start making those "doo-doo...doo-doo..." twilight zone sounds and they freak out and start using absuive terms like "mumbo-jumbo", and the whole conversation turns to shit from that point on. We certainly don't want that happening, do we? ;-D So let's just pretend you didn't say it and I didn't agree... **** 999 - Sounds like a hell of a plan to me! I'm with ya. But yer gonna have to do the whole forty days in the desert for real, man. Too much likelihood of trouble somewhere down the line if you don't. What've you got figured for the new 10 Commandments? |
|
02 Jan 12 - 07:16 PM (#3283726) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: gnu I got one. 1. Thou shalt not be an asshole. Any need for any more? And, yes, I know, I know. But, of course, I know there will be more. I just hope they are more humourous than my suggestion. |
|
02 Jan 12 - 07:36 PM (#3283738) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 Well, LH, taking into account my good friend Gnu's suggestion, may I suggest 1) Thou shalt be nice to everyone |
|
02 Jan 12 - 07:40 PM (#3283742) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Ed T "Thou shalt not be an asshole" Good advice for all to heed, except for the field of humour. Sometimes it takes "a humourous asshole approach" to through humour to bring folks back to reality-to lead them to take a close look at what they propose/preach and how they treat the personal views of others, that are likely no better or worse than those they hold :) BTW, gnu, expect humour when you see the name Ali G. Since you do not seem to like his type of humour, I expect you will pass it by). If "asshole statement was in all the holy books and preached by those who have "found the light", with or without a diety.These folks have found something that works for them personally. Great stuff. But, acting like assholes with others, who have found something different that works for them, is really being a big asshole. I am not pointing at anyone here in the last paragraph. But, does anyone really expect to read something new in Mudcat that has not been said before in the many religious posts about God, or a no God? Maybe it will happen? But, I am not optimistic. It is more likely that someone may see something that was said before in the merry-go-round, that may seem new? |
|
02 Jan 12 - 11:19 PM (#3283833) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Little Hawk NO!!!!!!!!! It is not. But that won't stop us. ;-) 999 - Good commandment. I would add: Thou shalt be truthful. Thou shalt make war no more, not upon any excuse (this applies to those who start wars, specially in the case of those who are far better armed than the country they attack)(and it specially applies to those who bomb or INVADE the territory of another nation with the clear intent to conquer it.) Thou shalt cease violence against thine own citizenry (in the case of governments), thy neighbours, and thy family. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not engage in fraudulent activity. Thou shalt not value money above brotherhood. Thou shalt not charge the sick or injured for needed medical care. Thou shalt not profit off the suffering of one's fellow beings, but shall seek solutions that benefit and profit all members of the community. Thou shalt reward great accomplishments with promotions...with public honors...and with great respect...but NOT with money or material gain. (this was the method used to motivate people in the fictional society imagined by Gene Roddenberry in the Star Trek show...and it's a brilliantly intelligent way of organizing and motivating a society. There was no money in that society, no bankers, no loan sharks, and no poverty either.) |
|
02 Jan 12 - 11:24 PM (#3283835) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 I had very little beer on New Year's eve. I've been making up for it tonight. I agree with all you said, LH. However, I think many are subsumed by #1. Whatdya think? |
|
03 Jan 12 - 12:51 AM (#3283863) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Look its pretty simple. You put the following as the first paragraph in every science text. "Your elected school board believes the following..(then spell out what they believe.)" The second paragraph would be the following. "The scientific evidence, which was put into the universe for humanity to find, by God, if you believe God created everything, says the following... (insert entire science text here) The last paragraph would be "Belief in God is not necessary for the examination and use of this knowledge." |
|
03 Jan 12 - 04:17 AM (#3283905) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Hello Sailor! I take your last point but as children are impressionable, and there is a need for authority to be respected when you are a child, (as training to question it appropriately as an adult, but I digress...) Is't it incumbent on the school board not to put it forward in the first place rather than prompt children to take a view on the sanity of the elected school board? There are times when the wishes of a school board have to be be implemented rather than examined, so surely the best route is to ensure they act responsibly in the first place. We have faith schools in The UK, and whilst the statistics add up to better achievement than those run by the local authorities, I suspect that is due to better discipline rather than teaching fairy stories as fact. Science is on the curriculum and whilst there may still be a few renegade teachers out there, we put religious education in a religious education class and Darwin in a science class. That said, one of my teachers didn't believe in dinosaurs and claimed there was more evidence for the existence of Jesus than Hitler. I respected him as an adult figure, (but we called him Larry Gooseneck behind his back,) but I recall even as a child, dismissing his silly fundamentalist viewpoints. (Now there's something. I recall being told that he moved to The USA where he became a preacher. But there again, many preachers come from the villages around here; The Wesleys, William Brewster, Peverill to name a few. Obviously if it is something in the water, I didn't drink enough... |
|
03 Jan 12 - 05:20 AM (#3283923) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor School boards are elected here. Presumably they are following the will of the people. My suggestion is the only way we can preserve democracy and remain competitive. But I am not suggesting that the children should be calling the board members insane and laughing at them behind their backs. They should be taught to respect the person without regard to that persons beliefs. They should learn that no one is perfect and that it is not acceptable to grow up snickering at one's elders. Especially if they are Christian, but even if they are not they should learn to "Judge not, lest they be judged." I am suggesting that they get the data, presented as information in such a way that even if they do graduate believing in a "young earth" that they still are able to do science and technology work. |
|
03 Jan 12 - 06:30 AM (#3283944) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shining Wit "The scientific evidence, which was put into the universe for humanity to find, by God, if you believe God created everything, says the following... (insert entire science text here) The last paragraph would be "Belief in God is not necessary for the examination and use of this knowledge." Not right. In no way should science be associated with the work of any deity. You can associate them if you want but science stands alone from God, Allah, |
|
03 Jan 12 - 06:34 AM (#3283946) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST . . . Yaweh, Osiris, Odin or The Great Turtle. We are the universe made conscious, a far more profound thought that needs no explanation that science doesn't currently provide. This just the beginning of the scientific age. It's going to get a whole load more incredible yet. |
|
03 Jan 12 - 06:34 AM (#3283948) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shining Wit Arrrgghhh! Still asleep after the break! 'twas I above. |
|
03 Jan 12 - 07:55 AM (#3283976) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Richard Bridge If people teach folly they should be treated as fools. Irrespective of age. |
|
03 Jan 12 - 08:42 AM (#3284008) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Little Hawk Hmm. And how does one treat a "fool"? Who decides who is "a fool" and who isn't? It's a matter of opinion, isn't it? After all, one man's wisdom is another man's folly...it all depends on whose opinion you consult about it. I've known any number of people who believed in various things I don't believe in...but I didn't necessarily regard them as fools for that. I usually regarded them not as fools, but as people who had grown up in different familial or cultural surroundings than mine, and therefore they had developed different ideas about things. In any case, if you openly treat another person as "a fool", it's likely that he (not thinking of himself as a fool) will get angry. He'll retaliate in some way. He'll probably start treating you as a fool. And then you'll get angry. Where does that end? I think we've seen historically where it ends, and it's not a nice place. |
|
03 Jan 12 - 09:16 AM (#3284032) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bee-dubya-ell Myths exist as tools by which wisdom is transferred. They are metaphorical frameworks for metaphysical exploration and investigation. They're to be ponderd, analysed, interpreted, and transcended, not accepted at face value. Insisting that a myth is literally true is a metaphysical dead-end. It's like a pilgrim coming across a signpost that points the way to wisdom and enlightenment, and deciding to worship the signpost instead of attempting to get to the place toward which the sign is pointing. It's a foolish practice which does disservice to a myth's underlying wisdom by making it look foolish as well. The wisdom of Genesis has suffered greatly at the hands of metaphysically constipated Christian fundamentalists. |
|
03 Jan 12 - 10:05 AM (#3284054) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Greg F. Can't we just go to New Hampshire and all those places trying to teach "Creation Science"... Won't work, Jack- you're trying to counteract/influence lunacy with rational thought. |
|
03 Jan 12 - 10:16 AM (#3284060) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D "metaphysically constipated "....I like that! There was once some graffiti on the wall of the men's room in the Methodist Student Union and the Univ. of Kansas... it asked: "Can a metaphysician be sued for malpractice?" |
|
03 Jan 12 - 11:20 AM (#3284102) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Ed T ""They can't stop me, even if they stopped me"" Lil Wayne quote |
|
03 Jan 12 - 11:27 AM (#3284107) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Little Hawk Beautifully said, Bee-Dub. We can learn a great deal from ancient myths...and from ancient religious texts...if we are not so foolish as to take them literally. |
|
03 Jan 12 - 12:01 PM (#3284125) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shining Wit But isn't any non-literal interpretation way too subjective to be of any real use? In the case of interpreting the Bible, we are so far removed from the context in which it was written much of the actual meaning must be lost. Certainly the interpretation of most allegorical passages could well be well wide of the mark - the original writers were desert tribesmen living in a massively different world. If you're reading Beowulf in the modern translated version with no knowledge of the original language with all it's subtleties and wordplay can you really be said to understand the finer points of what the poet was trying to say on a particular subject? Were they joking? Being serious? Perhaps they was referring to some cultural trope which was common at the time of writing but has been long lost? Even with the translation (say of the King James version; the definitive English language translation) much of the symbolism 'translated' (added?) by the translator will be lost as our culture evolves (if you don't believe me, go and stand in front of a Pre-Raphelite painting, write down what it says to you and the read the interpretation given by the painters or contemporaries themselves - you'd be surprised how different they will be and they're not that far removed from us in the timeline of human history). I'm always intrigued by the interpretation of religious texts. Who chooses which bit is to be taken literally and which is allegorical? Who decides what's relevant to the modern world and what's not? Or perhaps it's some sort of free-for-all of divine revelation where everyone believes what bits they want? |
|
03 Jan 12 - 12:53 PM (#3284152) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Little Hawk "But isn't any non-literal interpretation way too subjective to be of any real use?" It is the rigidly literal interpretation that is of utterly NO use, if the original text was not intended literally. Religious adepts in the various mystery schools that existed in ancient times were accustomed to finding the allegorical and metaphorical meanings in sacred texts. It was almost like a code that only the initiated fully understood. Common people back then mostly were illiterate. The texts were not intended to be interpreted by the common people (who probably did take them literally if they heard them). They were intended to be interpreted by trained iniatiates in sacred traditions. If the writing is allegorical and symbolic, then one must attempt to understand it in a non-literal way to get anything useful from it. One must ask questions, think, analyze, think some more, follow intution, and find the best interpretation one is capable of. There's no guarantee that your interpretation will be the right one or the best one. But at least you tried! That's better than being a literal-minded doofus and not trying at all. "Who chooses which bit is to be taken literally and which is allegorical?" Each thinking person chooses that for himself. That's intellectual freedom. "Who decides what's relevant to the modern world and what's not?" You do. Or I do. It's up to each one of us to decide for ourselves. "Or perhaps it's some sort of free-for-all of divine revelation where everyone believes what bits they want?" Yeah, everyone does believe what they want. Of course. The question is, what DO they want? If they want harmony and love, then that's what they'll look for. If they want discord, battle, condemnation, punishment, and victory, then that's what they'll look for. Which of those paths do you think is the wisest? You choose. I choose. Every one of us chooses which bed we're going to lie in. The ancient texts are a guide...but no one can guarantee that a guide will be followed well or badly, can they? It isn't the guide that determines that, it's the nature of the one following the guide. |
|
03 Jan 12 - 12:53 PM (#3284153) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Amos I think both the Ten COmmandments and the Bill of Rights need a serious, intelligent revisitation. Clarifying the Senior Policies By Which MEn Shall Live Together is a very good idea indeed. We know it can work--just look at all the positive effects derived from these two sets of maxims. Why, most of our difficulties come from the parts which were badly or ambiguously designed!! As for those who think science should mix with religion, I suggest they try mixing chocolate milk with brown shoe polish, instead. At least it will constrain the damage. A |
|
03 Jan 12 - 12:57 PM (#3284156) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link hi -its the "fool" checking in children certainly can be impressionable and i think thats evident from the way so many accept evolutionism despite no evidence for abiogenesis,no proven change of one animal to another and the complexity of the once thought simple cell.neither are they told of the large number of darwin doubters among scientists who have not towed the party line. Its a pity i.m the only YEC creationist here and i dont know if i shall continue stoking your antagonism/mockery.maybe i should just leave you to bolster up your faith position unopposed. |
|
03 Jan 12 - 01:05 PM (#3284165) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Richard Bridge I agree with the first line. Go and damage impressionable children elsewhere. Or better still not at all. |
|
03 Jan 12 - 01:38 PM (#3284193) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Richard Bridge, "If people teach folly they should be treated as fools. Irrespective of age." "Go and damage impressionable children elsewhere. Or better still not at all. " What are you trying to teach us? That the children of fundamentalists are NOT damaged until they get to school and only then when there is a paragraph about creationism in their texts? No it is far better that they learn to judge what is useful for themselves. Give them all sides. If the event that they keep their literalist world view, teach them enough to be able to separate dogma and data at least enough to be scientists and technologists. |
|
03 Jan 12 - 01:50 PM (#3284199) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Eliza 'It isn't the guide following that, it's the nature of the one following the guide'. I agree LH. I have to confess that I sometimes 'do' a Tarot spread, even though as a Christian such things are frowned upon. But I don't do this from a belief standpoint. I use the ancient symbols, myths and legends for meditation. My Tarot deck is a Celtic-based one, and a card representing eg 'quest' or 'search', coupled with a Celtic story, will help me to delve into my mind to find what my mental state might be, how I might proceed, what possibilities are available etc. The legends didn't really happen, the Tarot is not religion, but I find it useful occasionally as a guide or enlightenment tool. Bible stories (esp the OT) may be similarly meant to provoke thought, consider outcomes and form judgements. To take everything literally is one way, but to develop and absorb ideas in an objective way to modify ones morality is another. Both have their place. |
|
03 Jan 12 - 01:59 PM (#3284208) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: gnu LH... "Thou shalt not value money above brotherhood." Been to the grocery store lately? A brand name box of crackers is $3.69 but Sobeys' "Compliments" brand is $1.99. Cut-throat bastards! |
|
03 Jan 12 - 02:10 PM (#3284221) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Developing and promoting brands is expensive. There is design, formulation, advertising and legal costs. Having the same factory produce the same product in a white box with your own label is way cheaper. Store labels are a great way to save, if you are not influenced by brand. But how does that tie into my plan to save the US education system from ignorant religious tea party zealots? |
|
03 Jan 12 - 02:32 PM (#3284237) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Little Hawk You say "the legends didn't really happen", Eliza. No, they didn't happen exactly as they are told. But something happened. The legend arises out of something that happened, and the legend is a signpost that points toward what happened. For instance, the legend of a Great Flood is not limited to Judeo-Christian holy books. Similar legends appear in cultures all over the world, and they are tales of a worldwide inundation that affected vast areas, not just a local flood of some sort. Something definitely happened. It happened in a very remote time. And it is remembered in literally hundreds of legends from separate cultures all over the world. This is something we might do well to look further into, and indeed there are some books that do look further into it, books written not by religious people but by science-minded investigators, and they propose very interesting theories about what may have happened...on a planetary scale. Needless to say, it wasn't one family and one "Ark" that rode it out. There would have been many survivors in many scattered locations. But each local tribe or culture made up their own legend about it, and they made it a simple and symbolic story that could be passed on through oral tradition...which generally outlasts written records (unless they're carved in stone). Even if they are carved in stone, the alphabet or hieroglyphs they were carved in are often completely forgotten as cultures rise and fall. Oral tales are not forgotten, they are passed on with each succeeding generation. And that's mainly where legends have come from, oral tradition. The Bible incorporated many of the old legends from a much earlier time period...legends which had been passed on for thousands of years through oral tradition, and they predate both Christianity and Judaism, in my opinion. They probably even predate the Egyptian civilization. |
|
03 Jan 12 - 03:45 PM (#3284279) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor What makes you think that the same flood happened everywhere at once? There is no evidence of that that I am aware of. |
|
03 Jan 12 - 04:06 PM (#3284294) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG This Wiki article summarises what we know about a flooding of the Black Sea and includes links to some academic and other official articles |
|
03 Jan 12 - 04:11 PM (#3284298) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D "...,no proven change of one animal to another and the complexity of the once thought simple cell." That is simply incorrect, pete... although the way you phrase it..."one animal to another" is awkward. We don't directly observe a reptile-like animal changing into a bird, but we DO have many carefully documented examples of changes in characteristics, which can make such a changes over hundreds of millions of years. There are finches in the Hawaiian islands which adapt/evolve in a short period of years to cope with climate changes and El Nino/La Nina. And any decent text can show you about experiments with fruit flies. There is a building at the Univ. Of Kansas which houses cabinets with thousands of generations of mouse skins, in order to observe various changes and do DNA research on them. In 40 years, 'mice' don't change to rats or other rodents, but they DO exhibit changes which can only be accounted for by random mutations....billions of generation, under various conditions COULD generate something which was no longer a 'mouse'. You cannot say simply "no proven change" just because you *suspect* it would violate some religious belief you already hold. |
|
03 Jan 12 - 04:41 PM (#3284313) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: gnu JtS.... "But how does that tie into my plan to save the US education system from ignorant religious tea party zealots?" Can't say that I thought it did. I was commenting on LH's post to the effect that Sobeys (and Lawblaws (The Real Atlantic Stupidstore)) is attemting to put MANY other companies out of business thru cut-throat business practices and then charge whatever they want. They might not knock down Christies crackers but they sure have put a lot of small(er) businesses in the gutter along with their employees... robots don't need retirement plan. I was speaking to the quote I provided at the beginning of that post. BTW... I will NEVER use those check-yerself-out checkouts at the shops. I don't work for Sobeys. |
|
03 Jan 12 - 05:32 PM (#3284347) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Little Hawk Anyway, why are Creation and evolution seen as mutually exclusive processes? There must be a lot of literal thinkers out there. They want Creation to be an event that takes place in a day, I suppose? Or 7 days? And they want science and religion to be, like East and West, the twain that shall never meet? What foolishness. In really ancient times the scientists and the spiritual leaders were one and the same in society. It was a single discipline...the search for truth, by any and all means possible. |
|
03 Jan 12 - 06:56 PM (#3284384) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Richard Bridge Jack. Occam's razor. |
|
03 Jan 12 - 09:12 PM (#3284439) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Greg F. What makes you think that the same flood happened everywhere at once? What makes anyone think this fairytale actually happened anywhere at all? |
|
03 Jan 12 - 09:37 PM (#3284442) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D The flood has some historical/geologic evidence. If you haven't already, read about the Black Sea hypothesis. There weren't many records being kept then, but stories abound, and the geology is interesting. |
|
03 Jan 12 - 09:56 PM (#3284449) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 Should global warming continue, we are liable to experience a great flood. Science has determined that global warming is a cyclic event. DING! |
|
03 Jan 12 - 11:36 PM (#3284476) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Jack. Occam's razor. The simplest explanation of ancient flood stories on different continents is different floods. or even just that big floods make for memorable stories. |
|
04 Jan 12 - 05:53 AM (#3284554) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shining Wit "The flood has some historical/geologic evidence." You mean A flood surely? This has nothing to do with the Biblical flood which was global on nature. There are countless neocatastrophic events recorded in the geological record, including the regression/transgression of seas etc, and creationists etc love to trot these out as evidence for Noah's flood. For a delightfully misguided creationist interpretation of Mount St Helens and it's relevance to the study of the Biblical flood have a pike at this: Mount St Helens— exploding the old-earth paradigm[pdf]. This analysis is so bereft of scientific interpretation and full of supposition that it's impressive; it's also a typical YE/Creationist document. LH: "If the writing is allegorical and symbolic, then one must attempt to understand it in a non-literal way to get anything useful from it. One must ask questions, think, analyze, think some more, follow intution, and find the best interpretation one is capable of." Even if this interpretation is not in any way what the original authors intended? It seems to me that if it's up to the individual to interpret religious texts based on nothing more than reflection and intuition then these texts are little more value than a scrying glass or tarot cards. When I read the Mabinogion can I really be sure I'm fully understanding the symbolism of the story? Probably not, even though that text is from one of my own cultural traditions. And I'm not arguing against intuition and reflection; they are part of the scientific process but they can only take you so far before you need hard data. There are many paths to God . . . but I'd argue that what people understand as God is the underlying sense of our own place in the universe. The universe contemplating itself, discovering it's true nature by harnessing our natural curiosity. This is a profoundly spiritual concept but doesn't need a supreme being or a divine act of creation to give it credence - it is testable, reproducible and explicable by science - your very existence is evidence of that, and that is a truly wonderful revelation. |
|
04 Jan 12 - 06:09 AM (#3284559) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Keith A of Hertford There was no concept of "global" in those times. The Black Sea event could indeed be the origin of the story, which occurs in the myths of other ccultures of that region, e.g. the epic of Gilgamesh. |
|
04 Jan 12 - 11:30 AM (#3284709) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket If you scroll up a bit, you can see where Eliza mentions how she enjoys tarot cards and how this helps her. Fair enough, not knocking the fact, whatever floats your boat. Mine's football. If you pushed me, I might add music. They are both abstract, subjective and do it for me. However, I also note that Eliza reckons that Christians frown on tarot card readings. Why? If tarot is based on superstition, why should Christians feel uncomfortable about it? After all, I get pulled up for dismissing religion as superstition. If people get touchy about tarots from a theological aspect, they must think their own delusion is the same thing but gift wrapped in gold gild and splendour, (sorry, had a look around the Vatican a few years ago and left feeling angry.) I wonder if there is a moral in this? Petards and hoisting techniques spring to mind. (I should talk. Found myself agreeing with ruddy Bridge again in this thread. Especially his assertion that Young Earth Creationism if taught is tantamount to child abuse.) |
|
04 Jan 12 - 12:04 PM (#3284735) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Ian Mather, Congratulations! As someone who voices opinions based upon next to no knowledge of the subject (Why Christianity "frowns" on Tarot cards for example) You qualify as a "faith based" person rather than a reason based one. Certainly allowing children to believe that ignorance based mockery is acceptable is as much child abuse as teaching them religion. |
|
04 Jan 12 - 12:10 PM (#3284739) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mrrzy Oy vey. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom to believe or teach, nonsense. People only have a right to an EDUCATED opinion. Nobody has the right to ignorance. And they certainly do not have the right to impose ignorance on their or anybody else's children. I kind of like the penis analogy... but it's fine not to have one, too! |
|
04 Jan 12 - 12:16 PM (#3284745) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D As Keith A. says....they didn't even know the earth was round in about 5000 BC. If your whole life is centered in an area of a few days travel, and you 'hear' of someone who has made a long trip, one BIG flood like the Bosporus event can easily lead to legends. Suppose some guy managed to save his family and a few animals by floating on some debris, and later told stories about it? Even the bible doesn't speak of 'the world' as a sphere, but uses words that basically mean 'everything we know about'.... which for most people wasn't much. |
|
04 Jan 12 - 12:16 PM (#3284746) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Richard Bridge Oh Damn, oh damn, do I really have to agree with Mither again? Jack - Occam's razor - one flood or many floods? One flood. A big one. |
|
04 Jan 12 - 12:31 PM (#3284757) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D "People only have a right to an EDUCATED opinion. Nobody has the right to ignorance." gee, Mrrzy... as much as I usually agree with your basic conclusions, I don't see how that can be defended in any practical OR legal way. At best it is a 'hope' or a description of some ideal world. Let's just edit your other remark this way: "And they certainly do not have the right to impose (I don't LIKE it that they can teach stupidity to their children, but all we can do is attempt to provide a better alternative in schools and by example.) |
|
04 Jan 12 - 12:32 PM (#3284759) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Hello Sailor! You following me around the threads? I should be concerned being followed by a sailor, especially one who sprung the word homosexual into the "other" thread for no apparent reason when trying to mock me. I've always wanted my own stalker, makes me feel special. Pity it had to be a blasted sailor.. Ah well, so long as you don't make my eyes water. Yeah, right. Who said Christians frown upon tarots cards? I certainly didn't, you prat. I said that Eliza seemed to think some do, and that, my ho ho ho, barrel of rum, Jack Tar friend, is another kettle of fish completely. I just noted that if there is something in that, it is hilarious that one superstition wants to have the moral high ground on another. Look, let's get off the fence here. No problem with seeing happy faces going into church. Live & let live, whatever floats your boat etc. But I see an increasing desire to reduce society to the age of superstition, stifle free speech, scientific advancement and equality and worst of all, provide convenient but ineffectual answers to peoples' anxieties. It would be rather trite to point out there is no such thing as God and that the bible etc are fairy stories, and many not even nice ones... But as I said, it would be trite to mention it. Oh, and I might have no knowledge of a subject but there again I might know more than anybody else. The thing is, you don't know which. So stop saying it eh? There's a good chap. |
|
04 Jan 12 - 12:35 PM (#3284763) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shining Wit "There was no concept of "global" in those times." I've read the New Testament but not the old so I didn't realise this but thinking about it it's bloody obvious. Is this book a good basis for a world religion and teaching children if it the basic facts are so wide of the mark? It might be an idea to write a third testament in the light of knowledge gleaned since the last one was written. In 200 years time when we have to explain cosmic ecosystems, all those funny little boingy particles physicists keep finding etc and our knowledge has moved on then it'll be time for another one. Interesting second link Bill D. Someone needs to re-translate the whole Bible again. Then we could all start debating this subject upon reviewing that, a definitive version everyone agrees on (although I guess all men not being equal the pope and other churchy head honchos get a bigger say - get a younger pope for this part of the job). In the meantime, let's teach the kids right and proper and keep the religious stuff in the RE class (or whatever they have these days). |
|
04 Jan 12 - 12:42 PM (#3284772) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Mather, I didn't read that last long post of yours because it was addressed to me an your taunts are boring. Bill, I think that you have hit upon my purpose in starting this thread. In exchange for a chance to educate their kids, they get a chance, if they can dominate a school board, to say their piece to everyone else's kids, in that school board. At the end of the course, the kids get to make up their own minds. |
|
04 Jan 12 - 12:52 PM (#3284779) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor "Jack - Occam's razor - one flood or many floods? One flood. A big one." Are you arguing the faith based side? One flood that covered the entirety of American continents, Africa, Europe, Asia, and according to Little Hawk's assertion, the populated parts of Australia and most populated islands is the simplest explanation? Even when I was about five years old and first learned the story of the flood, I couldn't take it literally. I realized that there was a finite amount of water and could see that it found its own level. I was not blessed with any special insight. I simply lived near the ocean at a seaport where it rained a lot. |
|
04 Jan 12 - 12:57 PM (#3284786) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Little Hawk Bill - "they didn't even know the earth was round in about 5000 BC" That is the common assumption that's in vogue in our present culture, Bill. Our present culture imagines that man came from relatively primitive beginnings a little over 5,000 years ago, and that we now know more than people ever knew before and are now at the apex of man's development on this planet. I think our culture is utterly mistaken in its view of the remote past, and that there were plenty of people on this Earth a very long time prior to 5000 BC who knew perfectly well that the Earth is round, who understood the yearly path of the Earth around the Sun, who understood the Earth's rotation and inclination on its axis, and the cyclical wobble in the Earth's rotation and how that changed the Earth's position in regards to the various constellations, and who had mapped the entire globe as it existed at that time...and it has changed significantly since that time. There has been movement. There were planetary disasters that virtually wiped out those past civilizations and left some fertile, temperate areas frozen under polar icecaps...and they are probably disasters of a cyclical nature. They can...and may...happen again. I could point you to some interesting reading on the subject, reading which presents much geological and archeological evidence, but I know I might be wasting my time even trying that, because it's not the mainstream conventional view of the past. I will not talk about it in any further detail on the open forum, because I'd definitely be wasting my time doing that, and it wouldn't make any difference anyway. What could it possible matter whether I got anyone here on this forum to listen to something they're pretty much determined not to listen to in the first place? And if I did convince one or two people here....so what? (grin) What difference would that make either? None, as far as I can see. It might be some salve to my ego...if I chose to bother seeing it that way...but it would make NO difference whatever to anything that actually matters. And I know it. It would be like talking to people in Europe in the year 1,000 about electricity and the internal combustin engine. They thought they had it all figured out in the year 1,000 too! They figured THEY were the ultimate development of man on this planet! Just ask them...they'd tell you the whole story of their cultural grandeur over all that preceded them. ;-D And you couldn't tell them differently without arousing their scorn, anger, ridicule, all the usual predictable defensive reactions of the conventional mind when it's trapped in its little familiar and very temporary cultural bubble. |
|
04 Jan 12 - 12:58 PM (#3284789) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Indeed, Jack.... that's how it works in Texas especially....and Texas buys so many textbooks, that many companies, to avoid printing 4-5 editions, base their textbooks on the ones Texas approves! Thus, Texas' religious conservatism tends to seep into national educational materials. "...the kids get to make up their own minds."... well, officially, yeah. :>( |
|
04 Jan 12 - 01:02 PM (#3284790) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket You'll never be educated if you don't read. Same as kids making up their own mind. Some can, some can't. Makes fertile recruiting ground for those grooming kids into their delusion. Amen |
|
04 Jan 12 - 01:21 PM (#3284805) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D well, LH... I am 'generally' familiar with your theory , but as you note, it doesn't have wide acceptance. My own opinion is that any significant group such as you describe would have left artifacts and/or archeological evidence. Suggesting that those are now under "polar ice caps" is counter to the best geologic/climatological studies so far. (Even Atlantis seems to be gradually being identified as related to Minoan culture and the Thera/Santorini eruption) We DO have some evidence of our remote ancestors which does not lead us that way....they were pretty primitive. If, as I suspect, you are hinting at some culture which was not our direct ancestors, but possibly alien, I can only shrug. I have my reasons for my skepticism, as you have yours for your suspicions/belief. |
|
04 Jan 12 - 01:56 PM (#3284831) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link hi bill-i note your comments re mutations.as you say changes in characteristics do occur but i dont think that there is any proven path through life forms from what i call micro to macro change,though i concede that from a materialistic view with deep time thrown into the equasion it must seem plausible.but then again with such great complexity in even the simplest of life,- such change still seems extremely fanciful however much time is envisaged. regards pete |
|
04 Jan 12 - 02:02 PM (#3284837) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""The simplest explanation of ancient flood stories on different continents is different floods. or even just that big floods make for memorable stories."" The simplest explanation, surely, would be a super tsunami which was sufficiently huge to travel right round the globe. We know that scientists are expecting the La Palma landslip to produce something of the kind and have evidence of previous events (e.g.the most likely cause of the disappearance of a whole Mediterranean civilisation). I have no problem with either Creationism or Evolution as concepts, but I have the strongest possible objection to teaching Creationism as science, and would have an equally strong objection to any suggestion of teaching science as a faith. They are intrinsically different. Don T. |
|
04 Jan 12 - 02:21 PM (#3284851) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Eliza With regard to Tarot, I think the Christian objection is to fortune-telling (which is not how I use the cards) The general view is that only God knows what lies ahead. But this is only my understanding of the Christian (in my case C of E) standpoint. Some branches of Christianity are much stricter about this. I only brought up the Tarot example to show how legends, myths, folktales etc can lead to a deeper understanding of ones predicament or situation, as can looking at a lovely view in nature, or listening to music. I see all these as aids to meditation, and one could view the Old Testament Genesis accounts in the same way. |
|
04 Jan 12 - 02:30 PM (#3284859) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D pete... you say "...i dont think that there is any proven path through life forms from what i call micro to macro change..." You'll have to define what you admit as "proven". When evaluating scientific theories, one can always say "it is only a theory", but some theories explain what we observe a lot better than others. You wouldn't 'doubt' that you inherit the color of your eyes from your parent thru a complex system of biological reactions. Eye color is not usually a theological dispute. Then, if you DO doubt some theory, it is up to you to either explain a better one or to show *exactly* why we need a better one. Scientific theories must be countered with other scientific theories, not simply ignored because one worries they conflict with some 'belief' or opinion. For the last 150 years or so, paleontology and anthropology has been amassing more & more hard evidence that says that what you call "micro to macro change" IS operating... time is the key, and it is hard to comprehend just how much change can happen in many millions of years. |
|
05 Jan 12 - 04:49 AM (#3285125) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Thanks for that clarification Eliza. Our nautical friend got on his high horse, but I knew what you meant. If some people interpret their Christian belief as disdaining fortune telling, Harry Potter, women, Gays or other religions, then all it says to me is that they are afraid of being exposed as "jam tomorrow" merchants themselves. It appears to me that the many people who are most comfortable with their religion are those who don't want it to dominate others, or pick and choose the bits they like. A mate of mine is a devout Muslim, won't touch alcohol or pork, can never get hold of him on a Friday and wastes away during Ramadan. That said, he prefers the interest rates for his mortgage at the building society to the Islamic alternatives. Fair play to him. Do what You feel comfortable with, not what those who get a kick out of controlling others want you to do. Theology is an interesting subject. Insulting people's intelligence by claiming metaphysical fairy stories to be true isn't an interesting subject, it's a potentially dangerous one. A bit like the prat who say that as I was christened as a baby, I am a Christian like it or lump it. (A bit difficult to form the next sentence without using crude words such as bollocks) |
|
05 Jan 12 - 05:38 AM (#3285143) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Richard Bridge The children do not get the chance to make up their own minds. At School they are marked on compliance with the set text. Remember the Jesuit motto "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man". |
|
05 Jan 12 - 05:41 AM (#3285144) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Richard Bridge List of many flood folk histories http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html That many separate ones is the simplest explanation? C'mon! |
|
05 Jan 12 - 06:17 AM (#3285158) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Ed T It appears to me that the many people who are most comfortable with their "lack of religion" are those who don't want it to dominate others. |
|
05 Jan 12 - 07:10 AM (#3285169) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Touche |
|
05 Jan 12 - 10:39 AM (#3285254) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 'Remember the Jesuit motto "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man".' I agree. Try also Proverbs 22: 6. "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." Public education has never been about teaching critical thinking skills. It has been and continues to be about keeping the masses (lotsa people, not church services) in line. Why would any government be so stupid as to have its populace learn critical thinking as a life skill? Where would it find people willing to die for rich folks' investments? It might have people wondering why university educations as so damned expensive, so expensive in fact that for most poorer people they are unattainable. Wouldn't want the children of poor people asking uncomfortable questions like "Why are there so many poor people?" The line quoted by Richard Bridge is often attributed to Loyola, founder of the Society of Jesus. However, the sentiment existed long before him. Today, it is part of the fabric of early schooling. School teaches us to be on time, do as we're told, follow rules, vote for political parties that are cosmetically different but substantially similar, obey laws mostly made by rich people and give our money to them at income tax time. We have grown little intellectually since witch doctor days. We have organizations like the [insert name of country] Medical Association which protects doctors, not patients, and now doctors have become the new shamans--those who hold the keys to life and death. "The Hippocratic Oath is an oath historically taken by physicians and other healthcare professionals swearing to practice medicine ethically." Yeah, right. From what I've seen over sixty years their first allegiances are to their insurance companies and their investment portfolios. However, schools glorify them and we follow suit. (Before the usuals go all nutso because they personally know a doctor who IS ethical, I've met three or four in my life, too. No doubt someone will mention Albert Schweitzer. Yes, he was a great man. And someone else will talk about Doctors Without Borders, and they are right to do so. But show me those doctors where YOU live. And where have they been since YOU were a kid?) The legal profession: Well, at risk of being sued or threatened with a suit, I agree with Shakespeare. The exception is my friend Richard Bridge, although after his remarks about singer-songwriters I ain't so sure about that. Creationism: I'll bite. Tell me about it. It seems to be an all or nothing thing with some folks. So, let's make it all. If God created everything, then why did he stop creating? The whole world could be put right in the blink of an eye. No more famine, no more war, no more evil, etc. What's God waiting for? Blink already! Science: It has given us much of which to be proud. And much of which to be ashamed. The science advisers to the American president have always belonged to one of the two main political parties. (I don't know that for fact, but I got ten bucks says it's so.) Why is that? Pray tell, where is the openness and transparency, the science for the sake of science that was so loved of this objective community? Hell, if a scientist did find a cure for one of the major diseases, he'd be shut up real fast--or at least until the pharmaceutical industry was able to get a patent on the drug and charge people a hundred times what it cost to keep some fu#king stock holders happy. Religionists: y'either walk the walk (I'm thinking of the Joe Offers of the world, a man who gives of his time to a women's shelter, and with no offense meant, at his age time is precious) or ya talk the talk, which is substantially less meaningful. Anyway, I suppose I've pissed off everyone, so with that, have a good day and lang may yer lum reek. If it smokes too much, call the fire department. They won't care about any of the above or how you (or they) feel about it. Best wishes to all of you. |
|
05 Jan 12 - 10:46 AM (#3285256) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Greg F. Amen, Bruce, Amen. - all too effing true. Especially:Why would any government be so stupid as to have its populace learn critical thinking as a life skill? |
|
05 Jan 12 - 11:07 AM (#3285268) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket 999. 87% * of UK doctors don't have any income from insurance portfolios and investments. Allegience to the Hippocratic oath is something I have admired, as I "deal" with different doctors most days and have done for many years. Ok, in such a late group, you have your odd criminal, pockets of incompetence and sadly, many instances of pride overtaking good decision making. but the hippocratic oath is a good subject to bring up. It crosses ethnic and religious boundaries yet is deep seated in altruism and putting the considerations of others first. The failings of the USA healthcare system are what they are, but try not to demonise doctors in general eh? It is difficult enough separating the balls from the substance in a religion thread without reading utter crap on more temporal subjects. (* Source - British Medical Journal article on NHS pension reform circa October 2011.) |
|
05 Jan 12 - 11:09 AM (#3285270) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Hang on, it posted before I qualified a part of it. The investment bit does not take into account GP share of practice assets. As practice assets are subject to NHS contracts, they grow and shrink with the rest of The NHS. |
|
05 Jan 12 - 11:27 AM (#3285280) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Richard, Read the first ten or fifteen accounts you posted. If you still think there was just one flood get back to me. |
|
05 Jan 12 - 11:44 AM (#3285290) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 OK, Ian. I take back everything I said about doctors as it doesn't pertain to British doctors. |
|
05 Jan 12 - 12:02 PM (#3285298) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket To be fair 999, nobody should be put on a pedestal, but for all the problems I have with many doctors, (professional arrogance, infuriating need to understand obligations to the nth degree before accepting, thinking rules don't apply to them, their mobile phones are safe to use when others aren't, being married to one...) I do find the actual dedication to their role in society to be of a very high standard. I spent some time studying USA systems, namely Evercare and Kaiser Permanante. Whilst the business delivery models were "interesting" to say the least, I did find something that you may hopefully see yourself over time. The younger the doctor, the more they feel part of a healthcare team rather than the one who knows best. This principle is helping our NHS improve too. (Interestingly, we were sent to understand Kaiser and they ended up implementing more of our systems than we did of theirs. At the risk of sounding smug, we felt rather good about that.) So that's why I bit. |
|
05 Jan 12 - 11:55 PM (#3285612) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Joe Offer 999 sez about Joe Offer: at his age time is precious Gees, talk about making a guy feel old.... |
|
06 Jan 12 - 01:04 AM (#3285644) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Joe, Joe, I've seen your face book picture. It that doesn't make you feel old... |
|
06 Jan 12 - 08:41 PM (#3286298) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Donuel I don't teach my children religious doctrine, I just assigned a different random religion to each one and told them it was their starting point and were free to change mix, match or dismiss their religion at will. Ahmed was given Judaism, Nathan was a Protestant, Mary was Zoroastrian and Shelly was Amish. Shelly was so mad she could not use electricity, phones, computers or even ride in the car, she was the first to become a secular humanist. The rest soon followed suit. |
|
06 Jan 12 - 11:50 PM (#3286370) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST Ian, you are right. When I was about seven or eight years old, I had a very wicked ear infection--so bad I banged my head against the wall because it felt better than it did without banging my head against the wall. I don't know how, but my mum called a doctor who came to where we lived and gave me a shot of penicillin, some pills to take, and having seen the circumstances in which we lived charged us $5.00. He was, imo, a saint. I know doctors from my youth who were like that. I did and do admire them. I find few to do that with today. I do NOT expect free medical treatment. I wouldn't ask a plumber to plumb for free. People have to make a living. But these days, even with a NHP, doctors seem to be 'quite above it all'. I don't know why, because doing a good job at open heart surgery isn't really all that different from doing a good job plumbing. I've held testes that were close to severed, pieces of legs that were held on by thin strips of muscle, heads that could take just the tiniest of moves to render the patient unable to walk or move his arms ever again. Rescue personnel do that daily. But then to have some arrogant shite do a three hour op and charge tens of thousands for what twenty men and women delivered for less than $500, sometimes risking their lives, makes me wonder where the hell our priorities are and what's out of kilt with our world. I have always liked your wit on this forum, and I apologize if I offended you. BM |
|
07 Jan 12 - 12:41 AM (#3286385) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Just as a matter of interest, my wife & I have Kaiser Permanente here, and it has been our experience that they do a remarkable job of making patients/members interests foremost. They DO intend to make a profit, but we have none of the horror stories we hear about other HMOs. They don't have all the best doctors, but they have decent ones, and some excellent ones. If medicine has to be a business, they do a pretty good job of being fair about it. |
|
07 Jan 12 - 03:03 AM (#3286406) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: akenaton A belief in "goodness" over "evil", is no more idiotic than a belief that a political system which demands that we rob, enslave and butcher one another in its name, can sustain humanity. |
|
07 Jan 12 - 04:42 AM (#3286424) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Richard Bridge Jack, did it ever occur to you that localised experiences of one large flood would differ? |
|
07 Jan 12 - 10:57 AM (#3286538) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Richard, there isn't enough water on the planet for one flood to effect everyone. Never was, never will be. Not unless aliens come and flatten all the mountains. Go to Dover when it is raining and watch where the water goes. |
|
07 Jan 12 - 11:51 AM (#3286557) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Hey BM, I never get offended, (after all, this is the internet, not reality...) Thanks for acknowledging though. I do get a bit precious when and if I feel people are being demonised unfairly with no right of reply, regardless of if I agree with all they stand for. Just one thing about Kaiser Permante as others have mention them. We did like their primary care models and they did prove that care with profit can be a good experience for those requiring care. After all, the main difference between state provision and private is where the bottom line sits. If private can bridge that gap with increased efficiency, I don't have idealogical objections to the object of the exercise; providing high quality health care. Tell you what though, in the real world, I don't half defend The NHS.... Anyway, back to young earth creationism. Are you guys still here? |
|
07 Jan 12 - 02:11 PM (#3286640) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link jack-not enough water if you assume a tranquil flood, but if a violent flood from above and breaking out of the earth also as the text of genesis says ,with the subsequent reforming of the strata leading to higher mountains and deeper oceans than pre flood,- then its a perfectly reasonable. from a creationist perpective the flood stories from many and unconnected parts of the world support a global flood.many are in detail fanciful as in the cube shaped ark [which would turn over] from the gilgamesh epic.by contrast the biblical dimensions suggest extremely good stability. |
|
07 Jan 12 - 07:59 PM (#3286771) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 I have one question and one only for creationists. How old is the planet Earth? |
|
07 Jan 12 - 08:51 PM (#3286791) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke ******* Count: 40 days before the flood receded. The world is 40000km round at the equator. The flood was higher than Mount Ararat (3.2 miles high). So a wall of water, 3 miles high, travelled round the world at 25 miles per hour? Actually, the flood was around for more like 150 days, if you count up the time hanging around described by Jenny Sis. So we have something more like a 7mph tsunami. Which gives Noah's ark a little more credibility in terms of surviving the wave front, but rather increases the logistical problems of feeding half a million species of animals, without wondering what happened to the plants. |
|
07 Jan 12 - 08:54 PM (#3286794) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D pete ...Genesis can't tell you HOW there can be a "violent flood from above and breaking out of the earth" is possible. That just doesn't happen-- there IS only so much water...and if your answer is "God can do anything he wants", then your reasoning is circular. You are assuming impossible things to validate your belief that God can do them. If you reason this way, you always 'win', because you build in your own proofs, but you prove nothing about EITHER God or floods. |
|
08 Jan 12 - 07:16 AM (#3286953) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shining Wit "with the subsequent reforming of the strata leading to higher mountains and deeper oceans than pre flood,- then its a perfectly reasonable" Huh? How does that work exactly? Please explain the sequence of events and processes that would enable this re-working of the planet's crust to happen (in simple terms if possible). |
|
08 Jan 12 - 11:54 AM (#3287053) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor "with the subsequent reforming of the strata leading to higher mountains and deeper oceans than pre flood,- then its a perfectly reasonable" I don't think it is reasonable, but even if it were, it would contradict the Genesis account. Unless you can show me the part where it says "the lands sank and the sea rose for 40 days, then it all sprang back like memory foam." |
|
08 Jan 12 - 12:09 PM (#3287060) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shining Wit ""the lands sank and the sea rose for 40 days, then it all sprang back like memory foam." Isostatic rebound! |
|
08 Jan 12 - 05:11 PM (#3287189) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link i suggested how the flood could be global but ask me to explain the tecnicalities of how it happened and i shall have to admit defeat. to say that it does not happen is a fair comment-the past is gone. however you yourself believe in something that does not happen.most of evolutionary theory IMO,but abiogenesis will do for a start. |
|
08 Jan 12 - 06:22 PM (#3287234) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor No you did not suggest how it could have been global. Not in a way that is consistent with that pesky scientific evidence. |
|
09 Jan 12 - 02:28 AM (#3287379) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity "Young Earth Creationism Eureka!" Is that the newest vacuum???? GfS |
|
09 Jan 12 - 03:16 AM (#3287389) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Richard Bridge Water level was at least 10 feet lower during the last ice age. |
|
09 Jan 12 - 04:25 AM (#3287407) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod "i suggested how the flood could be global but ask me to explain the tecnicalities of how it happened and i shall have to admit defeat." Try reading something other than the Bible and creationist 'literature', pete, and then you might find that you won't be defeated so often by the "tecnicalities" (or even the spelling!). |
|
09 Jan 12 - 08:06 AM (#3287469) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,KP Reading this thread reminded me of the following cartoon! Beliefs KP |
|
09 Jan 12 - 08:12 AM (#3287472) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Richard Bridge Correction: 120 feet. |
|
09 Jan 12 - 10:12 AM (#3287522) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D " but ask me to explain the tecnicalities of how it happened and i shall have to admit defeat." There are experts who CAN explain how it cold NOT have happened.... yet you seem determined to believe it anyway. Why not defer to those who DO understand such things? |
|
26 Jan 12 - 12:42 AM (#3296408) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona I'd like to hear somebody give me one--only one evidence for evolution. I'm eager to hear your replies. *smile* |
|
26 Jan 12 - 01:37 AM (#3296414) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie I can't even give you evidence that I am typing this right now. That doesn't mean a book of discredited fairy stories defying rational observation and experience has any place in discovering the how's and whys. . |
|
26 Jan 12 - 01:53 AM (#3296420) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Paul Burke Tell me what you think evolution is, and I'll give you buckets full. |
|
26 Jan 12 - 03:53 AM (#3296452) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST Surely the point is, that no one has to prove their spiritual beliefs? If I choose to believe in a supreme being, the tooth fairy,the natural life force, or Santa clause, what has it to do with you? People who feel a need to prove or disprove such things, are intellectually "challenged" |
|
26 Jan 12 - 04:50 AM (#3296465) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod Take that smug grin off your face, Iona, and read a book called 'The beak of the finch by Jonathan Weiner (Vintage Books, 1995) in summary: "The Beak of the Finch tells the story of two Princeton University scientists - evolutionary biologists - engaged in an extraordinary investigation. They are watching, and recording, evolution as it is occurring - now - among the very species of Galapagos finches that inspired Darwin's early musings on the origin of species. They are studying the evolutionary process not through the cryptic medium of fossils but in real time, in the wild, in the flesh. The finches that Darwin took from Galapagos at the time of his voyage on the Beagle led to his first veiled hints about his revolutionary theory." Also evolutionary processes happen all the time e.g. when bacteria develop resistance to anti-biotics i.e. those bacterial strains, which are most resistant to ABs, sutvive and propagate themselves whilst those with least resistance are eliminated from the population. |
|
26 Jan 12 - 04:59 AM (#3296468) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod "Surely the point is, that no one has to prove their spiritual beliefs? If I choose to believe in a supreme being, the tooth fairy,the natural life force, or Santa clause, what has it to do with you?" Yep! You are free to believe anything you like and if you keep your silly notions to yourself you're not required to prove anything. But if you want other people to respect your 'beliefs' and to afford them special status within society THEN you have to offer some proof. And if you insist on 'evangelising' and requiring other people in society to live by your beliefs and seek to influence the political process such that other people in society have no choice but to live by your beliefs THEN you have to offer some proof ... but first you can f**k off!! |
|
26 Jan 12 - 05:05 AM (#3296470) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy Iona et al, All adherents of the church of the wholly deluded have the same ultimate 'argument' - god made everything to do whatever happens or develops, so any doubters or protagonists can never win the money |
|
26 Jan 12 - 06:46 AM (#3296506) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stu "I'd like to hear somebody give me one--only one evidence for evolution." Darwin's finches. The development of resistance of some pathogens to antibiotics. The mutation rate of the common cold virus. Polymorphism in Capaea sp. shell colour. The evolution of the Polar Bear from the Brown Bear. I could go on but I suspect you're not interested in evidence anyway. |
|
26 Jan 12 - 07:13 AM (#3296520) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Richard Bridge Nor grammar. |
|
26 Jan 12 - 07:16 AM (#3296521) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Richard Bridge Having thought for a moment (not a practice I recommend to the religious) it seems to me that when "religious beliefs" are harmful to society at large and the processes of education and learning in particular, yes, they do need to be justifiable, and should be discouraged if they are not objectively justifiable. |
|
26 Jan 12 - 07:31 AM (#3296527) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie Ive just been reading about this very subject (I can't ski every day, glass back, so take lots of books with me) and the reference to the finches is a very pertinent one in Hitchens's withering yet fascinating book on medieval superstitions that are still with us, God is not great. However, before (too late?) everybody gets hot under the collar about this, Hitchens mentions something I hadn't really thought about. He postulates when religion became irrelevant, bearing in mind all superstitious dogma seems to put time and date to their revelations.. It was when observing religion became optional. So, other than the constant fly swatting of those who want to abuse children by teaching them bollocks as truth, and the endless chore of pretending to respect god botherers who certainly don't respect you back, we can all go home and ponder how evolution has, in my mind, a certain flaw. It is a couple of thousand years since many superstitions we know today had their origin, and what with flying to the moon, beer and mobile phones, you would have thought our brains were evolving to adapt to our situation? So why the constant push to hate gays, women and fun? Why do many many people, some of whom can count beyond 10 without taking their socks off still want to bring their imaginary friend to the party of life? What's more, why do so many people who agree that it is all bollocks still think saying so is somehow disrespectful? Buggered if I know, ( although that seems to be a right of passage in certain adherence quarters.) |
|
26 Jan 12 - 08:03 AM (#3296536) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie 'What's more, why do so many people who agree that it is all bollocks still think saying so is somehow disrespectful? ' ?? Possibly a typo [or a Freudian] but you've spelt 'god' with a capital G, above |
|
26 Jan 12 - 09:09 AM (#3296569) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion |
|
26 Jan 12 - 09:16 AM (#3296572) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion Sorry ~ don't know what happened there. Maybe God didn't want me to post this! Arguable point, Mr Happy, ~ perhaps in this context it may be regarded as a proper noun, as being the name of the putative entity even if non-existent: as one would write Zeus rather than zeus, even tho he be not the object of one's own veneration. Surely God, rather than Yahweh or Jehovah or any such alternative, is the actual nomenclature of the deity of the Christians; hence the capital correct? Let me stress that i have no belief in the entity's existence either. My point in this post is purely semantic and concerned with correctness of usage, not with theological speculation of any kind. ~M~ |
|
26 Jan 12 - 09:21 AM (#3296578) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Richard Bridge Oh DRAT! Here I am agreeing with Mither and Myer - at the same time on the same thread. I must be mellowing. |
|
26 Jan 12 - 09:23 AM (#3296579) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod I think Mr Mather spelled the name of the 'Invisible All-seeing, All-knowing Tooth Fairy in the Sky' with a capital 'G' because he was quoting a book title - which begins with a capital 'G'. I suspect that we offer the Great Tooth Fairy believers a certain modicum of respect because if we don't we could: (a) Motivate them to be even more fanatical by activating their 'martyrdom' complexes. (b) Fall foul of anti-discrimination laws. (c) Goad them into the sort of murderous rages which their kind have indulged in throughout recorded history and, of course, are still indulging in, in many parts of the world today. I'm sort of inclined to take those risks, though! |
|
26 Jan 12 - 10:23 AM (#3296615) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Interesting that both sides actually inclined to discuss this topic had tacitly agreed to let it die, then some nameless troll climbs out of the woodwork seventeen days later and.........HERE WE GO AGAIN! Don T. |
|
26 Jan 12 - 10:29 AM (#3296619) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy GUEST,Shimrod, Perh. a typo then - no quotation marks |
|
26 Jan 12 - 01:25 PM (#3296713) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST I was guest...possibly "nameless troll"....but if spiritual belief is ALL bollocks, why do you all spend so much time pontificating about it? |
|
26 Jan 12 - 01:38 PM (#3296723) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: akenaton i'm still me! |
|
26 Jan 12 - 01:41 PM (#3296725) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy 'god' is a generic name for any number of imaginary deities, whereas Zeus, Apollo etc are proper names of individual fabled entities |
|
26 Jan 12 - 01:44 PM (#3296726) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Iona, let me put it to you this way: Your vision of God is too simple. As is that of fundamentalists and Biblical literalists. God is not some kind of "Super-Gandalf." He doesn't do the things He does, like create the sun, the earth, and the stars, and Man, and all the beasts of the earth by muttering some incantation and waving a Magic Wand. Evolution is the way He does it. He flips the switch and the process takes care of itself. A God who is only able to create things AS Is is too--Harry Potter--if you get my meaning. Don Firth |
|
26 Jan 12 - 01:54 PM (#3296734) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D well, nameless troll, there are many of us who assert that 'belief' which is unfounded (which is why it is called belief) can lead to multiple opinions which people are willing to fight over and even start wars over. There is an **important** philosophic principle which states: "From false premises, anything follows!" Note... that does not prove that anything in particular IS false, but merely that IF you find many, many contradictory claims following from a couple of premises, those premises should be suspect! Thus: 1)God exists 2)God is concerned and issues rules about our lives & behavior. what follows? Hundreds of different, and many contradictory, opinions as to what a god might want or control...etc. Since we have no direct, testable proof of either of those two assertions, many sincere, honest, sensible people have serious doubts about whether either or both beliefs are true. THAT'S why we 'pontificate' when others 'proselytize' and tell us we should believe 'X'...or 'Y'.. or any set of letters. It is not just that they personally choose to believe, but that there are strong forces trying to USE those beliefs to control lives and entire governments. If personal belief were just kept that way... personal... it wouldn't be so complicated. |
|
26 Jan 12 - 02:02 PM (#3296743) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: akenaton "So why the constant push to hate gays, women and fun?" That statement shows a remarkable lack of understanding. I know many people who would define themselves as Christian, go to church occasionally and live a decent lifestyle. Most are involved in community projects,and give their time generously to help addicts, the homeless etc. They never push their beliefs on to others and hatred is not in their nature....in fact they are most tolerant and sympathetic towards those who suffer problems of any kind. In fact, i have never meet anyone who hates "gays, women or fun", the only hatred I see is towards a group who has the common sense to see that humanity requires a small roadmap, on the journey from the cradle to the grave. The statement is also an insult to the many good people on this forum who have any form of spiritual belief, whether through organised religion or not. |
|
26 Jan 12 - 02:17 PM (#3296759) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke You really should see a doctor about it ake. |
|
26 Jan 12 - 02:17 PM (#3296761) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: akenaton Most of us have our secret gods Bill. On the Mudcat haters, I am minded to repeat a cartoon I read several years ago. A couple of christians waiting outside the Golden Gates to be admitted to the kingdom of heaven.....on their left is a huge queue snaking over the hills to a glowing manhole, where two little devils are gleefully forking the atheists, agnostics etc into a fiery hell. One christian turns to the other and says......."Dont look so bloody smug now....do they?" It works on many levels. |
|
26 Jan 12 - 02:19 PM (#3296763) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D "... i have never meet anyone who hates "gays, women or fun"," You haven't? I have...(well, some just have an 'unusual' idea of 'fun'.) I lived for 30 years in the Bible Belt of the USA, and heard almost every fundamentalist, hateful idea expressed or implied. If you do an internet search you can find them by the carload! It is possible to 'mostly' insulate oneself from those sorts, but they are out there, and they are serious. (You don't know about the church in Topeka, Kansas, which sends people to street corners and to the funerals of veterans to scream that "God hates fags!"?) |
|
26 Jan 12 - 02:21 PM (#3296765) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: akenaton Actually paul, I am an atheist who believes in telepathy and spirituality. |
|
26 Jan 12 - 02:36 PM (#3296772) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D "I am an atheist who believes in telepathy and spirituality." telepathy is at least potentially able to be tested. I would LOVE to find that it is really possible and replicable, rather than just anecdotal. Spirituality? That idea can mean many things to many people. It can mean simply an...umm.. 'inner feeling' about relationships...basically a linguistic way to express personal attitudes-- or it can mean some metaphysical belief in the reality of 'powers & entities & realms' which might be 'accessed' in certain ways. |
|
26 Jan 12 - 02:45 PM (#3296779) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke Atheism doesn't inoculate you against prejudice. As I said, see a good doctor, craniotomy is a sure cure, but has implications about quality of life. But here's a doctor with a lot of experience in both telepathy and spiritual matters: Dr Susan Blackmore. |
|
26 Jan 12 - 02:48 PM (#3296782) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: akenaton I have experienced telepathy two or three times Bill. With another very dear family member....witnessed by Mrs Akenaton. |
|
26 Jan 12 - 04:36 PM (#3296843) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth I'm all for telepathy. It would help to alleviate all that incessant TEXTING!! Don Firth |
|
26 Jan 12 - 05:35 PM (#3296867) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D "... alleviate all that incessant TEXTING!!" And cure 78.431% of all thumb complaints! Ake... your report is, of course, what I mean by 'anecdotal'. I know several people who assert they have had .. ummm.. 'experiences' that they attribute to 'tuning in' to another's thoughts or emotions. Maybe they did...maybe they didn't. What is NOT possible, so far, (and not even claimed) is testable, *replicable* tranfer of specific information - that is, on demand and in detail. Whether we can discover the facts behind the various claims is hard to say. I am a 'skeptic', which is not the same as a 'denyer' on the matter. |
|
26 Jan 12 - 07:44 PM (#3296910) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: akenaton If it is of any interest Bill, my ummm "experiences" were related to periods of extreme stress in one of the participants; in one instance involving the horrific death of another family member. At the time, I told my wife what thought had happened and within hours we were awakened by someone bearing the news. I have had these ummm "experiences" on several occasions, always involving very stressful circumstances and always with someone very emotionally close to me. I think there is are perhaps many "senses", which may have been available on demand in an early stage in our evolution, but which may have been lost or become faint like our sense of smell or hearing. Sorry about the drift. |
|
26 Jan 12 - 08:16 PM (#3296922) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D (yes... the reports *I* have been told about were also mostly stress instances. Perhaps brains do something extra at those times. *shrug*.) |
|
27 Jan 12 - 12:34 AM (#3297002) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona Take that smug grin off your face, Iona, and read a book called 'The beak of the finch by Jonathan Weiner (Vintage Books, 1995) in summary: "The Beak of the Finch tells the story of two Princeton University scientists - evolutionary biologists - engaged in an extraordinary investigation. They are watching, and recording, evolution as it is occurring - now - among the very species of Galapagos finches that inspired Darwin's early musings on the origin of species. They are studying the evolutionary process not through the cryptic medium of fossils but in real time, in the wild, in the flesh. The finches that Darwin took from Galapagos at the time of his voyage on the Beagle led to his first veiled hints about his revolutionary theory." Also evolutionary processes happen all the time e.g. when bacteria develop resistance to anti-biotics i.e. those bacterial strains, which are most resistant to ABs, sutvive and propagate themselves whilst those with least resistance are eliminated from the population. Shimrod __________________________________________________ I don't want to be smug, Shimrod, and I beg your pardon if I came off that way. However, the facts that you present, Darwin's finches, are simply exhibiting microevolution , otherwise known as adaption. We don't see lizards changing into birds, and we never have seen that, even in the fossil record. We don't see species changing into another species, but we do see adaption. Adaption is the ability of the creature to change to fit better in it's environment, which changes are already programmed into the creature's genetic code by the Creator. Evolution says that monkeys can change into humans, that fish can change into reptiles, that reptiles can change into birds. What evidence do you have for that? What fossils have we found to support this claim? I see an awful lot of adaption being promoted as 'Evolution', but I have yet to see one species change into another. ______________________________________ Iona, let me put it to you this way: Your vision of God is too simple. As is that of fundamentalists and Biblical literalists. God is not some kind of "Super-Gandalf." He doesn't do the things He does, like create the sun, the earth, and the stars, and Man, and all the beasts of the earth by muttering some incantation and waving a Magic Wand. Evolution is the way He does it. He flips the switch and the process takes care of itself. A God who is only able to create things AS Is is too--Harry Potter--if you get my meaning. Don Firth _____________________________________________________ I haven't seen Harry Potter or read much of the books, so I'm afraid I can't completely understand what you're trying to say. However, how can you say that my "vision of God is too simple"? I haven't said anything about my belief in God until now. I'm simply asking for evidence for evolution. ______________________________________________________ Shugarfoot Jack said: "I'd like to hear somebody give me one--only one evidence for evolution." Darwin's finches. The development of resistance of some pathogens to antibiotics. The mutation rate of the common cold virus. Polymorphism in Capaea sp. shell colour. The evolution of the Polar Bear from the Brown Bear. I could go on but I suspect you're not interested in evidence anyway. _________________________________________ Adaption! Adaption! Adaption! We don't see polar bears turn into cats. We see dogs and varieties of dogs, we see cats and varieties of cats, but there are no cogs and no dats! We see plenty of microevolution, but I have yet to see any macroevolution--one species turning into another. It just doesn't happen. There is overwhelming evidence for Creation and the worldwide flood of the Bible, but there is no evidence for millions of years or beneficial mutations. Evolutionists, at their very base of theory, believe that everything came from nothing. They believe that nothing existed and then *BANG!* the world and all it's glorious programming showed up. "I could go on but I suspect you're not interested in evidence anyway. On the contrary, I'm very interested in evidence. However, all that I've seen presented so far is simply adaption. I haven't yet seen evidence for evolution. |
|
27 Jan 12 - 12:43 AM (#3297006) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion "'god' is a generic name for any number of imaginary deities, whereas Zeus, Apollo etc are proper names of individual fabled entities" .,,.,. Mr Happy ~ Sorry; you are just plain WRONG. The 4th word of the AV of The Bible, & all other versions I have come across, give 'God', thus printed, as the actual PROPER NAME of the deity thus referred to on every occasion of his mention throughout the entire 68 Books. That just happens to be what he is CALLED by the adherents of the two religions whose holy book this is. I agree that all the other deities, 'Zeus, Apollo etc', are referred to as 'gods'; but God with a cap G is an actual referential proper name, just like theirs; so grammatically requires a capital letter ~ ~ for God's sake! 〠☺〠~M~〠☺〠 |
|
27 Jan 12 - 01:43 AM (#3297016) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie Evolution and typos. This ruddy iPad types what it thinks you mean and the submit and preview buttons are too close together. Anyway, you don't have to be superstitious to observe correct grammar and written English. I have no issue with upper case for either the metaphor or the man made comfort blanket. I was quoting exactly the book as it appears on my Kindle. I do note that if you express a view on a subject that isn't welcomed, you are referred to as a troll. Surely you mean heretic? On other matters, Keep taking the tablets Bridge, they seem to be working! |
|
27 Jan 12 - 01:47 AM (#3297017) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Paul Burke Only adaption? Now we're getting to it, this is why I asked you to tell us what you mean by evolution. What do you mean by evolution, and what do you mean by adaption? What evidence do you need to tell the difference? |
|
27 Jan 12 - 01:47 AM (#3297018) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie Oh, and Akenaton. Your well publicised homophobia does lump you with the god botherers. A person who hates on the basis of a lifestyle that doesn't concern them is a homophobic person, regardless of how they spend their Sundays. |
|
27 Jan 12 - 01:51 AM (#3297019) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Living creatures do not change from one species into another overnight. A new species appears as a result of an accumulation of adaptations over a period of time and through many generations. The closest living relative of the Tyrannosaurus Rex is the common chicken. This took millions of years and happened over thousands of generations. (Bit of a come-down, eh?) No, you don't see polar bears turn into cats. But you see wolves turn into Yorkshire terriers. Through many generations. God and evolution are not incompatible. As I said above, that's how God did it. Don Firth |
|
27 Jan 12 - 02:16 AM (#3297024) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona Paul Burke: When I say 'Evolution' I'm referring to the belief that man evolved from different creatures like algae, and then further down the 'line', monkeys. Like what's taught in public schools. Adaption is simply variations of animals within the same kind. Don Firth: Of course Evolutionists don't believe that species can mutate into another species overnight. But adaption and variation is completely different from evolution. Evolution says that a cat can turn into a dog, given the right genetic mistakes and mutations. We have yet to discover a beneficial mutation; and yet for Evolution to be true, there has to have been thousands of them in the past to create all of the amazing creatures we see in our world. No one has found a 'missing link', but there must be thousands of them if creatures truly do evolve like Evolution says. Why is it that we find all these creatures in the fossil record, but no one can find the 'links' between them? Wolves can turn into Yorkshire Terriers simply because they are both part of the dog kind. But the Yorkshire Terrier, if you keep breeding and breeding and breeding, will not create a bigger, better dog--the gene pool gets weaker and weaker as the generations progress. That's the direct opposite of evolution, which requires thousands of beneficiall mutations and genetic mistakes. "God and evolution are not incompatible. As I said above, that's how God did it." Then what do you call Genesis? |
|
27 Jan 12 - 02:17 AM (#3297026) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Paul Burke That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Not from our "interested" GUEST, but from the Institute of Creation Research website. They believe that nothing existed and then *BANG!* the world and all it's glorious programming showed up. Obviously so interested that he/ she hasn't read anything about biology that wasn't on the ICR site or Answers in Genesis. Not even a troll. A religious propagandist, and an incompetent one at that. Don't strain our tolerance. |
|
27 Jan 12 - 02:59 AM (#3297031) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie Don, when you state that evolution and God are not incompatible, are you stating God as a metaphor for "How did it all happen then?" or the interventional jealous dude who told people to sacrifice their sons etc. I can warm to the former but can be no more than dismissive of the latter. Although, that's just my view, and the view out of the hotel window leads me to put the iPad down and enjoy a run down the slopes for a couple of hours. Now... Some people we were speaking to in the bar during après ski the other day looked out of the window seeing the sun set behind the mountains and declared (to everybody in general) that God was most certainly in his heaven. It would have been churlish of me to rattle on about turning earth, tectonic plates causing our bit of the Alps and pollution coming from Northern Italy helping make the sky so red. I was far more comfortable with agreeing that God was most certainly in his heaven. Far more to the point, pertinent, succinct and about as relevant to this holiday as the movement of the plates. So, God as a metaphor can be quite useful. Problem is, it can inadvertently give credence to dangerous nonsense. |
|
27 Jan 12 - 03:56 AM (#3297049) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Sugarfoot Jack "Adaption! Adaption! Adaption!" Er, one of the mechanisms of evolution is descent with modification, examples of which I gave you. Screaming "adaption" is not really much of an argument. "We don't see polar bears turn into cats." An ridiculous example, and we might see genetically isolated populations of polar bears become a new species over time, as a population of their ancestors (Brown Bears) did to become Polar Bears. "We see plenty of microevolution, but I have yet to see any macroevolution--one species turning into another." If you can see microevolution then you are actually watching evolution. You'd have to stay around a mighty long time to watch one species turn into another, although we can see that happening of course (see examples given earlier). |
|
27 Jan 12 - 04:02 AM (#3297050) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Iona, you state that lizards don't change into birds. True, but... Dinosaurs have been recognised as being distinct from lizards and other reptiles. Dinosaur fossils have been found with feathers. Bird fossils have been found with dinosaur characteristics. (And yes, claims have been made, and refuted, that Archaeopteryx was a fake, and one piece from China was a fake. The rest are not.) Get a grip on Deep Time. Changes take a very long time, a very long time indeed. You point out that small terriers no longer have the genetic material to revert to wolves. That is pertinent to the inability for dogs to change to cats. Time is like a pair of trousers, and once a creature has moved off down one leg, it can't reproduce with a relation which moved down the other. Neither canines nor felines any longer have the material whice resembles their common ancestor. And on the related question of missing links, they are being found all the time - but each link produces two more gaps... Evidence for the relationships between kinds of animals does not only lie in the fossil record, but in the genomes of all creatures (perhaps a word I should not use). Why, if we are all separate creations, is there so much material in our DNA in common? You suggest that no-one has found any beneficial mutation. In New Scientist this week was an article about one which had hitherto been thought to be the opposite. Up until recently, this gene in children had been associated with bad behaviour, but work in Israel showed the opposite. In an experiment where a very young child and an experimenter opened a pack of snacks, and the experimenter had only four, while the child had 24, a few children offered to share evenly. These were children with the same mutation which in others led to bad behaviour and selfishness. It appears that the gene actually helps the child to adapt to behaviour in its environment. Those with the bad behaviour all came from disadvantaged families. The sharers came from families who behaved like that. The distribution of the gene shows that it has been selected for, so has been an advantage to its bearers - it actually makes the bearers more human. (I summarise - do read the actual article.) It was a mutation. The article also suggests that the mutation(s) producing the gene or genes leading to ADHD was/were advantageous in leading to the spread of humanity out of Africa and across the world. Penny |
|
27 Jan 12 - 05:25 AM (#3297085) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy Penny, 'Those with the bad behaviour all came from disadvantaged families. The sharers came from families who behaved like that' Surely that's a matter of nurture, rather than nature, not a good example IMO ********* MtheGM 'The 4th word of the AV of The Bible, & all other versions I have come across, give 'God', thus printed, as the actual PROPER NAME of the deity...' You'll agree, I presume, that the bible is a translation into English from Greek, Latin, Aramaic, Hebrew & other languages & therefore what's printed in a book published by confirmed adherents of the philosophy will contain errors, assumptions & above all, dogma & therefore should not be taken as gospel. Further examples of this dogmatic approach to grammar can be found freely sprinkled throughout the tome in such cases as; He, His, Him, the Lord etc, occuring mid sentence. However, Jahweh,Jehovah & Allah as the proper names of the deity in question are proper nouns & should be capitalised |
|
27 Jan 12 - 05:41 AM (#3297088) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod "We have yet to discover a beneficial mutation; and yet for Evolution to be true, there has to have been thousands of them in the past to create all of the amazing creatures we see in our world." No, not 'thousands' but 'billions' over many millions of years. Brute probability says that a certain percentage of these mutations will be beneficial, given the right circumstances. Evolution, like everything else in nature, is a statistical phenomenon. |
|
27 Jan 12 - 07:03 AM (#3297109) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Richard Bridge With all due respect we do see dog breeds getting larger, if so bred. |
|
27 Jan 12 - 07:48 AM (#3297125) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST Iona, You say "No one has found a 'missing link', but there must be thousands of them if creatures truly do evolve like Evolution says. Why is it that we find all these creatures in the fossil record, but no one can find the 'links' between them?" Are you identical to your parents? If you have children are they identical to you? You are the missing link between them. This picture should help: click http://i.stack.imgur.com/RtfaM.jpg |
|
27 Jan 12 - 07:49 AM (#3297126) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA That was me above click |
|
27 Jan 12 - 07:57 AM (#3297128) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Evolution says that a cat can turn into a dog, given the right genetic mistakes and mutations As mentioned above, we need a definition of species from you to work with, because without that you could even say a hypothetical cat-to-dog change where we knew every single parent and child would simply be 'adaption, adaption, adaption'. Of course, rather more than 3 adaptions would be required! And by definition of course, we mean something that can work with a completely unknown animal (etc) we might discover for the first time tomorrow. |
|
27 Jan 12 - 09:23 AM (#3297173) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion "MtheGM - You'll agree, I presume, that the bible is a translation into English from Greek, Latin, Aramaic, Hebrew"? .,,.,.., Of course I will, Happy. Happily. And I would point out that the Old Testament's Hebrew & New Testament's Aramaic יהוה, & the New Testament's Greek Θεóς {which literally means "God"}, are both translated in the work in question by "God". This work happens to be the English version of the Bible; so that these words are translated into the English PROPER NAME "God" throughout. Hence the necessity for the capital letter. If you still pretend not to get it ~~ tough: you will merely be demonstrating your own denseness, or obstinacy, or both. ~M~ |
|
27 Jan 12 - 09:31 AM (#3297181) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy Eh? So you're now resorting to name calling? 'are both translated in the work in question by "God".' So the deity's a creative translator, as well? |
|
27 Jan 12 - 09:44 AM (#3297189) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion "Allah",which you adduce, belonging to a different tradition is not in question; tho I am of course happy to conced its Prper-Nominal sraus. The translators' somewhat eccentric policy of capitalising pronouns referring to the deity "God", presumably to emphasise their respect for him {not for 'it'} is a separate matter, it seems to me. ~M~ |
|
27 Jan 12 - 09:45 AM (#3297190) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion "concede its proper-nominal status" |
|
27 Jan 12 - 12:55 PM (#3297304) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth What do I call Genesis? A Creation story. One of many. Myth. Metaphor. Joseph Campbell made the very much to the point statement that where religions tend to go off the rails is when their followers mistake myth and metaphor for literal historical fact. Iona, define God. Don Firth |
|
27 Jan 12 - 01:00 PM (#3297310) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke I wonder in what sense g/God is a "he". X and Y chromosomes? Naah, he can't have those, in any case in at least one of h/His cameo appearances h/He ought to have been genetically female (unless the miracle was h/He was actually a bird pretending to be a human- might explain the ascension). Barring a miracle of course. The appropriate equipment? again, g/God is omnipotent so h/He can do anything h/He wants, but it strikes one as a little inappropriate, especially when the local tradition insists that there aren't any nice g/Godesses to use it on. And playing with angels is just abuse. So is gender for g/Gods a matter of lifestyle choice? Or have I missed some deeper, more theologically subtle, meaning of the word "he"? Oh, as for our Answers in Genesis t6roll, I don't know why people are trying to explain science to someone who pretends to be eagerly investigating, and has found all the old worn-out creationist sites, yet hasn't found a single one of the many scientific sites that give the answers to every point in detail. A waste of time, or in other words, religion. |
|
27 Jan 12 - 01:06 PM (#3297311) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Greg F. You guys gonna debate a Holocaust denier & confront them with facts next? You'd have about the same amount of luck. I guess masochists come in all forms. |
|
27 Jan 12 - 01:32 PM (#3297340) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth By the way, there IS no "missing link." The process of evolution was (is) sufficiently gradual that it would be impossible to point out one individual or group of individuals and say, "There it is!" That's why one will never find "the missing link" and why the "missing link" is actually a red herring in the evolution vs Creation argument. And when did proponents if evolution ever sat that "a cat can turn into a dog" under ANY circunstances? The only people I've ever heard make statements like that are those who are rabidly ANTI-evolution on the grounds of their own limited religious concepts. In logic, this is called the "straw man" fallacy. A "straw man" is a fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting IT, without ever having actually refuted the original position. Unacceptable. By the way, when I say "their own limited religious concepts," I am not referring to the concepts of a particular religion itself, but to the limited concepts of many of the individuals who practice that religion, and who all too often, get all bound up in unimportant detail. I can give you dozens of examples of this if you wish. They get wrapped up in minutia and miss the whole point of what their religion is all about. Don Firth P. S. By the way, Iona, don't make the mistaken assumption that I am an atheist or anti-religious on the basis of my position on this matter. I am a member of Central Lutheran Church of the Holy Trinity in Seattle, and I know a great deal about the Bible. Not just about its contents, but about how it came to be. |
|
27 Jan 12 - 02:29 PM (#3297381) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod "I don't know why people are trying to explain science to someone who pretends to be eagerly investigating, ..." Of course, 'Iona' isn't investigating anything. She/he (?) knows the Answer already - 'it was God wot dun it' and all you need to know is in the Bible. What she/he and her/his fellow creationists are trying to do is to discredit that branch of biology which deals with evolution. It's a sort of anti-science. There's no such thing as 'creation science' - only 'creation anti-science'. No true scientist would ever start from the Answer and then look for information to support the Answer and seek to discredit any information that failed to support the Answer! |
|
27 Jan 12 - 02:39 PM (#3297384) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Mr Happy, in condensing a long article, I may have left out some vital details. There were two populations compared. One was a group including sharers and non-sharers, neither set previously identified with behavioural problems, indeed being too young for much of this to show. In this well behaved group with similar backgrounds, the ones who suggested sharing had a particular gene which the ones which did not suggest sharing lacked. The other group compared children with bad behaviour and found a relationship between that same gene and bad behaviour. The scientists studying the sharing behaviour were surprised by the connection they found because of this previously recognised association. Yes, nurture was involved - the argument was that the gene enabled a more pronounced response to environmental input, rather than instigating a particular style of behaviour. It was a response not observed in children lacking the gene. Article - needs signing in to see whole Penny |
|
27 Jan 12 - 02:48 PM (#3297391) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. And, Iona, I think the word you wanted was "adaptation" - just in case I was missing something, I did check, and your version, missing the linking @, is not familiar to Google, though it will fish up definitions if forced. And then, at the bottom of page three, after definitions, and various commercial uses, it finds an "intelligent design" page using it in a new specific way. There's no reason to use a less used version when they mean the same. Penny |
|
27 Jan 12 - 03:18 PM (#3297413) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Further, Iona, regarding 'missing links'...it is the case that not ALL the minute changes in the evolutionary record were conveniently preserved in some stream, landslide, tar pit, lake bottom...etc. Of course we don't have examples from all the millions of generations, laid out in order so we can study the tiny variations! If we did, there would not be enough museums in the world to display & study them. But.... in a building at the Univ. of Kansas there ARE thousands of generations of mouse skins, all carefully documented and labeled as to geneology...with some very interesting variations, even in a study of only a few decades. When you assert that the "is no evidence" for evolution, YOU are showing a very limited, shallow understanding of both the concept of evolution and the parameters of what actually counts as evidence. When you begin with a personal view, usually shaped by a set of religious convictions, that **THIS** is how it works, you must then do some awkward mental reasoning to make all of science & all other reasoning fit into your pre-digested scheme. Read about Galileo, Copernicus and the Catholic church and see how s-l-o-w-l-y we came around to simply admitting that the Sun does NOT go around the Earth...which is not flat. |
|
27 Jan 12 - 04:39 PM (#3297454) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Beyond mere ignorance, what may be keeping this kind of science vs religion debate going is that Man started out being the center of the universe. Everything revolved around the earth, which God created as the home of Man. But some ancient Greek (way pre-Christ) had already figured out that the earth was round, not flat, and had even come up with a remarkably accurate figure for its circumference. Then Copernicus comes up with the outrageous notion that perhaps the earth revolved around the sun, not the other way around. Then along comes Galileo with his handy-dandy Tom Swift telescope and proves it! The Church had a wall-eyed fit about this and threatened to fry his tookus unless he recanted. Galileo did, partly to save his life and largely because he knew that, what with all kinds of astronomers getting telescopes in their cereal boxes, the word would swiftly get around, and since he proved it first, he'd get the credit. Then, as astronomy moves forth apace, we learn that, rather than some 6,000 years old, the Cosmos is more like 13 billion years old, the solar system, including the earth (along with the Garden of Eden, someplace in the Mid-East, presumably) has been here for some 4.5 billion years, and not only is the earth not the center of the Cosmos, the Cosmos doesn't even have a center, as such! If God really did create the heavens and the earth—and Man—it would appear that Man is not really anywhere near as important as he thought he was. Even to God! What a blow to Man's ego! Some folks are really miffed about this! Hence, all the convoluted efforts to deny the obvious. Don Firth P. S. Here's a thought to play with: Just suppose that the Cosmos were a Petri dish, the entity that we think of as God is actually just one of many, say, biology students or lab technicians in a biology laboratory in some Super-Cosmos, and we--are merely a bacteria culture on that Petri dish....... P. P. S. By the way: 42 |
|
27 Jan 12 - 06:27 PM (#3297518) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link right on iona;though i understand that some mutations can be beneficial in some circumstances but involve loss of information.eg fish in hudson river adapting to polluted water-but would not survive in clean water.as i understand it mutations exhibit no information gain that is required for goo to you evolution. as to the fossil record or evolutionism generally ;some of it's own academics have confessed the absense of evidence.call it quote mining if you like but i call it honesty. pete. |
|
27 Jan 12 - 06:43 PM (#3297525) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Richard Bridge Oh for goodness sake go and look at the statistical distribution of heritable characteristics. I know that ignorance is said to be bliss, but please go away and play with the other children. |
|
27 Jan 12 - 06:50 PM (#3297527) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod Ah, pete! I thought you'd show up at some point! You keep telling us that you don't understand things and that you don't know much - but you keep popping up in these discussions. I wonder why? Perhaps if you're a 'creationist' who believes that God created everything yesterday and that all truth is contained in an ancient text of dubious provenance then you don't need to know or understand anything more. Have you read any texts other than the Bible or 'creationist literature' since we last exchanged thoughts? ... No? Thought not! Who knows you might broaden your mind ... but we can't have that, can we? |
|
27 Jan 12 - 07:03 PM (#3297537) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke Sancta simplicitas, that's all. |
|
27 Jan 12 - 07:11 PM (#3297538) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D "...some of it's own academics have confessed the absense of evidence." DO tell us which ones, pete. (*and 'confessed' is a loaded word, designed to suggest they KNOW) |
|
27 Jan 12 - 07:50 PM (#3297562) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Ar least "academics" will say "I don't know" if they don't know. It's been one helluva long time since I've heard an advocate of Creationism say that they don't know when they obviously don't know. Don Firth |
|
28 Jan 12 - 12:00 AM (#3297645) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Not from our "interested" GUEST, but from the Institute of Creation Research website. They believe that nothing existed and then *BANG!* the world and all it's glorious programming showed up. Obviously so interested that he/ she hasn't read anything about biology that wasn't on the ICR site or Answers in Genesis. Not even a troll. A religious propagandist, and an incompetent one at that. Don't strain our tolerance. Don Firth To be honest with you, Don, I have never been to the ICR website until today, when you mentioned it. It's true, I've heard a number of lectures by them (that's where I heard "Cogs" and "dats"), but for cryin' out loud, I certainly don't base my beliefs upon what they say. The Bible supports creationism, ICR and AIG simply show the evidence as it is--created by God. So, if the world didn't show up all of a sudden (with or without a bang), how did it happen? And if I'm a religious propagandist, you are one too. You are just as 'religious' in your belief of evolution as I am in a Creator God. And I think our definitions of 'tolerance' differ. I define tolerance as "I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it". You define tolerance as "You can believe what you want, just don't say anything about it to anybody". Why shouldn't I speak up and defend my worldview? You are! "Adaption! Adaption! Adaption!" Er, one of the mechanisms of evolution is descent with modification, examples of which I gave you. Screaming "adaption" is not really much of an argument. "We don't see polar bears turn into cats." An ridiculous example, and we might see genetically isolated populations of polar bears become a new species over time, as a population of their ancestors (Brown Bears) did to become Polar Bears. "We see plenty of microevolution, but I have yet to see any macroevolution--one species turning into another." If you can see microevolution then you are actually watching evolution. You'd have to stay around a mighty long time to watch one species turn into another, although we can see that happening of course (see examples given earlier). ShugarfootJack "An ridiculous example, and we might see genetically isolated populations of polar bears become a new species over time, as a population of their ancestors (Brown Bears) did to become Polar Bears." But they're still bears, right? They're not turning into seals, or puffins, or lemmings (or cats). There is no evidence, in the fossil record or otherwise, of a half-and-half creature. You say that "You'd have to stay around a mighty long time to watch one species turn into another, although we can see that happening of course". But the fossil record has an awful lot of animals, supposedly laid down over millions of years. Where are the mutating animals? All I'm seeing are fully formed creatures and varieties. Some have gone extinct, but that's still going on today (the Tasmanian wolves, etc) _________________________________________________________ "We have yet to discover a beneficial mutation; and yet for Evolution to be true, there has to have been thousands of them in the past to create all of the amazing creatures we see in our world." No, not 'thousands' but 'billions' over many millions of years. Brute probability says that a certain percentage of these mutations will be beneficial, given the right circumstances. Evolution, like everything else in nature, is a statistical phenomenon. Shimrod For an evolutionist, time is the solver of all problems. "Given millions of years and millions of mutations, anything can happen". I have yet to see evidence for millions of years, or any fossil evidence for mutations-turning-one-species into another. You believe that everything came from nothing! That's one reason I'm not an athiest--I just don't have that much faith. ____________________________________________________ Iona, You say "No one has found a 'missing link', but there must be thousands of them if creatures truly do evolve like Evolution says. Why is it that we find all these creatures in the fossil record, but no one can find the 'links' between them?" Are you identical to your parents? If you have children are they identical to you? You are the missing link between them. Tia Every person is different, and every snowflake is different, and every fingerprint is different. This is not evidence for evolution, but rather evidence for an all-knowing Creator. Hw could random chance accidents create all the complexity we see in our world? There is no missing link in the fossil record. To call DNA changes "Evolution" is incorrect—the changes we see do not lead to greater complexity or add new and advanced information (as is required by Evolution). Neither mutations or DNA shuffling has produced the ability to generate any new and useful genetic information. Mutations in the gene pool and DNA has not ever produced new and beneficial organs, let alone whole organisms. But we have seen is that mutations serve to corrupt or rearrange already existent information. What do I call Genesis? A Creation story. One of many. Myth. Metaphor. Joseph Campbell made the very much to the point statement that where religions tend to go off the rails is when their followers mistake myth and metaphor for literal historical fact. Iona, define God. Don Firth I define God as the Bible defines Him—the all-knowing Creator of the universe, consisting in three Persons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I reject any definitions of God that the Bible does not supply, and am ready and willing to join forces in refuting all other beliefs. If you believe that the Creation Account in Genesis is fiction, then you have no basis to believe in the Crucifixion. You have no basis to believe the Bible is of any value other than a few little fairy tales. If there was no Creation, then the world has been around forever, and death is not a result of sin, as the Bible says it is. If death is normal and instituted by God, then we have no need for a Savior. By the way, there IS no "missing link." The process of evolution was (is) sufficiently gradual that it would be impossible to point out one individual or group of individuals and say, "There it is!" That's why one will never find "the missing link" and why the "missing link" is actually a red herring in the evolution vs Creation argument. Then at least we ought to find creatures in the fossil record, preserved in corresponding layers, that show a progression from simple to complex. But we don't! We haven't found any simple life forms turning into complex creatures like bats, porcupines, frogs, etc. Instead all we find in the fossil record are fully formed animals with unique and detailed attributes. And when did proponents if evolution ever sat that "a cat can turn into a dog" under ANY circunstances? The only people I've ever heard make statements like that are those who are rabidly ANTI-evolution on the grounds of their own limited religious concepts. Under evolutionary theory, a cat ought to be able to turn into a dog, given enough beneficial mutations and enough time. No, it doesn't happen. Neither can a frog turn into a bird, or a monkey turn into a human. Evolutionists say that similar attributes point to a similar ancestor. Then how do you explain the platypus? It has a bill like a duck, fur like a beaver, spines on it's legs like a spiny anteater, and the list goes on. How in the world do you fit that into a category? I propose that common traits simply point to a common Creator—not a common ancestor. P. S. By the way, Iona, don't make the mistaken assumption that I am an atheist or anti-religious on the basis of my position on this matter. I am a member of Central Lutheran Church of the Holy Trinity in Seattle, and I know a great deal about the Bible. Not just about its contents, but about how it came to be. The Holy Trinity? How can you believe in the Trinity? How do you know it's not just a metaphor? A myth? One story out of many different theories of God? If you undermine the Creation Account in Genesis as a metaphor, then you must also doubt the death and Resurrection of Christ as accounted in the Gospels. You must doubt the miracles of Jesus and the apostles. You must doubt that Jesus ever existed, because, after all, perhaps he's just another one of those pesky metaphors we find in the Bible! "I don't know why people are trying to explain science to someone who pretends to be eagerly investigating, ..." Of course, 'Iona' isn't investigating anything. She/he (?) knows the Answer already - 'it was God wot dun it' and all you need to know is in the Bible. What she/he and her/his fellow creationists are trying to do is to discredit that branch of biology which deals with evolution. It's a sort of anti-science. There's no such thing as 'creation science' - only 'creation anti-science'. No true scientist would ever start from the Answer and then look for information to support the Answer and seek to discredit any information that failed to support the Answer! Shimrod "No true scientist would ever start with the answer". That's not true. We all have presuppositions. 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. And there are real scientists that believe as I do. They aren't out to discredit science, they're out to glorify our Creator by disclosing the magnificence of His creation. " and seek to discredit any information that failed to support the Answer! " I don't discredit any information, I just see it with a Biblical worldview. There is no true fact that doesn't fit with the historical account of Genesis. Of course I believe that God did it. God and His word is the ultimate authority. But that doesn't mean I discredit science. I believe that all science is in harmony with the Bible, and there's plenty of evidence for it. For instance, Evolutionists say that the Grand Canyon was laid down in millions of years. But there is a similar canyon near Mount St.Hellens, which has layers very similar to Grand Canyon. However, these layers in Washington state were laid down in the course of one afternoon. Why couldn't the same thing have happened in the Grand Canyon? Even atheists borrow from Christianity for their worldview. 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. If we are all just aquatic sludge, humans are no different than earthworms. |
|
28 Jan 12 - 12:41 AM (#3297656) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie Nurse! P |
|
28 Jan 12 - 01:41 AM (#3297662) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth 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 |
|
28 Jan 12 - 01:41 AM (#3297663) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona The great long one is mine, sorry, forgot to sign it....... |
|
28 Jan 12 - 04:15 AM (#3297688) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod "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. |
|
28 Jan 12 - 04:24 AM (#3297690) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke 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. |
|
28 Jan 12 - 05:19 AM (#3297700) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: akenaton 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. |
|
28 Jan 12 - 05:30 AM (#3297705) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG 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. |
|
28 Jan 12 - 07:39 AM (#3297762) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy GUEST,pete from seven stars link '......mutations exhibit no information gain that is required for goo to you evolution.' ?? |
|
28 Jan 12 - 07:57 AM (#3297773) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy .........& 'goo!' to you as well 8-) |
|
28 Jan 12 - 08:44 AM (#3297793) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST 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. |
|
28 Jan 12 - 09:01 AM (#3297799) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Paul Burke Sorry, twas I with crumbled cookie. |
|
28 Jan 12 - 09:23 AM (#3297806) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Paul Burke "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. |
|
28 Jan 12 - 10:18 AM (#3297845) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suga foot Jack in the electron cloud 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. |
|
28 Jan 12 - 11:25 AM (#3297883) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod "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! |
|
28 Jan 12 - 03:16 PM (#3298023) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona "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 |
|
28 Jan 12 - 03:19 PM (#3298026) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D 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 |
|
28 Jan 12 - 03:37 PM (#3298041) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link 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 |
|
28 Jan 12 - 03:38 PM (#3298044) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D *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. |
|
28 Jan 12 - 03:52 PM (#3298058) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D 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?) |
|
28 Jan 12 - 04:40 PM (#3298088) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw 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. |
|
28 Jan 12 - 04:46 PM (#3298090) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link 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. |
|
28 Jan 12 - 04:49 PM (#3298094) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link long time no hear steve-hope you are well.pete |
|
28 Jan 12 - 04:51 PM (#3298096) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth 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 |
|
28 Jan 12 - 04:54 PM (#3298098) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw 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. |
|
28 Jan 12 - 05:31 PM (#3298114) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod "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. |
|
28 Jan 12 - 05:44 PM (#3298123) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D ".."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. |
|
28 Jan 12 - 05:58 PM (#3298137) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link "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. |
|
28 Jan 12 - 07:06 PM (#3298155) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod 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? |
|
28 Jan 12 - 07:27 PM (#3298163) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth CLICKY. Don Firth |
|
28 Jan 12 - 08:50 PM (#3298198) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D 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. |
|
29 Jan 12 - 03:34 AM (#3298310) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie 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. |
|
29 Jan 12 - 03:57 AM (#3298316) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: akenaton 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. |
|
29 Jan 12 - 04:11 AM (#3298318) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod 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. |
|
29 Jan 12 - 05:28 AM (#3298339) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST 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. |
|
29 Jan 12 - 06:46 AM (#3298354) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion 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~ |
|
29 Jan 12 - 09:25 AM (#3298418) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod 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. |
|
29 Jan 12 - 09:51 AM (#3298430) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy 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 |
|
29 Jan 12 - 11:20 AM (#3298471) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D 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. |
|
29 Jan 12 - 11:34 AM (#3298478) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod 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! |
|
29 Jan 12 - 12:49 PM (#3298524) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke 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. |
|
29 Jan 12 - 01:18 PM (#3298542) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""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. |
|
29 Jan 12 - 01:34 PM (#3298548) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Greg F. 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. |
|
29 Jan 12 - 02:53 PM (#3298582) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""'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. |
|
29 Jan 12 - 04:19 PM (#3298628) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link 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 |
|
29 Jan 12 - 05:02 PM (#3298651) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: frogprince 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? |
|
29 Jan 12 - 06:28 PM (#3298702) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod " ... 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! |
|
29 Jan 12 - 06:44 PM (#3298720) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D 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." |
|
29 Jan 12 - 06:45 PM (#3298722) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw 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! |
|
29 Jan 12 - 06:49 PM (#3298726) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Damn. I missed out a phrase from the end of a sentence, which should have read: "...of even the most credulous seeker of evidence." |
|
29 Jan 12 - 06:54 PM (#3298728) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Pete: and quite a few scientists do recognize God as creator. Yep. And quite a few architects design absolutely shite buildings. |
|
29 Jan 12 - 07:07 PM (#3298735) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw 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. They are not hypotheses. It's very tempting to characterise vague or fanciful notions as hypotheses, but if the term hypothesis is to mean anything at all then it must meet certain criteria. A hypothesis is a proposition which attempts to explain an observed phenomenon, and it must be able to submit to scientific testing. Generally, we are talking about issues that have been observed but which cannot yet be satisfactorily explained by current theories without further investigation. Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy are fabrications (don't tell my kids, even though they're both over 30) which are not based on actual bona fide observations. As a confounded atheist, I'd put the existence of God in the same category. |
|
29 Jan 12 - 07:24 PM (#3298746) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke Sorry for the cut'n'paste, but it says it better than anything I could write: Colloquial Use To use math expressions, the general use of these words goes in order of importance as: Fact > Law > Theory > Hypothesis. "Fact" in Everyday Language: A "fact" is something that is true. Whether you like it or not, "facts are stubborn things" (thank you, John Adams … or, "facts are stupid things" courtesy of Ronald Reagan). In general use, a "fact" is the strongest thing that can be said about, well, anything. "Law" in Everyday Language: In everyday language, a "law" is generally on the same level as a fact. A law is something that is true, that generally explains or answers lots of different things. However, outside of politics, "law" is rarely used unless actually referring to something scientific. "Theory" in Everyday Language: This is where the supposed insult to scientists comes in when you call something "just a theory." Outside of scientific circles, a "theory" is more of a supposition. "I have a theory that my cat will meow when it hears someone at the door." It may or may not be "true," but it's a supposition I have that is probably supported by at least some sort of observation. But it's really "just a theory" and is just as likely to be shown wrong at any given time as it is to be shown right. "Hypothesis" in Everyday Language: A "hypothesis" is sort of on the same level as a "theory," if slightly below. To most people, they can be used interchangeably, though most will just resort to "theory" because "hypothesis" is an extra syllable longer and makes you sound like a nerd. Scientific Use In science, the order of importance of these is almost reversed: Theory > Law > Hypothesis > Facts. In addition, each term has a specific, well-defined use. "Fact" in Science: It may surprise you to know that a "fact" is generally used the same way – it is an observation – but it is very specific. For example, if I drop a ball while holding it in the air above a surface, it is a fact that it will fall to the surface. This term is usually not used, however — we resort to "observations." For example, I observe that when the wind blows, a flag will flutter. "Hypothesis" in Science: This is an "idea" that is formulated to explain observations (or our "facts"). In the above to examples, I might hypothesize that there is a force that pulls on the ball, counteracted when I'm holding it. Or that the wind exerts a force on the flag that causes it to flutter. The purpose of a hypothesis is to explain one or more observations in a cogent way. A good hypothesis must be testable – it must be able to make predictions about what would happen in similar situations – otherwise a hypothesis can never be verified nor refuted … and it remains "just a hypothesis." At present, String "Theory" is really just a hypothesis. "Law" in Science: Laws are a descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances. For example, Kepler's Three Laws of Planetary Motion are (1) Planets travel in ellipses with one focus being the Sun, (2) planets sweep out equal area in equal time, and (3) a planet's period-squared is proportional to its semi-major-axis-cubed. Laws are generally made from many facts/observations and are effectively an "elevated" level from a hypothesis. Another example are the Laws of Thermodynamics. Because a Law is just a description of how something behaves and it does not explain why it behaves that way, it is usually considered to be below the level of a theory. "Theory" in Science: A theory is really one of the pinnacles of science – what nearly everyone strives to make out of their hypotheses. A hypothesis is elevated to a theory when it has withstood all attempts to falsify it. Experiment after experiment has shown it sufficient to explain all observations that it encompasses. In other words, a "theory" has never been shown to be false, despite – usually – hundreds if not thousands of separate attempts to break it. It explains the observations with one or more mechanisms and, because it provides that mechanism, it is considered to be above the level of a Law. Examples these days are the Theory of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, the Germ Theory of Disease, and yes, the Theory of Evolution. I should note that theories are usually conglomerations of several different hypotheses, laws, facts, inferences, and observations. For example, while the Theory of Evolution is a theory, various mechanisms for it are generally still hypotheses, such as Natural Selection (though some may quibble with me over that). Another good example of a Theory is the Standard Model of Particle Physics. This describes how fundamental particles and forces interact. It is based upon countless experiments and observations and it rests on solid mathematical framework. It has many different laws in its make-up (such as how particles behave, or how forces interact) as well as many observations (such as the mass of the proton, or the energy of a tau neutrino). A third example was partially mentioned above – Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion. Tycho Brahe and Johannas Kepler made many detailed observations of planetary positions over the course of many years. Kepler formed a hypothesis about how planets moved based upon the data. From the hypothesis, he made predictions on where planets would be later on. When these were confirmed, his hypotheses were elevated to laws. Later, Isaac Newton came along and with his Theory of Gravity was able to provide a physics-based framework for why and how those laws worked. Finally, it should also be noted that nothing in science is "forever." It is always subject to further tests and observations. In many cases, people really do try to do this since that's how you make a name for yourself. If you're the scientist who has verified for the 123,194th time that a ball and a feather fall at the same rate in a vacuum, so what? But, if you're the scientist that has found evidence that gravity itself is not a force emitted by an object but rather a bending of the fabric of space itself, then, well, you'd be Einstein – a household name. |
|
29 Jan 12 - 07:34 PM (#3298756) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Excuse me if I've got it wrong, Paul, but I think you just posted precisely the same explanation of hypotheses as I did. |
|
30 Jan 12 - 03:58 AM (#3298852) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: akenaton Mthe GM and Bill...thank you for your responses. It seems to mee that most people look on the power of mental telepathy in much the same way as you view belief in god. However it has been proved to me that telepathy does exist and I am a committed believer,though we are far from any scientific proof on the subject; just as many with religious faith have had the existance of "god" revealed to them personally. I also think that the whole issue is being over-simplified in the thread....there are many definitions of "god" and the whole subject is enveloped in metaphor.....even creationism. |
|
30 Jan 12 - 04:07 AM (#3298858) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion It seems to mee that most people look on the power of mental telepathy in much the same way as you view belief in god.···· .,,. Even if so Ake [& I should be interested in your statistical basis for this assertion], I can't see that this would make them in any way equivalent concepts - either in general, or specifically in relation to the viability of scientific evidence. ~M~ |
|
30 Jan 12 - 04:14 AM (#3298860) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy akenaton, 'However it has been proved to me that telepathy does exist..' Could you explain more, please? |
|
30 Jan 12 - 04:30 AM (#3298868) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod Well, Steve you make a good case for being an atheist rather than an agnostic and, if I'm honest, I tend to be near the atheist end of the spectrum myself. But, based on the description of a hypothesis posted/pasted above: "[A hypothesis] is an "idea" that is formulated to explain observations ... The purpose of a hypothesis is to explain one or more observations in a cogent way. A good hypothesis must be testable – it must be able to make predictions about what would happen in similar situations – otherwise a hypothesis can never be verified nor refuted … and it remains "just a hypothesis."" It seems to me that creationists hypothesize that God created all living things, which are unchangeable, and that He created them in a very short time out of nothing. This hypothesis is, of course, unlikely to be testable and creationists dishonestly get round this little problem by claiming that God is omnipotent and His mind is unknowable. Nevertheless, they are the ones who are advancing such an absurd hypothesis and the onus is on them to produce the supporting data; in this sense I am agnostic. I wouldn't normally bother with such foolisness as creationism - but, unfortunately, such idiots wield considerable power in 'The Land of the Free etc.' and they must be opposed. Scientists, on the other hand, have produced (and are still producing) abundant data in support of the Theory of Evolution (no longer a hypothesis). But the best of those scientists are open-minded and non-dogmatic (Science wouldn't advance if they weren't) and agnosticism seems to me to be a more open-minded stance than atheism - and hence more scientific. I can categorically claim that I don't see my agnosticism in terms of 'hedging my bets'! |
|
30 Jan 12 - 07:16 AM (#3298917) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stu "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. " As Bill D has already pointed out, you're either wilfully misunderstanding what evolution is or you're having a pop. Either way, this isn't a debate if you can't recognise the difference between evolution and magic and insist on using the two concepts interchangeably. As for punctuated equilibrium verses gradualism, I suspect both of these act as agents in speciation and the degree of influence of each on the evolutionary is a product of a number of variables, for instance environment, genetic isolation etc. |
|
30 Jan 12 - 08:30 AM (#3298964) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw It seems to me that creationists hypothesize that God created all living things, which are unchangeable, and that He created them in a very short time out of nothing. This fails the hypothesis test on two counts: it is not based on an observed phenomenon (no matter how much its proponents may protest that it is - it's no more than a huge non-sequitur), and it can't submit to scientific testing. State the position as the null hypothesis (equally bogus), and the thing still can't get off the ground: "Observations of life on earth, in all its diversity and beauty, as well as consideration of the universe as a whole, cannot be explained by the existence of a non-observable super-being who trumps all the known laws of that life and of that universe." Why, that looks so rational, but it too can't be explored by science. I'm sticking with "fanciful notion." |
|
30 Jan 12 - 01:32 PM (#3299175) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona "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! I'm not saying that we ought to be able to watch a bear turn into a seal/cat/etc. I'm just saying that we see tons of adaptions and no evidence that a bear has come from a different creature . I can go to any museum and see tons of variations of species, but no transitional forms in fossils--just drawings and speculations. How do you know that evolution happened? What is your evidence that over millions of years a single cell organism became all the life we see today? If evolution were true, we ought to see in the fossil record simple organism and then as we work up, more and more complex creatures. But we don't. We only see fully formed creatures in fossil layers, and even then they are out of the supposed 'order' that they ought to be if evolution were true. 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. You need proof that the Bible is true? Look around you! Nature screams "Creator!" wherever we turn. The amazing detail of a leaf, a cell, a tree, an insect, the human mind. What do you mean "The Bible simply does not and can not deal with proving things about ourselves"......what do you want proven/dealt with? The Bible applies to every area of life, even if it doesn't mention it directly. Give me a situation, and the Bible has an answer for you. No, speeding tickets are not mentioned in the Bible. But there are doctrines in God's Word that can be applied to speeding--or anything else. Everything has a cause. You can trace anything back to a cause, but where did the causes start? Are causes eternal? What set them in motion? What is the original cause? The very scientific method is based upon the law of causality; that effects are in and like their causes, and that like causes produce like effects. We are inevitably led to the question "What is the cause of causes?" What started the causal universe? was it an infinite chain of primary causes? or was it an uncaused primary Cause of all causes (the One absolute Cause that initiated everything)? 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. I was using bears as an illustration. I wasn't saying that we ought to see a bear turning into a salamander (or whatever) in a lifetime. I was saying that if evolution is true, bears ought to be able to change into a different creature other than a bear. Evolution teaches that, given enough time and mistakes, a creature can turn from a monkey-like creature to a human. We don't have proof for this, we don't have fossil records, we don't have evidence--just speculation. Inventing terms like micro-evolution ...just to have a word that 'sounds' like a distinction does not change anything. I didn't invent the term, it's in the dictionary. It's also on Wikkipedia: Microevolution and Macroevolution. Adaption vs. the ability of a creature to turn from one species into another. 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 I'm familiar with the Burgess shale. It is an amazing collection of marine invertebrates fossilized in a layer of shale, discovered in Canada in 1940. There is a huge diversity of creatures there, even ones previously undiscovered, but nothing simple or primitive that would indicate them being an ancestor to any other creature--instead we see an amazing variety of sea creatures, intricately designed and unique. Simply because some of them are extinct is not evidence for evolution, it's just what happens- it happened to the dinosaurs, it happens to other creatures like the mammoth, the american lion, etc. etc. 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. "So many versions of the Bible" But there are very few actual documents/parchments copied from the originals. Those are the true word of God, and the 'translations' are only the word of God insofar as they are true (verbal plenary) to the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. The "Other books" so called are perhaps interesting accounts, but they are not the inspired Word of God as the Bible is. The Bible alone is perfect, it is the ultimate authority, and, as I've said before, an ultimate authority can't be judged by something else or else it isn't ultimate--whatever it is judged by is! 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!" Please show me, what *do* you say? That a bear is the pinnacle of evolution, and even though it is a descendant of a different species (as obviously bears haven't been around since the big bang), it can't evolve into something new? Show me the 'transitional forms' in the fossil record that prove that the bear has evolved. The platypus too, while you're at it. *good natured grin* 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. I don't believe in any 'god', I believe in the God of the Bible as He has revealed Himself. I believe that the world was created, in six literal days. There is evidence for that. Evolutionists believe in eternal matter, while I believe in an eternal Creator. Evolutionists believe that nothing created everything. Christians believe that God created everything. I quite agree with you "What happened AFTER [the world came into existence] we can study, and.......it is what it is. And it's my contention that the evidence fits much better with the Creation/Flood model, not the evolutionary model. And if we are both on the same page and just name our 'first big creation' differently, then why do you even bother to debate me on this? It's just 'different strokes for different folks', right? Ah, no. There are complications to both of our worldviews. And that's why you--and I-- find it worthwhile to discuss this! Remember, there is only one truth. The blind men may feel different parts of the elephant and call it what they will.......but it's still an elephant. The Bible just does not provide, anywhere near, a good enough standard of evidence in support of a creationist model of the world. The fossil evidence all points to a catastrophic water burial. Fossilization does not take millions of years. In Texas we've found fossilized fence posts, and a man who was murdered (in the 1950s or 60's) and buried was found later, with his leg petrified inside his leather cowboy boot, proving that it does not take millions of years to fossilize an item, it just takes the right conditions. This fits perfectly with the Biblical account of Genesis, that all the animals except two/seven of each kind (meaning two of the dog kind, not two of every dog variety, two of every cat kind, etc), drowned in a catastrophic flood, which would have produced conditions perfect for fossilization. If the Genesis account is true, we would have to find millions of fossils showing evidence of a water burial. We should find millions of clams and other sea creatures buried alongside of flying animals and dinosaurs. What do you know? This is exactly what we find. Evolutionists attribute all this water-evidence to slow and calm seas over millions of years, or small floods, or rivers. But if this were the case, the fossils ought to show evidence of exposure to the elements. We ought to be able to see wear and tear on them, of wind and rain and millions of years of gradual fossilization. But we don't. The evidence points to a quick and catastrophic burial--every time. Pretending to be interested in evidence when you're not is lying. You'll go to @#!*% . I am interested in hearing what the evolutionists call evidence for their belief. So far all I've seen is a lot of adaption, served up with a generous helping of insults insinuating that I'm an idiot who can't seem to open her eyes and see the facts. When I look around the world, all I see is a ton of evidence for a worldwide flood and a creator who designed every creature intricate from the start. I don't see any evidence of millions of years or random acts of chance that created everything. Plus, I just don't have enough faith to believe that! 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. And what was the original 'designer' of these organisms? Here again is the causal argument. Are causes eternal? Or was there an original uncaused Cause? The "Physical environment" didn't just *bang* come to be out of nothing--did it? Is "Nothing" the cause of everything? 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. We call it 'Providential Preservation". While we do not have the original penned-by-Paul (or whoever the author of a book may be) documents, we do have accurate copies of them. God gave man His words to write down, and He has also seen to it that His word is preserved in its perfection. Now, translations of those original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts are (as I've said before) only the word of God insofar as they are literal to the original languages. Of course to an atheist, this is no argument at all because God 'doesn't exist. But that doesn't mean that it's false, it just means that they don't have the foundation that a Christian does. 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. It's a funny thing. The manuscripts that we have access to today of the New Testaments can take us back to A.D. 120 or 150--and people say that 'to be sure they are corrupt out of men's different opinions (surely they can't be word-perfect copies!). After all, that's an awful long time after the originals.' Really? How about Julius Caesar's "Gallic Wars (Commentarii de Bello Gallico)"? The manuscripts we have are 900 years after the original. People don't seem to be up in arms about that! Aristotle's "Poetics", the oldest age of the manuscripts that we can put our hands on is about 13 or 14 hundred years. Homer? the oldest one we have is about 21 hundred years. The New Testament? a hundred and twenty to a hundred and fifty Within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. 'but of course we can't trust them, because they report supernatural events. We all know that the supernatural is impossible' Well, they *are* called 'supernatural'. Beyond what you normally see in the orderly world. Miracles aren't contrary to nature, they're just contrary to what we know about nature. God made the rules, He can breach the laws of nature whenever He pleases to--if you call it a breaching of laws. really, it's just a breach of what we see as laws of nature. An athiest of course isn't going to accept that argument, because it can only be understood if one has a Christian worldview. When Jesus was crucified, He quoted Psalm 22. "My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?" Psalm 22 is a perfect description of the crucifixion of Christ. The odd thing? Crucifixion hadn't even been invented yet when David wrote the Psalms. I know that because the Romans invented crucifixion a thousand years later. So here's David, writing a description of a death that he never witnessed in his life, but that was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. That's just one of many prophesies that were fulfilled in Holy Scriptures. 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? "you can't trust the Bible because it was written by men!" God used men to write the Bible. Isn't that amazing? That He would transform perfectly wicked murderers like Moses, Paul and King David into regenerate followers of Christ, that's astounding, and it proves that if we repent, even the most wicked of us can be saved from our just punishment because of what Christ did. But if you say that we can't believe the Bible because it was written by men, you'd better burn all the books that you own. 'Cause I'm pretty sure that they were written by men too. The difference between Encyclopedia Britannica and the Bible is that the Bible, while it was put pen-to-paper by men, it was inspired by God--He put the words in the men's mouths, the very words that they were to write down. And the fact that God used sinful men to execute His purpose is just a case in point--That God saves, even the most heathen of sinners. It's not an argument against the Scriptures, it's an argument for it. 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. You want scientific evidence for the Bible? okay. But of course you know about the scientific method. In order for something to be proven scientifically, something has to be observable, repeatable, and measurable. Unfortunately, historical events can't be observed, measured or repeated in a lab. You can't use the scientific method to prove that George Washington was our first President. If you have a problem that we can't prove the Bible by the scientific method, then you have a problem with history. If something is written, the only way you can question it is if you don't have corroboration or there's internal inconsistency. We can't find any internal inconsistency, and we've got multiple corroboration. We have three languages, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, we have three continents: Asia, Africa and Europe. We have over fourty authors, most of whom never met one another, because they wrote over the period of some sixteen hundred years. According to your dictionary, that would be the very defintion of corroboration. So unless you have anything that would negate what we find in the bible, you have to accept the fact, based on the evidentiary method and not the scientific method that he Bible is a reliable collecion of historical documents written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses.,,,,, 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? I would respond by going to the Bible and seeing if what the donkey said was in accordance with the Scriptures. If not, then it was not a message from God, but it could have a number of different explanations. 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? See my response above. quite a few scientists do recognize God as creator. Yep. And quite a few architects design absolutely @#!*% buildings. I think you are quite mistaken, unless you call some of the world's greatest scientists bungleheads. For instance, Johann Kepler (scientist in the fields of Physical Astronomy and Celestrial Mechanics) said:"...and thou my soul, praise the Lord thy Creator, as long as I shall be: for out of Him and through Him and in Him are all things….To Him be praise, honour, and glory, world without end. Amen."—J. Kepler, Harmonies of the World, 137 Isaac Newton was a strong Christian and a great scientist (known best as the man who discovered gravity, he worked with calculus and dynamics): "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."—I. Newton Robert Boyle (Chemistry and gas dynamics),: "The last service that, I hope…is to induce men to pay their admiration, their praises, and their thanks, directly to God himself; who is the true and only creator of the sun, moon, earth, and those other creatures, that men call the works of nature."—R. Boyle, 1725 "When man thus perceives, that in respect to all these vital operations he is more helpless than the infant, and that his boasted reason can neither give them order nor protection, is not his insensibility to the Giver of these secret endowments worse than ingratitude?"—C. Bell, 1852 (Bell worked with Surgery and Anatomy) "In no part of creation are the POWER, WISDOM, and GOODNESS of its beneficent and almighty Author more signally conspicuous than in the various animals that inhabit and enliven our globe."—W. Kirby, 1835 (worked with Entomology) "The consciousness of the presence of God is the only guarantee of true self-knowledge. Everything else is mere fiction, fancy portraiture—done to please one's friends or self, or to exhibit one's moral discrimination at the expense of character."—J. C. Maxwell, 1858 (Electrodynamics and statistical thermodynamics) "I see everywhere the inevitable expression of the Infinite in the world; through it the supernatural is at the bottom of every heart."—Louis Pasteur (Microbiology, Bacteriology, Biogenesis Law, Pasteurization, Vaccination And Immunization) "If I know the answer, you can have it for the price of a postage stamp. The Lord charges nothing for knowledge, and I will charge you the same."—G. W. Carver (Modern Agriculture) |
|
30 Jan 12 - 01:54 PM (#3299186) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Greg F. You need proof that the Bible is true? Look around you! Nature screams "Creator!" wherever we turn. Give it up, folks - you're dealing with a nutter. |
|
30 Jan 12 - 02:14 PM (#3299198) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion "Nature screams "Creator!" wherever we turn. The amazing detail of a leaf, a cell, a tree, an insect" ··· .,,.,.,. and a plague rat; a vampire bat; a malarial mosquito; a rabid dog; a dear old friend with Alzheimers or dementia... Thanks, Iona ~~ you can stuff your Creator where he won't see too much of his 'Creation'! |
|
30 Jan 12 - 02:19 PM (#3299201) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Please show me, what *do* you say? That a bear is the pinnacle of evolution, and even though it is a descendant of a different species (as obviously bears haven't been around since the big bang), it can't evolve into something new? It is hardly worth the effort, but that is precisely the opposite of what evolutionists believe. Bears, along with every other species with genetic diversity, is currently in the process of evolving into other species that fit their environment even better. You want to see transitional forms? They are all around you. |
|
30 Jan 12 - 02:28 PM (#3299206) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: frogprince Well, at least I got an answer: I find it absolutely mind-boggling, but it's an answer. "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? I would respond by going to the Bible and seeing if what the donkey said was in accordance with the Scriptures. If not, then it was not a message from God, but it could have a number of different explanations. 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? See my response above." |
|
30 Jan 12 - 02:39 PM (#3299214) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Amos Refusal to look at evidence in now way disproves the existence of that evidence, nor does it justify asserting the evidence does not exist. When you see "no evidnece" it is because you are staring into your own denial. A |
|
30 Jan 12 - 03:37 PM (#3299246) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA To the Creationist, every transitional fossil discovered creates two new missing links. Can't win - ain't worth it. Iona's ignorance is impregnable. |
|
30 Jan 12 - 04:23 PM (#3299255) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth I've had this same argument with self-appointed missionaries far too many times to waste much time with it now. A pastor friend of mine once commented, "Some hard-charging evangelists have their minds so set on getting themselves, and everybody they can harass into Heaven that they, themselves, are no earthly good for anything." This particular pastor's method of evangelizing was to keep his mouth shut (except for sermons in his own church) and show by example. Iona, Pete, look up Matthew, 25:35-40. Read it carefully. Study it. Then, go live it. And stop pestering people until you learn to live as Jesus says you should live (see above Scripture). Don Firth |
|
30 Jan 12 - 05:10 PM (#3299275) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA For example, here is the complete transition from a dog-like (actually more pig-like) ancestor to modern cetaceans in 11 small steps. Iona will surely point out that his means there are 10 missing links. http://evolutionfun.com/images/whales/caldogram.gif click |
|
30 Jan 12 - 05:14 PM (#3299278) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link iona-great to have someone more accomplished and prolific than myself on the same side ;-ie that of Christ;creator and saviour.seems that little of substance is offered in answer yet. i suppose there might be some fossils that might be claimed as transitional[and some were once but since shelved]but if darwin was right we surely ought to have plenty.as i quoted on 28th s j gould acknowledged the scacity of transistional forms.nothing like a hostile witness to truth! citing the terrible things that happen in nature is an argument;albeit mostly of an emotional nature.it is i think most effective against theistic evolutionists since they dont believe the bibles account of the fall. on a minor note iona;i think i read or heard somewhere that the romans "perfected" crucifixion from existing persian practise rather than completely inventing it-just to clarify. but a great post which i enjoyed reading. pete |
|
30 Jan 12 - 05:32 PM (#3299286) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA Pete, Which of the fossils in my link above are not transitional? |
|
30 Jan 12 - 05:42 PM (#3299290) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Well, since its been raised again I went to the the trouble of discovering whether psalm 22 is a perfect description of a crucifixion of anybody years before crucifixion had been invented: the answer is no, in my view. There is nothing at all to suggest crucifixion - just a much more general torture that applies to crucifixion plus dozens of other imaginative schemes to inflict pain on some victim. There is only phrase that suggests crucifixion, namely the reference to pierced hands and feet. But the (Christian) sites I have visited say that the literal translation seems to be 'lion' rather than 'pierced' but since the literal translation doesn't make sense 'pierced' has been used as a sort of approximation. Hardly the sign of someone who insists on the literal translation of the original, I would say, and not a good demonstration that the original psalm referenced crucifixion. |
|
30 Jan 12 - 06:04 PM (#3299300) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link well tia-certainly an impressive link of line drawings but just entering 3 of the names in creation search engine revealed that one with supposed legs was finns and a few bits of bone somehow gives the evolutionist a clear outline of the animal! dmcg-i think you have a point though there are a number of prophecies that could be cited but i aticipate ionas comments on it goodight from me on this side of the pond. |
|
30 Jan 12 - 06:05 PM (#3299302) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Iona... I have just read your long reply, and the several replies TO you. Because I began as a Methodist,(then to a Unitarian, then to a philosopher with 130 university hours) and know many religious people of many faiths, I have some idea of how important their faith is to them. Therefore, I do not insult you with words like 'nutter'..... but I must say that, because of the following, I feel I can no longer continue this debate with you. Your counters to my (and others) specific points are classic examples of fallacious reasoning and linguistic confusion. I mentioned before 'circular reasoning', and when you defend the Bible by USING your acceptance of the Bible as proof, you are committing one of the basic errors of circular reasoning. 55 years ago, I was presented with the argument: "God is by definition the most perfect being possible. The most perfect being must have existence as one of its attribute. Therefore, God exists." Your statement: " But there are very few actual documents/parchments copied from the originals. Those are the true word of God, and the 'translations' are only the word of God insofar as they are true (verbal plenary) to the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. The "Other books" so called are perhaps interesting accounts, but they are not the inspired Word of God as the Bible is. The Bible alone is perfect, it is the ultimate authority, and, as I've said before, an ultimate authority can't be judged by something else or else it isn't ultimate--whatever it is judged by is! IS a perfect example of that circular reasoning where your 'proof' is assumed by your very statement! You are defending your **belief** in the Bible by assuming that you can't be wrong...because the Bible can't be wrong.--- and round & round we go. \ then: "You need proof that the Bible is true? Look around you! Nature screams "Creator!" wherever we turn. The amazing detail of a leaf, a cell, a tree, an insect, the human mind. Oh my... I can't even begin to explain briefly WHY that does NOT necessarily 'scream' conscious "Creator"! It IS possible to accept 'what is' without assuming 'intelligent design'... I do it every day! then... "...but where did the causes start? Are causes eternal? What set them in motion? What is the original cause? " I studied 'causation' and how to understand it for 12 years in various classes - and nowhere is there a requirement to assume anything in particular about an 'original cause'-- that is merely an abstract concept. We DO NOT KNOW where or how "causes start", and deciding that something must be named "God" is simply a personal opinion...or, many personal opinions, which means nothing. If 50 million people told you elves built bridges, and you never saw one, why would you accept it? You simply continue to **mis-state** what evolution 'should' be able to show, and use your own misunderstanding to repeat other things. I cannot discuss it all with you if you will not or cannot get my basic premises, and obviously YOU can't convince ME of anything if *I* will not accept, God, Jesus and the Bible as ultimate authorities. It's a funny thing about humans that they are able to not only 'reason', but to reason imperfectly when it suits them... *wry smile* (I may read here, but I will not directly reply to 'you', as I don't wish to fall into insults similar to others. You have your faith...enjoy.) |
|
30 Jan 12 - 06:08 PM (#3299305) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Well, Iona, careful who you choose to befriend. Pete pounces in triumphant accord on snippets of your daft post but let me tell you he doesn't know what he's on about. He refuses to read Origin yet he jumps in bed with you on the "transitional forms" nonsense. To be honest, your crackpot notions simply reveal that there is insufficient between you and anyone who has even the faintest regard for science to have a constructive conversation. I once saw a drawing of a bear that was the exact intermediate between Yogi and Boo-boo, so that proves you're wrong. That's about the highest intellectual level you could manage, I suppose. Let's drop God and talk Jellystone. |
|
30 Jan 12 - 07:40 PM (#3299364) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth I think a few graphics will help clarify things. The Evolution of Man: CLICKY #1 Into civilization and modern technology: CLICKY #2. Evolution of physical fitness in modern America: CLICKY #3. The Fundamentalist, anti-evolution, young-earther's response to his or her own forebears: CLICKY #4. Don Firth |
|
30 Jan 12 - 07:54 PM (#3299371) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Don... ☺ |
|
30 Jan 12 - 08:01 PM (#3299374) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Forebears, Don? Yogi, Boo-boo... who are the other two ? The missing intermediate forms I hope... |
|
30 Jan 12 - 08:06 PM (#3299378) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Oh, yeah. Don Firth |
|
30 Jan 12 - 08:10 PM (#3299379) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth "Look and the birdie, kids. Smile, now!" CLICK. Don Firth |
|
30 Jan 12 - 08:15 PM (#3299384) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Greg F. Creation search engine? PLEASE tell me you're fuckin' kidding. PLEASE! |
|
30 Jan 12 - 08:18 PM (#3299388) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D This just in! Science has found the missing link between primitive apes and civilized mankind! It's....ummm.... us. (yes, very old joke) |
|
30 Jan 12 - 11:51 PM (#3299486) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: John P Akenaton, the big difference between telepathy and religion is that most of the claims made by religion are obviously impossible. They break the physical laws of the universe. Telepathy, on the other hand, doesn't, at least as far as we know. It could be an as-yet unidentified ability of the human brain. I can conceive of a scientist 100 years from now proving it's existence and figuring out how it works. Unlike religion, we don't have any direct evidence that telepathy is impossible. But virgin birth? Raising the dead? Son of God? Turning water into wine? Splitting the Red Sea? Creating the earth in seven days? Creating the earth at all?? The list goes on and on. If I had to choose, I'd take telepathy any day. |
|
31 Jan 12 - 12:04 AM (#3299489) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor John P, Every one of those things are as easy to fake as telepathy. That makes them just as easy to prove. You haven't read enough Science Fiction. But virgin birth? (Medical trick) Insemination with something thin enough not to break the Hymen, Raising the dead? (Medical trick) Doctors do that NOW, thousands of times a day. Son of God? Assuming there is a God, the Son ain't much of a leap. Turning water into wine? (chemistry trick) A bit of kool aid and 100 proof vodka would have easily fooled a wedding guest of 2000 years ago. Splitting the Red Sea? (meteorology trick) Moses times the escape for a windy day with just the right wind. Creating the earth in seven days? Define day Creating the earth at all?? The earth exists. it was created, we are just arguing about how. The list goes on and on. |
|
31 Jan 12 - 12:51 AM (#3299499) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: John P Well, sure, you can fake anything you want, including telepathy. But we have no conclusive evidence that unfaked telepathy is impossible, unlike many religious claims. The earth exists. it was created We'd have to define "create", but it seems to me that it implies a conscious act. By that definition, we have no evidence that the world was created. I'll agree that the world exists. I've probably read a few thousand science fiction books, by the way. |
|
31 Jan 12 - 02:05 AM (#3299509) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Paul Burke "We'd have to define "create", but it seems to me that it implies a conscious act." It's certainly taken that way by proponents of the blind watchmaker argument, and this linguistic problem makes self- organising systems very difficult to explain to those with a purposive cast of mind. In particular, it's very difficult to talk about how evolution happens- evolutionary strategies, ecological opportunities etc.- without using language that suggests some kind of conscious planning. I'm sure this deficit is part of the cause of confusion among those who haven't grasped how it can happen by itself. It's a bit like those calculations of the minute odds of human life existing at all- you know the one, how many stars like the Sun, how many planets, how many habitable, etc. etc. all ending up with some fabulously small probability of humans existing at all. Ignoring the fact that it didn't have to be us, here. The calculatio of something, somewhere gives rather shorter odds. Toss a coin 120 times, and record the results. The probability of getting that sequence is exactly one in two to the power of 120. Impossible, but you just did it. |
|
31 Jan 12 - 02:56 AM (#3299522) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie I would have to believe in The News of the World if the test was written by eye witnesses in the time of other eye witnesses. Except The News of the World is dead. Neitze anyone? So, Peter the starman is happy that he and Iona are on the same side in this discussion. Except everyone else is trying to appeal to whatever reason they may have or, like me, having a good laugh at them. (Wrong to mock, I know, but appeasing just encourages the buggers.) Occams razor, itself a medieval faith tool, seems to apply here. You're outnumbered, the pair of you. In the meantime, you are doing a disservice to the vast majority of people comfortable to be called Christians, as their use of god as a metaphor is debased by idiots intent on clinging to the bible as an instrument to play their fantasy on. Sorry that reality isn't good enough for you, but you know, one of you can be laughed at, a few of you can be tolerated but an international commune? Bugger off, and thanks for leaving the sins alone, more fun available for the rest of us who don't have hang ups and repressed backgrounds. There, I've got as far as pity, despite trying not to. |
|
31 Jan 12 - 07:03 AM (#3299566) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stu Iona - all you have to do to silence the doubters is find a fossil in the wrong place. Find the fossil of a horse in Cretaceous deposits; find a bony fish in the Burgess Shale, find a monkey in the Solnhofen limestone, find a rhino amongst the dinosaurs. Find the bones and silence the doubters. Find body fossils that prove you are right. You'll be the most famous person in the history of science; you will have shown Darwin was wrong by presenting hard evidence. If you're right, these fossils should be everywhere and not too difficult to find. Think of the fame, and the glory you could reflect in, the boost it would bring in bringing the word of God to the ignorant masses. You'd have reason on your side and solid, reproducible evidence (because this must have happened lots of times, right?). Go for it! The knowledge you need is easy to pick up, no-one lives too far from a fossil locality and it should be simple to review the biota and find the fossils that don't fit. It's that simple. Really. |
|
31 Jan 12 - 07:18 AM (#3299574) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy Iona, How do you surmise that a dead cowboys leg petrified in his boot is a fossil? |
|
31 Jan 12 - 07:18 AM (#3299575) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod "on a minor note iona;i think i read or heard somewhere ..." pete, do you ever check your facts when you post here - or do you just rely on your imperfect memory? |
|
31 Jan 12 - 07:30 AM (#3299577) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG dmcg-i think you have a point [Thank you!] though there are a number of prophecies that could be cited Other prophecies, or whether this is a prophecy of Christ's death in general rather than by crucifixion in particular is not the point. IF ... and that should be a huge IF ... there was an accurate prediction of something specific a thousand years before it was known then there's a very limited set of logical possibilities, and both athiests and agnostics would agree. This is probably not exclusive, but the list consists of things like: (a) it is genuinely an indicator God exists (b) it indicates time travel in some form is possible (c) it is a pure co-incidence, or one created by good intuition (d) someone constructed the future event to match the prophecy (e) someone altered the prophecy, or its interpretation, to match the event I'm sure there are more. And the probabilities of each is rather different. But the starting point has be to test that 'IF'. And, as I say, it fails, in my view. |
|
31 Jan 12 - 10:07 AM (#3299644) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw As one of the most rabid atheists hereabout ;-) I'd have to opine that telepathy is only very slightly more likely to exist than God. We would have to detect some kind of transmitter and receiver in the human brain that, as yet, we know nothing about, and some kind of energy that could travel between brains that we appear, as yet, also to know nothing about. As with God, we could never say it's impossible, but it's slightly odd that we are at precisely the same point (i.e., point zilch) in comprehending the nature of either. In the case of telepathy, working on the assumption that it isn't pure magic (in which case I give up), you'd think we'd be somewhere with it by now. We need evidence, not anecdotes alone. I am certain that I once saw ball lightning over Epping Forest. But it was in the early hours of the morning and, try as I might, I couldn't find any other witnesses. I don't see much point in sitting here asserting that I know for certain that ball lightning exists, because I simply don't have evidence, just the anecdote. I wouldn't force that on anyone, despite what I know. |
|
31 Jan 12 - 10:18 AM (#3299650) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy Steve, Had you had these witnessless visions in the middle ages, you could've been a venerated saint by now! |
|
31 Jan 12 - 10:27 AM (#3299654) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: John P Steve, I'll agree that we have no hard evidence for telepathy, but note that our understanding of the interior workings of our bodies and brains is currently at the kindergarten stage. We know there's a lot we don't know. I certainly don't believe in telepathy (in the sense that I don't believe anything that's presently unknowable), but it doesn't actually break any currently known laws of the universe. |
|
31 Jan 12 - 10:35 AM (#3299658) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion I am as much of an atheist as anyone on this forum; but I have more-than-anecdotal experience of my own suggesting existence of what I can only describe as a form of telepathy. Of course, if I related the experience to you, you might well dismiss it as merely 'anecdotal' because it happened to me not to you ~ like your ball-lightning but v-v. There were other witnesses, but I don't expect I could locate any of them at this time of day ~~ it was back in mid-late 50s. But anyhow; my point in replying to Ake on this matter is that the 'telepathy' question is different in kind from the 'God' one, and more likely to be a confuser than an enlightener as part of this thread. ~M~ |
|
31 Jan 12 - 11:26 AM (#3299695) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod "Iona - all you have to do to silence the doubters is find a fossil in the wrong place." Of course, Sugarfoot, palaeontologists find such fossils all the time - but hastily re-bury them or hide them in museum cupboards. It's all part of a vast conspiracy against creationism. Oh, those wicked palaeontologists! Still, it's amazing how few palaeotological whistleblowers there have been over the years. It's an extraordinarily well organised conspiracy. Although, of course, in reality professional scientists have very little to do as everything they really need to know is in the Bible ... errr ... does this make any sense? No, thought not! |
|
31 Jan 12 - 12:35 PM (#3299732) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Steve, I'll agree that we have no hard evidence for telepathy, but note that our understanding of the interior workings of our bodies and brains is currently at the kindergarten stage. We know there's a lot we don't know. I certainly don't believe in telepathy (in the sense that I don't believe anything that's presently unknowable), but it doesn't actually break any currently known laws of the universe. We have no evidence of any kind (bar anecdotes, which shouldn't really count as evidence, eh? At least, not on their own!) Your final statement sounds suspiciously akin to the claim of those believers who say that we can't prove that God breaks the laws of nature, because we don't know all the laws of nature... I think, actually, that telepathy, as usually characterised, does break the laws of nature we know about. Depends somewhat on how confident we are that we'll find some new laws of nature that, er, break the laws of nature... |
|
31 Jan 12 - 12:40 PM (#3299733) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stu Jack Horner presented the idea at the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists annual meeting last year. The easiest and best way to prove us all wrong. |
|
31 Jan 12 - 12:41 PM (#3299734) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw I am as much of an atheist as anyone on this forum; but I have more-than-anecdotal experience of my own suggesting existence of what I can only describe as a form of telepathy. Of course, if I related the experience to you, you might well dismiss it as merely 'anecdotal' because it happened to me not to you ~ like your ball-lightning but v-v. There were other witnesses, but I don't expect I could locate any of them at this time of day ~~ it was back in mid-late 50s. Well if it's more than anecdotal it's good evidence! I didn't know there were degrees of atheism. I kind of thought that being an atheist meant I was firmly wedged at the far end of the spectrum. An inch to the left and I'd be one of them pinko, agnostic chappies! |
|
31 Jan 12 - 01:06 PM (#3299739) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. I wasn't going to, but I can't let this pass. "Evolutionists attribute all this water-evidence to slow and calm seas over millions of years, or small floods, or rivers. But if this were the case, the fossils ought to show evidence of exposure to the elements. We ought to be able to see wear and tear on them, of wind and rain and millions of years of gradual fossilization. But we don't. The evidence points to a quick and catastrophic burial--every time." Firstly, consider the Chalk. I know there are sites which claim that it formed from algal blooms in the Flood water, but hundreds of metres thick? Interestingly, the chalk is remarkably pure, and had to be laid down in very, very clean seas. It is so clean that in places, thin wisps of volcanis ash can be seen, like cigarette smoke. This, in the south of England, can be traced to volcanoes in Germany. Which would have been above the water. There are more metres of chalk above these traces. At various horizons, there are what the old quarrymen called hardgrounds. Here it is clear that the ocean floor was not having chalk deposited on it at the time it was formed, and it contains traces of living things which burrowed in it, crawled upon it, and grew in it before the burial continued. In the Chalk can be found fossilised heart urchins. Known as micraster species, these can be seen to change in type from those at the lowest levels to those at the top. They gradually adapted to their life crawling through the slurry on the seabottom, with the shape developing to one which found the movement easier, and mouth and anus changing position. The older forms are not found at the top. The younger forms are not found at the bottom. There is a clear sequence of change. As for not finding eroded and damaged fossils, try looking in various descriptions of derived fossils- I'm trying to find one not behind a paywall, but it's clear from various abstracts that fossils which have formed, been eroded out of their source rocks, and then been redeposited into a new rock are pretty common. Also search reworked and redeposited fossils. Though I see that a creation site claims that scientists descriptions of such fossils are specious, such interpretations depend not only on the locations of the fossils in younger layers, but also the nature of the paleoenvironment which is revealed by the strata. So such fossils would be found in deposits which look like river or beach structures, or volcanic ash fall deposits, which show their history in the grain size, sorting, and shape of the deposits. My garden lies on top of the Chalk, but consists of a layer called Clay-with-flints. (It's difficult to work.) It has been formed by the erosion of the limestone component of an overlying rock - a lot of it, leaving a layer of clay containing flint which forms during the formation of the Chalk from silica deposited from sponges. All flint is thus fossil material, and some of it has actually replaced the mooulds of living things which were in the Chalk. I therefore have derived fossils in my garden. In the nearby chalk pits now occupied by Bluewater shopping centre, the rock walls show the path of an old river cut down into the chalk. This will contain fossils first eroded in the formation of the Clay-with-flints, and then washed into the river to be deposited again. They will show the wear caused by the movement of the water. Those fossils you claim to be absent exist. You just have to look in the right place. Go out and do it yourself. Use a fossil book to identify them. Map exactly where you find them, and look for their context - that is the type of rock they were found in and what lies above, below, and around them. Work it out for yourself. Don't rely on books and websites. And the word used by most people is adaptation. Penny |
|
31 Jan 12 - 01:27 PM (#3299746) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Sugarfoot Jack There's plenty of evidence of wear and tear on fossils, and plenty have been eroded out of one age of sediment and redeposited; the are called 'reworked' fossils. There is one case where we think a Jurassic ammonite was fossilised, weathered out and was then eaten by a dinosaur for use as a gastrolith, and after the dinosaur died or coughed it back up it was reburied in the later sediments. Wonderful! |
|
31 Jan 12 - 01:36 PM (#3299752) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Amos There is nothing about telepathy to rebut atheism. It might militate against hard-core materialism, as well it should, but it does not say much about theology without a long bow being stretched. PEople in high connection with each other experience "coordinated thinking" all the time, and sometimes it actually seems telepathic rather than just similar. And the rebuttal on the grounds of anecdote is, in my opinion, a bit small-minded when dealing with subjective communication events which simply do not lend themselves to replicability of the rigorous physical sort any way. A |
|
31 Jan 12 - 03:46 PM (#3299840) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Excuse me, but I didn't rebut anecdotal "evidence" out of hand. I said ...bar anecdotes, which shouldn't really count as evidence, eh? At least, not on their own! I certainly agree about co-ordinated thinking. It happens all the time with me and the missus, but there's a perfectly simple explanation for it: we go back a long way with our similar experiences, and this, combined with the fact that we experience broadly similar events during the day, means that our thought processes will inevitably collide on occasion. "On occasion" is crucial: even though we marvel at having thought the same thought at the same time, ninety-nine point-I-don't-know-how-many-nines percent of the time we are not thinking the same thoughts. Which is the more remarkable? It's also worth dwelling a little more on Paul's excellent point: Toss a coin 120 times, and record the results. The probability of getting that sequence is exactly one in two to the power of 120. Impossible, but you just did it. |
|
31 Jan 12 - 03:48 PM (#3299842) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Sorry. My italics ran away with me there. |
|
31 Jan 12 - 04:28 PM (#3299865) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Greg F. Anecdotal "evidence"...........Isn't. |
|
31 Jan 12 - 05:28 PM (#3299896) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Agreed, which is why I put it in quotes, but we do love anecdotes. As long as there's real evidence as well. Which, in the case of God or telepathy, there isn't. |
|
31 Jan 12 - 06:01 PM (#3299913) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: akenaton If I were to post my telepathic experiences, would I not be relating an "anecdote"? It is strange,but I feel distinctly uneasy about passing on the details of these experiences......almost like betraying a trust. Although I dont believe in a "supreme being" I have a sense of something spiritual having happened. My evidence, is that I passed on the "communications" to Mrs Akenaton and within a couple of hours we had news of an unexpected death in horrific circumstances. To my way of thinking,that goes against any scientific explanation, in the same way as religious experience. I have not YET had any such religious experiences. |
|
31 Jan 12 - 06:28 PM (#3299923) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Ake, serious question: Did you have no hint or indication of any kind that something like that might happen? I think that, without schlepping into the supernatural, there may very well be mechanisms by which telepathy can occur. I certainly wouldn't write it off. I know a few people who are solid, down-to-earth, and not given to flights of fancy who have told me of weird experiences they've had. Ever read any of physicist Michio Kaku's writings? He's a rock-solid scientist, but he has some very intriguing speculations along this line. He makes no claims, he just raises some interesting lines of inquiry. Don Firth |
|
31 Jan 12 - 08:02 PM (#3299970) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: akenaton I'll have a look Don, but personally, I think the phenomenon is natural, but to most people it smacks of magic and illusion...just like some folks view belief in god. I used to be rather dismissive of people "of faith" these days I am much more tolerant. To answer your question, neither my wife or I had any reason to expect the death, which was the result of an accident. |
|
31 Jan 12 - 10:44 PM (#3300022) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 "Which, in the case of God or telepathy, there isn't." I knew you were gonna say that! |
|
01 Feb 12 - 01:21 AM (#3300067) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion Oh, so we have got sidetracked into the telepathy bit, which I still say is a different discourse. But FWIW, my experiences of the phenomenon were not to do with foreseeing soon-forthcoming events, or knowing of things that had happened before confirmation, as Ake's seem to have been; but more in the nature of many instances of precise thought-transference by the same person with whom I lived in close proximity over a period. If anyone wants an account of it all, say so & I will furnish it ~M~ ~ though I still do not regard it as really germane to the topic of this thread; tho another on people's telepathic experience might be worthwhile if anyone would like to start one? |
|
01 Feb 12 - 02:10 AM (#3300073) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 "though I still do not regard it as really germane to the topic of this thread; tho another on people's telepathic experience might be worthwhile if anyone would like to start one?" And I knew YOU were gonna say that! |
|
01 Feb 12 - 03:19 AM (#3300086) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion Prove it! |
|
01 Feb 12 - 05:01 AM (#3300134) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod I wonder how much the putative phenomenon of telepathy is really something which comes out of the nature of randomness? I suppose that human intuition would tend to suggest that things in a randomised sample should be evenly spread. But, in reality, randomised samples tend to exhibit 'clumpiness'. In other words if you take 100 numbered, but otherwise identical, objects and shuffle them you will tend to see 'runs' of adjacent numbers (e.g. 48, 7, 56, (24,25,26), 92, 5 etc. I've put the 'run' of adjacent numbers in brackets. When gamblers encounter such runs they tend to believe (wrongly) that their 'luck has come in'. I usually read in bed in the morning with the radio on in the background and fairly frequently I hear an announcer say a word at the same time as I'm reading it. I think that this is a statistical phenomenon, related to randomness - not a, previously unknown/unrecognised natural phenomenon. I think that it's highly likely that something similar happens with respect to peoples' thoughts. |
|
01 Feb 12 - 06:02 AM (#3300159) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw That's right. Put alongside the number of times you're reading a word and the radio announcer does not say the same word, the "coincidence" suddenly doesn't seem so remarkable. Thousands upon thousands of times a day, there are "opportunities" for such collisions that just don't come to anything. Coincidence is a very intriguing subject which should be studied by anyone given to believing in telepathy. |
|
01 Feb 12 - 06:07 AM (#3300161) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy Are we likely to be drifting into Deja Vue next, or has that been done before? 8-) |
|
01 Feb 12 - 06:23 AM (#3300168) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Are we likely to be drifting into Deja Vue next, or has that been done before? 8-) |
|
01 Feb 12 - 07:31 AM (#3300194) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion From the Office of the Official Legendary Pedant "Déjà vu" please. ~M~ OLP |
|
01 Feb 12 - 08:30 AM (#3300220) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy I don't think we have to write 'loanwords' in their original language |
|
01 Feb 12 - 09:33 AM (#3300252) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Isn't "deja vue" the uncomfortable feeling that you've been to Belle Vue before even though you haven't? |
|
01 Feb 12 - 12:02 PM (#3300329) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Thanks for that tale, Sugarfoot Jack. Can you give me references? I don't have any, because it was part of a geology lecture, but I did hear of a meteorite which was found with the gastroliths of a dead dinosaur. These things are fun to think about, aren't they? Penny |
|
01 Feb 12 - 12:24 PM (#3300358) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D *I* have had weird experiences of reaching for the phone to call someone, and had the phone ring and found them calling ME. scary? No, because many, many times I have missed calls or caught those I was calling not at home. Coincidence can make us tend to find causation where there is really no 'good' reason to assume any. Having 'intense' mental experiences can do similar things. I have had dreams which shook me.... but really found no reason to suspect they were other than the semi-conscious brain making connections from memories and re-assembling them in patterns to reflect stresses of life. I 'think' many religious 'visions' happen the same way...especially in people who already believe certain ways. Telepathy may...or may not... follow similar patterns. We are only a few decades into an understanding of just how complex and powerful the brain/mind is.... and I think it is judicious to avoid too many conclusions about what it can or can't do until much more is known. I KNOW the temptation to 'explain' strange experiences and correlate them with others, but history is full of examples of faulty tries.... |
|
01 Feb 12 - 12:48 PM (#3300373) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mrrzy Heh heh in the funnies the other day someone finds a voodoo doll, so they call someone over to test it. Sticking a pin in, the finders asks, do you feel anything? The subject says, only a very strong feeling that I've done this before. Ah, said the finder, must be a deja voodoo doll. |
|
01 Feb 12 - 02:01 PM (#3300414) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth I'd be far more interested in Dejah Thoris..... No, wait! That's not earth, that's Mars! Don Firth |
|
01 Feb 12 - 02:35 PM (#3300435) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: frogprince Deja Vu is an establishment a few miles from us where guys go to study up on comparative gynocology. |
|
01 Feb 12 - 02:40 PM (#3300439) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Isn't Deja Fu the uneasy feeling that you've been kicked in the nuts once before by a martial arts practitioner? |
|
01 Feb 12 - 02:50 PM (#3300446) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 To my buddy, Don Firth. I'm with you 100%. Done by one of my favourite artists. |
|
02 Feb 12 - 03:58 AM (#3300663) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona "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. " As Bill D has already pointed out, you're either willfully misunderstanding what evolution is or you're having a pop. Either way, this isn't a debate if you can't recognize the difference between evolution and magic and insist on using the two concepts interchangeably. Then define to me evolution! The Mirriam-Webster Dictionary says this: "B. a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory" Berkeley College gives this statement : "large-scale evolution [is] the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations." The ability of one creature (the evolutionary 'ancestor of all beings') to turn into another. That's what I'm talking about. Evolution. The ability of a monkey-like creature to gradually generate descendants that are humans *and* monkeys. The theory that enough mistakes in the genetic code can produce the remarkable and intricate human body that we see today. But that theory has no evidence in the fossil record! We see stasis in the fossil record, and we don't see any transitional forms. We ought to be able to go through the fossil record and say "These are the geological layers, all in order, these are the fossils, all in order, that prove that we have evolved." But we can't even come close to saying that! Instead we see evidence of fully formed creatures (many of whom are still existent today), and no primitive ancestors.We see the same, fully-formed animals in all the layers. Clams, clams, ocean fossils, more clams..... If Evolution were true then we ought to find millions of transitional forms in the fossil record, all in corresponding layers. But we don't. Here's an illustration of the impossibility of the millions of years theory: A find in the Krukowski Quarry near Mosinee, Wisconsin. What was the find? Fossilized jellyfish. Excuse me? Fossilized Jellyfish? Yeah. What's that all about? A jellyfish is compromised of about 95-98% of water. When a jellyfish is washed ashore, the water disappears and the body flattens. Most fossils we find today are from hard-boned creatures, because bones fossilize easily. But jellyfish are so very soft that it's nearly impossible to fossilize one. Darwin once said "no organism wholly soft can be preserved". The Krukowski jellyfish prove him wrong. Evolutionists say that the Krukowski jellyfish are part of the 'Cambrian layer', a time period they claim occurred about 510 million years ago. They say that the hordes of jellyfish we find in the quarry swam into the sandy shores of ancient Wisconsin as they migrated, hunted, and reproduced. Then they claim that strong tides (perhaps from storms) could have washed the jellyfish up on the shore, and, because no predators had evolved yet, the waves gradually buried them with coarse sand and they fossilized. Creationists like myself propose something different. Taking the evolutionary scenario, even if there weren't predators to eat the jellyfish as they lay on the shore, why didn't the jellyfish deflate in the sun and decay--instead of fossilizing? Second, when a jellyfish washes up on land, it will pump its bell in an attempt to get back to the water, leaving little rings in the sand. There are no rings around the fossils in Mosinee. Again, if the jellyfish were washed up onto sand (exposed to air), they would have lost their 90-odd percentage of water and shrunk. There is no fossil evidence of the jellyfish changing size. This proves that the jellyfish were fossilized very rapidly, not over millions of years. How about Noah's flood? Another thing that throws a wrench in the evolutionist's theory is that the fossils of the jellyfish are in rippled sand. Waves create ripples as they come into shore. But when the waves go back out, they erase the ripples. The only place that the ripples aren't erased is underwater. Also, the only way the impression of a ripple can be fossilized is by another layer of fine silt coming to rest on top of it. This also can only happen rapidly.....underwater. It's almost impossible for a jellyfish to fossilized. The evolutionary theory is given one final blow when we point out that the jellyfish were preserved in coarse sand--which would have allowed more time for sun and air exposure (thus causing further decay). The jellyfish are found in multiple different layers, thus causing the evolutionists to say that they must have been fossilized in different tropical storms over thousands of years. They're saying that the impossible happened seven times to create seven layers of jellyfish?? It's just that, impossible! It must be under exactly the right conditions: rapidly and underwater. Because of these factors, to say these jellyfish might have fossilized several times is unreasonable. The evolutionary model just doesn't fit the facts. But it does perfectly support the creation model--that they were all buried in a catastrophic, worldwide flood that quickly laid down the layers of sediment and fossilized the jellyfish underwater. (as a side note, it's interesting how jellyfish don't seem to have changed much over 500-odd million years....while it seems that humans evolved from primitive to more sophisticated during that time.) ________________________________________________________ "Nature screams "Creator!" wherever we turn. The amazing detail of a leaf, a cell, a tree, an insect" ··· and a plague rat; a vampire bat; a malarial mosquito; a rabid dog; a dear old friend with Alzheimers or dementia... Thanks, Iona ~~ you can stuff your Creator where he won't see too much of his 'Creation'! "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Romans 5:12) When Adam sinned against God, the world became a corrupt place, and man has been 'degenerating' since then. We are all suffering because of the fall of man. When God created the world, it was "Very good". But it's not that way any more. There is still beauty, but everything is now tainted by sin, nothing escaped. God gave the commandment to Adam and Eve that they would "surely die" if they ate the forbidden fruit. When they listened to the devil and chose to ignore God's command, He followed through with His punishment, and the world continues to die, both spiritually and physically. This is a curse, but it is also a blessing, in that death also brought God's chosen people into redemption by the death atonement of Christ on the cross. If an individual is regenerate by the ransom of Christ's blood, then death for them is the final enemy, and they are delivered up to the merciful reward of the Lord, in Heaven. But I know that the 'problem of evil' is going to be brought up when I post this, so let me address it proactively. The 'problem of evil' is this: "If God exists, why does He allow His creation to suffer physical and moral evil? He either must not be powerful enough to deal with evil, or else He does not care enough to deal with it." This 'problem' was first phrased by David Hume, a Scottish philosopher in the 18th century. But it's not a new question. Almost all humans ask it at one point or another: "How could a good and loving God allow evil in the world? Is He not powerful enough to eradicate it? Or is he not good at all?" They wonder how Christians can believe in a God who is all-good but also all-powerful, and yet there still be evil in the world. This argument boils down to three points. 1. God is completely good. 2. God is completely powerful. 3. Evil exists/happens. Premises 1 and 2 are not contradictory to each other until we combine them with premise 3. It is crucial to the athiest/unbeliever's case against Christianity to assert that there is evil in the world and to be able to point to something and have the right to evaluate it as an instance of evil. But first, you must define evil. Define good! So, what do you define as good? What is good? Majority opinion? Majority benefit? What is your foundation for believing in goodness--or in evil? What is evil, anyway, from an atheistic viewpoint? I can answer the problem of evil, but for the atheist there is no such thing, because there is no evil, and there is no good. The fact that you are even in this argument proves my point. I will elaborate more on that later, after I get a few responses. ________________________________________________________ A pastor friend of mine once commented, "Some hard-charging evangelists have their minds so set on getting themselves, and everybody they can harass into Heaven that they, themselves, are no earthly good for anything." Iona, Pete, look up Matthew, 25:35-40. Read it carefully. Study it. Then, go live it. And stop pestering people until you learn to live as Jesus says you should live (see above Scripture). Don Firth Don, you are so right. One of the things that I absolutely abhor about the so-called "Christian" culture in America (and in other places) is that so many people call the name....and then live lives that clearly state that they don't care. They preach, but don't act. They don't live out the faith they claim to have. This is a tragedy, it is heresy, and they are misrepresenting Christ by calling themselves by His name and yet not obeying His commandments. The Bible says "You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt has lost it's savor....it shall be good for nothing but to be trodden under the foot of men". (Matthew 5:15). If Christians do not live out their profession and obey the commands of Scripture, they are good for nothing. They give Christianity a dirty name and a horrible reputation. Most people who call themselves Christians aren't Christians at all. (See explanation here ) But I disagree when you propose that a true Christian will not take a stand for what they believe. You say that I ought to read Matthew 25 carefully and then live it. I agree with that. But the Bible also says to be "Ready to give an answer for the hope that is within you" (1 Peter 13:5). A Christian will live out their faith, and that includes being able and ready to answer the claims of opposing worldviews such as evolution. It would not be right for a Christian to go about whamming people over issues like evolution, and yet not live out the love of Christ, but it *would* be acceptable for a Christian, who ministers to their fellow men with kindness and a servant's heart, to stand up and make a testimony that the Bible is exactly as it says it is, and that the world was created just as the Bible says, in six literal days, created by the word of the Lord. I'm not trying to harass anybody into heaven. I can't get anyone into heaven, period. Only God can do that. I can only give testimony to Him and His word, and He must do the rest. Your eternal destiny is ultimately between you and the Almighty, but that doesn't mean that Christians ought to be silent about the gospel, in fact they are commanded *not* to be. ___________________________________________________ For example, here is the complete transition from a dog-like (actually more pig-like) ancestor to modern cetaceans in 11 small steps. Iona will surely point out that his means there are 10 missing links. http://evolutionfun.com/images/whales/caldogram.gif This is a drawing. Are there fossils to support these drawings? I'd love to see pictures of them. You see, Evolutionists often will draw pictures of what evolution *should* look like, but they're just pictures--artist's reproductions of what ought to be found in the fossil record, but aren't. If there were, our museums would be have them on huge displays with neon lights flashing above them. But they haven't found any. And it's my contention that there's a reason for that. When we look into the average high school textbook, we see drawings like Haeckle's embryo drawings. But the theory that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny was dreamed up by Haeckle before modern technology like ultrasound, and now we know that his theory is completely bogus. But they still publish it in textbooks! And the concept that humans aren't really humans until such-and-such a stage has lead to many horrific things that devalue human life. ________________________________________________________ Well, since its been raised again I went to the the trouble of discovering whether psalm 22 is a perfect description of a crucifixion of anybody years before crucifixion had been invented: the answer is no, in my view. There is nothing at all to suggest crucifixion - just a much more general torture that applies to crucifixion plus dozens of other imaginative schemes to inflict pain on some victim......Hardly the sign of someone who insists on the literal translation of the original, I would say, and not a good demonstration that the original psalm referenced crucifixion. I didn't reference that part of the chapter. I was talking about the whole chapter. Let me compare the gospels to Psalm 22. All who see me mock me;they hurl insults, shaking their heads: "He trusts in the Lord; let the Lord rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him." (Psalm 22:7-8) "And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, Save thyself, and come down from the cross. (Mark 15:29-30) And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God. (Luke 23 :35) And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors. Dogs have surrounded me; [Roman Soldiers, perhaps?] a band of evil men has encircled me,[two thieves crucified with Jesus; one on the right hand, one on the left] (Psalm 22:16a) "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors."(Mark 15:28) I can count all my bones; [bones are broken during crucifixion, typically] (Psalm 22:17) They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing. (Psalm 22:18) And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take.(Mark 15:24) That's simply comparing a few verses of Psalm 22 with the gospels--and I left out the 'they pierced my hands and feet' because I don't have the time at the moment to go look up the original Greek. Seems to me that there are a few too many 'coincidences' here to not be fulfillment of prophesy--and that's only one of dozens of fulfilled prophesy in Scripture. ________________________________________________________ Your statement: " But there are very few actual documents/parchments copied from the originals. Those are the true word of God, and the 'translations' are only the word of God insofar as they are true (verbal plenary) to the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. The "Other books" so called are perhaps interesting accounts, but they are not the inspired Word of God as the Bible is. The Bible alone is perfect, it is the ultimate authority, and, as I've said before, an ultimate authority can't be judged by something else or else it isn't ultimate--whatever it is judged by is! IS a perfect example of that circular reasoning where your 'proof' is assumed by your very statement! You are defending your **belief** in the Bible by assuming that you can't be wrong...because the Bible can't be wrong.--- and round & round we go. So there are no absolutes, is that what you are saying? If there are absolutes, then there must be an ultimate authority to validate them. I have one--the God of the Bible. He is the ultimate authority. BUT, evolutionists don't have an ultimate, that I know of. The human mind, maybe? Humanists/evolutionists/athiests have to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to even have a foundation for reasoning. Without borrowing Christian presuppositions, you have no basis for argument. After all, how do you know that there is truth? What is eternal? How can you trust your mind? How do you know that the future will be like the past? I don't understand in order to believe: I believe in order to understand. Yes, I have faith, I have belief--but it's a reasonable faith.Without my faith, I could not understand anything, I could not carry on a conversation, I could not experiment with science. A person will interpret evidence by what their presuppositions are. I look at a fossil site and see evidence for the flood--evolutionists look at the same fossil site and see evidence for evolution. "A person's worldview clues him as to the nature, structure and origin of reality. It tells him what are the limits of possibility. It involves a view of the nature, sources and limits of human knowledge. It includes fundamental convictions about right and wrong. One's worldview says something about who man is, his place in the universe, and the meaning of life, etc. Worldviews determine our acceptance and understanding of events in human experience, and thus they play the crucial role in our interpreting of evidence or in disputes over conflicting fundamental beliefs." (Greg Bahnsen) One of the biggest proofs of the Christian faith is that if Christianity isn't true, you can't prove anything at all. To put that in more philosophical terms "Christianity is the transcendental precondition of intelligibility". Materialistic Atheists don't believe in God, don't believe that man has a soul, and don't believe in an afterlife. If those premises are true, then you couldn't know that it was true. You couldn't prove anything at all. Let me be clear: All science rests on inductive inference. I mean all science--biology, math, astronomy, physiology, everything! Inductive inference could also be phrased "the future will be like the past". You get up in the middle of the night and walk around. You stub your toe. You feel pain. So tonight when you get up to walk around, you will take care not to stub your toe because you believe that it will hurt again like it did last night. That's an inductive inference. You make speculations on the future because of occurrences in the past. But for an atheist, you can't know that if you stub your toe tonight it will hurt! You have no way of knowing that. You have the past, but you can't rely on the past because an atheist says that we live in a random universe. Just because the observable past has produced pain when you stubbed your toe does not mean that tonight it will hurt--in the future a stubbed toe may produce the thrill of a lifetime. You can't know! An atheist has no foundation to conduct science, to reason, or to speculate, because they have absolutely no assurance that A will proceed B tomorrow. A might proceed B today, but tomorrow A might proceed G8zy. I repeat: You have no foundation of your own to believe that the future will be like the past. You have no foundation to understand our world. You have no foundation to go to the science lab today and conduct scientific experiments, because past knowledge is useless to the future, and the future is completely unpredictable. Only when you borrow from the Christian worldview of the uniformity of nature (that the future will be like the past) can you make any progress in anything. ________________________________________________________ It IS possible to accept 'what is' without assuming 'intelligent design'... I do it every day! See my last response. Yes, you can accept 'what is', but you do so only on borrowed terms. You have no foundation of your own. You have no reason to rely on inductive inference, because you have no basis for it! _________________________________________________________ nowhere is there a requirement to assume anything in particular about an 'original cause'-- that is merely an abstract concept. We DO NOT KNOW where or how "causes start", and deciding that something must be named "God" is simply a personal opinion... So you have no basis of faith, that's what you're saying. You're basically saying "There is no proof that there was no cause, but I refuse to believe that the God of the Bible was the uncaused cause. Instead I'd rather believe in an unknown cause" "Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too {l} superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands" (Acts 17:22-24) ___________________________________________________________ Well, Iona, careful who you choose to befriend. Pete pounces in triumphant accord on snippets of your daft post but let me tell you he doesn't know what he's on about. He refuses to read Origin yet he jumps in with you on the "transitional forms" nonsense. To be honest, your crackpot notions simply reveal that there is insufficient between you and anyone who has even the faintest regard for science to have a constructive conversation. I once saw a drawing of a bear that was the exact intermediate between Yogi and Boo-boo, so that proves you're wrong. That's about the highest intellectual level you could manage, I suppose. Let's drop God and talk Jellystone. I haven't said anything to Pete or about Pete. I haven't even acknowledged his presence until now, because what good would it do? I'm not out to 'join forces' and gang up on anybody. I'm just here to give an explanation for what I believe and why I believe it. Pete can do the same if he wishes, and if he chooses to use some of my writings as a springboard, that's his business. But I wish you would stop the stream of insults (that are not taken) and actually discuss the evidence with me. Let's drop the slurs and talk epistemology. Your resorting to trying to make me mad with all your name calling and insults suggests that you don't have any way to answer my arguments! ___________________________________________________________ Unlike religion, we don't have any direct evidence that telepathy is impossible. But virgin birth? Raising the dead? Son of God? Turning water into wine? Splitting the Red Sea? Creating the earth in seven days? Creating the earth at all?? The list goes on and on. Precisely why they are called 'miracles'. Supernatural. Of course it's impossible--humanly speaking. "For with God nothing shall be impossible." (Luke 1:37) _____________________________________________________________ Raising the dead? (Medical trick) Doctors do that NOW, thousands of times a day. Son of God? Assuming there is a God, the Son ain't much of a leap. Turning water into wine? (chemistry trick) A bit of kool aid and 100 proof vodka would have easily fooled a wedding guest of 2000 years ago. Splitting the Red Sea? (meteorology trick) Moses times the escape for a windy day with just the right wind. Creating the earth in seven days? Define day. "Rasing the dead? Doctors do that now, thousands of times a day". By definition (in the Bible), death occurs when the soul departs the body. These everyday 'raisings' are not miracles like what we see in Scripture. In Scripture we're talking souls that were already in heaven or @#!*% (we don't know what the spiritual state of many of the biblical subjects were), being brought back into the bodies. What we see today is just appearance of death, and then being revived. We don't see (as we do in the Bible) men being in the grave and dead for four days, then being called forth and actively walking out of the grave. "Turning water into wine? Chemistry trick. A bit of kool aid and 100 proof vodka would have easily fooled a wedding guest of 2000 years ago." But the Bible (John 2) gives no indication that Jesus ever even laid hands on the jars. He simply told the servants (who were present the entire time) to fill the containers with water and to carry them out to the wedding feast. Plus, He didn't exactly have about twelve cases of Vodka at his disposal (and Kool Aid didn't even exist yet) to slyly empty into the water. The Scripture says that "They have no wine". There was no alcohol present at the time of the miracle. "Splitting the Red Sea? (meteorology trick) Moses times the escape for a windy day with just the right wind." Do you really mean to say that a nice little wind could part the Red sea and provide dry ground for the Israelites to walk on, as the Bible says happened? "Creating the earth in seven days? Define 'day'" 'day' in Hebrew is the word 'Yom'. It can mean a literal 24 hour day, or it can mean a period of time. But in Genesis, whenever the word 'yom' is used along with the words "evening and morning" or 'third day', etc. it always means a literal twenty four hour day. Anything else would have been destructive to the life that God had just created. Just think, if the 'days' of Creation Week had been long periods of time, then there would have been long periods of darkness. Once the plants were created, they would have quickly died because of lack of photosynthesis for food! Only a literal 24 hour day fits into the creation account. But you as an atheist have no basis for calling anything impossible. For since we live in a random universe, you can't know that tomorrow is going to be like today. For all you know, the miracles of the Bible were just random acts of the universe. They shouldn't even be a problem for you! _________________________________________________________________ Well, at least I got an answer: I find it absolutely mind-boggling, but it's an answer. "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? I would respond by going to the Bible and seeing if what the donkey said was in accordance with the Scriptures. If not, then it was not a message from God, but it could have a number of different explanations. 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? See my response above." Yes, that is my answer. Well, It's a very simplified version of my answer. Taking the child-killing scenario, it's a 99% chance that the 'word from God' was not a word from God at all. Lots of people get counseled today by their 'pastors' to have an abortion, and there have been many times when a 'pastor' has told a mother that 'God told him' that she ought to kill her baby. Now that is an obvious breach of the Bible, because it's very clear that "Thou shalt not murder"(Deuteronomy 5:17). So I'd very very VERY likely find that 'word from God' to be not a 'word of God' at all. For instance, Jephthah in Judges 11:30-36 told God that he would sacrifice whatever or whoever first came to meet him if God would give him victory over the Ammonites. God did, and who came to meet Jephthah? His only child. But instead of obeying God's law of 'thou shalt not murder', he chose to keep his word. He held his promise in more importance than the law of God. And that was sin. I don't condone what he did. _____________________________________________________________________ You're outnumbered, the pair of you. In the meantime, you are doing a disservice to the vast majority of people comfortable to be called Christians, as their use of god as a metaphor is debased by idiots intent on clinging to the bible as an instrument to play their fantasy on. Sorry that reality isn't good enough for you, but you know, one of you can be laughed at, a few of you can be tolerated but an international commune? I don't think you have much of an argument here. Again, your resorting to insults suggests that you can't do any other! My being outnumbered is not a problem to my argument. After all, there was a point in time when the majority believed that the planets all revolved around the earth, and that didn't make it true. "You're doing a disservice to the vast majority of people comfortable to be called Christians, as their use of god as a metaphor is debased by idiots intent on clinging to the bible as an instrument to play their fantasy on." Oh? Barring the fact that I have yet to meet a true Christian who calls God a metaphor, how is my defending the truth of the Scriptures a disservice to Christianity? You seem to be implying that I can believe what I want, but I should keep my trap shut and let people criticize it and try to tear it down. If that's the case, then why don't you do the same? Why do you find it worthwhile to type on this forum? I have a reason to believe what I do. But you don't. you don't even have a reason to believe--anything! For the atheist, there is no such thing as reason unless you borrow from the Christian worldview.....but I shall address that in another post. Tell me, are there absolutes? Is there such a thing as good and bad, and if so, how do you define them? _________________________________________________________ Iona - all you have to do to silence the doubters is find a fossil in the wrong place. Find the fossil of a horse in Cretaceous deposits; find a bony fish in the Burgess Shale, find a monkey in the Solnhofen limestone, find a rhino amongst the dinosaurs. Find the bones and silence the doubters. Find body fossils that prove you are right. Scientists have found so much evidence for Creation that I couldn't fit it all in this forum. Look at the jellyfish, up there towards the top of my post. That's one. There have been trees found in multiple layers of sediment, that is, one tree going through several different layers, each one supposedly having been laid down over millions of years. How does that work? "Find a rhino amongst the dinosaurs". How about people? Would you accept creationism if we had evidence that men lived alongside of dinosaurs? Forget something as trivial as a rhino with the dinosaurs, I think we ought to go straight to the evolutionary impossible--that of coexistence between humans and giant sauropods. Aha, but we do have evidence of just such a thing. The word "dinosaur" wasn't invented until 1842, coined by Sir Richard Owen. It means "terrible reptile" in Latin. The Chinese do not have a word like 'dinosaur', but they do have a word "kong long" which means 'terrible dragon'. They'd been using this word for years before people dug up a dinosaur bone in Europe. We read a lot of old stories in many cultures about terrible dragons--could it be that 'dragons' and 'dinosaurs' are really the same thing? Ancient legends about dragons and men's encounters with them are found all over the world. So have images of creatures resembling dinosaurs/dragons. For instance, there are images of dragons have been found on the Ishtar Gate of Babylon, in Egyptian hieroglyphs, Ethiopian sketches, on Viking ships, in Aztec temples, on cliffs above the Mississippi river, and on bones carved by the native Inuit peoples of Alaska. The Welsh flag still bears the bold design of a dragon. China is very well known for it's use of dragons in its cultural art. So it's not just a local theory that dragons existed, it's a widespread history. The book of Job in the Bible talks of several different kinds of 'dragons', both on land (Behemoth) and in the sea (Leviathan). A few things to look up and see for yourself are the the Natural Bridges Monument in Utah (underneath one of the rock bridges is a drawing that appears to be a dinosaur, drawn most likely by natives between 400 A.D. to 1300 A.D.), Hava supai Canyon in Arizona (where there is a picture of an animal standing on its hind legs--resembling a dinosaur), San Rafael Reef in Utah (where there is a large carving of something that resembles a Pterosaur. About 200 miles away from that canyon, fossil tracks that may have been made by a Pterosaur, have been discovered), and some figurines from Acambaro, Mexico. Over 33 thousand ceramic figures were found there, and many look like what today we would call dinosaurs. Just because we don't find dinosaurs fossilized in the same locality as humans doesn't prove anything. If you lived at the same time as dinosaurs, would you want to live in the same neighborhood? If we're going to take Beowulf's word for it, no. And neither did people before and after the flood. Just because humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time doesn't mean that they lived close to each other. Evolutionary scientists date geologic layers in which we find dinosaur bones by the time period in which that dinosaur supposedly lived (well, that's what many scientists say--and then they turn around and say that we can tell the age of the bones by the rocks in which they are found. Rather circular if you ask me). And then they date other layers differently just because we find human fossils (like 'Neanderthal' ). I say that it's not that they lived millions of years apart, they just lived in different parts of the world when the flood occurred. __________________________________________________________________________ How do you surmise that a dead cowboys leg petrified in his boot is a fossil? "Fossil: mineralized or otherwise preserved remains or traces (such as footprints) of animals, plants, and other organisms." --Wikipedia glossary of geological terms Fossilization is when something is buried quickly by lots of mud and water with just the right cementing agent. Over a little time, the minerals in the mud substance will replace the minerals in the decaying bone. Eventually only rock, in the perfect shape of the bones, will be left. Generally when we speak of 'fossils' today, we think 'old'--whether 'old' is thousands of years or millions of years. But fossilization is simply the occurrence of petrification. ____________________________________________________________________________ There's plenty of evidence of wear and tear on fossils, and plenty have been eroded out of one age of sediment and redeposited; the are called 'reworked' fossils. There is one case where we think a Jurassic ammonite was fossilised, weathered out and was then eaten by a dinosaur for use as a gastrolith, and after the dinosaur died or coughed it back up it was reburied in the later sediments. Wonderful! While I haven't studied that particular case, I do know that seeing a little wear and tear on a few fossil wouldn't completely destroy my worldview. The flood was a long and very chaotic event--Noah and his family were in the ark for over a year, so that gives a lot of time for the fossil bones to have been tossed about, shifted and replaced into a different layer of sediment. It could have happened after the flood, for that matter. No problem for the Creationist worldview. ♣Iona |
|
02 Feb 12 - 05:00 AM (#3300680) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy Iona, Thanks for your reply to my query. How do you surmise that a dead cowboys leg petrified in his boot is a fossil? "Fossil: mineralized or otherwise preserved remains or traces (such as footprints) of animals, plants, and other organisms." --Wikipedia glossary of geological terms Fossilization is when something is buried quickly by lots of mud and water with just the right cementing agent. Over a little time, the minerals in the mud substance will replace the minerals in the decaying bone. Eventually only rock, in the perfect shape of the bones, will be left. Generally when we speak of 'fossils' today, we think 'old'--whether 'old' is thousands of years or millions of years. But fossilization is simply the occurrence of petrification. ************ However your extract from WikiP doesn't give the full picture, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil 'Fossils (from Latin fossus, literally "having been dug up") are the preserved remains or traces of animals (also known as zoolites), plants, and other organisms from the remote past.' |
|
02 Feb 12 - 06:07 AM (#3300710) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG I didn't reference that part of the chapter. I was talking about the whole chapter. Let me compare the gospels to Psalm 22. Maybe that's what you thought you were doing, Iona, but what you actually said was 'Psalm 22 is a perfect description of the crucifixion of Christ. The odd thing? Crucifixion hadn't even been invented yet when David wrote the Psalms. I know that because the Romans invented crucifixion a thousand years later. So here's David, writing a description of a death that he never witnessed in his life, but that was fulfilled in Jesus Christ.' So I focussed on the crucifixion claim, and specifically said that was something testable, which the rest of the psalm isn't for various reasons I won't bore you with. And I concluded there is no evidence that the psalm deals with crucifixion rather than any other kind of death, in my opinion. |
|
02 Feb 12 - 06:08 AM (#3300711) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Iona, I don't resort to insults because I don't have an argument. I insult you because pity is more insulting than taking the piss. All of what you say relies on the bible as being more than a set of translations of translations of stories. (A bit like Gunther unt Heidi, as translated from Topsy & Tim.) As the bible is no more than an interesting portal into a superstitious past, your arguments wither away with the credibility of it. It being a man made convenient set of population control measures. Jam tomorrow and all that. I prefer jam today. And clotted cream. And beer. And pork. And prior to getting married, sex with girlfriends. Oh, and getting married in a hotel is much much better than a church. They aren't drafty and they have a bar. You see, I have no problem with your Sunday club, as I have no problem with the buffs, the masons or the local flower arranging group. Live & let live. Just don't assume we all want to grunt at each other / use secret hand shakes / put petunias alongside darker carnations. The Bishop dude in York said the other day that government shouldn't contradict the bible. Sorry mate, but your and your club get more irrelevant each day and loose cannons like him just make disestablishment nearer and nearer. And that would be a shame, because if your wonderful old buildings had to rely on what practicing Christians can raise, (less than 1% of the UK population) it would have to be St Pauls Offices to rent, Westminster Abbey branch of Starbucks. And I for one like the tradition if not the dangerous claptrap lurking behind it. |
|
02 Feb 12 - 06:23 AM (#3300723) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw But I wish you would stop the stream of insults (that are not taken) and actually discuss the evidence with me. You insult thousands of hard-working scientists constantly with your blindfolded attempts to refute the truth of evolution. I could spend a lifetime discussing my evidence with you, but not a single second discussing yours, because you simply haven't got any. You have hearsay, tradition, brainwashing, fear of demurral, incomplete and frequently suspect ancient documents, many of those containing myths and stories, and, at times, some very questionable interpretation of them, not to speak of that tendentious branch of extrapolation fondly known as theology. You rely on belief in an impossible supernatural being and strings of miracles that defy the laws of nature. But what you don't have is evidence. |
|
02 Feb 12 - 06:24 AM (#3300725) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Sorry, for the second time I screwed up my italics. Grrr... |
|
02 Feb 12 - 06:28 AM (#3300726) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion Still and all, Iona ~~ has to be α++ for effort. no assessment currently available for achievement, due to lack of motivation actually to read it all in detail |
|
02 Feb 12 - 06:36 AM (#3300728) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Mr Happy is quite right about fossils. Mineralisation is but one method of fossilisation. Some creatures, such as shelled molluscs, already have mineralised parts, and all they need is protection from crushing and weathering. There are imprint fossils such as dinosaur footprints and imprints of shells and leaves. Actual tissue such as wood, seeds, leaves, spores and pollen grains can be preserved in peat. Just off the coast where I live in Cornwall there a submerged forest about 8,000 years old, inundated by the sea when sea levels rose. Insects can be preserved in resin (amber) which oozed from tree bark. Mammoths have been preserved in ice. It's a wonderful world. |
|
02 Feb 12 - 07:24 AM (#3300751) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod Right, Iona, let's go back over, what we Brits call, 'the bleeding obvious' again. - There are gaps in our scientific knowledge and no scientist would claim otherwise. But Science is not a dogmatic assertion of faith and 'absolute truth' but a method for exploring and understanding the Universe, based on experiment and evidence. Gleefully jumping on gaps in our knowledge and exclaiming: "aha! That means that God must have done it!", is a response which infantile, illogical and stupid (let's not beat about the bush). - All of your 'arguments' are based on myths and anecdotes contained in an ancient text of dubious provenance. Just try telling a Tibetan Buddhist or an Amazonian Shaman that the Bible represents absolute truth. For that matter, just in the last few years, astronomers have discovered around 700 exo-planets outside of our Solar System. It's not outside the bounds of possibility that, in the near future, an intelligent species might be detected living on an exo-planet; it's highly unlikely that the Bible will mean much to such a species. - Attributing life on Earth to God just begs the question: Who, or what is God - and where and how did He originate? |
|
02 Feb 12 - 07:27 AM (#3300754) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stu "Most fossils we find today are from hard-boned creatures, because bones fossilize easily. But jellyfish are so very soft that it's nearly impossible to fossilize one." Soft tissue preservation is not uncommon in the fossil record but the Krukowski Quarry jellyfish are not body fossils, but ichnofossils or trace fossils and they represent the impressions of stranded jellyfish, not the animals themselves. As for the depositional conditions the time of burial of these impressions they could have been buried very quickly but that's got bog all to do with a mythical flood, and lots to do with any number of events from the neocatastrophic to the mundane. "Waves create ripples as they come into shore. But when the waves go back out, they erase the ripples." Now she's a sedimentologist. You've never walked on a beach then? Ripples everywhere on the sand after the tide has gone out. This statement is one of the most ignorant I've ever read from a creationist, and that is saying something. "Aha, but we do have evidence of just such a thing." Not one jot of the 'evidence' you've posted is evidence; it's based on the subjective interpretation of ancient petroglyphs for which you have zero cultural reference and even the local tribes have no ability to interpret. I saw petroglyphs in situ in Utah and Nevada last October (looking for dinosaur footprints with the SVP) and there is no consensus of opinion on their meaning, but plenty of speculation. The Welsh flag as evidence of dinosaurs and man living together? Twll dy din di (one of my Great-Grandmothers favourite sayings). That's no more than pretty ill-informed speculation and luckily, the history of the dragon in Welsh culture is far more fascinating than any meaning imposed by non-native religion. "Just because we don't find dinosaurs fossilized in the same locality as humans doesn't prove anything. If you lived at the same time as dinosaurs, would you want to live in the same neighbourhood?" The old 'absence of evidence' argument? A tired old creationist tactic that simply doesn't hold any water. Give us a break and let's concentrate on solid evidence and not hearsay, the re-interpretation of ancient myths and cod-archaeology. By the way, it's worth noting that we do live in the same neighbourhood as dinosaurs, as birds are dinosaurs. In the meantime, get looking for those fossils - put up or shut up and stop ducking the argument. Iona presents her arguments in an articulate and entertaining (and verbose) manner but there's little substance to them, and they're often error-ridden and play fast and loose with the facts by making tenuous connections and misrepresenting evidence to fit her arguments. She is also ignorant of her subject and this makes it not worth arguing any more. I'll keep an eye on the scientific literature so when she finds a whale or a bony fish in the Edicarian biota and turns the world of palaeontology on its head I can email her congratulations, as it would be pretty bloody exciting. Until then, it's safe to assume that like most creationists she is talking the talk but not walking the walk by getting out there and offering solid, testable and reproducible evidence to back up her inane, superstitious creationist claptrap. |
|
02 Feb 12 - 08:27 AM (#3300779) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Oh, and by the way since you say "I left out the 'they pierced my hands and feet' because I don't have the time at the moment to go look up the original Greek" - by which of course, we know you meant Hebrew, not Greek - here's a link to Wiki on the subject to save you time; They have pierced.... I have looked at other sites, not just Wiki, but the first paragraph summarises pretty well what the Hebrew text says, and how people have knowingly used other interpretations in the attempt of making sense of it. |
|
02 Feb 12 - 09:21 AM (#3300804) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail Shimrod But Science is not a dogmatic assertion of faith and 'absolute truth' but a method for exploring and understanding the Universe, based on experiment and evidence. Indeed so. Could you explain that to Steve Shaw who stiil comes out with lines like "the truth of evolution". |
|
02 Feb 12 - 09:28 AM (#3300808) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: akenaton Can humans "devolve" as well as "evolve"? I think I must be devolving.....I've started agreeing with Snail.....:0( |
|
02 Feb 12 - 09:39 AM (#3300814) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA "I'd love to see pictures of them." You have just sinned in telling a lie. No you wouldn't. If you would really love to see pictures of them, you could have found them already. The pictures are widely available. |
|
02 Feb 12 - 10:19 AM (#3300842) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod Thanks, Snail. Up to now I've avoided getting into argumenrs with SS because I don't think that it's helpful for us (more or less) rationalists to start splitting along sectarian lines! |
|
02 Feb 12 - 10:33 AM (#3300854) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail Sorry Shimrod, But I disagree. Arguing with the likes of Iona is completely pointless. She isn't actually thinking, just regurgitating garbage from creationist websites. She really isn't of the slightest importance. On the other hand, people with a scientific education talking the way SS does open up science to being described as just another belief system alongside religion. (Don't worry Ake, there is still plenty we will never agree on.) |
|
02 Feb 12 - 11:32 AM (#3300894) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D " Arguing with the likes of Iona is completely pointless." Like *I* said before.... surrender, guys. |
|
02 Feb 12 - 12:16 PM (#3300926) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth ". . . a true Christian will not take a stand for what they believe. " Iona, I did NOT say that! Doesn't misrepresenting what I say constitude "false witness?" Don Firth |
|
02 Feb 12 - 12:32 PM (#3300936) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. As she said, evidence will not change her world view. So I won't mention the Coal Measures (successions of buried soils and fully grown trees with their roots), or William Smith (who discovered the layers of rock and their contained fossils which she states do not exist and laid the foundations of geology). I will, however, warn her that if she does leave the computer to go out and look at geology in situ, she should bear in mind that burial can occur quite quickly, even in the absence of Flood, and she should check on tides, avoid the bases of cliffs, and be careful to keep away from places where there might be flash floods or mud slides. But I don't think she will. It's as likely as her making any converts on this board. |
|
02 Feb 12 - 12:35 PM (#3300937) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. I'm just wondering whether there are sites which search for references to this issue so their advocates can turn up and start preaching. I exclude Pete, because he is a singer who has other reasons to be here. Penny |
|
02 Feb 12 - 01:09 PM (#3300961) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Greg F. Dear Lord, save and protect me from your mindless followers. |
|
02 Feb 12 - 01:32 PM (#3300964) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Amen!! Don Firth |
|
02 Feb 12 - 01:51 PM (#3300981) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: frogprince "Taking the child-killing scenario, it's a 99% chance that the 'word from God' was not a word from God at all. Lots of people get counseled today by their 'pastors' to have an abortion, and there have been many times when a 'pastor' has told a mother that 'God told him' that she ought to kill her baby. Now that is an obvious breach of the Bible, because it's very clear that "Thou shalt not murder"(Deuteronomy 5:17). So I'd very very VERY likely find that 'word from God' to be not a 'word of God' at all." And I would say that it is, to say the least, a 99% chance that God did not instruct Abraham to kill Isaac as a sacrifice. Of course the story plays out with God letting Abraham off the hook, and providing an animal substitute. But Abraham is lauded and rewarded because he would have butchered his child if God had stuck to the demand, and he has been generally lauded by the church since it's inception as a superlative example of faith in God. As a believer in the literal truth of the Bible, how do you react to that. And what do you think God's reaction would have been if Abraham has simply said, "God, I'm not going to do that; it would be totally evil, and you are a #%&*@ for telling me to do it." |
|
02 Feb 12 - 03:47 PM (#3301070) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: McGrath of Harlow That post by Iona (GUEST,Iona - PM Date: 02 Feb 12 - 03:58 AM ) really must be some kind of record for a post - more especially one that isn't pretty well wholly made up of cut and pasted material. Quite fun really - but... I find it really weird that anyone should think that this creationist stuff is significant either to being a Christian or not being a Christian. |
|
02 Feb 12 - 04:06 PM (#3301088) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth It isn't, really, but a lot of Biblical literalists make a big deal out of it. If they really think they need to take the Bible literally, I can recommend a number of verses that would give them pause to think again! Don Firth |
|
02 Feb 12 - 04:30 PM (#3301108) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth This, for starters. Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio advice guru. Some time back, she took a shot at homosexuality, using the Bible as the absolute authority, and received the following response: Dear Dr. Laura:The pastor of the church my wife and I attend once held up a copy of the Bible and said, "This is NOT the Boy Scout Manual. Rather than answers to everything, this book contains QUESTIONS!" Don Firth P. S. And it certainly does not contain answers to scientific questions. Those who dwell on discrepancies such as this are missing the point entirely. |
|
02 Feb 12 - 05:00 PM (#3301140) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Evolution is true. Indeed it is. I didn't say the contradictory "the theory of evolution is true." It is no longer possible to deny that evolution occurs. Unless you're barking, of course. Hello, Snail, by the way,. Here we go again, eh, with your contrarian stance on everything I say. Get a life, why don't you. Or evolve into something more intelligent than a gastropod. |
|
02 Feb 12 - 05:44 PM (#3301162) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mrrzy I heard a good analogy for the gaps-in-the-fossil-record idea - There has been a robbery. On the surveillance tape you see someone go into the door with an empty bag and out with a full one at the time the robbery occurred. Gap! Cries the defense. You don't see the actual robbery so these frames are of no use as evidence. You need the missing link in your evidence chain. Seeing you coming in and going out is not evidence that you were inside at all. So you go to the indoor camera that shows the perpetrator breaking into the vault with the empty bag and coming out with a full one. More gaps! Says the defense. Now there are more holes in your story - you don't show my client between the door and the vault nor between the vault and the door - maybe these are two different people (in identical clothes and bag is not mentioned, of course). And so on. I think you get the picture. But I liked the analogy. |
|
02 Feb 12 - 05:49 PM (#3301166) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod "Arguing with the likes of Iona is completely pointless. She isn't actually thinking, just regurgitating garbage from creationist websites." I'm not sure that arguing with Iona is pointless, Snail. I wouldn't normally bother with people like her but she and her kind apparently have quite a bit of political 'clout' in the US - and I believe that that fact puts us all in danger - and I feel duty bound to say something. On the other hand I can't resist pointing out that arguing with you seems to be a pretty futile exercise ... I liked your last post, Don, it made me smile. The creationist mind-set seems to be very 'selectivist' (if that's a real word!). Select the bits of the Bible that you like - ignore the rest. Nit pick the literature on Evolution, blow any apparent anomalies or contentious issues out of proportion, and loudly claim that such points PROVE that the Theory of Evolution must be wrong ... and attribute all creation to God ... eerrr ... so how did God do it? Well, He just did - it says so in the Bible! |
|
02 Feb 12 - 05:59 PM (#3301176) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona I am working on another one of my mile-long answers, but I still think that you all ought to answer me: Define good. Define evil. You see, without your borrowing from a Christian worldview, you can't define those things. So Don, really you have no argument. By your worldview, anything goes and you have no basis for reason. |
|
02 Feb 12 - 06:04 PM (#3301181) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw One thing's for certain - there's been plenty of evil down the ages that has derived from a Christian world view, no matter how you "define evil." |
|
02 Feb 12 - 06:07 PM (#3301182) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail Hardly any surprise that Steve Shaw responds with personal abuse. It is no longer possible to deny that evolution occurs. I would certainly not deny that evolution occurs but, as Iona demonstrates, it is perfectly possible to do so if you are sufficiently obsessed with your own world view. Someone might just as well say the Moon does not exist but they won't get taken very seriously. Evolution is true. A meaningless statement and a completely unscientific one. You might just as well say "The Moon is true." Trying to debate with the likes of Iona is pointless. What matters is presenting a clear description of how science works and what the scientific method is and what it can achieve. As Shimrod said, it is not about 'absolute truth'. |
|
02 Feb 12 - 06:07 PM (#3301183) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D "Define good." Aristotle Kant John Stuart Mill etc.... Oh...I'm sorry... you want a 'simplistic' one |
|
02 Feb 12 - 06:15 PM (#3301187) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Just off the coast where I live in Cornwall there a submerged forest about 8,000 years old, inundated by the sea when sea levels rose."" Oh don't tell her that Steve, you'll destroy her illusory belief in a universe created 6,000 years ago in six days. |
|
02 Feb 12 - 06:38 PM (#3301196) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail Shimrod I'm not sure that arguing with Iona is pointless, Snail. I wouldn't normally bother with people like her but she and her kind apparently have quite a bit of political 'clout' in the US - and I believe that that fact puts us all in danger - and I feel duty bound to say something. Point taken but do you think that you are going to win her over? She stopped actually thinking a long time ago. Her arguments are an incoherent mess. She started off asking about evidence for evolution and now she's talking about Good and Evil. The target audience for rationalists are those who might be won over by her arguments. They need to be shown how science works as I said in my last post. They need to know that it is not just an alternative belief system. On the other hand I can't resist pointing out that arguing with you seems to be a pretty futile exercise ... Well, only because you can't admit I'm right. Tell me this, do you think Steve Shaw is right when he says "Evolution is true." If so, what does that mean? No fence sitting. |
|
02 Feb 12 - 06:40 PM (#3301197) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""I am working on another one of my mile-long answers, but I still think that you all ought to answer me: Define good. Define evil."" I have no intention of pandering to your attempts to claim that only Christians know the difference. Don Firth's recent offering does a pretty good job of showing the evil that lurks in that book you so revere. The average atheist would never be so amoral as to accept it as the word of any moral or ethical authority. Fundamentalists, such as yourself, are apparently just that amoral. You give genuine Christians a bad name. Don T. Don T. |
|
02 Feb 12 - 06:45 PM (#3301199) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Iona: "You see, without your borrowing from a Christian worldview, you can't define those things. So Don, really you have no argument. By your worldview, anything goes and you have no basis for reason." I do NOT have to borrow from the Christian "worldview" to define good and evil. Thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, Siddhârtha Gautama Buddha, and many, MANY religious figures who existed LONG before Jesus, not to mention MOSES, I might add—have given answers to the question of Good and Evil. These answers are remarkably similar, and they pre-date the birth of Jesus by centuries. And here is something YOU don't seem capable of understanding. And that is that one can figure out the nature of Good and Evil on one's own. Without having to turn to some religious figure. That which promotes and enriches life is GOOD. That which is inimical to life is EVIL. I don't need the Boy Scout Manual. Nor, for that matter, Jesus, to tell me the nature of Good and Evil. Perhaps, however, YOU do. Don Firth |
|
02 Feb 12 - 07:24 PM (#3301227) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth And, Iona, don't fall into the error of thinking those are simplistic answers. They are far more complex than you may think. Don Firth |
|
02 Feb 12 - 08:34 PM (#3301255) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Evolution is true. A meaningless statement and a completely unscientific one. You might just as well say "The Moon is true." You are trolling. However. The above assertion is utter rubbish. Evolution is a concept. The moon is a solid object. Your "might just as well" connection is useless. Why don't you think before you post? And by saying that evolution is true I was not even attempting to make "a scientific statement," whatever that's supposed to be. I'm saying it as it is. That evolution happens is no longer deniable. I do not say that the theory of evolution is true. The general thrust is true, but there are still plenty of tweaks to be made and plenty of gaps in knowledge to fill. That does not alter the fact that we have more than enough information by now to declare that evolution certainly happens. So evolution is true. This bloke, or woman, or mollusc, whatever it/he/she is, appears to get perverse pleasure in contradicting everything I say. The threadbare nature of Snail's approach is betrayed by the above quoted statement. Thoughtless, useless and more than tinged with bile. So my post gets filled with bile too. A classic example, then, of why we shouldn't feed trolls. There's a song thrush in my garden that delights in cracking snail shells and consuming the titbit therein. This specimen would give my thrush serious indigestion, I reckon. |
|
03 Feb 12 - 03:44 AM (#3301335) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona I have no intention of pandering to your attempts to claim that only Christians know the difference. Don Firth's recent offering does a pretty good job of showing the evil that lurks in that book you so revere. The average atheist would never be so amoral as to accept it as the word of any moral or ethical authority. Fundamentalists, such as yourself, are apparently just that amoral. You give genuine Christians a bad name. I'm pleased to see you so indignant over evil. That proves my point, which is this: Without Christianity, there can be no evil, no good. Everything is relative without a Christian worldview. I have a basis for defining evil. But atheists don't. So the only way that you can call some of the laws in the Bible "Evil" is by standing on the very presuppositions that the Bible provides--that there are such things as moral absolutes. Until you are able to establish a foundation of your own without borrowing from the Christian worldview, you have no basis for judging me or anything else. For you, there is no good and there is no evil. And yet you sit here accusing me of being "amoral", "Giving 'genuine Christians' [whatever those are!] a bad name"--you say that the Bible contains "evil", and you state that there are morals and ethics. Splendid! Now, please stop borrowing those terms from my worldview. In an athiestic worldview, there is no good, no evil, no morals and no ethics. For instance, I'm assuming you would call child abuse wrong. Am I correct? I'll assume you would. All right, by what standard is it wrong? Because you disapprove of it? Because it causes discomfort to your mind? Because it causes discomfort to the child? __________________________________________________________________ One thing's for certain - there's been plenty of evil down the ages that has derived from a Christian world view, no matter how you "define evil." Again, I'm glad to see that you are indignant over the evil that exists in the world. To be sure, the fact that you call some things 'evil' proves the point that you aren't as good of an atheist as you say you are. How can you call anything evil? Isn't it 'different strokes for different folks'? How can you call what "Christian Worldview" has produced "evil"? What is evil? I have a reason for believing in absolute right and wrong--but you don't. ___________________________________________________________________ Trying to debate with the likes of Iona is pointless. What matters is presenting a clear description of how science works and what the scientific method is and what it can achieve. As Shimrod said, it is not about 'absolute truth'. But you must have absolute truth if you're going to debate rationally. After all, if there are no absolutes, if 'what's true for you isn't necessarily true for me' . I could pull a gun and shoot you in order to win my argument. Why shouldn't I? Would you protest if I pulled a gun on you during our discussion? If you say "Yes, you shouldn't shoot me," then you obviously believe that there is good and evil. But if you say "No, it's all relative", then I am completely reasonable to pull the trigger. By the way, when you say that trying to debate with me is pointless, you are completely right. After all, it's not exactly an equal discussion is it, since you have to borrow my worldview in order to even come to this thread! You bring assumptions with you that aren't even yours to assume, you borrow them from my worldview. You assume that, 1. There is absolute truth. you prove that you believe this by choosing to debate with me. If you didn't believe in absolute truth, then you wouldn't care what I said. 2. There is absolute right and wrong. All over the place I'm getting called, either indirectly and directly, 'immoral', 'evil', 'unnethical', etc. That's only the beginning of things that you must borrow from Christianity in order to try to refute Christianity. ___________________________________________________________________ I do NOT have to borrow from the Christian "worldview" to define good and evil. Thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, Siddhârtha Gautama Buddha, and many, MANY religious figures who existed LONG before Jesus, not to mention MOSES, I might add—have given answers to the question of Good and Evil. These answers are remarkably similar, and they pre-date the birth of Jesus by centuries. And here is something YOU don't seem capable of understanding. And that is that one can figure out the nature of Good and Evil on one's own. Without having to turn to some religious figure. YES! I'm so happy that you brought this up. The fact that all men believe somewhere in their mind that there is good and evil, that there are absolutes, etc, is proof that they really know in their heart of hearts that the God of the Bible exists. As Romans 1:20 says, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse". You get upset when someone does something that you deem 'immoral'. but if you adhere faithfully to your worldview, then it is only immoral to you and to others who agree with you. To the person who is doing the 'immoral' thing, obviously it's not immoral to them. Their morals are different than yours, that's all. Who are you to judge? But on my worldview, when I see someone doing something 'immoral', I can tell you why I call it immoral. I have a basis for my belief. And the fact that all the individuals you mentioned propose a fundamental belief in good and evil only proves my point--that deep in their hearts they know the God of the Bible, and they "supress the truth in unrighteousness" (Romans 1:18) ______________________________________________________________________ That which promotes and enriches life is GOOD. That which is inimical to life is EVIL. Promotes and enriches whose life? Yours? The general public? But why in the world should you care what makes other people happy? Obviously Hitler had different ethical standards than you do, because he thought that he was doing good by killing all the Jews and gypsies and the mentally handicapped. He obviously didn't adhere to your standards of good and evil, and who are you to judge him? He was doing what he thought was good! "That which is inimical to life is evil" Let's see, then. So self defense is evil, abortion is evil, etc. etc.... but wait, whose life are you talking about? Life in general, or your life, or.....? And why do you call it evil? Because it causes unhappiness? But what if killing someone gives a person pleasure? Then it's enriching their life---it's therefore good! Well, it's inimical to the life of the victim, so it's evil. A paradox! Good and evil at the same time. How confusing! _______________________________________ To be continued....... Iona ______________________________________________________________________ |
|
03 Feb 12 - 03:50 AM (#3301339) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod Snail, as I said before I may not agree with everything that Steve Shaw says but I know that we both sit on the same side of the fence i.e. the opposite side from the creationists. Perhaps you should be with us on our side? |
|
03 Feb 12 - 04:55 AM (#3301357) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw One thing's for certain - there's been plenty of evil down the ages that has derived from a Christian world view, no matter how you "define evil." Again, I'm glad to see that you are indignant over the evil that exists in the world. To be sure, the fact that you call some things 'evil' proves the point that you aren't as good of an atheist as you say you are. How can you call anything evil? Isn't it 'different strokes for different folks'? How can you call what "Christian Worldview" has produced "evil"? What is evil? I have a reason for believing in absolute right and wrong--but you don't. Hello? What on earth has the fact that I recognise evil got to do with the fact that I'm an atheist? My atheism is totally predicated on one simple point: that the probability of the existence of a supernatural being, who breaks all the laws of nature and for whom there is no evidence, is vanishingly small. Nothing else! Don't you think it's a tad arrogant to assume that we get all our moral codes and boundaries from Christianity, which has a only small minority of the world's population as adherents (and most of those pretty casual adherents)? |
|
03 Feb 12 - 04:59 AM (#3301359) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket What get me is the "to be continued.." bit at the end. Eternal optimism or what? Also pissing myself about her "Christians have a reason for believing in absolute right and wrong." Just looked in the mirror, seems I'm the Antichrist after all! Well, nice to have turned out with a career, I say... |
|
03 Feb 12 - 06:26 AM (#3301386) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG "Giving 'genuine Christians' [whatever those are!] a bad name" Then think of it this way. When an atheist or a waverer reads your words, is it your responsibility to try to make them think 'Yes, this person makes a good argument, I need to think more about this Christianity stuff?' rather than 'everything this person says is an incoherent and logical mess and so I can't trust a word they say, including anything about Christ'? If don't take any responsibility for it, or you are happy that what you say forces them to think the latter, to my mind you are harming the promotion of Christ's message. Which is not what a 'genuine Christian' should be trying to do. |
|
03 Feb 12 - 12:38 PM (#3301519) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link interesting analogy mrzzy-but as i earlier mentioned even evolutionists have admitted the lack of transistional forms. |
|
03 Feb 12 - 12:48 PM (#3301525) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Pete, will you for Pete's sake read the bloody Origin of Species! All your concerns are beautifully and elegantly addressed therein, "transitional forms" included, and it's all eminently readable. Go on -expose yourself to sin for a change! |
|
03 Feb 12 - 01:00 PM (#3301534) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail There doesn't seem to be a lot of point in trying to engage Steve Shaw in intelligent debate. Even ignoring the puerile abuse in his post, his arguments were too inconsistent to get a grip on. So, Shimrod, I think we may have built our fences in different places. On the far side of my fence, along with creationism are pseudo-science, intelligent design, bad science and belief in some central "truth". I think you are well aware that a lot of what SS says comes under bad science but you can't bring yourself to say so. I don't think you can ever defeat creationism with bad science, in fact, you've already lost. DmcG's question "When an atheist or a waverer reads your words, is it your responsibility to try to make them think 'Yes, this person makes a good argument, I need to think more about this Christianity stuff?'" can easily be adapted to the view from the other side. How is a non-creationist Christian or waverer going to react to Steve's repetition of "Evolution is true" with very little explanation of what he means? They might well say "If that's the best science has to offer, I'll stick with the Bible." |
|
03 Feb 12 - 01:03 PM (#3301536) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""The fact that all men believe somewhere in their mind that there is good and evil, that there are absolutes, etc, is proof that they really know in their heart of hearts that the God of the Bible exists. As Romans 1:20 says, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse"."" How can all men believe in the God of the Bible when most of the world's population, during most of the history of humanity, had no knowledge of the bible. Particularly those ancient Greek philosophers mentioned above, who didn't have a clue that any monotheistic culture existed. Your arguments are illogical to the point of imbecility, and serve only to show your abysmal ignorance of anything other than what is spouted by Fundamentalists and Creationists, and particularly your ignorance of the Jewish/Hebrew faith which is the source of the Old Testament. You don't even have sufficient knowledge of Christianity to know what it is about. Don T. |
|
03 Feb 12 - 02:24 PM (#3301581) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke All have a knowledge of good and evil? maybe so, but it shows your appalling ignorance of history and anthropology (to match that of science) that you don't know that what is good in one society or in one age is evil in another. I can't think of a crime which has not been highly praised, if not compulsory, in other societies. Incest? Compulsory for pharaohs. Child murder? Phoenicians (and probably Abraham's neighbours too, if he ever existed). Murder? Read Huckleberry Finn or vistit the Mayan relics. Rape? It has been the normal courtship rite in many societies. Slavery? only stopped being acceptable the day before yesterday- US ex-slaves were living well into our lifetimes. The list goes on. And things that are normal now were heinous crimes in the past. Usury was a deadly sin in the Middle Ages. Religious tolerance was a mark of lack of commitment (some contributors probably agree with that one). People were transported for their love of democracy only two hundred years ago. So, if we have an inbuilt sense of morality, no one can agree on the details. |
|
03 Feb 12 - 03:02 PM (#3301613) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Iona, the complexities of Good and Evil were thoroughly discussed in great detail by philosophers centuries before the birth of Christ. One does not need to be a Christian to know matters of Good and Evil and analyze the complexities of any given situation. You ask me a lot of questions about specific situations. I suggest that you learn these matters the same way I did: study philosophy. Especially pre-Christian philosophers. Like I have. Compared to Plato, matters of ethics and morality as spelled out in the Bible are arbitrary, capricious, and very fuzzy at best. And some, as indicated in the "letter to Dr. Laura" posted above, are seriously immoral and unethical. And I remind you that I am a regular church-goer, and have served on the church council for six years. I have been a council representative to the state synod meetings several times. I also have what has been called "an extraordinary grasp" of the Bible, its contents, and its history. In addition to Bible study classes in connection with church, I have taken a course at the university in "The Bible as Literature," in which we studied and discussed the Bible AS LITERATURE, reading whole sections, not just isolated verse by isolated verse. This gives one a good grasp of what is REALLY meant by a whole section of the Bible, rather than "cherry-picking" the verses you want, taking them out of context, and putting them back together to make them say what YOU want them to say rather than what they REALLY say. So you can't fault me on that score. I have met your type before. Young, gung-ho evangelist out to Save the World. All enthusiasm, a little knowledge of the Bible, but of very little else. And convinced that you Doing God's Work, are filled to the eyebrows with the Sin of Pride. Don Firth |
|
03 Feb 12 - 05:00 PM (#3301687) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D pete...."...even evolutionists have admitted the lack of transistional forms. ONE MORE TIME! Not lack... there ARE transitional forms.... just not ALL the transitions. You can't expect one example of every change to fall in the right burial spot! You keep using that weak argument.... |
|
03 Feb 12 - 06:07 PM (#3301727) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA Interestingly, the origins of morality may be in evolution. Pinker (for example). Try also Rutherford, Greene, Moll, Wrangham...get your own dang links (I know you won't). No Christianity required (unless you will claim that bonobos are Christian). |
|
03 Feb 12 - 07:15 PM (#3301762) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Excellent article, TIA. Thanks for the link. On any given moral issue, if the Bible says one thing, the Koran says something different, and the Bhagavad Gita offers yet a third alternative, how, then, is one to decide which of the three is right? Other than nothing more authoritive than the flip of a coin? And DEFEND that choice, except by invoking one's faith? And despite the strength of your faith, Iona, the correct moral choice might be the Koran. Or the Bhagavad Gita. The only defense for your choice would be your faith that the Bible is right. Your faith, like it or not, is far less authoritative and knowledgeable than that of an anthropologist's understanding of the priciples that drive evolution. You're guessing. The anthopologist is operating from evidence which is verifiable by any and all. If they well take their blinders off and look. Don Firth |
|
03 Feb 12 - 08:26 PM (#3301789) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw There doesn't seem to be a lot of point in trying to engage Steve Shaw in intelligent debate. Even ignoring the puerile abuse in his post, his arguments were too inconsistent to get a grip on. So, Shimrod, I think we may have built our fences in different places. On the far side of my fence, along with creationism are pseudo-science, intelligent design, bad science and belief in some central "truth". I think you are well aware that a lot of what SS says comes under bad science but you can't bring yourself to say so. I don't think you can ever defeat creationism with bad science, in fact, you've already lost. DmcG's question "When an atheist or a waverer reads your words, is it your responsibility to try to make them think 'Yes, this person makes a good argument, I need to think more about this Christianity stuff?'" can easily be adapted to the view from the other side. How is a non-creationist Christian or waverer going to react to Steve's repetition of "Evolution is true" with very little explanation of what he means? They might well say "If that's the best science has to offer, I'll stick with the Bible." What a load of tosh. Evolution is indeed true, and, if you don't think it is, I should like to hear your detailed reasoning concluding that it isn't true. Not sniping, reasoning. Very little explanation my arse. I told you exactly what I meant, so take it or leave it. You suppose yourself to be some kind of scientist (I doubt your credentials severely, actually - you sound a bit like that woman in the news today who fooled everyone into thinking she had a science degree in order to get a teaching job and mark "A" levels!) Your comments quoted above are full of shit, and, if I know Shimrod even vaguely well enough, I can tell you you're wasting your time. Just shut your gob and let him speak for himself, eh? Why don't you find something useful to do? Don't snails mate at this time of the year? |
|
03 Feb 12 - 08:28 PM (#3301790) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Damn. The italics should have started at the beginning of that. Grrrr. |
|
03 Feb 12 - 09:18 PM (#3301811) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,LB One major problem Iona: The concept of both GOOD and EVIL has been around much much longer than Christianity. So your argument is absolutely and completely baseless. |
|
04 Feb 12 - 12:20 AM (#3301862) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA Iona has no interest in "the truth". And no actual curiousity. I encounter this type constantly in my work. They find comfort in simplicity and pre-packaged arguments. A complicated world is far too frightening and overwhelming. Sorry, it's not elitism. It's actually sad...and frightening when they vote. Being a social conservative and evangelical does not mean you are ignorant, but the ignorant are far more likely to be social conservatives and evangelical. Sorry Iona; if you misunderstand that point, you prove it. |
|
04 Feb 12 - 06:58 AM (#3301941) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. I think that "comfort" is probably too weak a word, even if taken back to its roots in giving strength. It isn't just a cosy protection against complicated things, but a need for something much stronger which drives this sort of discourse. And the desire for things to be simple, a word often used in this sort of context, actually leads too more and more unsupportable complexity, and a deity which is itself far from simple, comforting, or indeed the God revealed in Jesus. (Surrounded by Hellenistic thinkers and ideas, natural philosophy was something he did not feel it necessary to deal with.) Last night, while sorting my slides and digitising them, I came across photographs of an unconformity (conveniently beside a rather pleasant hotel in Cumbria). I wonder how the erosion of previously deposited and lithified rocks and the formation of further rocks above them is simply attributed to huge masses of wet slurry rolling about for a year. Penny |
|
04 Feb 12 - 08:31 AM (#3301975) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail Steve, listen carefully. I am not saying evolution isn't true; I am saying that the statement "Evolution is true" is meaningless. You seem fairly confused about what it means yourself. In a recent post you said "Evolution is a concept." and "That evolution happens is no longer deniable." within a few sentences. Make up your mind. Which? Is it a "concept" i.e. an idea, a human construct, or is it something that "happens" i.e. part of the natural world? In the same post you said "And by saying that evolution is true I was not even attempting to make "a scientific statement," ". So what were you attempting to do? It sounds rather like a statement of belief to be set alongside "The Bible is true.". (At least that is a meaningful statement even if I don't agree with it.) I'm not a scientist, just someone who has studied science (including evolution) extensively. Come up and see me sometime; I'll show you my certificates. As for letting Shimrod speak for himself, I suggest you take a look at his posts over the last few days. (And keep your speculations about my sex life to yourself.) |
|
04 Feb 12 - 01:18 PM (#3302131) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona Okay, so I'm going to not do the mile-long answers this time (just *half* a mile long!) , because a lot of the most important points I'm trying to make are getting looked over because my post was so long. So I'm going to do just a few at a time, as I get time to answer them. ____________________________________________________________________ Hello? What on earth has the fact that I recognize evil got to do with the fact that I'm an atheist? My atheism is totally predicated on one simple point: that the probability of the existence of a supernatural being, who breaks all the laws of nature and for whom there is no evidence, is vanishingly small. Nothing else! Don't you think it's a tad arrogant to assume that we get all our moral codes and boundaries from Christianity, which has a only small minority of the world's population as adherents (and most of those pretty casual adherents)? I already explained a little how atheists can't call anything evil, but I am going into more detail at the bottom of this post. So read on if you want my answer. "Don't you think it's a tad arrogant to assume that we get all our moral codes and boundaries from Christianity, which has a only small minority of the world's population as adherents?" No, I don't. Are you a moral relativist? If not, then surely you don't believe that there is more than one truth. It is not arrogant to believe that Christianity is the only truth, in fact I go so far as to say that without Christianity there can be no such thing as truth at all. Define for me truth.Unless you borrow from my worldview, you can't. Further explanations below. ____________________________________________________________________ "The fact that all men believe somewhere in their mind that there is good and evil, that there are absolutes, etc, is proof that they really know in their heart of hearts that the God of the Bible exists. As Romans 1:20 says, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse"."" How can all men believe in the God of the Bible when most of the world's population, during most of the history of humanity, had no knowledge of the bible. The Bible is a divinely compiled collection of documents that were written over the course of earth history. So even though men didn't have the Bible as we do today, they still had the law of God as given to Adam, and to Abraham, and to Moses, etc, etc. That's also what the prophets were for in Bible times--to exhort and apply the law of God to people who perhaps didn't have access to the actual written word. But all that aside, like the Bible says--all men know that there is a Creator, and they know that that Creator holds them accountable for all of their actions. They may not consciously know it, but that knowledge is ingrained in the 'tablets of their hearts'. _______________________________________________________________________ 'Fossils (from Latin fossus, literally "having been dug up") are the preserved remains or traces of animals (also known as zoolites), plants, and other organisms from the remote past.' Sure, you can also define it that way. I'm talking about 'fossilization'---the process of a substance being 'fossilized'/petrified. Something turning into a rock in the perfect shape of the original specimen. Most people (even scientists) use the term loosely to refer to the mineralization process, but also of old specimens. The argument between us is how old is old? "fossil, coming from the Latin fossalis, dug up. Fossa and fossil ultimately stem from the Latin verb fodera, to dig." (from the Anatomy Almanac) My point was simply that it doesn't take millions of years to preserve an object by fossilization/petrification. If you want to be perfectly accurate with your wording, say petrification. _____________________________________________________________________ All of what you say relies on the bible as being more than a set of translations of translations of stories. And without my relying on the Bible as being the transcendental, infallible word of God, I would have no basis for believing anything at all! I would have no basis for science, or reason, or knowledge. Let me explain. I've already slightly touched on inductive inference in a previous post. Inductive inference is, in other words, 'the future will be like the past'. For an atheist/evolutionist, who believes that we live in a random universe, it is impossible to know that the future will be like the past. Just because I drop a pencil today and it falls to the floor does not mean that the same thing will happen tomorrow when I drop the pencil. For all you know, it could float upwards. Perhaps it will turn into a dove! We have no way of knowing what the future will be like in an atheistic universe. Thus, there is no point to conduct scientific experiments. Just because in the past an experiment has produced a certain result, does not mean that it will the same result in the future. For all you know, an experiment you have done in the past and which resulted in one thing, could blow the whole laboratory to pieces tomorrow. You have no way of knowing.Just because in the past, the future has been like the past does not mean that that in the future the future will be like the past. You have no way of knowing. I.e.: Between points T1 and T2, things have always turned out the same, between T2 and T3, between T3 and T4 they have always been the same as in the past, so I'm assuming that between T4 and T5 I will get the same result. But that's assuming in the uniformity of nature, that the future will be like the past. If you don't assume that, then all of the probabilities from the past are just wasted information. Because if we live in a random universe, you can't know that the future will be like the past, and so the fact that the points between T1 and T4 have all been the same is useless data--you can't carry that into the future and try to apply them to T4 and T6. It's utterly worthless info because it is from the past! The only way that you can conduct intelligent experiments is if you assume that we live in an orderly universe, in the uniformity of nature, and in inductive inference. I have a basis for those things. Christianity is the basis for inductive inference. "Christianity is the transcendental precondition for intelligibility"--without the Christian worldview, you can't know anything at all. But the whole history of science is based upon the assumption that the world is a regular, uniform place, where we can conduct experiments and make judgements on how they will turn out; you can make weather judgements, experimental predictions, you can discover mysteries and decode puzzles. All of those things are based upon the simple assumption that the world is NOT random and accidental, that there is an absolute truth, that there is such a thing as inductive inference. But again, let me be clear: in an atheistic universe, there is no basis for believing in the uniformity of nature. Therefore you must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to reason. ___________________________________________________________________ "Giving 'genuine Christians' [whatever those are!] a bad name" Then think of it this way. When an atheist or a waverer reads your words, is it your responsibility to try to make them think 'Yes, this person makes a good argument, I need to think more about this Christianity stuff?' rather than 'everything this person says is an incoherent and logical mess and so I can't trust a word they say, including anything about Christ'? If don't take any responsibility for it, or you are happy that what you say forces them to think the latter, to my mind you are harming the promotion of Christ's message. Which is not what a 'genuine Christian' should be trying to do. When an atheist reads my words is it my responsibility to make them think that I have a good argument and that they ought to think more deeply? Yes and no. Yes, since I do have a responsibility to "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear" (1 Peter 3:15), and I have a responsibility to demonstrate that creationists actually point to observable facts when they make their arguments (see my jellyfish example in a previous post, and I am planning more examples in future posts). No in the sense that it is not my job to convince people that Christianity is true. I can't. Only God can change a person's heart. I can give evidence upon evidence, rationality upon rationality, philosophical argument upon philosophical argument, and it all fall on deaf ears if the Holy Spirit does not shed light on that person's heart and reveal the truth unto him. "If don't take any responsibility for it, or you are happy that what you say forces them to think the latter, to my mind you are harming the promotion of Christ's message. Which is not what a 'genuine Christian' should be trying to do." How am I being illogical? Please be specific. I am seeing a lot of generalizations branding me all sorts of names, but I don't quite see why you all are calling me these things. Be specific, so I can see where I'm being inconsistent or not. I think that this whole discussion is too general. We are all sitting here talking about how much evidence we have, and yet we don't actually get down and say 'here's a specific situation or problem. Let's dig into this one and leave alone the rest for a time'. Shall we? I think it would be a lot more constructive if we did so. How about those jellyfish? :D ________________________________________________________________________ Again, the problem of good and evil. The problem of evil is this. How could a loving, all-knowing God allow evil in the world? Obviously if he's all good, He would want to stop evil. If He's all-powerful, then He would be able to. So He's either not all good, or He's not all-powerful. I'm going to repeat what I've said already about this problem, but expound some more. Without Christianity, there can be no evil, no good. Everything is relative without a Christian worldview. I have a basis for defining evil. But atheists don't. So the only way that you can call some of the laws in the Bible "Evil" is by standing on the very presuppositions that the Bible provides--that there are such things as moral absolutes. Until you are able to establish a foundation of your own without borrowing from the Christian worldview, you have no basis for judging me or anything else. For you, there is no good and there is no evil. And yet you sit here accusing me of being "amoral", you say that the Bible contains "evil", and you state that there are morals and ethics. Splendid! Now, please stop borrowing those terms from my worldview. In an atheistic worldview, there is no good, no evil, no morals and no ethics. For instance, I'm assuming you would call child abuse wrong. Am I correct? I'll assume you would. All right, by what standard is it wrong? Because you disapprove of it? Because it causes discomfort to your mind? Because it causes discomfort to the child? What defines good? Majority happiness? What promotes life? What gives you pleasure? But what about the next guy? While you may call 'good' 'what promotes life', Joe Smith over there might define 'good' 'what gives pleasure to most people". Sally Jones might define it "What evokes public approval". But these three definitions are personal opinions. Three opinions that lead to three whole 'cans of worms'. Take Joe Smith's definition. If "good' is what gives pleasure to most people, then extermination of Aborigines in Australia by white men back in the late 1800's and early 1900's (because they were supposed 'missing links') was good, because there were more white men in England/America who were deriving pleasure from getting rid of the 'primitives' for the benefit of their land and studying their bodies. Take Sally Jone's definition. If 'good' is 'what evokes public approval', then 'good' varies from people group to people group. What is 'good' for Englishmen is different than what's 'good' for East Indians. Because in the Hindu religion, widow burning evokes public approval. If what has been said here (I think it was Don Firth who said it) is true, that 'Good is what promotes life', then you're assuming that life is good. But lots of people disagree with that. People who commit suicide obviously don't think that life is good. Therefore, good is relative. Is there absolute right and wrong? After all, if there are no absolutes, if 'what's true for you isn't necessarily true for me' . I could pull a gun and shoot you in order to win my argument. Why shouldn't I? Would you protest if I pulled a gun on you during our discussion? If you say "Yes, you shouldn't shoot me," then you obviously believe that there is absolute good and evil (plus, I then win the debate). But if you say "No, it's all relative", then I am completely reasonable to pull the trigger (and hey, I win the debate that way too!). |
|
04 Feb 12 - 01:30 PM (#3302143) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link bill one moe time! i believe i had quoted the words of an evolutionist . |
|
04 Feb 12 - 01:55 PM (#3302161) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Then think of it this way. When an atheist or a waverer reads your words, is it your responsibility to try to make them think ... When an atheist reads my words is it my responsibility to make them think that I have a good argument and that they ought to think more deeply? Yes and no. Yes, since I do have a responsibility ...No in the sense that it is not my job to convince people that Christianity is true. I can't. Only God can change a person's heart. Can I point out a subtle turn of phrase that slipped past you? I said 'responsibility TO TRY TO make them think, which you read as 'responsibility to make them think'. There was a reason I used that formulation: the recipient is responsible for what they think, but you are responsible for how you phrase it, and so forth. That's a very important difference, and the point was how one goes about meeting 1 Peter 3:15, not whether one does. As for "How am I being illogical? Please be specific" - again, you miss the point that in a discussion, the writer/speaker decides what to say, but it is the reader/listener who decides whether it makes sense. And, whether you like it or not most of your readers have decided that what you write is logically inconsistant, confused or simplistic. And again, in the interests of avoiding confusion, that's not the same thing as wrong [though of course its quite easy to be both]. So rather than add more examples to the growing pile, why not just deal with the logical inconistancies that have been raised so far. If you need help, there are many sites on the web to help distinguish between valid and invalid logical arguments. |
|
04 Feb 12 - 02:29 PM (#3302179) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Joe Offer So, Iona, I'm new to this thread, and I'm a bit lost in all the verbiage. Could you take the time to give us a simple glossary of your terms, like truth, good, evil, Christianity, moral relativism, and knowing? It seems to me that all of these terms should have a more-or-less absolute meaning, but your understanding of these terms appears to be quite "relativist" - depending on your far-south-of-mainstream brand of Christianity instead of on something more definitive. Certainly, if they are not "relative," then truth, good, and evil must exist of themselves. If so, they must be independent to the ability of anyone to ascertain truth and good and evil. Could it be that you are a relativist yourself, relating all to your particular shade of Christianity? Please define your terms. -Joe- |
|
04 Feb 12 - 04:09 PM (#3302230) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray I already explained a little how atheists can't call anything evil All religion is DEMONSTRABLY the invention of humanity; therefore, all the moral codes and Good & Evil are Atheist by default. Such an instinctive morality underwrites our familial / societal / tribal codes and relationships in terms of altruism and empathy; they are innate as language and music, and might be found in the Humanist Teachings of Jesus as the simple universal absolute of Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is something we struggle with for sure - after all the Good / Evil duality is encoded as deep as the Nature / Nurture debate - but it is something we also FEEL pretty deeply too. |
|
04 Feb 12 - 04:12 PM (#3302232) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth I would like to know how Iona can make the claim, "Without Christianity, there can be no evil, no good," Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and others taught—and wrote—monumental tomes on Ethics, Virtue, and the nature of Good and Evil three to four centuries BEFORE Christ. Before there WAS a Christian religion! If anything, Christian ethics and morality is derived from a slumgullion of Greek and Judaic moral systems, complete with a lot of disorganized "local options." In addition, some 150 years after the death of Jesus, some 82 self-appointed "bishops," all claiming to be descendants of the original apostles, were arguing fiercely over doctrinal minutia and "excommunicating" each other right, left, and center. It was not until the Roman Emperor Constantine, 300 years after Jesus, converted to Christianity (at the time, little more than a small but widespread and noisy cult), declared himself the head of the Christian Church, called the conference of Nicea to stop the incessant bickering by banging a few heads together and come forth with a cohesive Creed. Constantine, having established himself as The Boss, made the statement, "Dogma is what I say it is!" thereby lending secular (and arbitrary) power to this small, Mid-East cult, and consolidating his own political power. The rest is history Much of which has damned little to do with what Jesus actually said! Which, as far as I am concerned, is what Christianity is all about. But three hundred years before the birth of Jesus, Aristotle follows Socrates and Plato in taking the Virtues to be central to a well-lived life. More here: CLICKY. A couple of samples of Aristotle's writing on the subject of Good and Evil: I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self.Iona, read Karen Armstrong's A History of God.AndAt his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst. And you might also take a look at the writings of Rev. Barbara Rossing, who deals a lot with modern corruptions of Christian belief. Further. The many theological writings of Bishop John Shelby Spong, especially Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture, (1991). Educate yourself. God gave you a brain. Use it. Don Firth P. S. (Why do I bother. . . ?) |
|
04 Feb 12 - 04:33 PM (#3302242) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Mr Snail (I tend to think of you more as a slug, actually), your post is a load of unfocussed waffle. You want to pick me up on every little statement but you tie yourself in knots every time. It is patently obvious that you're no scientist, not by a long chalk, and I'm pleased you've outed yourself on that score at least. Steve, listen carefully. I am not saying evolution isn't true; I am saying that the statement "Evolution is true" is meaningless. You don't really know what you're saying do you? Go and find someone else to bother. |
|
04 Feb 12 - 06:41 PM (#3302294) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T 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. These people had never heard of Hebrews, or the Old Testament, and were a quarter of a millennium ahead of Jesus in suggesting that one should respect the rights of others and indeed respect all life. Iona, please explain how that relies in any way at all on your world view, on Christianity, or on the Bible. Don T. |
|
04 Feb 12 - 08:18 PM (#3302319) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail So, Shimrod, what do you think? Which side of which fence do you think you are on? |
|
05 Feb 12 - 04:19 AM (#3302396) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG How am I being illogical? Please be specific Ok, I can't resist. I think the ultimate problem lies in that word 'illogical'. So I'll go back to the foundations. I apologise in advance if this sounds patronising: it is certainly not my intention. Please bear with me. The first step is to understand that English doesn't distinguish very well between an argument that does not attempt to use logic and one that does but gets it wrong - it might be fairer if we called the first non-logical, and the second illogical, but we don't, and we are rather stuck with it. And the second step is to realise that 'logic' is itself a bit of an umbrella word. As a mathematician by training, I tend to use the word to mean a particular method of argument that was only fully formalised around 200 years ago. That was based on a scientific understanding of logic that is very similar, but several hundred of years older, and both of those are based on a philosophical version of logic that is a few millenia old. But whichever formulation we use, the fact remains that almost every argument we hear in daily life is non-logical in that is does not conform to these rules. For example, I doubt very much if many advertisements do, since they tend to appeal to things like 'peer pressure' and 'sense of status', which are things that are very much outside of logic. And again, it is important to understand that the conclusions of non-logical arguments can be true. In fact, when you drive the second-by-second conclusions you are drawing on are essential to keeping you alive but are not really logically based. In common parliance many people use the word 'logical' just to denote that something is not self-contradictory, but that's far too imprecise and vastly different from how any one with formal training in philosophy or science would understand the term. So if we are surrounded by non-logical arguments, use them constantly in our lives and find that pretty often they give the right answer, why do we get so worked up about logical arguments and take offense if someone suggests our argument is illogical? The answer is certainty. We have no real way of deciding whether the conclusion of a non-logical argument is right, but with a logical argument IF the starting assumptions are correct AND we apply the constraints of logical argument correctly THEN we can be confident in the conclusion. Building those rules has been a many-millenia-long arduous task with many wrong turns but we have now reached a point where a sizeable minority of the population are able to apply the rules 'naturally'. Not that they do all the time, mind: we've a long way to go before we reach that point, and there's no reason to assume that some of the big forces in society - businesses, governments, etc - would really welcome it if we did. So let's now look at what some of those rules are. Probably the most important one for this thread is referred to as 'argument from authority'. Most logic-based systems reject this completely - certinly mathematics and science do. Were I to claim "this is true because Dawkin's says it" I would be breaching the rule. If, on the other hand I were to say "In 'The selfish Gene' in Chapter 3 Dawkin's makes the argument: ..." then the "..." might be a logical argument, but all the rest is irrelevant to the argument, being merely a signpost to where the argument is written out in full. Either way, the reference to Dawkin's is irrelevant to the argument. Now, there are a few logic based systems that do allow argument from authority in special circumstances, but the key constraint then is that all participants agree that the authority is reliable. Finally, we can get back to your posts, Iona. Almost every everything you say boils down to 'this is true because God has revealed it' - which is an argument from authority. As many of the people opposing you do not accept God as an authority, the argument is fundamentally not a logical one, because it does not conform to the rules of logic. Therefore, what you say is non-logical, which English then makes us call illogical. That's just one of the rules you breach, though, Iona. The two other most frequent breaches are 'circular arguments' and 'non sequitor'. And, whether you see these or not, to people trained in science and philosophy, you might as well have used a highlighter: they leap out at you. If I had the patience, I'd also explore what the word 'random' means, but I think I've said enough. |
|
05 Feb 12 - 04:40 AM (#3302401) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie As it appears that in a discussion, I cannot state categorically that there is no such thing as god, that holy scriptures are historical pulp fiction tc etc, then by that logic, Iona can't state categorically that religious jumbo jumbo is the truth. So, having got that out of the way, I repeat my earlier observation.. Nurse! Sorry, I can't dissect Iona's frankly insulting diatribe. It isnt a bible or any other guide to life that stops me from carrying out rape pillage and plunder, it's my observations and experiences gained though my life to date. Pack animals manage it without being told they are wretched and need forgiving, so don't bother asking me to be grateful for being here either. |
|
05 Feb 12 - 04:43 AM (#3302402) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod "So, Shimrod, what do you think? Which side of which fence do you think you are on?" In this context, Snail I'm on the opposite side of the fence to Bible-thumping, creationist, religious fundamentalists. The point of this thread is to examine the dichotomy between the scientific view of nature and the creationist view of nature. I believe that for you to indulge in your usual confrontational hair-splitting is not helpful IN THIS CONTEXT! If you want to do that perhaps you should start another thread? |
|
05 Feb 12 - 10:10 AM (#3302496) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail The context I am working in is the one in which Iona asked for evidence of evolution and, after being given quite a lot which she cheerfully ignored, Steve Shaw fell back on his well worn "Evolution is true. Indeed it is.". That happened on this thread and I am responding on this thread. The point of this thread is to examine the dichotomy between the scientific view of nature and the creationist view of nature. There is quite a lot of territory between those two views and you have set up your fence very close to the edge of creationism. Apparently all the religions of the world (if felt in moderation), astrology, the end of the world on 21st Dec 2012 according to the Mayan calendar, the coming of Nibiru, the wisdom of David Icke are all OK by you as long as they aren't on the creationist side of the fence. The dichotomy for me is between a view of nature based on reason and a view of nature based on faith. I'm sorry if you see that as hair-splitting. The faith side of the fence includes a great may things beside the creationists. As far as I am concerned, it includes "Evolution is true.". I don't know if you have noticed but one of the weapons used by the god botherers is to portray science as just another belief system. Don't give them evidence to justify their claim. A while ago you said - But Science is not a dogmatic assertion of faith and 'absolute truth' but a method for exploring and understanding the Universe, based on experiment and evidence. Spot on. Unfortunately, if you accept "Evolution is true." just to keep Steve on side, you can't use that one any more. So, just where are you building your fence? |
|
05 Feb 12 - 12:40 PM (#3302559) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: frogprince Yeeeeesh! Decades of properly disciplined scientific observation have established the indisputable fact that evolution has occured and is occuring. Is that a defensible statement? If so, I am fairly certain that every party to this discussion except Pete and Iona has effectively indicated agreement with that statement. If someone here had made only the isolated statement "Evolution is true", it would be appropriate to critique it as a "faith statement". But to pull the three words out of an extended context that indicates the writers full accordance with science and the scientific method, and brand him as a borderline fundamentalist/creationist, is absurd. |
|
05 Feb 12 - 12:52 PM (#3302566) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link dmcg-some interesting thoughts and would not wish to disagree though i hope you will permit a few obsevations/questions. argument from authority applies both ways though i realize you were addressing ionas challenge.being probably the least academic; seems to me to have made me the target of said argumet a number of times. ie-i should submit to the evolutionist/atheists because i dont have degrees etc.i may have done the same in reply in citing creationst scientists or even evolutionary scientists. not sure about citing bible as just argument from authority; as much as our presupposition as opposed to evolutionary supposition ;since a creationist does not interpret the data the same as darwinists.yet they claim a cast iron case for evolutionism just as we trust the bible as our authority. pete |
|
05 Feb 12 - 12:53 PM (#3302568) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mrrzy Right. Denying evolution requires denying cosmology, biology (including zoology, botany, biochemistry, neurochemistry, anatomy, and all the other living ologies), geology including finding oil and plate tectonics, history, geography, statistics, theology and pretty much everything we actually know. That's why I like the Test of Faith idea. For the believers who hold that it all happened 6tya, just to appear as if 1.4bya according to rules we could have all *kinds* of fun discovering. As long as we understand that it's all an illusion we can study it all we want and still get into heaven. If we believe what we see and start thinking for ourselves we fail the test... and you know where *they* are all going to end up. It's those who say the rules we discover *aren't there* that are unbelievably, willfully ignorant of any and all of the above fields plus anything I didn't mention, like common sense. Or a sense of numbers. Once there are (a few less than infinity) actual data on one side, and none on the other, rejecting that other hypothesis is merely reasonable. |
|
05 Feb 12 - 01:07 PM (#3302583) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod "There is quite a lot of territory between those two views and you have set up your fence very close to the edge of creationism. Apparently all the religions of the world (if felt in moderation), astrology, the end of the world on 21st Dec 2012 according to the Mayan calendar, the coming of Nibiru, the wisdom of David Icke are all OK by you as long as they aren't on the creationist side of the fence." I'm not sure that any of that follows, Snail ... Oh! Hang on a minute ... Nibiru! Nice to see you! You must come and meet my friend Snail ... |
|
05 Feb 12 - 01:18 PM (#3302591) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D "bill one moe time! i believe i had quoted the words of an evolutionist ." Oh my, pete! WHO made such a claim? That is irrelevant to the discussion. You don't give the exact quote and a link to its source so it can be evaluated in context. If you get all your opinions from anti-evolution, religious sites, you will not SEE relevant sites which carefully explain the evidence. Even then, no matter what he says...or you THINK he says.... the facts are that there ARE fossil records that DO show intermediate forms. Stating that 'limited' forms must mean "lack" of forms is bad logic and bad science. Truth is not established by finding a quote which you 'think' supports your preferred answer! I can find quotes from Christian theologians which dispute YOUR view of evolution....but by themselves they prove nothing. The answers are in ongoing scientific study, which has already found many, many, MANY examples of obvious **intermediate forms**. |
|
05 Feb 12 - 01:35 PM (#3302605) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mrrzy The Mayan calendar restarts in 2012 as well as ending then... |
|
05 Feb 12 - 01:51 PM (#3302619) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG dmcg-some interesting thoughts and would not wish to disagree though i hope you will permit a few obsevations/questions. Certainly. Everything I say is open to challenge. That's how it works! *smile* ...since a creationist does not interpret the data the same as darwinists.yet they claim a cast iron case for evolutionism just as we trust the bible as our authority People often phrase things carelessly, including scientists. No scientist should ever claim they have a cast-iron case for something, because the essence of being a good scientist means accepting that in the light of evidence any theory can be overturned. But that is not evidence from authority, since we are not relying on the fact that the President of the Royal Society and All His Friends are making the declaration that something is so, but on evidence that you as an individual can check. Even when its data from the Large Hadron Collider and you can't actually repeat the expeiment yourself, you can see the data, perform your own analyses to check whether it looks like the data has been fiddled, read all the papers and see if they contain errors in logic, and so on. That is a world away from 'trusting the bible for your authority'. |
|
05 Feb 12 - 03:23 PM (#3302667) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail frogprince Yeeeeesh! Decades of properly disciplined scientific observation have established the indisputable fact that evolution has occured and is occuring. Is that a defensible statement? Last night I drove home very slowly through seventeen miles of driving snow. Weather was definitely occuring. Does that entitle me to say that "Weather is true"? What would that mean? If someone here had made only the isolated statement "Evolution is true", it would be appropriate to critique it as a "faith statement". Steve Shaw has not just made an isolated statement, it is a major part of his armoury against the creationists. See for instance thread.cfm?threadid=136154#3112310 and my response at thread.cfm?threadid=136154#3112887. Scroll down and see how long it takes for Steve to descend into personal abuse rather than logical argument. |
|
05 Feb 12 - 03:33 PM (#3302676) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail Hi Shimrod. I see you are getting quite good at avoiding answering questions and you are adapting very quickly to the Steve Shaw style of intelectual discourse. Perhaps you could just answer one straight question, how do you reconcile - But Science is not a dogmatic assertion of faith and 'absolute truth' but a method for exploring and understanding the Universe, based on experiment and evidence. and Evolution is true. No messing about. Just answer the question. |
|
05 Feb 12 - 05:27 PM (#3302739) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod Snail, I would have used a different phrase to that used by Steve Shaw ... and, in fact, I did use a different phrase - which you have re-produced above! I shall be going to bed in the next half-an-hour, or so, but I can assure you that I won't be losing much sleep over the distinction. Any more orders you'd like to give me, Snail? |
|
05 Feb 12 - 05:34 PM (#3302744) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Sorry pete, I missed this remark of yours, in which you note people say you should submit to the evolutionist/atheists because i dont have degrees etc I hope I would never make that mistake, and if I have I apologise. My guess is that when people said that to you they weren't choosing their words carefully. If they said something like 'Read what Dawkins had to say about it in XYZ before repeating that [some insulting remark or other]' then it sounds very much like an appeal to authority but I don't think it is, really. What they probably meant was "There are good arguments about [whatever] and I think the version Dawkins presented in XYZ presents it well. But you can find the same argument in other places if you prefer; Dawkins as such is not important to the point." Or, of course, they might just have been having a tantrum. |
|
05 Feb 12 - 06:13 PM (#3302761) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail Shimrod I would have used a different phrase to that used by Steve Shaw ... and, in fact, I did use a different phrase - which you have re-produced above! The two phrases - But Science is not a dogmatic assertion of faith and 'absolute truth' and Evolution is true. Spot the rephrasing. Any more orders you'd like to give me, Snail? Yes. Stop being so bloody evasive and answer the questions. |
|
05 Feb 12 - 06:55 PM (#3302784) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod Snail, I've given you an answer and it will have to suffice. Please remember that I don't HAVE to answer any questions. Right! Let's move on - I'm bored with this now! |
|
05 Feb 12 - 07:22 PM (#3302792) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Dave Hanson It was boring from post number 1 Dave H |
|
05 Feb 12 - 08:14 PM (#3302806) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Apart from asserting that Snail is a trolling twat, I shall step aside in dignified manner from the current spat (except to reaffirm that evolution is indeed true, of course! ;-)) But as for pete, please, everyone, note that I have asked him on numerous occasions to read "Origin." Pete, as we know, is a man who is of somewhat limited intellect and very circumscribed notions, but he does seem arrogant enough to think that a gap of a few weeks is sufficient for the rest of us to forget that the "intermediate forms" canard is one of his pet themes and that he never takes on board what anyone tells him. Best not to respond except to say to him that Darwin not only anticipated the "intermediate forms" objection but also, elegantly and in simple words, in as searingly-honest a manner as any scientist has ever achieved, addressed it very convincingly. Beware of those like pete who not only reject the evidence but who also reject it without understanding it. Incidentally, Darwin also addressed, in just as elegant a manner, the bogus issue of "irreducible complexity." But you wouldn't think so, would you, the way these crackpot creationists keep resurrecting it as if it was their own original idea! |
|
06 Feb 12 - 01:31 AM (#3302889) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona So, Iona, I'm new to this thread, and I'm a bit lost in all the verbiage. Could you take the time to give us a simple glossary of your terms, like truth, good, evil, Christianity, moral relativism, and knowing? Sure thing, Joe. Truth- Truth is conformity to fact or reality. Truth is "exact accordance with that which is, or has been, or shall be......'we rely on the truth of the scriptural prophesies.'" (Webster's 1828 dictionary) Good- Good is that which agrees and is in accordance with the person and character of God. Evil- Evil is that which is not in accordance with the person and character of God. Evil can also be synonymous with sin: sin is doing what God forbids. Christianity- After Christ's death, eventually his followers took on the name of Christians. But Christianity compasses the whole history of the world, back to Adam. Adam and other people before Christ were saved by faith in a savior to come, and this faith was demonstrated by sacrificing animals. Relativism- relativism is the idea that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, being subjective unto your opinions. Moral relativism is the idea that morality is subjective to the view of the specific individual; the evolutionist must hold to moral relativism because men are all products of random chance accidents and there can be no such thing as an absolute. Ethics are relative to the culture, Morals are relative to the individual...... Knowledge- Knowledge is justified true belief. If I go and buy a lottery ticket, and say, the number is 13569. I say to myself, "I just know that this is today's number!" And sure enough, that night I find out that I won the lottery! I say "I KNEW that 13569 was today's number! I knew it!" Did I really know it? No. I believed it, and it did turn out to be true, but I didn't know it. I had no justification for my belief. Knowledge is justified true belief. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction (Proverbs 1:7) ________________________________________________________________ It seems to me that all of these terms should have a more-or-less absolute meaning, but your understanding of these terms appears to be quite "relativist" - depending on your far-south-of-mainstream brand of Christianity instead of on something more definitive. Certainly, if they are not "relative," then truth, good, and evil must exist of themselves. If so, they must be independent to the ability of anyone to ascertain truth and good and evil. Could it be that you are a relativist yourself, relating all to your particular shade of Christianity? Perhaps your definition of 'relativist' is different than mine that I just defined. I believe that there is absolute right and wrong, and I do so because I believe in a God who defines right and wrong, and instituted those 'laws' into the human being. But an atheist doesn't. He believes that we live in a random universe (after all, the universe would have to be pretty random if a single cell organism can be created out of nothing, caused by nothing, and then evolve into all of the amazing life we see today--then again, it's impossible. Anyway.....), and in a random universe, there can be no inductive inference (conclusions based on the idea that the future will be like the past), there can be no right and wrong, and there can be no reason or logic, because after all, everything is material. According to the atheist, there is no soul, no afterlife, and no God. Those things are spiritual, but if men have no souls, if everything is material, then they can't exist. Fair? But wait. There's more. If everything is material (as a faithful materialistic atheist would assert), then there can be no logic, there can be no numbers. If I write "2" on a blackboard--is that two? Yes or no? Then I erase that 2. If you answered yes, and if that was two, then we have just destroyed two. There is no more twoness in this world. Dear me! But you say "no, you did not destroy 2. What you drew on the board is merely a representation of two, the numeral two, not actually two." So where/what is two? Obviously it's not material--you can't cool Two in your freezer, you can't stub your toe on it, you can't serve it for lunch in the college cafeteria--it's not material. So how do you justify its existence? Because if two is material, then laws of logic are also material. Class concepts are material. Emotion is material. Your mind is material. Therefore, these concepts and others like them are all relegated to chemical reactions in your brain. You can't help being an atheist because you have no choice in the matter. It's just what the chemicals came up with. You have no free will, you're just doing what your brain chemicals tell you to do. Plato proposed that all things on earth are merely representations of the actual "thing". He said that there must be a realm out somewhere that contained all of the embodiments (he called them 'forms', I think) of things like ducks, forks, two, humanity, etc. A fork is material, but the concept, the class of 'fork' isn't. So Plato believed that the actual form of 'forks' was somewhere in the realm of 'universals' as he called it. Plato said that even though he'd never seen that realm (he said that it was outside of of human sense), he knew that it must exist because it was a logical necessity. If it were not true, he said, we could not make sense of our experiences. If you're a materialistic atheist, then you must disagree with him, because you believe that all there is is materialism and everything reduces down to chemical processes in the brain. Anyway, the thing that Aristotle said to debunk Plato was simply "WHO CARES!" Who cares, Plato, if there's a real of forms out there. What I want to know is how do you bring those forms in contact with the physical world. How does 'duckness' become 'duck' in the material world? Athiests, if they don't say that all things are material, then they must answer this question as well. If there are 'realms' out there that aren't material, then perhaps Plato is right (for the atheistic worldview that is: as for me, I don't agree with him, and I have no need to). But you have to answer, how does the transfer happen? How does 'forkness' become 'fork'? How does 'humanity' become 'humans'? I have a foundation for believing in laws of logic, 'twoness', mind and soul. The Bible gives me a foundation. But atheists don't have any--unless they borrow from my worldview. Am I a relativist? No. I believe that there are definite truths. There is only one Christianity, and that is the one taught in the Bible. Most 'Christian' churches today, and most 'Christians' aren't Christians at all. They don't understand the gospel. The 'sinner's prayer'--'asking Jesus to come into your heart' never saved anybody. "Because straight is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Matthew 7:14). There is ONE truth, ONE way to eternal life, and that one way is Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, who came to earth to die for His chosen people. ________________________________________________________________________ |
|
06 Feb 12 - 02:16 AM (#3302895) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona As for "How am I being illogical? Please be specific" - again, you miss the point that in a discussion, the writer/speaker decides what to say, but it is the reader/listener who decides whether it makes sense. And, whether you like it or not most of your readers have decided that what you write is logically inconsistant, confused or simplistic. And again, in the interests of avoiding confusion, that's not the same thing as wrong [though of course its quite easy to be both]. So rather than add more examples to the growing pile, why not just deal with the logical inconistancies that have been raised so far. If you need help, there are many sites on the web to help distinguish between valid and invalid logical arguments. We all have presuppositions--beliefs that we hold when we come to the table. I examine the evidence in the light of my presuppositions (i.e. that of young earth creationism). Your saying that I am being logically inconsistent means nothing to the reader unless you explain why. Like I've said before, we've all been too general and need to get specific. For instance, the atheists here are being inconsistent when they say that the universe is the result of random chance processes (simply speaking, everything came from nothing, or else matter is eternal), and then they go about debating me as if they had a basis for believing in right and wrong, absolutes, and truth. You say that there is evidence for evolution. Fine. I say that there is evidence for creationism. Now what? Instead of sitting here glaring at each other like two kindergartners, let's get down in the dirt and point things out. I've proposed to you the jellyfish of Mosinee. What do you say to that? How about the grand canyon?.......transitional fossils? Again, I keep hearing "We have found millions of transitional forms"--can somebody point me as to where I can see them? What are their names? I really think that we ought to talk epistemology. How about those philosophical problems I presented? you all haven't even touched on inductive inference--do you have no answer for me? You say that 'most of my readers have decided that what I write is logically inconsistent, confused or simplistic'. Perhaps. But is that because they have decided that I'm wrong, or is it because I'm not representing the Creationist position rightly? I would say the former, unless you can give me evidence for the latter. Let me repeat; I think we ought to get more specific. I want somebody to pick out one thing I say, and pick it apart. 'This is why this is wrong. Here's how you're being contradictory--you say A here, but over here you say B.' Fair enough? I'm listening (contrary to popular opinion). :) Iona |
|
06 Feb 12 - 02:30 AM (#3302899) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona All religion is DEMONSTRABLY the invention of humanity; therefore, all the moral codes and Good & Evil are Atheist by default. Such an instinctive morality underwrites our familial / societal / tribal codes and relationships in terms of altruism and empathy; they are innate as language and music, and might be found in the Humanist Teachings of Jesus as the simple universal absolute of Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is something we struggle with for sure - after all the Good / Evil duality is encoded as deep as the Nature / Nurture debate - but it is something we also FEEL pretty deeply too. If all religion is DEMONSTRABLY the invention of humanity, then DEMONSTRATE it to me. (I'm just borrowing your caps, pardon) I am ready and willing to debunk every other religion out there besides Christianity. There's only one God, only one truth. Nothing else fits. The only way that you can say that religion is the product of humanity is to disapprove the existence of God. I agree with you, all world religions are concepts of men.......except for Christianity. Christianity was 'started' by God. "All the moral codes of Good and Evil are atheistic by default"--well, if all other religions were false, then yes, the religion of atheism must be true. But how do you know that you're right? Were you there when the earth was created, so you can say "I definitely know that there is no God." Do you know everything? If you don't, then is it possible that you just don't see the evidence for God, and it really is there? Of course consciousness of good and evil are ingrained in humans.(whether they suppress them or not/are conscious of the fact depends.) God put it there. Animals don't have a sense of good and evil--you don't see a wild jaguar looking guilty when he's found eating a human being. Only humans have 'ethics'. Only humans have souls that can never die. And that's because we were created in the image of God. |
|
06 Feb 12 - 02:47 AM (#3302904) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion I am a true, complete, thorough atheist. Not only do I not believe in a Deity ~~ But I honestly do not believe in GUEST,Iona either. She is just too priceless to be true! |
|
06 Feb 12 - 03:26 AM (#3302914) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG I really think that we ought to talk epistemology. How about those philosophical problems I presented? you all haven't even touched on inductive inference--do you have no answer for me? Well, as I say I'm a mathematician, rather than a philospher, so I am by no means an expert on epistemology and will probably make all sorts of blunders if I do. But I'll give it a go. Yes, I know something about Platonic forms and how they were very much the basis of philosophy up to and including the middle ages. But we have to be wary of that pesky old argument from authority again. Plato also had models for things like astronomy and medicine, though we tend to associate them more Ptolemy and Galen; those models were superceded when something better came along. And so it is with Platonic forms. The concept of Platonic forms has some quite major holes in it, such as whether there are distinct Platonic form for cedar trees and for trees in general and how those forms are related. There have been attempts to sort out a hierarchy of forms, but they have never been particularly successful for several reasons: the relationships can be arranged in different heireachies and it begs the question of whether the heirarchy itself has a Platonic form and if so, what is its nature. But the question of what is the nature of the concept '2' is a very good one, to which there have been some excellent answers which do not rely either Platonic forms or a separation of mind/body. For example, you could read Daniel(?) Lewis for his approach on the subject. Moreover, there is scientific evidence that many creatures are able to distinguish between 1, 2 and more-than-2, so whatever the solution to the problem you propose it must encompass much of the animate world, not just humans. I could give you the precise understanding of '2' used in mathematics, but you wouldn't like it! As for induction: as I hinted at before you seem to have a problem with the word 'random'. Things can have a random component and still be subject to induction. I cannot say whether my car engine will start when I turn the key this morning, but I can still make the inductive argument that it will, based on past experiences. The ideas of David Hume will help clarify this for you [Again let me stress the distinction between the ideas in his books as logical arguments, and what David Hume 'says'] As I mentioned before, the formulation of the underlying logic of mathematics is comparatively new, and one of the things that was a major focus was induction; when it could be valid, and what conditions made it invalid. Any good textbook on first year undergraduate mathematics of analysis will tell you more about than than you could possibly wish to know about induction. As you have an interest in the philosophers of ancient Greece, you will of course be aware that the idea "Good is that which agrees and is in accordance with the person and character of God" is the subject of 'Euthyphro' (hope I've spelt that right) and that even today the resolution of the internal contraction in the statement taxes theologians; what is your take on how this is best resolved?
[we can add missing letters to your attempts at italics, but Mudcat does have a preview function so you can be sure before you post. Don't blame Iona----- bemused clone] |
|
06 Feb 12 - 03:28 AM (#3302915) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Sorry about the italics ;( |
|
06 Feb 12 - 03:49 AM (#3302922) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket I love this idea by our tambourine rattling brethren (both of 'em) that noting evolution is a faith game in the same way as Christianity. I don't believe in evolution. I don't believe in egg & chips, but for now, I am satisfied that they both fill a hole. One in understanding, the other in a gastronomical sense. Now... Sometimes, I get satisfaction from noting how genes use us as hosts, in the same way I get satisfaction from ordering l'entree at Maxims, when in Paris. It is just the scale that alters. |
|
06 Feb 12 - 03:57 AM (#3302926) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Your saying that I am being logically inconsistent means nothing to the reader unless you explain why I did not claim you were being logically inconsistant. I said you were being non-logical/illogical. And my post explained what the difference is. |
|
06 Feb 12 - 04:58 AM (#3302946) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray If all religion is DEMONSTRABLY the invention of humanity, then DEMONSTRATE it to me. Okay. It's pretty simple. Where there are no Human Beings, there is no religion; and where there is no religion, there is no God. The Religious might see God in Nature (all things bright and beautiful; cancer & poverty included no doubt), or else in the vast empty reaches of the cosmos, but that's wishful desperation. There is nothing there other than what is there; and there is no purpose to it other than what it is, and yet - how utterly awesome that ineffable emptiness! Life's too precious for Religion; and Human Spirituality is too subjective a wonder for so inane a concept as God, or even Truth. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong; and if one is wrong, they are all wrong. |
|
06 Feb 12 - 05:39 AM (#3302959) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw I keep hearing "We have found millions of transitional forms"--can somebody point me as to where I can see them? What are their names? This is one of those creationist ambush questions. If I showed you two closely-related but not quite identical fossils you'd still claim that there was one in between that was missing. As I've said to pete ad nauseam, why don't you commit a mortal sin and read On The Origin Of Species by Darwin? There is a section in the book in which he acknowledges the issue and deals with it honestly and straightforwardly, without jargon. There really is no excuse for creationists to keep coming back with this one. It is, like irreducible complexity, a specious non-argument. If you wish to be taken seriously you must demonstrate that you have read Origin, understood it and are prepared to address the issues therein with which you are at odds. Then we can talk about it. But, it seems to me, all you want to do is to fool us around with your hands clasped and and your eyes raised to heaven, tight shut. |
|
06 Feb 12 - 05:41 AM (#3302960) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw See now, Iona, what you've done? You've got both me and DMcG floundering around in an italicised world. Grrr.
[we can add missing letters to your attempts at italics, but Mudcat does have a preview function so you can be sure before you post. Don't blame Iona----- bemused clone] |
|
06 Feb 12 - 06:06 AM (#3302967) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Worse than that, Steve, it is a world that leans to the right, which is not what I'd choose! Definitely upright or left for me! *smile* |
|
06 Feb 12 - 06:54 AM (#3302990) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod "If all religion is DEMONSTRABLY the invention of humanity, then DEMONSTRATE it to me ... I am ready and willing to debunk every other religion out there besides Christianity ...The only way that you can say that religion is the product of humanity is to disapprove the existence of God. I agree with you, all world religions are concepts of men.......except for Christianity. Christianity was 'started' by God." Iona, the arrogance and illogicality of those assertions take my breath away! What I hear you saying is, "only my tribe is right - every other tribe is wrong." And we all know where such (religious) tribalism has led, and is still leading - i.e. to terrible crimes against other tribes of different persuasions. In my opinion the only way out of such immoral, illogical, infantile thinking is to adopt a more up-to-date, objective, scientific understanding of the Universe and other human beings. In my experience such understanding is not inconsistent with feelings of awe or reverence (paradoxical as that may appear to you). And I've said this before, no-one can "disapprove" (I assume you mean disprove?) the existence of God; it's a logical impossibility. It's up to the religious to PROVE the EXISTENCE of God; and, if you're just going to rely on the Bible as your source of evidence, you need to prove that the Bible is the WORD of God. Until you can do this you cannot expect to be respected or taken seriously, nor can you be allowed to let your religion affect the lives of others. |
|
06 Feb 12 - 07:07 AM (#3302996) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail Steve Shaw has reaffirmwd his belief in the truth of evolution and now, apparently, has Shimrod's full support in that view so there is nothing more I can say. I'll leave them to concentrate on their battle of wits with Pete and Iona. |
|
06 Feb 12 - 07:29 AM (#3303002) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy I 'disapprove the existence of god' |
|
06 Feb 12 - 09:41 AM (#3303049) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Good- Good is that which agrees and is in accordance with the person and character of God. Evil- Evil is that which is not in accordance with the person and character of God. Evil can also be synonymous with sin: sin is doing what God forbids. These arguments always bring forth a reference to God ordering the genocide of the Amalekites at some point. This appears to be the right one. So was murdering them all except the prepubertal girls good, or bad? Christianity- After Christ's death, eventually his followers took on the name of Christians. But Christianity compasses the whole history of the world, back to Adam. Adam and other people before Christ were saved by faith in a savior to come, and this faith was demonstrated by sacrificing animals. This seems to derive an argument from Islam - I've never heard it before. I take it you approve of sacrifice? Seems a bit odd. Penny |
|
06 Feb 12 - 10:31 AM (#3303076) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket If Christianity is all pervading, how come it was never mentioned The Lord of The Rings? Sorry, getting silly now. But believe me, no more silly than some of the tripe spewed out here. Based on the idea that evolution seems to make the superstitious ramblings presented in the bible less than truthful, I can see how those who prescribe to a religion might cry foul. In fact, in days gone by when we were much simpler in general and brainwashed to religion without the option of thinking about it, I can see how it spoilt some peoples' dinner, or at least gave them indigestion. But this is 2012? We have smart phones, internet and bean to cup coffee machines! What the hell are people clinging to this sharp edged comfort blanket for? It is no different to some idiot saying that they have found a 2,000 year old scripture that says 2 + 2 = 5. It is heresy to dispute it. No doubt the clowns in pointy hats and their acolytes would show how to calculate it. (Before anybody does, I am aware of how to prove it by calculus. An old student bog wall graffiti showed us all how. It is a conjuring trick. A bit like some other conjuring tricks mentioned in old scriptures, because one thing is for certain, you can't raise the dead, you can't come back yourself and you can't heal people like he did without 20th century equipment... Mind you, I often turn wine into water.) |
|
06 Feb 12 - 10:34 AM (#3303081) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA Perhaps the best example of a complete transitional sequence is the Fish to Tetrapod series. You can read about it here: http://www.springerlink.com/content/v16470436056263j/ click There are photos and descriptions of the fossils (and yes, there are names). I am curious to see whether you will actually read this, and come back with a substantive question or critique. Actually, I know that you won't (read it that is), which is proof that you really are not interested in truth. I am not saying that this article IS truth, but if you really are seeking truth, you would read it and try to understand it. |
|
06 Feb 12 - 11:36 AM (#3303110) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Thanks, clone for '[we can add missing letters to your attempts at italics, but Mudcat does have a preview function so you can be sure before you post. Don't blame Iona----- bemused clone]' Yes, I am aware of the preview. Yes, I admit it, I am hopeless at remembering to use it. That's certainly entirely my own fault. There might be a benefit to having a setting somewhere in the profile so that Preview defaulted to on, but I guess I still wouldn't proof read the b*** post properly even then. |
|
06 Feb 12 - 12:05 PM (#3303124) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 "I am ready and willing to debunk every other religion out there besides Christianity. There's only one God, only one truth. Nothing else fits." Neither does that statement. The Jews and Muslims each have one god, but Islam tends to glorify its prophet a bit too much. Christianity seems to have three gods: why a need for three? The big cahuna, Yeshua and the holy spirit. I have heard the logic used to combine all three as a three-in-one and frankly it makes no sense to me. I understand that three thirds equals one, but it seems we get three separate thirds each of whom becomes one and I find something wrong with that picture. No offense meant to anyone. |
|
06 Feb 12 - 02:04 PM (#3303184) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona I would like to know how Iona can make the claim, "Without Christianity, there can be no evil, no good," Because without Christianity you have no foundation to believe anything. You are on the horns of a dilemma. What is evil? I think it was you, Don, who said "Good is what promotes life", or something to that effect. Okay, so how do you know that life is good? It all comes back on what your foundation is. You believe that the world has no author (no divine Author, anyway), and that the world is all a random chance accident. If that is the case then your mind is also merely a random chance accident and you can't be sure that reality is what you see. For all you know, what you call 'evil' is really the quintessential good for another person. And you have no place to judge them, because good and evil must be relative. And since most atheists are materialistic (believing that only what is material exists), you can't even believe in mind. All you have are chemical reactions in your brain. I say that without Christianity you have no basis to believe anything. I'm not saying "Without religion", I'm saying without Christianity. Other religions are just as impossible to justify as atheism. (though on a different basis.) Iona |
|
06 Feb 12 - 02:18 PM (#3303194) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and others taught—and wrote—monumental tomes on Ethics, Virtue, and the nature of Good and Evil three to four centuries BEFORE Christ. Before there WAS a Christian religion! It was before Christ came to earth, but it was not before there was a Christian religion. The Christians before Christ were not called Christians, they were called Jews. They believed in a Christ to come. They worshiped the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of Noah and Adam, etc. etc. And again---like I've said before, the reason why Plato and Aristotle, Socrates and other philosophers had a basis to believe that there even was such a thing as good and evil, was because they borrowed the Christian/Old Testament presupposition that there was such a thing as good and evil. On the atheistic basis you have no foundation to believe in transcendental good and evil. |
|
06 Feb 12 - 02:33 PM (#3303201) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod " ... because good and evil must be relative." Yes, they are relative - they're certainly not absolutes! After all there have been many Christians, over the years, who have believed that imposing their religion on others (evangelism, missionary work etc.) is a good thing! "And since most atheists are materialistic (believing that only what is material exists), you can't even believe in mind. All you have are chemical reactions in your brain." It seems highly likely to me that only material things exist; the probability that non-material things (?) exist seems to be very, very low. But then there's a whole uncharted, depthless, fathomless ocean of material stuff out there - and so far we've just lightly clipped a wave top. We'll never set out to explore that ocean if we assume that we know everything already and that it's all contained in some old book! "I say that without Christianity you have no basis to believe anything. I'm not saying "Without religion", I'm saying without Christianity." That's complete nonsense for which, I would imagine, you can produce no justification whatsoever! |
|
06 Feb 12 - 03:00 PM (#3303220) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth "Good- Good is that which agrees and is in accordance with the person and character of God." "Evil- Evil is that which is not in accordance with the person and character of God." These are two flat, unsubstantiated assertions with nothing to support them but the faith of the person making the assertions. I completely reject the idea that belief in God—and not just God, but a Christian God—is the source and definition of Good and Evil. Iona tries to negate the importance of pre-Christian philosophers by declaring Christianity retroactive to the Big Bang (or her version thereof, the Garden of Eden). Sorry, no sale. She also mis-states Aristotle's view of Plato's concept that Reality is mere shadows on the wall of things in the World of Essences. Aristotle knocks on the table-top and says, "This is not a shadow. This is real." [Next time you bark a shin on something in the dark, comfort yourself with the idea that what produced that bruise was merely a shadow!] Iona, how long has it been since you gave food to someone who was hungry? Gave a thirsty person something to drink? Welcomed and offered hospitality to a stranger? Gave clothes to someone who was ill-clad or naked? Visited and cared for someone who was sick? Visited someone who was in prison, especially someone imprisoned unjustly and attempted to aid them? According to who actually does the sort of things that Jesus tells people they should do, I know atheists who are better Christians than a many self-proclaimed Christians. I am a member of a Christian church, Iona, and my beliefs encompass and include the findings of science: that the Cosmos began some 13 billion years ago, the sun, the earth and the other planets in the solar system formed 4.5 billion years ago, and that all life, including Man, evolved from primitive organic (carbon based) compounds. We evolved from primitive forms and we are still evolving. This is not to say that some supreme intelligence had nothing to do with it. One may have faith that this is true, but one cannot know this. In any case, Iona, if there is, indeed, a supreme intelligence, It is so far beyond our comprehension that we have no concept of what its nature is, and to say that one "knows the mind of God" is to make an assertion which is beyond absurd. And, have a care! It may be blasphemous as well! I find nothing inconsistent with what Jesus taught and the findings of science. I know a great deal about the history of the Bible and how a collection of scrolls and manuscripts were gathered together, some selected, some rejected (did you know that there are many more Gospels than just the four?). Why were these scrolls and manuscripts selected and not the others? Who made these decisions? God? No, men! I also know that, in the copying of the Scriptures (before the printing press, each copy was done laboriously by hand), individual abbots, monks, and bishops did their own editing, adding their own ideas and deleting passages that they didn't agree with. This is the "Inerrant Word of God?" I don't think so! Don Firth |
|
06 Feb 12 - 03:05 PM (#3303225) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Iona, I just noticed this in your writings above: "Christian/Old Testament. . . ." The Bible, including the Old Testament, had not yet been assembled when Plato and Aristotle were writing. Don Firth |
|
06 Feb 12 - 05:03 PM (#3303277) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG the reason why Plato and Aristotle, Socrates and other philosophers had a basis to believe that there even was such a thing as good and evil, was because they borrowed the Christian/Old Testament presupposition that there was such a thing as good and evil Yes, you've asserted that several times but 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 ... |
|
06 Feb 12 - 05:37 PM (#3303294) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: frogprince I have been thinking of writing this up for some time, well before this thread. 999's thoughts about the "logic" of the trinity finally nudged me to sit down to it. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the three gospels known as the synoptics, are all largely from common source material. They were written some years after the death of Jesus, and in all probability already colored significantly by beliefs that had begun to coalesce. But they remain the closest thing we have to a factual representation of Jesus of Nazareth. One interesting aspect of these books is that Jesus is credited with some significant statements which really don't jibe with what became orthodox belief. I'm inclined to agree with those scholars who contend that the problematic nature of such statements increases the probability that they actually represent the teachings of Jesus; writers biased toward later theology wouldn't be apt to make them up, and conservative commentators have to interpret their way around what appears to be the plain sense intended. To me, a prime example of this, recorded in all of the synoptics, is found in Mark 10:17-18.: "As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good except God alone." What I see in this now is quite simply a young rabbi expressing his discomfort and disapproval at being addressed in wording that, in his belief, should be directed only to God. Even in the synoptics, this appears mixed with the compulsion of his followers to deify him. By the time John was written, Jesus was God's "only son". By the time of the Nicene creed, the factions that became "orthodox" Christianity had formulated a "monotheistic" faith based on three "persons" who at the same time were one Deity. There is at least one sect I know of, generally considered a cult, that believes that God is a family of three, not a trinity. I would still see Jesus as shaking his head and saying "Wait, it's not appropriate to refer to me that way". |
|
06 Feb 12 - 06:38 PM (#3303332) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""But Christianity compasses the whole history of the world, back to Adam. Adam and other people before Christ were saved by faith in a savior to come, and this faith was demonstrated by sacrificing animals."" Total Cobblers. And tell me, how come you can't be arsed to address my last question? "Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T - PM Date: 04 Feb 12 - 06:41 PM 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. These people had never heard of Hebrews, or the Old Testament, and were a quarter of a millennium ahead of Jesus in suggesting that one should respect the rights of others and indeed respect all life. Iona, please explain how that relies in any way at all on your world view, on Christianity, or on the Bible." Doesn't comply with your world view, does it? Don T. |
|
06 Feb 12 - 07:26 PM (#3303364) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D adding MY vote to the silliness/ridiculousness of "...Because without Christianity you have no foundation to believe anything." That is a slogan, not a reasoned argument. |
|
06 Feb 12 - 07:41 PM (#3303373) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Some reading on religion and the relationship to the history of evolution, creationism and intelligent design... http://www.arachnoid.com/opinion/religion.html It IS a medium longish article... but very well expressed. Don't glance at it for 3 minutes and make judgments. |
|
06 Feb 12 - 07:42 PM (#3303375) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: frogprince Bill just reminded me of something. In the circles I was found in years ago, it was common to hear someone say, "Christianity isn't a religion, it's a way of life" This was usually said by someone who practiced as religious a version of Christianity as you would find anywhere. So, approx 30 years ago, I first encountered a young couple who were avowed pagans. Within moments of stating her "affiliation", the young woman said, "It's not a religion, it's a way of life". I about choked for a moment, and then I about laughed my butt off. So many lines can mean so many things to so many people. |
|
06 Feb 12 - 07:44 PM (#3303376) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D If that article intrigues you, go on to this one by the same author. |
|
06 Feb 12 - 07:46 PM (#3303377) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D *smile* thanks, frogprince... that is a good example of how easy it is to turn a 'line' into an easy generalization. |
|
06 Feb 12 - 07:59 PM (#3303391) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA Comforting, empathy, defense of the helpless, reciprocation, etc. have all been clearly demonstrated in apes (particularly Bonobos). Iona- does this mean that Bonobos are *necessarily* Christian? If no, please explain how this behaviour is not "Good". Thanks ever so... |
|
06 Feb 12 - 09:32 PM (#3303435) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mrrzy Please, let's not convert the bonobos, they'll start wearing clothes and worrying about sin! |
|
07 Feb 12 - 01:52 AM (#3303512) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona Don T, I am not avoiding your question. I have about three very long email drafts of responses that you all have given me that I have yet to answer, and it takes time...a lot of time....to answer them all. I will get around to yours tonight or tomorrow. Rest easy. I shall return. *grin* |
|
07 Feb 12 - 01:54 AM (#3303513) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Paul Burke Don't ask Iona for answers. S/he has an "answer" for everyting. What s/he hasn't got is any answers of his/her own, or any questions. |
|
07 Feb 12 - 02:12 AM (#3303520) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona 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} |
|
07 Feb 12 - 02:58 AM (#3303528) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona 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. |
|
07 Feb 12 - 04:20 AM (#3303541) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray 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. |
|
07 Feb 12 - 04:25 AM (#3303543) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG 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!] |
|
07 Feb 12 - 06:50 AM (#3303588) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG 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. |
|
07 Feb 12 - 06:54 AM (#3303590) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod "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! |
|
07 Feb 12 - 07:00 AM (#3303596) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw 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! |
|
07 Feb 12 - 07:05 AM (#3303598) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Eliza 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. |
|
07 Feb 12 - 10:33 AM (#3303713) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Greg F. 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. |
|
07 Feb 12 - 11:00 AM (#3303732) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D "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"...... |
|
07 Feb 12 - 11:15 AM (#3303742) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 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. |
|
07 Feb 12 - 11:27 AM (#3303747) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D "...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. |
|
07 Feb 12 - 12:16 PM (#3303774) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 It broke down for me years ago when I walked across the room and touched the other wall. |
|
07 Feb 12 - 12:26 PM (#3303779) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Eliza 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! |
|
07 Feb 12 - 12:30 PM (#3303783) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG 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!] |
|
07 Feb 12 - 12:33 PM (#3303787) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Yes, I know, I didn't proof read it properly again! |
|
07 Feb 12 - 12:46 PM (#3303792) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stilly River Sage 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 |
|
07 Feb 12 - 01:03 PM (#3303799) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG 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. |
|
07 Feb 12 - 01:06 PM (#3303801) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG ... at least one situation... (I never learn, do I?) |
|
07 Feb 12 - 01:39 PM (#3303814) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth 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. |
|
07 Feb 12 - 02:20 PM (#3303832) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona 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) |
|
07 Feb 12 - 02:41 PM (#3303842) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth "The simple believeth every word, but the prudent man looketh well to his going." (Proverbs 14:15) Don Firth |
|
07 Feb 12 - 02:57 PM (#3303850) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG 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. |
|
07 Feb 12 - 03:06 PM (#3303857) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stilly River Sage 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 |
|
07 Feb 12 - 03:26 PM (#3303870) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link 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. |
|
07 Feb 12 - 03:36 PM (#3303875) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 tiktaalik Google that, Pete, and it'll take you to several articles about it. |
|
07 Feb 12 - 04:15 PM (#3303903) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona 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) |
|
07 Feb 12 - 04:53 PM (#3303933) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth 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 |
|
07 Feb 12 - 05:46 PM (#3303978) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA "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. |
|
07 Feb 12 - 06:20 PM (#3303999) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth 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 |
|
07 Feb 12 - 07:21 PM (#3304032) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D 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. |
|
07 Feb 12 - 07:24 PM (#3304033) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D ..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!" |
|
08 Feb 12 - 10:04 AM (#3304339) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod 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'! |
|
08 Feb 12 - 01:34 PM (#3304433) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D .... 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..... |
|
08 Feb 12 - 01:38 PM (#3304436) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke Maybe they'd run out of wicked women and hadn't saved one for you? |
|
08 Feb 12 - 06:22 PM (#3304570) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link 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. |
|
08 Feb 12 - 07:03 PM (#3304588) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D 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. |
|
08 Feb 12 - 07:26 PM (#3304598) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""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. |
|
08 Feb 12 - 07:35 PM (#3304604) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T 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. |
|
08 Feb 12 - 07:42 PM (#3304606) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""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. |
|
08 Feb 12 - 10:16 PM (#3304656) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth And that's exactly the way I regard it. Don Firth |
|
08 Feb 12 - 11:41 PM (#3304691) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA 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 |
|
09 Feb 12 - 01:49 AM (#3304722) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Paul Burke Rename the thread's subject line so it's palindromic: Paranoid Iona rap. Possibly a good name for a rapper dance side? |
|
09 Feb 12 - 02:48 AM (#3304724) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona 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...... ;) |
|
09 Feb 12 - 04:19 AM (#3304744) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod "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! |
|
09 Feb 12 - 08:27 AM (#3304834) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG 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! |
|
09 Feb 12 - 11:11 AM (#3304902) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stu "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. |
|
09 Feb 12 - 11:25 AM (#3304907) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""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. |
|
09 Feb 12 - 11:42 AM (#3304915) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST 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. |
|
09 Feb 12 - 11:45 AM (#3304921) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 It was just revealed to me that I didn't add my 999 to that post. |
|
09 Feb 12 - 12:01 PM (#3304930) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stilly River Sage 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...... ;) Iona, what a lot of hooey, that "human mind is finite." Humans make their own gods, they invest them with powers and are able to do great things because of that act. But you've confused the source of infinity. In the short time I've been reading this thread I've seen you attempt to do two things to control the conversation: earlier, you remarked that atheists couldn't discuss these topics without using biblical language, suggesting that our terms sprang from the religion. This is an old trick to fool people who haven't thought it out. Like saying "Every religion has a word for 'god.'" Well, they may or many not have a god word, but they also all have a word for "mother," "father," "eat," "shit" and many other words define universal describing and naming aspects of the human and world condition. Language is far reaching and while portions of it, words, collections of words, references apply to religion, this is after the fact. The language came first and while portions have been appropriated by or identified with religions, many of us understand that using the words is not the same as inventing them and they do not come from your supercharged text. And the quote above - it presumes that there is a god or a higher power and works from that point. It presumes there are only two possibilities - good or evil - this kind of simplified binary opposition is very easy to use in religious settings but simply isn't realistic in the real world. We live our lives on a sliding scale, there are more than two options to just about everything. Another problem that exists is that christian believers too often it presume that "evil" can be defeated, that it is here because there is something wrong with how we live, a consequence of not really believing hard enough in your god. I prefer the view that I found in many early American Indian writings and filters into modern Indian writing - storytellers and tricksters illustrate that evil is simply a part of the world and one must be aware of it in order to avoid it or keep it under control, but it is here to stay. And I'm here to tell you that "morality" as a word and concept existed WAY BEFORE the organized christian religion. Look to the ancient Greek philosophers and their understanding of morals and ethics. The concept is used within your religious context where it has been borrowed, but the moral high ground, i.e., our own moral compasses don't point toward your cockeyed religion. They are an innate part of the sense of fair play and cooperation that extends beyond human understanding or religious teachings. Recent studies show cooperation and compassion, sharing and assistance among rats. Countless stories of animal assistance to humans and vice versa being understood as an altruistic gesture. Fair play, kindness, cooperation, they don't come from the bible. They're part of the world condition that story tellers who contributed to the bible highlighted and tried to encourage as a good way to live. They decided they liked the Morality is regarded here as a set of customs and habits that shape how we think about how we should live. The term 'religion' is much disputed. Again, we can learn from the etymology. The origin of the word is probably the Latin religare, to bind back. Not all uses of the term require reference to a divinity or divinities. But the term is used here so that there is such a reference, and a religion is a system of belief and practice that accepts a 'binding' relation to such a being or beings. This does not, however, give us a single essence of religion, since the conceptions of divinity discussed here are so various, and human relations with divinity are conceived so variously that no such essence is apparent even within Western thought. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Ancient Greek Philosophy Your view of the world and the religious practice appears to assume dominance over all things and other beliefs, it doesn't know how to "live and let live," as some other religions do. Not all - there are hard-headed individuals around the world beating up on others who don't accept their beliefs. Pity. The gist of this is that you're playing word games in an attempt to convince people that your argument is valid, but the word games are easily revealed. SRS |
|
09 Feb 12 - 12:09 PM (#3304934) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T 500! |
|
09 Feb 12 - 12:09 PM (#3304935) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Dammit, beaten by a whisker. |
|
09 Feb 12 - 12:20 PM (#3304942) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Revealed? this was 'revealed' in 1882 "Oahspe: A New Bible is a book published in 1882, purporting to contain "new revelations" from "...the Embassadors of the angel hosts of heaven prepared and revealed unto man in the name of Jehovih..." [1] It was written by an American dentist, John Ballou Newbrough (1828–1891), who reported it to have been produced by automatic writing, making it one of a number of 19th-century neo-revelationist works attributed to that practice.[2] Adherents of the revelation expounded in Oahspe are referred to as "Faithists"." history and other stuff |
|
09 Feb 12 - 12:33 PM (#3304951) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 "Dammit, beaten by a whisker." Sounds a bit kinky. Not passing judgement mind you, just making an observation. |
|
09 Feb 12 - 12:41 PM (#3304960) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T You haven't seen the size of my cats mate. Don T. |
|
09 Feb 12 - 12:47 PM (#3304965) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 LOL |
|
09 Feb 12 - 02:14 PM (#3305006) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Iona: " 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......" I believe that there is an objective reality. Contrary to the teachings of the Buddha, I have no reason (evidence) to believe otherwise. How we perceive that reality and interpret what we perceive is the question. If you believe, not what you perceived and reason out, but someone else's "revealed truth," you are removing yourself at least one step from what IS. And that can be hazardous! And like it or not, Iona, the same thing applies to Christians. All Christians. Some get it and are fine with it. But others are willing to accept someone else's "Revealed Truth," and they are usually the ones who go around desperately trying to get others to agree with them—in order to verify their own beliefs. The nature of Reality is not a matter of popular vote. Don Firth |
|
09 Feb 12 - 06:03 PM (#3305090) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Parable. Two monks, one old and wise, the other young and eager, are on a pilgrimage together. In the course of their journey, they happen on a young woman at the side of a stream that they have to cross on their way. The woman has fallen from her horse, and she has sprained her ankle and cannot get up. Her horse is on the other side of the stream, calming grazing. The woman tells the two monks that if she can get back on her horse, she can continue her journey, and get help when she reaches her destination. Can they help her? The young monk backs away. He tells her that they can't, because they have both take a vow never to touch a woman. The old monk ignores him, picks the young woman up in his arms, wades across the stream, and sees her safely into the saddle. She thanks him profusely, then rides off to her destination. The two monks continue their journey, and the young monk is very silent. In fact, he's fuming! After about ten miles, the old monk says, "All right. Spit it out! What's on your mind?" "You broke your vow!" the young monk blurts out. "You are supposed to be wise! A paragon. And my spiritual teacher. And you broke your vow!" "How little you understand," said the old monk. "So listen well! The young woman was in danger. Stranded and unable to rise. If no one helped her, if we had simply left her to her fate, she could have been killed by wild animals or fallen victim to evil men. So I picked her up, carried her across the stream, and lifted her onto her horse. "I carried her about ten yards. You have been carrying her for the last ten miles!" Don Firth |
|
09 Feb 12 - 06:24 PM (#3305097) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link bill-not sure if i was unclear or you avoided the meaning of my post.i was inviting you to be specific in your criticism of the creation article on tiktaalek.this was mostly commenting on scientific data.i am perfectly aware you discount the bible as authoritative[as also don who took the same tack].it will be sufficient to say if you think tiktaalek and his mates represent a fish to tetra chain or if the poland find does elimenate the former claim. tia-on the face of it your challenge presents as reasonable and i have to admit that i cant think of anything that you might present that would change my mind except an undoubted missing link find.but that has been done has'nt it.was it for 40 years some lost their faith because of piltdown man?! seems you are eminently noble and maybe really willing to accept it if such fossils are found together but i dont think it likely most evolutionists would accept it. as i have said before some evolutionists have admitted that evolutionism is far from proven. of course you could quote theologians who dont accept creationism;but an admission by a creation believing scientist would be a more correct correspondence. |
|
09 Feb 12 - 06:30 PM (#3305099) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG That's close, pete. What would constitute an undoubted missing link for you? |
|
09 Feb 12 - 07:42 PM (#3305118) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA Yup. DMcG got it. What *specifically* would you need to see? Oh, and "i dont think it likely most evolutionists would accept it" Is totally incorrect. Science is all about changing theories to incorporate new evidence. You will note that we no longer believe in spontaneous generation, nor in bloodletting, nor that the Sun revolves around the Earth. I promise you that if you can find the features I listed above, droves of scientists would very seriously reconsider current theories. It is exactly how the method of science works. When you say that evolutionists would just deny the evidence, methinks that is a wee bit of projection. |
|
09 Feb 12 - 08:34 PM (#3305137) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D gosh, pete-- it is hard to get YOU to make specific comments on scientific articles that support evolution. I feel like the paleontologists do....that tiktaalek has characteristics that SEEM to be obviously a possible link...and one they predicted would exist if their theories were true. That makes it one more example of the KIND of evidence that helps show how evolution works. I doubt that anyone expects to find ALL the possible links, as very few specimens get caught in exactly the right circumstances to be preserved.... at least in fish-to-land animal. In other types of fossils, they have a larger set if intermediate forms. As to the Poland thing: They TOTALLY miss the point! No one claims that tetrapods, if those 'indentations' are really tracks, are direct decedents of tiktaalek. Evolution happens in many parallel lines, not in ...ummm.. 'single file'. Not only that, but Poland is not near Canada! If tetrapod tracks...or better...bones...had been found WITH tiktaalek, it might have been good evidence... of something. It is interesting that Creation.com even uses that argument, because they don't even recognize that 'beings' could BE that old! So how can they interpret evidence they don't even allow AS evidence? The thing is: any claim, or assertion of evidence must be backed up by those who assert it. The scientists keeps adding new evidence as the dig deeper and develop new tools. What do Creationists use as evidence? They seem to be more interested in denying the claims of evolutionists on the grounds that the 'chain of evidence' is imperfect...and then just assert that Biblical theory is the only alternative! This is why several people here...including me... keep saying that creationists simply do not intend to EVER accept evolution--because they fear it would contradict a literal interpretation of the Christian Bible. THAT is what is meant by assuming the answer and denying any evidence that does not lead to preconceived opinions. If you persist on watering down the idea of what IS good evidence, you can never be wrong....and that seems to be the goal. |
|
10 Feb 12 - 01:21 AM (#3305163) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona "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! My point exactly! So now, tell me how you can judge the Bible to have 'evil' in it? Even if it's evil by your standard, that's simply your standard, and no one has to go by your standard because they all live by their own! In your worldview there can be no absolutes, simply personal opinion--thus civil government is completely irrational, because it imposes 'personal opinion' upon other people who obviously didn't find it against their personal standards to steal, murder and speed. How dare you call Hitler evil? He was just creating his own reality. How can you condemn child abuse? The abuser is not breaching their own standard of gooness. This is the point I've been trying to make. thanks! |
|
10 Feb 12 - 02:04 AM (#3305171) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona Perhaps the best example of a complete transitional sequence is the Fish to Tetrapod series. You can read about it here: http://www.springerlink.com/content/v16470436056263j/ There are photos and descriptions of the fossils (and yes, there are names). I am curious to see whether you will actually read this, and come back with a substantive question or critique. Actually, I know that you won't (read it that is), which is proof that you really are not interested in truth. I am not saying that this article IS truth, but if you really are seeking truth, you would read it and try to understand it. You KNOW? how can you KNOW anything? {grin} Haven't I already touched on that? Anyway, the fact that I shan't read it isn't because I'm not interested to, because I *would* like to read it. I just don't have the money to buy it. (it's over 30 dollars). But I plan on getting Darwin's Origins from the library as soon as I finish the book I'm reading at the moment. But anyway, even though I can't read the article you linked to, I did see a few names of fossils that I recognized and I know the evolutionary arguments over. Tiktaalik, for instance. You all know about Tiktaalik, the 'walking fish', or 'missing link'. It hit the news a few years ago when they discovered it in the extreme North of the planet in a place called Ellesmere Island. Tiktaalik is claimed to be a long-looked-for missing link. Finally! 'Bout time. Tetrapods A tetrapod is an animal that has a backbone and four limbs, specifically amphibians similar to the salamander. Evolutionists say that tetrapods were the earliest limbed animals. Tiktaalik was found in rock from the 'Devonian period' supposedly making it about 375 million years old. (How they got that date, I don't know, but let's just ignore that for the moment.) Tiktaalik has characteristics of two different types of animals; fish and tetrapods. The characteristics that Tiktaalik possesses that are fish-like include gills, scales and fins. Its tetrapod characteristics include lungs, ribs, neck, flat skull and a rotating wrist joint. First of all, Tiktaalik is unmistakably a fish. So the next question is what type of a fish is it? Is it really an example of evolution? Classification of fish A little needs to be known about the classification of fish before we proceed in our analysis, so here goes: There are two major groups of fish. Namely, jawless fish(like lampreys and hagfish), and then jawed fish (every other type of fish). Since the jawed fish group is so large, it gets broken down again into two groups: fish with bones and then fish with simply cartilage (the latter being rays and sharks). The fish with bones category is also large, and gets broken down into two final categories: ray finned fish and lobe finned fish. Ray finned fish are typical 'tank' fish where you can see their little 'fans' of fins with the bones-- you know what I mean. And then lobe finned fish have stumpy stalks of flesh supported by bone segments. Tiktaalik is of the lobe-finned group. Evolutionists look at this 'diagram' or classification chart as a sign that all fish came from the same ancestor. Creationists say that many fish are similar, but not all fish have a common ancestor. Instead, there may have been one or more original created kinds of bony fish that have adapted into all the variations that we see today. There also may have been an original created kind of cartilaginous fish that has given rise to all of the other cartilaginous types we see today. But just like the fact that some of us have friends that look like us enough to be mistaken for brothers or sisters when they're not really related,Creationists believe that just because some animals have the same characteristics, does not mean that they are related. A bat and a bird both have wings in order to fly, but a bat is a mammal and a bird is a bird (go figure). They are not related even though they both need wings in order to fill their created purpose. In other words, wings do not point to a common ancestral link, but rather to an important design to their separate habitats. Creationists assume that animals are designed with traits which help them live in their individual locations/habitats. Each Biblical 'kind' would have been created by God and then adapted to its special habitat through the generations. It's not evolution--we believe that God pre-programmed into the genes into the original creatures this ability--from the very beginning. Mosaic Creatures Then we have mosaic creatures-- a mosaic creature is an animal that has characteristics that match one or more difference animals, such as the Platypus. The Platypus is a mammal that lays eggs like a reptile, has a bill and webbed feet like a duck, a tail like a beaver, and spurs on its hind feet like a spiny anteater--with venom! Fit that into a category, I dare ya! Where in the world did this creature supposedly evolve from? "Convergent evolution!" says the evolutionary scientist, waving away the questions. "sometimes we see the same traits in animals that are obviously not related-- that's just a 'convergent trait'. Similar traits that evolved two different times"* The platypus is a mosaic animal--could it be that Tiktaalik is a mosaic fish? It has tetrapod qualities (flattened skull, no bony gill coverings, stronger ribs, fins with wrist-like bones), but scientists aren't sure what exactly it used the fins for. It's a fossil fish. We don't know how it behaved in its habitat. We aren't sure if it 'walked' or supported itself with its fins, as scientists speculate. They assumed the same thing about the coelacanth, but when a few live specimens of this 'missing link' (bar the question: if it's a link, why is it still alive intact?) were found, it was discovered that it did not use its lobed fins to 'walk' or prop itself up in the shallow bottom of a river as they had thought! "Feets?!" There are a number of types of fish that can do something similar to walking--namely, the snakehead fish, the walking catfish, the mudskipper, and the climbing perch. Evolutionists don't put *these* fish in the evolutionary line of tetrapods because they have no other common traits. These fish fish are strong evidence for the creationist belief that each kind of animal is made with characteristics that enable it to survive in the habitat that God designed it for. Tiktaalik is also evidence in the support of design. The special shape of its head, bones in its arm, strong ribs, and no gill cover seem to make the fish well suited for its special environment. And I wouldn't be shocked if we found a live one today.......... The Problem of Time According to evolution, there is a span of twenty million years between the fossil layers of Tiktaalik and the first tetrapod that walked on land. For evolutionists, twenty million years is nothin'. In that amount of time the fish had to become a land-walking, air-breathing animal! The large gap between fish and tetrapod is large. Even if mutations--mistakes in the genetic code-- could turn one animal into another, it would take far too much new information in the genes to change the fish into an amphibian. Mutations could never do this--even in the 20 million year time span. The first tetrapod fossils look a lot like modern day salamanders. Salamanders that are alive today have changed very, very little from their fossil counterparts/relatives. If the changes from fish to salamander did happen in 20 million years, then why have there been no changes in salamanders since that time? How could they suddenly evolve and then stop evolving for over 60 million years of evolutionary time? Mutations over millions of years would only serve to distroy a creature--not make it 'new and improved'! *Convergent evolution will be further addressed in a future post. ~Iona |
|
10 Feb 12 - 02:04 AM (#3305172) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Paul Burke If you have to read it out of a book, it's not morality, it's just "I vass only obeyink orders". So the Bible has NO morality in it whatsoever, any more than Mein Kampf or Joe Stalin's scibblings do. The dictator god, whose orders must be obeyed simply because of who he is, is ironically a descendant of the Roman emperors who assimilated Christianity in the 4th century. Even so, as others have pointed out, talibs are strangely selective in which orders they obey. No doubt our friend will come up with the party line as to why, but like all such party lines it will be as convincing as their other "explanations". And the reason is that it is the party line, given from their Kremlin, and accepted without question. |
|
10 Feb 12 - 02:37 AM (#3305173) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST "talibs are strangely selective in which orders they obey." you're referring to me, or Christians in general, right? Can you give me an example of the 'selectivity' you're referring to? |
|
10 Feb 12 - 02:46 AM (#3305180) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. So now, tell me how you can judge the Bible to have 'evil' in it? Even if it's evil by your standard, that's simply your standard, and no one has to go by your standard because they all live by their own! In your worldview there can be no absolutes, simply personal opinion--thus civil government is completely irrational, because it imposes 'personal opinion' upon other people who obviously didn't find it against their personal standards to steal, murder and speed. How dare you call Hitler evil? He was just creating his own reality. How can you condemn child abuse? The abuser is not breaching their own standard of gooness. This is the point I've been trying to make. thanks! So my subjective standard, that committing genocide is wrong, cannot show that to be be evil because it is backed by divine order in the Bible. It seems to me that a god who orders that is no different from Hitler, whom I dare to call evil, because most human beings recognise killing people as wrong, and most regard killing huge numbers of people for simply being different is so wrong it can be called evil. Notice how few people in the world accept standards of goodness which include murder and child abuse, whether they are Christians or not, and that some, claiming to be Christians, do. People who don't do something don't make the news, of course, but if they did have entirely arbitrary rules, which could include those actions, in any numbers, there would be no-one on this planet recognisably intelligent or spiritual. You are simply not getting other people's points at all. Penny |
|
10 Feb 12 - 03:06 AM (#3305189) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Oh, yes. while writing that I was strangely reminded of the passage in which the Christian author C.S. Lewis defended belief in God in the Silver Chair. A reminder - the protagonists have been captured by a witch who rules a dark and miserable underworld, and she is trying to persuade them that that is the only world. Puddleglum, a Marshwiggle, argues that she may be right that her world is the only one, and that their memories of the real world, and Aslan, are purely imaginary, but that if so, it is very strange that their play world is better than hers. Of course, in the book, their world real, as is Aslan, and we all root for him as he stamps out her enchanted fire. Here, by an odd reversal, I was arguing that the real world, in which people decide that genocide is evil for reasons obvious to most, is better than the Bible world, in which god ordains that it is appropriate. The god who made that order (and note that I have dropped the capital, which I use only for the God revealed in Jesus) was as imaginary as Lewis' witch and as arbitrary as any other Bronze Age deity. If you want the Bible to be the arbiter of morality, you have to show that it is worthy of that status, and it isn't. I know I am falling into the trap of Marcion here (you probably don't), but the early writings were made by men of their time who were feeling inadequately towards an understanding of what God could be, and are not reliable as guides to anything. Have you actually read the thing? Leaving out not having read Darwin, not having taken on board what the Bible is actually like is a serious failing if you are going to claim that without it, anyone's morality is without standing. Penny |
|
10 Feb 12 - 03:11 AM (#3305190) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona Sorry. "GUEST" was me. Huroo, I have to remember to sign...... |
|
10 Feb 12 - 03:18 AM (#3305193) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona Have you actually read the thing? Leaving out not having read Darwin, not having taken on board what the Bible is actually like is a serious failing if you are going to claim that without it, anyone's morality is without standing. I have read the Bible from cover to cover several times, and I believe that God inspired every single word in it. I am familiar with it, and I believe that whatever God says to be good, is good, and whatever He says to be evil is evil. Even if I don't like it, that's my sin and not his error. But that's a more theological argument which really can't be debated with someone who has no belief in a God anyway! For you, good is what you say it to be. Therefore you can't judge anybody, because they define good differently. Only I can say that I have absolute right and wrong, because the God of the universe has revealed it to us in His Word. Iona |
|
10 Feb 12 - 03:19 AM (#3305194) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona Reverse the italics, sorry 'bout that. |
|
10 Feb 12 - 04:56 AM (#3305223) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw A bat and a bird both have wings in order to fly, but a bat is a mammal and a bird is a bird (go figure). They are not related even though they both need wings in order to fill their created purpose. In other words, wings do not point to a common ancestral link, but rather to an important design to their separate habitats. This is blindfolded claptrap. Bats and birds didn't set off on their evolutionary travels in time "needing wings." Their forelimbs evolved into wing-like structures. In another "line" of evolution (KISS) forelimbs evolved into paddles, in another, into limbs adapted for terrestrial locomotion, and then there's us...etc. etc. But you've missed something, and what you've missed betrays your stubborn lack of scholarship. The forelimbs of vertebrates are all built on exactly the same bone pattern (google pentadactyl limb). The relative sizes and lengths of the bones vary according to the function the limbs are adapted for, but the numbers and basic arrangement of bones is present throughout, including in bats 'n' birds. It's a beautiful and well-documented example of diversity pointing clearly to common ancestry. Enjoy "Origin," and, while you're reading it, contemplate the searing honesty of the man who penned it. Unlike any creationist I've come across, he confronts and deals with - properly - all the objections to his theory of the kinds that ever come up in these threads. |
|
10 Feb 12 - 07:36 AM (#3305283) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Iona, you have absolutely no idea what my relationship with God is, and no right to judge it. I am not an atheist. I believe that God revealed Himself in Jesus, and that he is a God who is good, truthful, compassionate and a number of other qualities which he does not necessarily reveal in the OT. A God who is good must be comprehensible as good by his creation, and one who commands genocide is not comprehensible as good. Anyone who manages to read that and not shout at the wrongness of it has not been listening to the prophets. One who approves of the slaughter carried out by the Levites is not comprehensible as good. One who approves of the sacrifice of Jephtha's daughter (while stopping that of Isaac) is not comprehensible as good. A god who is truthful must have created a world which reveals that truthfulness. If what is found in the history of the world about deep time, the succession of fossils, which succeeds in convincing a great many people (and remember that the first people who went out to do geology had no idea what they were going to discover) is not true, then it has been made by a liar. It has been suggested that the intention of the placing of fossils was to test people's faith. If true, that would not be honest, but a deceitful attempt to damn those searching for truth. The Bible has been transmitted through men. The rocks have not. Nor has the light of distant galaxies. The world cries out something other than a young creation. To believe it does not is to attribute some very unpleasant characteristics to God, which I do not believe he has. If I have to do warped thinking, reject the evidence of my eyes and the intelligence which I have somehow arrived at possessing, in order to please this person, he isn't worth the effort. You believe that you have to accept the nasty stuff in the Bible you don't like? Why? Don't you believe God wants you to understand what He is about? Do you think he wants you to knuckle under without questions? I assume that you have had at least one direct personal experience of God to base your beliefs on. You strike me as coming from the tradition that expects that. Was the person you met the sort of person who would have been responsible for genocide? The person I know is not like that. He has no objection to my believing in deep time, galaxies far beyond the time given in the Bible, and evolution. He is not easy, but he is not the sort of person who demands that I believe that good is what He says, even when it goes against every human instinct. Genocide. Wrong. Evil. (If I'm wrong about this, there will be a lot of very good people in hell, and we'll be able to overthrow the regime - there'll be more of us than the original fallen angels. But I'm not.) So do do the reading. And go on holiday somewhere with some good geology. (I understand there have been creationist trips to Siccar Point, a foundational site in geology, so you don't have to tangle with us outsiders.) And don't jump to false conclusions about other people's beliefs. It's rude. Penny |
|
10 Feb 12 - 08:27 AM (#3305312) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: frogprince Penny? Bravo Dean |
|
10 Feb 12 - 09:04 AM (#3305333) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stu Iona: "Then we have mosaic creatures-- a mosaic creature is an animal that has characteristics that match one or more difference animals, such as the Platypus." Mosaic creature? The platypus has the characteristics of . . . a platypus. That's how we know what it is. Exactly. There's no such thing as a mosiac animal, it's not a scientific term and it's utterly meaningless. In fact, this appears to be a creationist term invented to shoehorn another fact to fit the fiction. However, I'm willing to say I'm not sure so please Iona, send me a reference to an open-access, peer-reviewed scientific paper on zoology/biology/evolution that uses this term to describe any taxon, ever. "Fit that into a category, I dare ya! Where in the world did this creature supposedly evolve from?" OK, I dare. The platypus is a monotreme, an class of mammal distinct from marsupials and placentals. The Platypus (and the other extant monotremes, the Echidnas) are often cited as being primitive but in fact the platypus is a very highly evolved mammal. The beak is not homologous with a duck's beak as it's a totally different structure and has evolved for a different reason, it being a very sensitive organ used for detecting prey via the electrical impulses generated by the movement of the prey's muscles (and possibly changes in water pressure due to prey locomotion). They evolved from a class of reptiles with mammal-like characters in the Late Triassic; as evolution is an incremental process the line between these reptiles and the mammals they gave rise to is blurred, as you would expect. Actually, there are other forms of mammals distinct from the three extant orders, multituberculates for instance. So we know from when they came. "it was discovered that it did not use its lobed fins to 'walk' or prop itself up in the shallow bottom of a river as they had thought!" Hmmm, I don't think that was the scientific consensus at all, but speculation. Coelacanths has never been touted as an ancestor of any land animals (there were plenty of tetrapods eating them at the time they existed), but they might have been part of the lineage that gave rise to tetrapods way back in deep time, or they might not. It's not just the nature of the skeletal morphology that leads us to think this. Here's a little research project for you Iona: Go and find footage of a living Coelacanth and watch how it's forelimbs move. Notice anything about it? Report back with the answer. "According to evolution, there is a span of twenty million years between the fossil layers of Tiktaalik and the first tetrapod that walked on land." Whoa. At no point has it been suggested that the only unequivocal evolutionary route to route to superclass tetropoda. Tiktaalik is a bit of a puzzle but it also gives us a great deal of hard information, and the chances of it being a direct ancestor are slim. It might be, but then it probably reflects a certain evolutionary trend in a certain class of animal that is beginning to walk on land. Tiktaalik represents the first appearance of some tetrapod characters in the fossil record and its significance is the same animal has some fish charcteristics. It shows there was a blurred boundary between higher taxons, as you would expect in the process of descent with modification. By the way, Tiktaalik is thought to have existed about 12 million years before the first tetrapod, not 20 as you stated. "And I wouldn't be shocked if we found a live one today.........." Then walk the walk and go and find one. I mentioned this early on but you pretty much ignored it. Go and find a Tiktaalik. Please. And a dog next to it. Or a mouse. Or a starling. Prove us all wrong. It would be very exciting. "A bat and a bird both have wings in order to fly, but a bat is a mammal and a bird is a bird (go figure)." Seriously? This is humour, right? It's a problem with the written word, nuance is so often lost ;-) They are not related even though they both need wings in order to fill their created purpose. In other words, wings do not point to a common ancestral link, but rather to an important design to their separate habitats." More ignorance of the facts. Bird and bat wings are homologous and certainly do point to a common ancestor. Why? Well, we have the same bones, in a broadly similar and recognisable configuration (with, of course, modification).This is because our common ancestor had them too. "*Convergent evolution will be further addressed in a future post. ~Iona" I'm looking forward to that. It's sure to overturn all the stuff I've learnt about convergent evolution over the years. |
|
10 Feb 12 - 10:04 AM (#3305365) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA Iona, That was an impressive cut and paste, but did you actually read it and think about it? I only have time (and frankly the inclination) to address one, so let's take this one: "The Problem of Time According to evolution, there is a span of twenty million years between the fossil layers of Tiktaalik and the first tetrapod that walked on land. For evolutionists, twenty million years is nothin'. In that amount of time the fish had to become a land-walking, air-breathing animal! The large gap between fish and tetrapod is large. Even if mutations--mistakes in the genetic code-- could turn one animal into another, it would take far too much new information in the genes to change the fish into an amphibian. Mutations could never do this--even in the 20 million year time span." Wow. Humans share about 32% of their DNA with a pumpkin. So, lets' say that from an ancestral pumpkin, over the nexy N generations random mutations would have to alter the successive organisms by a whopping 312.5% (=100/32)% for the ancestral pumpkins to evolve into humans (with many unsuccessful individuals lost in the process of course). Sounds impossible to you, right? Let's do the math. Let's suppose that an ancestral pumpkin generation is every bit as long as a modern human generation (a bit silly, but we can shorten it if you wish). Let's also say that in any generation, the offspring can be no more than 1/100th of a percent different from the parents - that is any changes between generations are absolutely negligible. That is, an offspring is 99.99% similar to its parents. I bet you are more different from your parents than this! Now here comes the Time Problem: 1 generation per 25 years x 0.01% change per generation x 200000000 years = ......... 800% Yes, 800% And remember to get from Pumpkin to Human was a (DNA) change of ~312% So 200 million years is not enough to go from a salamandery fish to a fishy salamander? It sure is plenty to go from a non-humany pumpkin to a non-pumpkiny human. Ahh. Fun with arithmetic. No time to destroy the remaining silliness. Carry on... |
|
10 Feb 12 - 10:49 AM (#3305380) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA oops. Twenty million, so it is only a change of 80% From pumpkin to human is 312. Still works fine. |
|
10 Feb 12 - 11:09 AM (#3305389) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D quoting from my own post above, (with enhancements)...(which no one seems to have read. Perhaps pete******* will) " No one claims that tetrapods, if those 'indentations' are really tracks, are direct decedents of tiktaalek. Evolution happens in many parallel lines, not in ...ummm.. 'single file'. . Not only that, but Poland is not near Canada! If tetrapod tracks...or better...bones...had been found WITH tiktaalek, it might have been good evidence... of something. It is interesting that Creation.com even uses that argument, because they don't even recognize that 'beings' could BE that old! So how can they interpret evidence they don't even allow AS evidence?" |
|
10 Feb 12 - 11:17 AM (#3305394) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Greg F. Folks, you're "debating" a lunatic. Wouldn't pounding salt down a ret hole be more productive & enjoyable? |
|
10 Feb 12 - 11:37 AM (#3305405) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. frogprince, thanks. I actually realised, as I drove off to teach swimming (have you ever noticed how useful as flippers our feet are, despite not being near a swimming mammal for umpteen genera) that i had left out the most impo5tant characteristic of God. Love. That which is not consistent with love is not, cannot be, consistent with God. I think I was using good as a synonym for loving. Penny |
|
10 Feb 12 - 11:43 AM (#3305407) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""In your worldview there can be no absolutes, simply personal opinion--thus civil government is completely irrational, because it imposes 'personal opinion' upon other people who obviously didn't find it against their personal standards to steal, murder and speed. How dare you call Hitler evil? He was just creating his own reality. How can you condemn child abuse? The abuser is not breaching their own standard of gooness. This is the point I've been trying to make. thanks!"" Civil government is merely one way in which human beings have come together to establish consensual standards for the good of the community and often overriding the interests of individuals to achieve that. It neither requires nor, IMHO, benefits from religious input of any description. You only have to look at the way in which civil government (through history) has moved towards less and less violent responses to transgressions. Fundamental Christianity has consistently benefitted only those who accept its doctrines and dogma, in effect become converts (as witness Pius XII's disinclination to remonstrate regarding the treatment of Jews by the Third Reich). It has quite consistently (until very recently) persecuted those who were so "unwise" as not to recognise the "eternal truths" on offer. Nonetheless, the survivors of those "unwise" peoples have reached their own conclusions and (with some noteable exceptions) established their own systems of civil government. And you have no basis to take any high moral attitudes, when you believe that the bible is the immutable "Word of God", true in every detail, then decry those Muslims who believe in stoning adulterers to death, which is exactly what YOUR God is demanding of you if your belief is correct. You cannot have it both ways. Either the bible is, as YOU claim "the immutable Word of God", in which case you'll be needing a good supply of rocks, or it isn't, in which case your slavish belief falls flat on its face. Now, there's a poser. Which way will you jump? Don T. |
|
10 Feb 12 - 11:51 AM (#3305412) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod "The thing is: any claim, or assertion of evidence must be backed up by those who assert it. The scientists keeps adding new evidence as the dig deeper and develop new tools. What do Creationists use as evidence? They seem to be more interested in denying the claims of evolutionists on the grounds that the 'chain of evidence' is imperfect...and then just assert that Biblical theory is the only alternative! This is why several people here...including me... keep saying that creationists simply do not intend to EVER accept evolution--because they fear it would contradict a literal interpretation of the Christian Bible. THAT is what is meant by assuming the answer and denying any evidence that does not lead to preconceived opinions." Bravo, Bill D! That exactly sums up the problem. Creationists need to learn (although they probably never will) that imperfections in the chain of evidence DO NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, lead to the conclusion that the Biblical 'story' of creation must be true. To reach such a conclusion is both is illogical and silly! |
|
10 Feb 12 - 11:51 AM (#3305414) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""You KNOW? how can you KNOW anything? {grin} Haven't I already touched on that? Anyway, the fact that I shan't read it isn't because I'm not interested to, because I *would* like to read it. I just don't have the money to buy it. (it's over 30 dollars). But I plan on getting Darwin's Origins from the library as soon as I finish the book I'm reading at the moment."" Then perhaps you should stop spouting arrant nonsense, and wait until, by reading it, you actually know something about the subject. And just remember knowledge tends to enter only those minds which are open....not a trait much associated with the Creationist publications you have been relying on thus far. Don T. |
|
10 Feb 12 - 12:02 PM (#3305417) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Therefore you can't judge anybody, because they define good differently. Only I can say that I have absolute right and wrong, because the God of the universe has revealed it to us in His Word."" Giving yourself airs aren't you? ""ONLY I CAN SAY I HAVE ABSOLUTE RIGHT AND WRONG!"" I am so sorry Your Holiness, I didn't realise......How are things in the Vatican these days? Don T. |
|
10 Feb 12 - 12:40 PM (#3305446) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie Scroll up a few million posts. Irrational person who is happy with her affliction. Could have saved a lot of argument. Mind you, judging by the sanctimonious smiles, they are all happy. Perhaps I am on the wrong side after all? On a lighter note, a parish council has been told by the high court it is illegal to say prayers before council meetings. Quite so, as they are about real or secular as it is called business. Although it will just serve to feed their persecution complex. Perhaps one day we might evolve ourselves to the point where religion is a personal matter not something to inflict on those of us who have no need for it. |
|
10 Feb 12 - 01:38 PM (#3305491) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG On a lighter note, a parish council has been told by the high court it is illegal to say prayers before council meetings. Quite so, as they are about real or secular as it is called business Not quite. They have been told it is illegal within in the meeting (typically at the start and/or end), but the judge is reported to have said there was no problem holding the prayers before the meeting officially started. That way, those who wish to pray beforehand can do so, without causing any problem for those who don't (eg missing the official start of the meeting). To my mind, that's a very sensible solution that the judge suggested. Then Eric Pickles, in the government, has leapt in to say he is changing the rules by this time next week so that councils can insist on prayers within meetings... |
|
10 Feb 12 - 01:40 PM (#3305493) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG (Ian and I are talking about a UK ruling. Sorry if that was not clear) |
|
10 Feb 12 - 02:31 PM (#3305516) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion BUT - Why should such a question arise regarding a Parish Council? -- not any sort of religious committee, but a sort of sub-committee of the County Council or other local authority, which deals with such matters as street lighting, making sure that front gardens are properly looked after, and the functioning of the Parish Hall. Are you sure it wasn't a Parochial Church Council ~ i.e. the committee elected by the practising communicant congregation who regularly attend the Parish Church {Anglican}, and which is concerned with the administration of The Parish Church? - which is not the same thing at all. ~M~ From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - PAROCHIAL CHURCH COUNCIL - Not to be confused with Civil parishes in England. The parochial church council (PCC), is the executive body of a Church of England parish. |
|
10 Feb 12 - 02:33 PM (#3305520) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 "(which no one seems to have read. Perhaps pete******* will)" I read it, Bill. As children, wrong is what we get scolded for. Huge transgressions of family protocols may have the lecture accompanied by a smack on the bum to act as a reminder. Right is what's expected. I fail to see the hand of god in it. The hand of my grandmother, mother, aunt--well, that's a different thing. The problem with this thread, near as I can figure, is that some folks who understand geology are talking with some other folks who know geology is about rocks and wondering why their points aren't getting through. I think for many of you that means you've had formal education in the subject. I'm fairly well-read, and my interests are varied. Unfortunately, geology was never one of those interests. Nor was anthropology. Nor for that matter was religion. I will listen to anyone who knows their subject, but I will stop listening when dogmas enter the picture. I've had many two-way conversations with ministers, priests, rabbis, Buddhists, etc. They know their stuff because they studied it. Soon as any of the talk gets to "Lemme tell you the way YOU should see it" I go have a smoke or take a pee, because I do NOT give a rat's ass about listening to someone's view of how I should see god. You want to (I mean anyone here, not just Iona and Pete) tell me the way YOU see god, fine. I'll listen to that. The second you start to say how I should see god, I develop a hearing problem and sometimes a bad attitude that my grandmother would have given me the knuckles for. Various anthropological or geological dating techniques are not always smack on the money. However, when ya see miles and miles of cliff face that has been weathered by a river (and wind, rain, snow), I'd suppose that the stuff lower down is older than the stuff higher up. That ain't rocket surgery! I also know that science too has had BIG arguments within the discipline because educated people do on occasion see things differently, and sometimes ruling powers have interfered with the findings of science because they thought it in their own best interest to do so. That said, some things cannot be legislated. Pi would be one helluva lot easier to work with were it equal to three, but it ain't. And the dichotomy I see is this: If I witnessed a pre-neanderthal man turn into a modern man right before my eyes, no one here--religious or scientific--would believe me. And from certain argument positions that's what science people are saying, except instead of it happening in a few moments it happened over a few tens of thousand years. And the religious people say it happened too, except the time frame was six days and nights. At least both groups think it happened. That's a place to start. |
|
10 Feb 12 - 02:54 PM (#3305536) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion The religious people don't think that, though, do they, Bruce? There was no 'pre-neanderthal man': there were just Adam & Eve in the Garden. Isn't that right, Iona? And isn't that what you KNOW to be the case, because it sez so here?... Or am I barking up the wrong Tree Of The Knowledge Of Good And Evil? 〠☺〠~M~〠☺〠 |
|
10 Feb 12 - 03:06 PM (#3305549) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 Well, here's proof in a picture that I found at Mandolin Cafe. |
|
10 Feb 12 - 03:12 PM (#3305553) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke At least both groups think it happened. Not so monsieur neuf cent quatre-vingt dix-neuf. The Bible, if it is the Divine Word of God, shows God to be surprisingly parochial and ignorant. No mention of America, Australia, India, China, Siberia, the Pacific, or anywhere outside the little restricted ambit of the Jewish world and the Eastern Mediterranean littoral of the Roman Empire. No mention of atoms, or Uranus, or heliocentric planetary systems, or electricity. Nothing about geology, not even to say God put the sediments there. No mention of sabre- toothed tigers or gorillas or tapeworms (despite the prohibition of pork) or bacteria. And you can't argue that you shouldn't expect it because iron age tribes didn't know such things- the God of the Bible is omniscient. So perhaps God didn't want his creation to know about such things, and he was being a bit dishonest, fibbing a bit. The slightly- ignorant God of Noah, who was so angry when he found out what folks were up to, that he drowned the lot, children and all, and all but two of the innocent lambs and bushbabies. I can't see the hero- worshipping followers of a twerp like that accepting anything their party cadre hasn't told them to believe. |
|
10 Feb 12 - 03:13 PM (#3305554) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion Proof enuf for me, indeed ~~ but will pete & Iona believe it, LoL???? |
|
10 Feb 12 - 03:23 PM (#3305562) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth I just rejoined this "party" this morning. Right on, Penny! I read your post above (10 Feb 12 - 07:36 a.m.), and at the risk of losing credibility with our hard-charging atheist friends, what you said is pretty much how I reconcile my agnostic (and occasional atheistic) tendencies with considering myself a Christian and attending a Christian church. The Bible is NOT the "inerrant word of God," it is the work of fallible human beings, some of whom had their OWN axes to grind. The Old Testament is highly political, in that it is biased in favor of "the Chosen People." And many of the laws and rules of conduct it prescribes (such as selling one's daughter into slavery being okay, or stoning one's neighbor to death for working on the Sabbath) are patently immoral, and furthermore, illegal in this somewhat more enlightened (and secular) age. How anyone can reconcile this kind of thing with the word of a benevolent God is beyond me. I will have nothing to do with any such God! As to the divinity of Jesus, I had a very good conversation a couple of decades ago with a now retired pastor of my church. I was expressing doubts about the reality of such things as the virgin birth, the Resurrection, and such. His response was to say that in the mythology of all of the world's religions, ALL major religious figures had some form of miraculous birth, and the all left the earth in some miraculous way. "It's the style in which these stories are told, in the same way that every fairy tale begins with 'Once upon a time,' and ends with 'and they lived happily ever after.' In the case of Jesus' conception and birth, for example, this fits the usual pattern. But the point is, the gynecological and obstetric details of Jesus' birth are irrelevant. What matters, and the whole core of Christianity, is 'what did Jesus teach?' All too many people forget that THIS is what matters, NOT the clichês of mythology." Ah, so!! It's no wonder, therefore, that this particular church "evangelizes," not by street-corner preaching and backing people against a wall, stuffing tracts down their shirt fronts, and demanding, "Have you been saved!??" It evangelizes by example. It serves daily meals to the poor and homeless. It participates in a multi-church program that seeks out, or builds, low-cost or no-cost housing for the homeless. It sponsors "Alternatives to Violence" workshops which are active in the state's reformatories and prisons. And Central Lutheran Church is the national headquarters of the Lutheran Peace Fellowship (my wife was the Pacific Northwest Regional chairperson for eight years and did such a crackerjack job that they moved the national headquarters here!). In short, it feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, offers hospitality, visits the ill and imprisoned—Matthew 25:35-40. There is a great deal of evidence that the Cosmos came into existence 12.5 billion years ago, the solar system, including the earth, formed some 4.5 billion years ago, and over the intervening eons, humans (and other animals) evolved from more primitive forms of life, going all the way back to pond-scum formed from congealing carbon based compounds. One the other side, with no evidence other than its assertions, all you have is a book of mythology, which is, of itself, a patchwork of various often contradictory mythologies. Iona tells us that Christianity is retroactive to the Garden of Eden, and that he may have even written part of the Old Testament (??). And, I suppose, since Moses went up on the mountain and brought back the Ten Commandments (God's rules of conduct for humans) that his makes Moses a Christian, too. I think she'll get a bit of an argument from the local Rabbi on that one!! Don Firth |
|
10 Feb 12 - 03:27 PM (#3305564) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Should read ". . . retroactive to the Garden of Eden, and that Adam may have even written part of the Old Testament (??)." Don Firth |
|
10 Feb 12 - 03:28 PM (#3305565) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Thanks, Bruce... I do want to note that one of my reasons for continuing to debate/reply/answer people that have seemingly made up their minds and are not amenable to reason...is that this forum persists. It is 16 years old now, and may be here quite awhile. Who knows when a long ignored thread may be found? I like to see the most relevant, thought-out commentary on these issues left for possible readers later..(yeah...and I am confident that mine have some relevance). Also... sitting & typing these replies helps ME to organize my thoughts and spurs me to look up stuff that I am not sure about.... and it IS important to read the arguments of those I DIS-agree with...and to follow links to sites like Creation.com where I encounter some of the more... ummm...'interesting' aspects of conservative, religious claims. You cannot really defend a position unless you can reasonably state the opposition's position. Besides, all these issues are becoming a serious part of my country's political debates. Several candidates for president are asserting VERY conservative religious positions into their advertising and speeches, and seemingly trying to send the USA down the path to a theocracy.... subverting the way our Constitution was written. It is not right for ANY religious group to insert their specific views of morality, evolution, rights and other beliefs into the lives of those who do not agree. The only sane way I see around this is to educate....to show what makes sense as a reasonable argument. I do not require or expect everyone to believe...(or not believe)... as I do, but I DO expect them to KEEP those beliefs to themselves and to their churches and not usurp my rights. so... I play this game, trying to be reasonably polite, but firm, when I encounter stubborn ignorance (not stupidity...some are quite 'intelligent')...but willful ignorance about how logic and science operate. ------------------------------------------- repost:one of my favorite Peanuts cartoons: Charlie Brown is walking along when he comes to Lucy, kneeling and looking at something on the sidewalk..."What are you doing , Lucy?" "Charlie Brown--see this big black bug? Do you know why it's so much bigger than the others? Because it's the QUEEN!"..........so Charlie gets down and peers closely... "Lucy, that's not a bug...that's a black jelly bean!" Lucy gives him this LOOK and bends to scrutinize the bug again..."Why, so it is!...I wonder how a Jelly bean ever got to be queen!" There's no way to make the point when your 'victim' just redefines the rules and explains that anything you say just proves his point. |
|
10 Feb 12 - 03:34 PM (#3305570) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod The Bible doesn't mention digital technology or computers either. So are Iona and pete communicating through a medium that God hasn't approved of? Presumably, I & p think that He does approve - but how do they know? Do digital technology or computers even exist if they're not mentioned in the Bible? Am I sinfully imagining myself typing on this imaginary keyboard? |
|
10 Feb 12 - 04:13 PM (#3305589) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA Imagine the wild explanations (or maybe just plain denial) when the evidence for life elsewhere in the universe comes in. Trust me, it won't be long. I just hope I live to see it. |
|
10 Feb 12 - 04:29 PM (#3305598) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link bill-just to show that i do consider an opposing argument;i confirm that i did read your post.i do agree that the geographical distance does appear to limit the force of the creation.com article. as to the use of evolutionary time scales ;to seek to demonstrate that a theory is fallible even by its own proponents is IMO quite in order. don-seems to me you are making some sweeping and unwarrented statements claiming[if i dont misunderstand you]that religion only benifits its adherents.there are numerous faith based charities that give aid and support to all comers regardless of whatever faith position. i wonder too if there was more to pius than you know.i am not RC but i have heard that the pope did in fact shield a number of jews and instucted his cardinals also with the result that he saved more than those on schindlers list.he was later lauded as a "righteous gentile" by israels PM. |
|
10 Feb 12 - 04:54 PM (#3305615) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link sorry forgot we got 2 dons;wysywig that was. |
|
10 Feb 12 - 05:07 PM (#3305619) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth pete: don-seems to me you are making some sweeping and unwarrented statements claiming[if i dont misunderstand you]that religion only benifits its adherents.there are numerous faith based charities that give aid and support to all comers regardless of whatever faith position. Indeed, you do misunderstand me. The church I belong to does not benefit only its adherents. It's a small church, with a congregation of about 200, most of whom are fairly young working people (including, I might add, a number of attorneys and one state legislator). It is not a wealthy church, but it is not poor, either. When people come into the main room in the parish house next to the church, where the meals are served, they are not subjected to having to "pay for the soup by listening to the sermon," NOR are they asked what their religious affiliation is—nor are they asked if they HAVE any religious affiliation. The "soup" (a considerably more sumptuous meal that merely a bowl of soup) is free to anyone in need. The same holds true for LATCH (the Lutheran Alliance To Create Housing). No one is asked about their religion, if any, as a precondition to living in one of these facilities, nor are they hassled once they do. Anyone in need. pete, I don't think Jesus had the sick fill out a questionnaire before He healed them. I know for a fact that there are many self-proclaimed "Christians" who haven't a clue as to what Christianity is all about. Don Firth |
|
10 Feb 12 - 05:08 PM (#3305623) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Cross posted. Nevertheless, my post is to the point. Don Firth |
|
10 Feb 12 - 05:44 PM (#3305651) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke i have heard that the pope did in fact shield a number of jews I've heard he shielded a number of Nazis. Funny world ain't it? |
|
10 Feb 12 - 07:29 PM (#3305686) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 "I do not require or expect everyone to believe...(or not believe)... as I do, but I DO expect them to KEEP those beliefs to themselves and to their churches and not usurp my rights." I didn't say it so eloquently, Don: "You have a right to your opinion and along with that goes the right to keep quiet about." |
|
10 Feb 12 - 07:43 PM (#3305693) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D The Pope was in Italy...Italy was facist and supporting Hitler. The Pope tried to "not get involved". He was roundly criticized for his lack of a stand. |
|
10 Feb 12 - 08:22 PM (#3305707) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""The Pope was in Italy...Italy was facist and supporting Hitler. The Pope tried to "not get involved". He was roundly criticized for his lack of a stand."" Slight error there Bill. The Vatican is not part of Italy, but an independent city state, and the Fascists would never have risked invading it, because that would have ensured the complete annihilation of the Fascists in the inevitable uprising of Italy's vast Catholic majority. Even after Italy dropped out, the Nazis left the Vatican alone in spite of having driven catholicism underground in the whole of occupied Europe. _____________________________________________________________________ My comments about not benefitting any other than believers were aimed at the fundamentalists in Christianity who have historically persecuted non believers (Charlemagne, Richard I, Torquemada etc etc). Of course there are moderate Christians who give help to all who need it, but they are not the kind of people who are attempting to corrupt the minds of children, nor the kind who are currently trying to turn the USA into an Iranian style theocracy. If they ever succeed, Sharia law will begin to look like a better alternative before too long. Don T. |
|
10 Feb 12 - 09:12 PM (#3305733) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth It's the liberal Christian churches, such as the one that I belong to, who have a great deal at stake in the matter of a fundamentalist Christian takeover of this country, for obvious reasons. A Christian church that has no problem with scientific findings on the age of the universe, or with evolution, will be some of the first people to take it in the shorts should such a thing should ever happen. The problem with suppressing freedom of religion is that your religion might just be one of those that gets suppressed! And if you happen to be an atheist or an agnostic— Well, they used to hang them or burn them at the stake back in the Good Olde Days. I'm glad we have a couple of attorneys and a state legislator in our congregation to keep an sharp eye on things. Don Firth |
|
11 Feb 12 - 01:19 AM (#3305782) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona ""Therefore you can't judge anybody, because they define good differently. Only I can say that I have absolute right and wrong, because the God of the universe has revealed it to us in His Word."" I am so sorry Your Holiness, I didn't realise......How are things in the Vatican these days? *goes into gales of laughter* Pardon. You are misreading what I said. I'm saying that the Christian worldview (mine) is the only one that can truly uphold absolute right and wrong. And I've demonstrated that a number of times. Just because y'all refuse to answer my claims directly doesn't disprove my point. (although you seem comfortable in resorting to constantly insinuating that I am completely ignorant on all issues, etc, etc. This is why I like formal debates better. Generally the moderator won't let the debaters degrade themselves to the level of ad hominem insults.) |
|
11 Feb 12 - 01:32 AM (#3305783) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona ""Anyway, the fact that I shan't read it isn't because I'm not interested to, because I *would* like to read it. I just don't have the money to buy it. (it's over 30 dollars). But I plan on getting Darwin's Origins from the library as soon as I finish the book I'm reading at the moment."" Then perhaps you should stop spouting arrant nonsense, and wait until, by reading it, you actually know something about the subject. And just remember knowledge tends to enter only those minds which are open....not a trait much associated with the Creationist publications you have been relying on thus far. Don T. Aha. I see. So this is your logic. I can't carry out an intelligent argument with evolutionists unless I've read their bible (Darwin). Then reverse that. Have you read the Bible from cover to cover? If not, then you should stop spouting arrant nonsense and wait until, by reading it, you actually know something about the subject. And just remember, understanding tends to enter only those minds which are open....not a trait much associated with the Evolutionist publications you have been relying on thus far. I'll make you a deal. I promise to read Darwin from cover to cover if you promise to read the King James Bible (or the Geneva, my favorite translation) from cover to cover. This challenge is open to any of you. Now, comes the question: Whose got the guts to take me up on it?? Iona |
|
11 Feb 12 - 01:37 AM (#3305786) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Iona, I already have. Don Firth |
|
11 Feb 12 - 03:04 AM (#3305794) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona And you have no basis to take any high moral attitudes, when you believe that the bible is the immutable "Word of God", true in every detail, then decry those Muslims who believe in stoning adulterers to death, which is exactly what YOUR God is demanding of you if your belief is correct. You cannot have it both ways. Either the bible is, as YOU claim "the immutable Word of God", in which case you'll be needing a good supply of rocks, or it isn't, in which case your slavish belief falls flat on its face Let's get this clear here and now. I believe that what God says to be good is good. I do not believe that the Christian (Biblical) God is the same God as the Muslim god. Islamism is internally self contradicting, just as any other religion besides Christianity is, which I've explained a number of times before. If God says something is good, it is good. If God says to stone adulterers, then so be it. . Of course there must be a trial, and two or three witnesses, etc. But the fact that God decreed death as the punishment for adultery tells us just how serious a sin it is. God is a judge--the Perfect Judge. For instance, if one was to come home one day and find their family slaughtered on the floor and the killer standing over them,(and if you have the self-control not to kill him in return), you'd take him to court as a murderer. The Judge looks at the man and says "You are guilty. You have broken the law, and you deserve punishment. But since I am a compassionate judge, I will not punish you for your crime. You're free to go." What would you do? You'd go to every newspaper, the President, anything, to tell the world that there is a judge that holds office that is more corrupt than the criminals whom he presides over. God is not a corrupt judge. He cannot, since He is good and perfect and holy, let sinful, wicked men into heaven. He cannot forgive them. He is completely and utterly just and right in condemning them to death, to the supreme Death of @#!*% , because to transgress against the holy God in the slightest is to commit such a grievous sin that it demands supreme justice. There is forgiveness, but in only one way: Jesus Christ and His death on the Cross. If we aren't forgiven, every one of us is headed to our just punishment-- @#!*% . I believe in capital punishment because God ordains it in his word. We all deserve it, and cannot escape it of ourselves. |
|
11 Feb 12 - 03:08 AM (#3305795) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG As indeed have I. It's not actually the translation I prefer, but there you are. "I do not require or expect everyone to believe...(or not believe)... as I do, but I DO expect them to KEEP those beliefs to themselves and to their churches and not usurp my rights." I think this concept, which has been raised serveral times in several forms already in this thread goes to the heart of the problem. And, perhaps suprisingly, I'm more inclined to Pete and Iona's view than you might think. The critical problem is what happens when someone holds a sincere belief in X, when society in various forms prohibits it. Since creationism, Young Earth and so are so contentious, let my pick up Don Firth's approach to feeding the hungry, because I make the assumption that all the people reading this thread generally find that admirable. Ok, so now let's assume that society, for again generally agreed reasons, wants to insist all food providers have a minimum set of hygene certificates, everyone working with vulnerable people is checked every x months for criminal records, all the buildings have fire checks and so on and so forth I know much of that already happens, and no doubt Don's work addresses it, but there can easily come a point where the regulations actually make it impossible for Don's work to continue legally. Do we go along with the premise that Don's group stop work because it doesn't fit properly with society? Should we say to Don believe what you like, but don't act upon it? I doubt if there is any reader of this thread who thinks that. Yesterday in the UK an appeal was declined concerning two bed-and-breakfast keeper who had refused to allow a gay couple to stay in their property, which is in breach of the law. I happen to agree with the law on this one, but appreciate that what the law is saying to these people is 'believe what you like, but behave as if you believe the opposite'. Even if they close the bed-and-breakfast and do something else entirely, the state is still saying they cannot follow their beliefs in the way they think they are required to. Another example in the news that also touches on this relationship between individual and state is an current argument about contraception. I don't believe there is a definitive answer to this what this relationship is: it is some mess that needs to be sorted out case by case. Maybe in a few centuries we will be able to see some clear rules, but I tend to doubt it. But there is one approach that is think is - almost! - always valid: those who have such and such a belief should [short of violence] do everything they can to persuade us to let them act on their beliefs. And those opposing them should continually make the case why that should not happen. Which is why I'm happy for Pete and Iona to make their points, and why I respond. And of course I an not responding as 'society', just as another individual. |
|
11 Feb 12 - 03:31 AM (#3305799) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Oh, dear, Iona. Your post arrived while I was composing mine. There was I trying to give a reason why you should be heard, while you were busily advocating the re-introduction of stoning. I said some posts back that I was quite content for you to be described as 'nice', but really I can hardly maintain that now, can I? Not that I expect you to care either way. *smile* |
|
11 Feb 12 - 03:35 AM (#3305800) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. "I'll make you a deal. I promise to read Darwin from cover to cover if you promise to read the King James Bible (or the Geneva, my favorite translation) from cover to cover. This challenge is open to any of you. Now, comes the question: Whose got the guts to take me up on it?? " What about if we already have? And why those particular versions? Any objections to those written with more recent scholarship and understanding of the source languages? And I can't, but what about those who have read them in the original Hebrew or Greek - I guess there are some here who have. As for your vision of God, God help us. He came, himself, to show us He is not like that. Born in a filthy stable, mixing with sinners without checking out their repentance first, allowing Himself to be tortured to death. That's how He sees holiness. Penny |
|
11 Feb 12 - 03:55 AM (#3305803) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. I've been on a quest through my computer. Last time I came across that appalling vision of a deity so obsessed with his own holiness, this came to me, like ministry in Meeting. But I've not known what to do with it. It is a bit difficult to post something which came in a first person form, when God is the first person. "This is a response to the argument that God is so holy that he cannot bear the presence of sin, and so must send those who will not be cleaned by accepting Christ to eternal torment in hell. I am the sort of Holy who is born as you are born, borne from the lesser kind, from the place some think the gate of hell. I am the sort of Holy who becomes a baby, demanding and dirty, dependent on your care. I am the sort of Holy who grows as you grow, eating and drinking, coughing and sneezing, totally human. I am the sort of Holy who shows that the only Holy place is not in the Temple, where only one priest may go, as heathens think. I am the sort of Holy who shows you I am with you always, in all that you do, who becomes your Temple. I am the sort of Holy who tears down the curtain between the Holiest place and you. I am the sort of Holy who asks you not to think the only Holy place is Heaven, for Heaven is with you now. I am the sort of Holy who comes out of Heaven's Holiness, to bring Holiness to you. I am the sort of Holy who will not be set apart, who call myself "Emmanuel". I am the sort of Holy who seeks out the outcasts, the sinners, the despised. I am the sort of Holy who hunts down the lost, the set apart, to bring them in to Me. I am the sort of Holy you will meet in the hungry, the sick, the prisoner, the refugee. I am the sort of Holy you will meet in the givers, the healers, those who care for others, no matter where they come from, what they believe. I am the sort of Holy who submits to torture, takes your pains upon Himself. I am the sort of Holy who dies as fallen men die, a death some think damns all who suffer it. I am the sort of Holy before whom Hell is meaningless and empty. I am the sort of Holy who shows you at the end that life was worth it, that I cannot be gainsaid. I am the sort of Holy who knows no boundaries, not death, not Holiness, but Love." Penny |
|
11 Feb 12 - 05:08 AM (#3305829) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie Iona believes in capital Puishment? Doesn't sound too Christian to me.. Barbaric, disgusting and a sign of society failing, but certainly not Christian. I'm no expert, but I do remember my RE teacher saying something about forgiving. Incarceration can fit in with that but murdering people ends them in every way and as we are now talking the real world, we can dismiss the heaven and hell nonsense because when you kill someone, it really is the end. Hw can you justify that anyway, let alone using fairy stories twisted to suit your own bigotry? |
|
11 Feb 12 - 05:32 AM (#3305837) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Joe Offer Well, yes, Ian. There are lots of Christians who take the Bible literally until they get to the parts that say "love one another" and "do unto others" and "turn the other cheek." Somehow, they find it far more important to take the creation myths literally. -Joe- |
|
11 Feb 12 - 05:56 AM (#3305840) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Paul Burke Judge not lest you yourself be judged? I've quite forgotten where that came from*... Christians have been keen supporters of capital punishment, legally inflicted or not, since the earliest times. Look up Priscillian. Then look up Hypatia. That's mostly because, like so many who have been persecuted, their first thought on emancipation is to seize power over others. Not at all helped by odd words on the subject from the sect's eponym, who was just a man of his time, and appears to have thought it quite ordinary, along with slavery and ignorance of science. And despite not having been persecuted in a dozen centuries, seizing power over others is the agenda that these talibs have set themselves. Attempts to introduce creationism into the school science syllabus have been made in many US states, and the campaign against legal recognition of homosexual relationships is similarly widespread. They have made serious inroads into the US military, where profession of extreme Christianity is a prerequisite for advancement in many areas, perhaps as a reaction to similarly extreme Islam. This is not a condemnation of all Christianity- there are many decent Christians whose beliefs do not require the denial of reality- but it's long been a mystery to me why they allow themselves to be associated with the extremists, and why they seldom speak out. *apart from "somewhere in the bible" |
|
11 Feb 12 - 06:17 AM (#3305852) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw I may not be the Bible scholar that some of you lot purport to be (you'd hardly expect me to be, would you? ;-)), but would one of you be kind enough to point to the bit where Jesus swept away the old fifth commandment and put a harsher alternative in its place? |
|
11 Feb 12 - 06:31 AM (#3305858) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw I can't carry out an intelligent argument with evolutionists unless I've read their bible (Darwin) "Darwin", by which I assume you mean On The Origin Of Species, is not a bible. It does not look like a bible, it does not read like a bible and it does not attract the reaction that a bible does. It does not contain stories, parables or myths and it is entirely predicated on conclusions drawn from evidence (not tradition, witness, threats, hearsay or edict). It is absolutely the polar opposite of a bible. It may be questioned (in fact, it MUST be questioned - that's what scientific endeavour is all about), updated in the light of new knowledge unknown to its author, particularly in the fields of genetics and biochemistry, expanded, illustrated and revised. If I tell you I don't believe in the Bible and want to speak up against it, you consign me to the eternal flames. If you tell me you don't believe in Origin and want to speak up against it, you're just plain daft. |
|
11 Feb 12 - 06:32 AM (#3305859) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw More italics troubles. Aaargh!
[you put the backslash on the wrong side of the 2nd i--lyxdexic, no doubt---- bemused clone] |
|
11 Feb 12 - 06:43 AM (#3305866) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Pardon. You are misreading what I said."" I reproduced exactly what you said and responded in exactly the way your comment deserved. As to ignorance, that is not an ad hominem attack. It is an accurate description of your displayed, and self confessed) lack of knowledge of that which you profess to be debating. In a formal debate, you would be soundly defeated. Don T. |
|
11 Feb 12 - 06:53 AM (#3305869) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Aha. I see. So this is your logic. I can't carry out an intelligent argument with evolutionists unless I've read their bible (Darwin). Then reverse that. Have you read the Bible from cover to cover?"" Short answer YES! Long answer, numerous times in studying at one of the best Catholic schools in England. Even our Catholic teachers (Jesuit brothers with a violent line in discipline) didn't hold the bible, Old or New Testament, to be a factual account of human history, and not once did Religious Instruction teachers claim scientific status for their subject. The school turned out some pretty fine scientists too. So you see I do have knowledge of both sides of the debate, so, why don't you stop making unwarranted assumptions about others and get yourself up to speed. Don T. |
|
11 Feb 12 - 07:01 AM (#3305871) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod According to 'Christian' religious fundamentalists, like Iona and pete, the Bible is the 'final word' on everything (except relativity, quantum mechanics, digital technology, molecular biology, pop music, muscle cars, Leonardo Da Vinci, Charles Dickens, the Battle of Agincourt, printing, exo-planets, ice cream, Martian geology, Beethoven etc., etc., etc.). Science, on the other hand, is NOT equivalent to religious faith because its conclusions are always provisional and its practice is on-going. To compare the Bible with 'On the Origin of Species' shows a deep and profound misunderstanding of how religion and science relate to each other (if they relate to each other at all). By the way, I notice that Iona is very selective about the posts that she responds to - why am I not surprised? |
|
11 Feb 12 - 07:01 AM (#3305872) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""If God says something is good, it is good. If God says to stone adulterers, then so be it. ."" But if Allah says the same thing it is wrong?....""I do not believe that the Christian (Biblical) God is the same God as the Muslim god. Islamism is internally self contradicting, just as any other religion besides Christianity is, which I've explained a number of times before."" Do you actually read what you are writing? You are internally self contradicting and I simply do not believe that God has anything to do with the claptrap you produce. Don T. |
|
11 Feb 12 - 07:08 AM (#3305876) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Ignorance is not too bad a thing in own right. We all start off ignorant. A deliberate and cultivated ignorance is another matter. There a number of points where iona's position appears self-contractory, not merely at odds with science and the evidence but with itself. And whenever this happens the response is to pretend the issue isn't there. That's what i mean by deliberate ignorance, not. Failing to read this or that article. I think we are now waiting to hear Pete's view on the appropriateness of stoning adulters today in the US and UK. |
|
11 Feb 12 - 07:25 AM (#3305881) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Ian Mather If the bible says it is ok to get stoned, then lead on! Actually, on a more serious note, threads like this can make me feel bad. When you get genuine people like Don Firth and Joe Offer on the thread, you know they put a lot of store by using their faith as a moral compass and it saddens me that my pointing out what I believe to be reality checks must be somewhat painful to read, as it appears that many of us are dismissing what they hold dear. Methinks my approach of purposely insulting creationalists can be seen to be broader than it is intended. My stance is that you can have your faith in a God as I can have my faith in Sheffield Wednesday and lottery tickets. Just don't tell me they can't play football or that my ticket isn't my passport to paradise (eventually) However, to spout literal interpretation drivel is ultimately damaging. I truly believe children and vulnerable adults need protecting from the likes of Iona and starry Pete. Whilst trying not to introduce Godwin's law, we are aware of how repeating a lie often enough gives it credibility amongst shallow minds. |
|
11 Feb 12 - 08:18 AM (#3305915) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stu "There a number of points where iona's position appears self-contractory, not merely at odds with science and the evidence but with itself. And whenever this happens the response is to pretend the issue isn't there. That's what i mean by deliberate ignorance, not. Failing to read this or that article." Well, as Iona will not debate with me whenever I point out the flaws in her argument I agree, but her refusal to address, though she is busy with fuzzy concepts like 'good' and 'evil', which you could go on arguing about for ever. My only comment there is that if you need someone to tell you what your moral and ethical outlook on life is, that you should treat other living beings with compassion and empathy then you're not much of a thinker anyway. If Iona is not acquainted with the facts of the issues she raises as arguments for her cause (SFG's passim), then she needs to stop and research the subject. She is obviously ignorant of some remarkably basic facts (.i.e. "Waves create ripples as they come into shore. But when the waves go back out, they erase the ripples."), and this means her arguments are full of misunderstanding, speculation and supposition. That's OK as she can remedy this and get some education, provided she can get over being blinded by the word of God and express her (to her God-given) natural curiosity. If however she is actually acquainted with the facts and she's choosing to ignore them then she's committing an intellectual crime; she's not only ignoring the evidence of palaeontology and biology but also evidence from chemistry, physics, geology, astronomy and a whole host of other scientific disciplines too. She doesn't even understand what a theory is, and making statements like "Under evolutionary theory, a cat ought to be able to turn into a dog, given enough beneficial mutations and enough time." means she doesn't understand even the most basic understanding of biology, let alone anything else. One more thing. If all this marvellous biological complexity we see around is the work of a creator or designer, then they're a bit crap and lack imagination to be sure. For a start, the people made in their own image are not brilliantly designed, with our eyes being particularly badly designed (to be fair they've had a bash with several other designs in molluscs and arthropods which are better, but why they'd give a squid better eyes than themselves is a bit of a poser. All tetrapods conform to a single body plan. What's that about? There must be an infinite variety of body plans that could be used but there's only one for all mammals, reptiles, amphibians and birds. You get the odd early tetrapod with six or eight toes or whatever, but even they still conform to the basic body plan . . . hmmmm. Looks the blind watchmaker wasn't so smart after all. |
|
11 Feb 12 - 09:29 AM (#3305949) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 "If the bible says it is ok to get stoned, then lead on!" OK, Ian. I'll be back in five. |
|
11 Feb 12 - 09:33 AM (#3305953) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke Don: You won't be surprised to know that these nutters don't accept Catholics as Christian. Nor Episcopalians, nor anyone but themselves. And they can't understand that they are "interpreting" the Bible as much as any freethinker. Take a few random examples: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Clear enough, but what does it mean by "false witness"- you or your leader have to make that bit up. And the Good Samaritan story didn't exactly elucidate the "neighbour" bit either. I don't suppose studying the original language will help much either, as the biblical scholars of England didn't exactly rise up hooting in derision when Thatcher came out with her egregious interpretation. Or "Blessed are the poor". Most Christians seem to prefer Matthew's addition of "in spirit", because no one can see your spirit and so you can be blessed without actually being badly off. But even passing that, there isn't any guidance about what being "blessed" means. It could mean only the blessed go to heaven, or it could mean no more than a pat on the back. Again the interpretation is all, and it comes down to a question of whose interpretation- and why. Fundamentalists, of all religions, are ploitical. No doubt Iona or their leaders have hermetically sealed arguments about this, but on examination these always turn out to be circular. |
|
11 Feb 12 - 10:46 AM (#3305987) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 I'm back. Took a little more than five minutes because the %$&^#@* papers I am reduced to using are ZigZags, and the first two tore. Well, I mean that the first two papers which would act as a single paper after I stapled them together--that's what caused the first two papers designed to act as one paper to tear in the first place. Well, it wasn't the first actual place on the paper that tore because it had already torn a bit from the ghzh-gukk of the scrunching mechanism of the stapler. Then I noticed that the manufacturer has put a kind of glue on the edge of the papers. So I licked them both and stuck the glued edges together. But when I rolled the dried foliage/banana peels there was no way to get the paper to adhere to itself, hence the staples. There has to be an easier way. Anyway, sorry about drifting off-topic. So, in twenty-five words or fewer (I got a ruler on the knuckles for saying less instead of fewer in the commonly used 'in twenty-five words or less' locution and never did get over it completely) would some kind soul tell me what this thread is about? I've lost the plot somewhere along the way--OH, in the past week I have read the same four pages of a Robert Ludlum novel because my arm is outside the airspace of the bed, and when I fall asleep reading (which seems to be every time I read) the book falls from my hand, goes something like kwaTHUMMP splatwhen it hits the floor) and I have learned to sleep through that. Anyway, when I next get up I pick up the book and it pops open to the page I was on. It's done that for four nights. I hope it's an interesting read. I'm on pages 17-20. |
|
11 Feb 12 - 11:06 AM (#3305992) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: frogprince Bruce, Judy and I both hate you; we're both so %&*# weak from laughing that I don't know how we're going to finish packing to fly off to Jamaica in a couple of days! Dean |
|
11 Feb 12 - 11:20 AM (#3306002) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion One Iona thinks the Bible is true except where it isn't so Xtnty the only faith that's right. A few silly people waste time arguing. [25 words precisely!] |
|
11 Feb 12 - 01:11 PM (#3306067) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D dangerouspost, Bruce! I was laughing louder than I have in years...and my wife came in to see why..and I made the mistake of reading it out loud to her ....and SHE laughed so hard she couldn't beathe properly, and had to retreat to the far room and recover.... (and where can I get some of that "dried foliage/banana peels"?) I won't use a stapler...but I have some industrial strength super-glue |
|
11 Feb 12 - 01:41 PM (#3306085) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 "I don't know how we're going to finish packing to fly off to Jamaica in a couple of days" Ah, man, I bet they got papers with no staple holes in 'em. 'and where can I get some of that "dried foliage/banana peels"' I can help with the banana peels. I'm presently in the process of packaging a few pints of peels which I'll put in the post. I admit to taking the banana peel idea from a rumour that was floating around in the 1960s in Greenwich Village. What we never did tell anyone is that it works. Even though the price of bananas has skyrocketed--well, I never did see much use for bananas: skin 'em and throw away the bone and there's nothing left--it's less expensive than hooking up a vacuum cleaner to a bong and breathing the exhaust from the Hoover. But if the smoke I inhaled doesn't kick in soon I'll have to find a place that sells vacuum cleaners, bongs, bananas and papers--crud, and now Bic lighters. Why is it that they always run out of gas when they're empty? Do any of you know of a specialty shop like that? I kinda need an answer soon because it's the only thing that will get my head back to this thread. |
|
11 Feb 12 - 02:07 PM (#3306102) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D .... you don't remember Morning Glory seeds? "Heavenly Blues & Pearly Gates"...that ought to get you back to this thread. Local shops ought stock 'em.. |
|
11 Feb 12 - 02:18 PM (#3306108) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mrrzy LOL! enough banana peels and ANYbody can see gods! |
|
11 Feb 12 - 03:33 PM (#3306147) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Okay, so in the interest of full disclosure: I posted some of this information before, but this gives a broader picture of where I'm coming from. My family was not particularly religiously oriented. Which is to say, although we did go to church from time to time, we didn't go that often, and we didn't belong to any particular church. My father never said much about religion. My mother was a bit of a questioner and seeker, and she read a fair amount about Eastern religion and philosophy. Standard sermons bored her spitless. When I was about ten or so, I did attend a two week "summer Bible school" at a church a few blocks from where I lived. My sisters and I wanted to go mostly because a lot of other kids in the neighborhood were going, and getting us out of the house would give mom a few hours of peace and quiet. There, I learned to recite the Lord's Prayer and the 23rd Psalm and a few things like that. I believed in God (a vague sort of presence) about the same way I (a precocious ten-year-old) had previously believed in Santa Claus (somewhat more specific image, perhaps). In my first freshman philosophy course at the University of Washington, among many other things, we examined the various philosophers' arguments for and against the existence of God, or a "Prime Mover." This turned me into a hard-charging atheist. In later years, I mellowed a bit when it finally sank in that there is an incredible amount about the Universe (or "Creation," if anyone insists) that we don't know and probably never will know. But I definitely didn't become a believer. Agnostic, perhaps, but not a believer. I know quite a bit about the Bible. Early on, when I was an English major at the University of Washington, I had room for an English elective in my class schedule. As I said, I'm not particularly religious, but just for kicks, I signed up for "The Bible as Literature." The father of a girl I went to high school with was teaching the course. Professor Paul Trueblood made it quite plain from the start that this was a course in the Bible as a work of literature—and we would not—repeat, not—be discussing it as a religious text. We read the Bible as if it were an anthology of short stories, novelettes, essays, and poetry. We didn't skip around, reading a verse here and a verse there, we read it in whole chunks, right through, the way you read any literary work. There were a few people in the class who tried to initiate religious interpretations and discussions. When this happened, Prof. Trueblood gently but firmly steered the discussion back to the literary aspects of whatever we had just read. Having taken this course made me something of a reef on which a number of proselytizing Christian soul-savers foundered. When they would quote a verse or two from the Bible in an effort to prove the point they were trying to make, I was well equipped to interrupt them and say, "But that's not what that verse means. You're taking it out of context." At which point, I would lecture them on what the passage was really saying. I was dangerous! I knew too much about the Bible! Interesting to note that a few months after I told one of my tormentors that I had taken the "Bible as Literature" course in the U. of W. English Department, the fundamentalist church he belonged to filed suit against the University in an attempt to get the course removed from the catalog, claiming that the University was "teaching religion." The state Supreme Court eventually ruled that Prof Paul Trueblood, and subsequently, Prof. David C. Fowler, had scrupulously avoided religious discussion in class and that it qualified as a straightforward literature course. The fundamentalist church lost, and the course listing stayed in the catalog. Taking this course also set me in good stead for discussions with clergy of various denominations, and I've enjoyed a number of good, interesting discussions and debates with them. Thirty years ago, I married a woman who had been raised in the Lutheran Church (one of the more liberal branches). She was, and is, involved in a number of church activities. So am I. Although she was raised in the church and has been involved with it one way or another all her life, it seems our beliefs are very much alike. And she and I find that we are not the only ones in our particular church who believe pretty much as we do. No one is dogmatic. And pretty much everyone is willing to question and discuss. I don't know anyone in the church who maintains that the Bible is the "inerrant Word of God." As Pastor Shannon said once, "The Bible is not The Boy Scout Manual. You're not necessarily going to find answers here. You're going to find questions!" She's cool! Do I believe in God? Well, I certainly don't believe in the Cranky Old Man in the nightshirt and beard sitting up on Arturus 12 who hurls thunderbolts at sinners, marks the fall of every sparrow in His ledger book, and keeps a list of who's naughty and nice. Do I "believe" in science? Yes. I've always been a science enthusiast, fascinated by all aspects of astronomy and cosmology, including the possibility, expounded by the latest speculations in String Theory, of parallel universes and multiple dimensions. Fascinating stuff! I believe the "theory" of evolution because it offers the most reasonable explanation for how we all got here, AND it backs it with evidence that one can examine for oneself. I am not in the least bit flummoxed when a scientist says, "I don't know." Or when a scientist says, "What we believed up until now is not quite accurate. In the light of new data. . . ." If scientists don't know, then who does!?? Certainly not someone (even if he or she does have a cable television show!) with no evidence except a book of mythological tales that attributes all phenomena to a SuperSpook beyond the clouds whose will he or she claims to know. But do I eschew all possibility of there being a spiritual dimension to Life, the Universe, and Everything? No. There may very well be. I find it perfectly acceptable to say, "I don't know." Or, as Iris Dement puts it, "Let the Mystery Be." How do I reconcile my agnosticism with attending a Christian church regularly? As far as I am concerned, Christianity is as Christianity does. And this particular church, because of its social programs, allows me to maximize my own efforts to follow the admonitions of Jesus in the verses in Matthew that I cited before. Whether Jesus is a Divine figure or just a wise and caring man in this context is irrelelvant to me. Don Firth |
|
11 Feb 12 - 03:36 PM (#3306151) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke Over 590! Who's going to get 666 in this thread? Shall we leave it for Iona? |
|
11 Feb 12 - 03:59 PM (#3306164) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Yeah! Wouldn't that be a snort!?? Don Firth |
|
11 Feb 12 - 04:07 PM (#3306169) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA I absolutley pledge to NOT post past 665. Take the pledge! |
|
11 Feb 12 - 04:55 PM (#3306194) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 I could do post 666 standing on my head! |
|
11 Feb 12 - 05:47 PM (#3306222) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG This thread is a stream of conciousness about fundamentalist christianity but I am mot convinced all posters are fully concious. [20 I think + I can't scroll easily on my phone to check] |
|
11 Feb 12 - 06:08 PM (#3306227) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA How long have you been waiting for the opportunity to trot that joke out? Oaky, it was good. |
|
11 Feb 12 - 06:12 PM (#3306230) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D I don't think all posters are even fully conscientious. |
|
11 Feb 12 - 06:15 PM (#3306242) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: mayomick Evidence of evolution : development of our kidneys http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/evidence-for-evolution-development-of-our-kidneys/ And if that's not enough to convince you there's a flowchart for choosing your religion here : http://nedhardy.com/2012/01/05/a-flowchart-for-choosing-your-religion/ |
|
11 Feb 12 - 06:53 PM (#3306317) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link dmcg not sure if that waiting to hear petes view was mocking or not but as your posts are of the civil sort i take it as genuine. this will be unacceptable to those who discount any divine authority [especially the more vocal mockers] but maybe yourself might see where i'm coming from at least. it is quite true that under OT law the penalty for adultery was stoning.there were other crimes that carried the death penalty also.the man executed for gathering sticks on the sabbath is a favourite of skeptics.this man was defying the clear instructions of God 'and moses carried out the sentence only after devine direction. the same principle applies in adultery cases,as well as being detrimental to family life[as it still is]and breakdown of society. israel was under theocratic rule and this was a benefit to the nation meant to safeguard them . we do not live under direct theocratic rule at this time and though civil law is God ordained [cf romans 13]it is falliable. in addition to this the dealings of God with man is different in NT times onward.johns gospel spoke of law with moses but grace with Jesus.it also contains the story of the woman taken in adultery who jesus did not condemn after all the shamed hypocrites dropped their rocks . opinion on capital punishment for murder is divided.some say that since this was instituted before the mosaic law;it still applies. while i repect this view,i think it not so clear cut and there have been too many mistakes in law. a great example of grace would be the apostle paul who was involved in the murder of stephen and probably others yet was transformed into a christian missionary. |
|
11 Feb 12 - 11:57 PM (#3306635) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion Into this stupid thread rode the 600 |
|
12 Feb 12 - 09:48 AM (#3306896) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Civil law is not God ordained Pete, really, I'm not joking here, it just isn't.. Just because it says so in your bible doesn't make it true. Cilvil law affects everybody, not just those who smile too much with their self satisfied sanctimony. As it affects me, I state categorically that it cannot be God ordained because for me, (and the universe but that's another matter) he doesn't exist. Yet I recognise civil law. Ergo, it is, like religion, man made. zzzzz By the way, 666 is, according to Stephen Fry, who tends to know things, the wrong number. A cockup of translation. I forget what the number actually is right now, but a delve into google or QI will provide the answer. Me, I can't be arsed. Especially as our two happy clappers haven't risen to any of my baits yet. If they are telling the truth, as they reckon they are, why not confront this ignorant pillock who must, by any religious reckoning, run around dodging lighting bolts? Or is it that I won't reason with hysterical nonsense? |
|
12 Feb 12 - 10:13 AM (#3306916) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG No, pete, I was not mocking. I wanted to understand whether it was a general position amoung creationists if, given the opportunity, they would vote in favour of restoring stoning as the appropriate punishment for adultery. I think Iona is quite clear she would. I am afraid after reading your post I'm still undecided how you would vote. Could you state it more directly? |
|
12 Feb 12 - 11:03 AM (#3306936) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mrrzy Ok, now,, that's TWO LOLs, one for the joke that I also wonder how long they've been waiting to crack, and one for that chart! Except the pedantic observation that buddhists don't actually worship any gods... |
|
12 Feb 12 - 11:47 AM (#3306964) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG If it's my joke ('stream of conciousness') you were referring to, it was invented specially for the occasion. Honest, I'd swear it ... |
|
12 Feb 12 - 12:40 PM (#3306991) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 Sorry to be gone so long. I'm glad that stuff gave a few folks the chuckles. I've had a few myself with other folks' humour in the last twenty-or-so posts. I was reading Ludlum, starting at page 17 again and I got to page 20 for the fifth or sixth time. A eureka moment hit me. That was fortunate because Eureka's also in the thread title and so this is no longer thread drift. I put the book on my desk, and was using it to roll the peels and foliage in the new papers and found that the glue was old and dry. Reaching for my trusty stapler, the thing that holds in the push doodad that helps the staples get sprung out sprung out itself and I stepped on it so it just doesn't work now. So, I got the nail gun. I'll tell ya, that 'cigarette' looks just fine, but it's pinned real good to Robert Ludlum's novel (from the back cover all the way to page 21), three sheets of paper I was writing brilliant thoughts on, my Bic pen and a solid wood-topped desk. I'll keep you in the loop. |
|
12 Feb 12 - 12:50 PM (#3306996) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 Sorry to have left it like that. An example, from memory of just a few of the brilliant thoughts I've been writing down are "Peanut butter sticks to the roof of the mouth" or "It's lucky for birds that eggs ain't cubic." I gotta go get a two pound hammer and a steel chisel (seen here). Back later. |
|
12 Feb 12 - 01:43 PM (#3307027) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Actually, bruce, the ooh!ah!! bird does lay square eggs. Hence, it's named after its strange cry. Trick of evolution. Probably a dead end. . . . Don Firth |
|
12 Feb 12 - 02:28 PM (#3307053) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Eliza Apparently the correct number should be 616! |
|
12 Feb 12 - 02:32 PM (#3307058) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. 7 to go! |
|
12 Feb 12 - 05:31 PM (#3307119) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link dcmg-sorry; i thought i was clear but to clarify-if i had a vote in a referendum i would vote against restoring the death penalty[abolished here in the UK] for any crime.i am not convinced that iona was advocating stoning adulterers at this time but i do agree that under OT direct theocratic rule it was a good thing for the good of the community as a whole but am only assuming that accords with ionas reasoning and she may correct me. i cant remember how we got here but it is drifting off topic.i dont see how an opinion on the death penalty has anything but a loose relevance to origins. |
|
12 Feb 12 - 05:41 PM (#3307125) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: frogprince In the context of this discussion, I would say that it is relevant to the credibility of the Bible as an authoritative source which can be used to disprove evolution. |
|
12 Feb 12 - 05:43 PM (#3307126) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: frogprince (and the generally accepted ages of the cosmos and of earth.) |
|
12 Feb 12 - 08:45 PM (#3307218) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth How about Jesus' ruling on the woman take in adultery? "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." I think that pretty well takes care of the matter of stoning--and quite probably the Christian view of capital punishment in general. It would save a lot of senseless debate if more self-styled "Christians" actually read what Jesus said. Don Firth |
|
12 Feb 12 - 09:33 PM (#3307225) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA It is like wrestling the draperies or boxing smoke. And the draperies and smoke are blissfully unaware. |
|
13 Feb 12 - 02:48 AM (#3307260) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona Hw can you justify [capital punishment] anyway, let alone using fairy stories twisted to suit your own bigotry? I believe in capital punishment when it is founded upon Biblical principles. The 'two or three witnesses' is crititcal. And the link I posted when I first stated my position on capital punishment explains why. And if you call capital punishment barbaric you're calling God barbaric, because He was the one that instigated capital punishment. Naturally, an atheist doesn't have a problem with calling God names, but that ought to raise a question to a Christian. There are lots of Christians who take the Bible literally until they get to the parts that say "love one another" and "do unto others" and "turn the other cheek." Somehow, they find it far more important to take the creation myths literally. Joe, I take the WHOLE BIBLE to be the Word of God, and there are no contradictions therein. Capital punishment is good when the crime fits the punishment. And capital punishment is 'loving', which, again, is explained in this link. (http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=414111646266). God cannot contradict Himself, but men can. You're accusing me of inconsistency because I believe in capital punishment, and yet if you don't believe in capital punishment, you're the inconsistent one. The Bible says "Love your enemies", but it also says "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." (Leviticus 20:10). People seem to think that the Old Testament God is a different being than the New Testament God. But they forget about Ananias and Sapphira........who were killed in the New Testament. Back in the beginning days of America, there was still capital punishment used regularly. And in the early to mid 1800's there was a 0% crime rate in most towns. Second, capital punishment deters crime. Criminals don't fear imprisonment, just like children don't fear time out. They don't necessarily like it, but it holds no dread for them. But if you instigate capital punishment for the appropriate crimes, then crime will go down, which has been proven over and over. People are much less likely to commit murder if they know that they'll be forfeiting their life in doing so. God himself provides mercy for murderers in that they cannot be executed unless there are two or three witnesses. Even if all the evidence points to a person being the murderer, we can't execute them until we have witnesses. That's what the Bible says. ""If God says something is good, it is good. If God says to stone adulterers, then so be it. ."" But if Allah says the same thing it is wrong?....""I do not believe that the Christian (Biblical) God is the same God as the Muslim god. Islamism is internally self contradicting, just as any other religion besides Christianity is, which I've explained a number of times before."" Do you actually read what you are writing? You are internally self contradicting and I simply do not believe that God has anything to do with the claptrap you produce. There are no gods besides the God of the Bible. The Islamic position on stoning, etc, is unbiblical because they are worshiping a god that is not the God of the Bible. I may agree with the sentence, but I don't agree with the worldview they hold behind it. The Bible is consistent. The whole Bible. |
|
13 Feb 12 - 03:00 AM (#3307264) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Thanks, pete, for the clarification (and I got 616!) |
|
13 Feb 12 - 03:15 AM (#3307265) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG You're accusing me of inconsistency because I believe in capital punishment, and yet if you don't believe in capital punishment, you're the inconsistent one. The Bible says "Love your enemies", but it also says "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." That's not inconsistant unless you also add in the third part: 'and everything the bible says is accurate'. Most posters don't believe that, and so they are not inconsistant. It is not that you believe in capital punishment that I am concerned with [though as it happens I also am against that]. The inconsistancy arises because there is a huge difference between the translations most believers adopt for the fifth commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' and the version you prefer 'Thou shalt not murder'. Don't bother explaining why you prefer that version, as its not my point. The problem with the 'murder' version is that there is necessarily a distinction between lawful and unlawful killing and the question arises who decides that. Is it the Bible? : no, because you would have said the precise definition of murder is given in verses ... of these books ... But you didn't. You were clear the state decides. And that means that the state determines whether the commandment had been broken, not God. And remember we are talking about God's eternal law, so we mean all states at all times here: The US in the time of slavery, England's dealings with Scotland and Itreland in the 1700's and more recently, Germany in the 30s, Stalin, Pol Pot ... all those killings were lawful. And, if your stance it to believed, these killings are not offences against the commandment. And of course, if you insist that those states are somehow excluded, it merely re-raises the question of who does decide then. |
|
13 Feb 12 - 03:42 AM (#3307269) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Oh, to pick up the 'two or three witnesses are crucial' point. What is your stance on soldiers? Are most of their killings murders? |
|
13 Feb 12 - 04:02 AM (#3307273) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Joe Offer Well, iona, I suppose that if you start with the supposition that the bible was written or dictated by a perfect God who cannot allow contradictions and then work backwards, then possibly you could explain away all the contradictions that the rest of us see so clearly. I mean, If you start with the supposition that an all-powerful God can do anything, then I suppose that God can manipulate things to fit your script. But the rest of us don't see it that way. Those of us who believe in both God and evolution, see God as the wonderful essence within nature, rather than an outside force holding marionette strings from above. But it's clear to me that we'll never come to agreement. We just see things so completely differently. You see the Bible as a script that must be followed exactly. I just don't see it that way. I can accept contradictions within Scripture, since I see the Bible as written by fully human persons inspired by their faith in God. -Joe- |
|
13 Feb 12 - 05:11 AM (#3307303) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw The Bible says "Love your enemies", but it also says "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." (Leviticus 20:10). Do expand on this, please. It seems to be saying that shagging around (not just murder) should get you strung up. Or am I missing something? |
|
13 Feb 12 - 05:14 AM (#3307307) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw And I love the idea that capital punishment is "loving." And, taking your deterrent effect to its logical conclusion, and your scorning of prison as a deterrent, why not just hang everybody who commits any crime at all? Hell's teeth, that would be a good deterrent I think! Er, but let's be fair: only for crimes for which there are three witnesses... |
|
13 Feb 12 - 07:37 AM (#3307351) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 "I believe in capital punishment when it is founded upon Biblical principles." Which translation or version of The Bible do you read, Iona? And if it's not private, which Church do you belong to? |
|
13 Feb 12 - 08:38 AM (#3307371) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 In what seems to be a serious subject I just had a good laugh. I was looking up some stuff on law and grace (notions addressed by people who have an understanding of The Bible either broad or narrow) when ads started popping up about lawyers. Anyway, I figured I'd share that. |
|
13 Feb 12 - 08:45 AM (#3307375) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. She said she preferred the Geneva Bible, but would include the KJV for us to read so we could understand where she is getting her ideas from. that would perhaps indicate a Calvinist origin for her church. I used to think that Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale" was pushing small trends into unbelievable dystopia. God, that's Jesus' God, help us if ever those loving executioners get into power. And Iona, I am a Christian, but if God is the god you worship, then he is barbaric. Since He is not, and came here to tell us and show us that, that's between Him and me. I'm not calling Him names. I'm calling the interpretation you and your church are peddling names. There's a book in our local Oxfam shop (charity, started by Quakers) about the necessity of the Fear of God. Not the way to draw people towards Him, that and Wrath, as preached in your videos. That's why Jesus didn't over-emphasise that sort of thing. What did he say to the tax-collector (a serious sinner) who fell out of the tree before him? Not repent or god will get you, but "I'm coming to your house tonight". Try this for a change Penny |
|
13 Feb 12 - 08:52 AM (#3307383) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 Thanks, Penny. I either missed or forgot that. The Geneva Bible was the first one to use the numbering system for verses. That was in 1560. (I didn't know that until yesterday when I was digging around the 'net and tripped over a site about various Bibles.) |
|
13 Feb 12 - 09:06 AM (#3307396) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. I have remembered that one of our bishops in London, broadcasting on BBC Radio 4 at about 7.50 in the morning, in a slot called "Thought for The Day" (that reference is for anyone reading here who is not familiar with this side of the pond) addressed the subject of that sort of god who wants to condemn most people to hell. His reaction was that, come the day, he would be prepared to go down to hell shouting against that god if that was what he proved to be. Jesus showed a better God than that, as the bishop well knew. A God who, so far from condemning, put His own life on the line. Someone once said that we go to the god we worship. I worry about the people who worship the god of wrath who demands fear, and even more so about those who teach them that that is right. That preaching is more of a millstone than a life-saver, and that carries a burden with it. Except that I trust God to reach out to them as long as there is one soul to be rescued. Penny |
|
13 Feb 12 - 09:40 AM (#3307464) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Back in the beginning days of America, there was still capital punishment used regularly. And in the early to mid 1800's there was a 0% crime rate in most towns."" There was no organised legal structure, lynchings were the norm, and the crime rate was astronomical, but since the biggest bully WAS the law it was never acknowledged as crime. And, by the way, back then you would have lasted about ten seconds after you began telling people what to believe and how to behave. Don T. |
|
13 Feb 12 - 09:55 AM (#3307488) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""i am not convinced that iona was advocating stoning adulterers at this time"" Really? In direct response to the following comment and a question from me: "And you have no basis to take any high moral attitudes, when you believe that the bible is the immutable "Word of God", true in every detail, then decry those Muslims who believe in stoning adulterers to death, which is exactly what YOUR God is demanding of you if your belief is correct. You cannot have it both ways. Either the bible is, as YOU claim "the immutable Word of God", in which case you'll be needing a good supply of rocks, or it isn't, in which case your slavish belief falls flat on its face. Now, there's a poser. Which way will you jump?"" She replied: ""If God says something is good, it is good. If God says to stone adulterers, then so be it. . Of course there must be a trial, and two or three witnesses, etc. But the fact that God decreed death as the punishment for adultery tells us just how serious a sin it is. God is a judge--the Perfect Judge."" Not much leeway for misunderstanding there my friend. If Iona should ever acquire any measure of authority, she would undoubtedly rival Torquemada and Co in the pursuit of her mission to convert the World (and I only used that individual because some silly people think that mentioning a certain other despot means losing the argument). Don T. |
|
13 Feb 12 - 10:02 AM (#3307507) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link beg to differ penny with respect Jesus did speak about hell quite a lot. he also quoted from genesis quite a lot and i reckon that makes him a creationist! of course you might want to carve the NT up as you do the OT? However i can appreciate the appeal of your position .i would probably prefer a "tame aslan"to borrow your analogolizing. |
|
13 Feb 12 - 10:05 AM (#3307510) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""People are much less likely to commit murder if they know that they'll be forfeiting their life in doing so."" Every analysis of crime rates ever undertaken proves that to be absolutely untrue. ""God himself provides mercy for murderers in that they cannot be executed unless there are two or three witnesses. Even if all the evidence points to a person being the murderer, we can't execute them until we have witnesses. That's what the Bible says."" You really should try telling that story to Reginald Christy, whose crimes were unwitnessed, but I'm afraid you can't. You see they hanged him. They also hanged poor Timothy Evans for the self same crimes, in spite of having no more evidence than an extorted confession. Don T. |
|
13 Feb 12 - 10:30 AM (#3307552) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Pete, I didn't say that Jesus did not speak about hell - but that He did not over-emphasise it. It wasn't the essence of his message, now, was it? And I don't think you share Iona's position, either. I simply cannot imagine you thinking that it is a loving act to execute someone who you would believe is then going to endless torment. As for Aslan, in the Last Battle, the creatures who go on into his country are those who realise they love him (even if some, not by any means all, also looked frightened), whereas those who do not, but vanish, are those who fear, and their fear leads to hate. But whether God can be compared to a not-tame lion is one man's vision, not Biblcal. He is not in the great wind, or the earthquake, or the fire, but a still small voice. That which is not consistent with love cannot be of God. Have you read "A Grief Observed"? Penny |
|
13 Feb 12 - 10:49 AM (#3307588) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: meself I believe in Peg-leg Sam, who said (I'm paraphrasing): "Hell is the biggest lie ever told. I don't believe God created me just so He could watch me fry for all eternity." |
|
13 Feb 12 - 11:17 AM (#3307641) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D It's rather interesting watching two fundamentalist Christians like pete & Iona debating us agnostics, atheists and heathens, and not 'quite' realizing they can't even agree totally with each other about the details. It reminds me of my favorite points in philosophical logic: "From false premises, anything follows!" I'm sure Iona & pete will not get that..or agree with it if they do... but it explains how they... or anyone.. can explain away all contradictions in the bible and dismiss much scientific evidence. It is also how anyone can simply deny points in philosophical logic. It is 'possible' to even deny truths of mathematics, like the legislator who tried to get a bill passed to define pi as = 3...(much easier to work with...right?). So... if we fallible humans can't interpret God's infallible words correctly, that's our problem. If *I* were God, I'd part the clouds every Sunday morning (or Saturday for some) and write a few reminders in fire in the sky..... can't expect them to stay on the True Path without a little nudging... |
|
13 Feb 12 - 11:22 AM (#3307647) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Bill, don't forget the other Christians. Just because they don't regard us as completely such doesn't mean we aren't. I had noticed the differences between pete and Iona. I would trust pete (whom I have met) with my life. I'm glad Iona is on a different continent. Penny |
|
13 Feb 12 - 11:34 AM (#3307676) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D *smile*.. A Christian is one who says they are a Christian and personally accepts Jesus...(whether they do it carefully or shallowly). I have many Christian friends who follow the basic teachings and principles of Jesus & the Bible without trying to assert it as total historical & metaphysical infallibility. (and Jewish friends, both strict and reformed)I respect them for that, and do not try to convert them FROM their beliefs. In return, they respect me as one who tries to follow rules of good behavior and kindness without relating them TO a specific religion. I have no doubt pete is a good person to know. Perhaps Iona is also... *shrug* This is a debate about ideas & concepts... not about good or bad people... at least for me. |
|
13 Feb 12 - 11:50 AM (#3307705) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D I have personally, at various times, attended Methodist church (where I was baptized as a child), Catholic mass, Episcopalian services, Free Will Baptist service (black church in Mississippi), almost agnostic Unitarian church..(was a member at one time) and various weddings & funerals in various churches. In all cases, I followed the rules, showed respect for their traditions and practices and made NO attempt to tell them they were wasting their time. It is only when specific claims are put in front of me, implying or asserting that I 'ought' to believe them, that I state my objections....as the local Jehovah's Witnesses have discovered. It is work walking that line.... and I'm never sure exactly where to put my feet sometimes.. but as long as religion exists, I must come to terms with it and suggest ways people can co-exist comfortably. Sometimes this means resisting attempts to insert religion into politics... sometimes it means just shutting up and ignoring things that don't directly affect me. No simple answers.... but important to keep looking. |
|
13 Feb 12 - 12:15 PM (#3307745) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion You really should try telling that story to Reginald Christy, whose crimes were unwitnessed, but I'm afraid you can't. You see they hanged him. They also hanged poor Timothy Evans for the self same crimes, in spite of having no more evidence than an extorted confession. Don T. <><> Highly questionable, Don. They only hanged Evans for ONE of the crimes [not 'the selfsame crimeS]; that of Mrs Evans. It is highly probable that Evans was complicit with Christie thus spelt in that one ~ despite Ewan's tendentious song on the topic.. I remember the case well, as I lived near Notting Hill at the time [C was known as 'the Notting Hill murderer'] in a hotel belonging to my family, whose staff and residents [incl me] were closely questioned by police seeking Christie. ~M~ This, it will be appreciated, not a contribution to the thread-topic s a whole, but correction of an incidental point raised, on the basis of my principle that 'accuracy matters'. |
|
13 Feb 12 - 12:18 PM (#3307753) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion {Sorry ~~ that post went wrong re underlines &c so not too easily apprehensible. Here it is again} You really should try telling that story to Reginald Christy, whose crimes were unwitnessed, but I'm afraid you can't. You see they hanged him. They also hanged poor Timothy Evans for the self same crimes, in spite of having no more evidence than an extorted confession. Don T. ,.., Highly questionable, Don. They only hanged Evans for ONE of the crimes [not 'the selfsame crimeS; that of Mrs Evans. It is highly probable that Evans was complicit with Christie thus spelt in that one ~ despite Ewan's tendentious song on the topic.. I remember the case well, as I lived near Notting Hill at the time [C was known as 'the Notting Hill murderer'] in a hotel belonging to my family, whose staff and residents [incl me] were closely questioned by police seeking Christie. ~M~ This, it will be appreciated, not a contribution to the thread-topic s a whole, but correction of an incidental point raised, on the basis of my principle that 'accuracy matters'. |
|
13 Feb 12 - 12:19 PM (#3307756) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. I've been doing a preliminary review of the not a tame lion quote, via google, and it has thrown up two references in the 7 books. Plus one to aslan not being safe. More requires actually getting the books off the shelves and speed reading them. The first is in LWW, where Tumnus tells Lucy that they can't expect Aslan's visits to be regular or expected, because... The second is Tirian, in the Last Battle, deciding to give himself up to the false Aslan after killing the men who were mistreating talking horses. He does not want to predict what Aslan will do, because... He then discusses with his unicorn friend that this Aslan is nothing like the one they have believed in and they might as well be put to death because their faith has been in error. Which it hasn't, of course. From google, it looks very much as though this idea has been coopted into supporting understandings of God which are not consistent with Lewis's views. It looks from the text as though what he was saying was that we cannot make God fit into our lives in ways which we control. Not that he is ferocious. Comparing God with wild lions does show a rather romantic view of the beasts. Some Biblical comparisons have been of Satan being like one. It makes one wonder why the kings of Israel and later rulers of Turkey have taken lions as their avatars. They at least knew what the wild ones were like. Penny |
|
13 Feb 12 - 12:56 PM (#3307804) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion I take it that the 7 books ref'd to by Penny are C S Lewis's Narnia series ~~ a [somewhat symbolically clumsy & feeble IMO] series of selfrighteous religious allegories aimed at children. Cannot for the life of me see why they should be cited on a thread like this as if they were in any way morally or theologically authoritative, rather than just one churchy elderly Oxford/Cambridge don's unconvincing attempts at a fantasy world. ~M~ |
|
13 Feb 12 - 01:09 PM (#3307818) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. pete said I obviously preferred a tame lion. And suggested I cherry picked the Bible. So I went to see if he had used the quote appropriatly. Lewis, though widely read, had very little, if anything, to say about geology or palaentology, and used astrological ideas rather than cosmological ones when dealing with things outside the orbit of the Moon. He is not really relevant when discussing things like the way that light from the galaxies visible through telescopes clearly began its journey to our eyes before the Biblical date of the creation as determined by Ussher. Or that the far side of the Moon, out on the celestial side, untouched by the sin which destroyed the perfection of our world, is as pockmarked as the near side, barring the absence of basaltic floods. To try and get things back on track. Penny |
|
13 Feb 12 - 01:41 PM (#3307839) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG A little hard on CS Lewis there, M, I feel. While he is in no way authoritative, and I doubt he would ever have claimed to be, and while the books were aimed at children, I do think he went rather deeper into the theological implications of some beliefs than has been evident in some of the posts from, for example, Iona, or indeed RE studies went during my schooldays. I would, for example recommend the first half of the chapter in "The Last Battle" that's called something like 'Further up and further in' to anyone who believes their religion is inherently superior to anyone elses. Not because it is 'right', but as food for thought. |
|
13 Feb 12 - 03:27 PM (#3307897) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Rate of continental drift – 1 to 10 centimeters per year. If one looks at a map of the Atlantic Ocean, it doesn't take much imagination to see that, allowing for some variation in outline over the eons, you could fit the west coast of Europe and Africa together with the east coast of North and South America, like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle. These four continents used to be in contact with each other. Essentially, one continent. And over time, due to the action of plate tectonics driven by the monumental forces at work in the earth's interior, they have drifted apart. Another example of continental drift are the Hawaiian Islands. The islands formed due to an up-welling of magma, or a "hot spot" in the ocean floor. Lava spews out of the hot spot, builds up, and hardens, and forms an island. But the Pacific Plate gradually moves northwest until the magma upwelling from the hot spot seeks a more direct route and another island forms. Hawaii, the "big island," is now over the hot spot. Lava is upwelling through the volcanoes on the island, flowing to the sea where it cools and hardens, and the island increases in size. Soon (in geological time), the plate will move far enough northwest that the upwelling will burst through somewhere southeast of the big island, and another Hawiian island will begin to emerge from the sea. The drifting of the Pacific plate formed a subduction zone off the coast of Japan. Tension built up until it released, part of the Pacific plate suddenly slid under Japan, and this is what caused the Fukushima earthquake. It is this sort of tectonic activity that causes earthquakes. It also raises mountains. The African plate, forcing itself against the European plate is what "wrinkled" the earth's crust and raised the Alps. The Juan de Fuca plate pushing against the North American plate is what raised the Cascade Mountains on the west coast of the United States. This, coupled with a subduction zone, causes some volcanoes. Etna and Vesuvius in southern Europe and Mt. Lassen, Mount St. Helens, and Mount Rainier in the western U. S. The South American plate is pushing against another Pacific plate, hence, the Andes. And the sometimes severe earthquakes alone the west coast of South American. What it amounts to is the WE are living on top of the crust of slag that's drifting around on the surface of a ball of boiling nickel-iron. Since continental drift happens at a rate of one to ten centimeters per year, contemplate how long it took for the North and South American continents and the European and African continents to drift the approximately 3,000 miles apart. Or the Hawaiian Archipelago to form. Now— Reconcile that with the fundamentalist Christian idea that the Earth is only 6,016 (4,004 + 2012) years old!. Get it? Got it. Good!! Don Firth |
|
13 Feb 12 - 05:03 PM (#3307953) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 3 000 mile = 482 803 200 centimeter At ten cm a year, that would take 48,280,320 years. |
|
13 Feb 12 - 05:26 PM (#3307964) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA "and another Hawiian island will begin to emerge from the sea" Woohoo, and yes it already is. Loihi has not broken the surface of the ocean yet, but earthquake swarms suggested it was there, and recent photos from ROVS show nice fresh pillow lavas. I am reserving my timeshare on Loihi now. |
|
13 Feb 12 - 05:29 PM (#3307969) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,beardedbruce POI- In the original Old Testament, the word translated as "DAY" in KJV et al in the book of Genesis is NOT the same word as the Hebrew word for a day of 24 hours- it is more like an age, ie "in the day of our ancestors" . Same problem with the supposed biblical injunction "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" In the original, the word is "poisoner", not witch. The bishops in 264 ( I think it was) decided what parts of the bible they wanted to base their church on, thus deleting a number of texts as well. One book was found in NE Africa ( in a monk's grave) in 1880- so much for the KJV using all texts to determine the word of God. The KJV is a great piece of literature- but hardly the Word of God. |
|
13 Feb 12 - 06:45 PM (#3308008) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Before Gutenberg and his handy-dandy Tom Swift printing press, books had to be hand-copied. Including the Bible. This was one of the major jobs of young monks in the many monasteries throughout Europe. As this was being done, it was not at all unusual for a local Bishop—or the Abbot of the monastery—or, for that matter, the monk with the quill in his hand—to interpolate his own particular ideas into the new manuscript. When the MS was finished, other monks might copy from IT, and they, in turn, did a bit of free-lance editing. By the time the Gutenberg press came along, and King James I called for a new compilation, hoping for a definitive version, there, too, the translators were given to inserting their own interpretations, or doing the equivalent of flipping a coin over matters of what they deemed ambiguity. Older manuscripts, predating the materials used to compile the KJV, have since been found, in the same manner as the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, that show major discrepancies between early scrolls and manuscripts and later versions and translations. Let's face it, sports fans, The Bible has been seriously folk processed over the past centuries. Don Firth |
|
13 Feb 12 - 07:21 PM (#3308034) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: frogprince I spent some early years as a confirmed fundamentalist. I don't believe, though, that I was endoctrinated as profoundly, or as young, as a lot of youngsters. My parents were very religious, but they didn't really "drill it into me" regularly at home. Over the years it was actually a number of encounters with other devout strict fundamentalists that played a big part in shaking me loose from that stance. I'm thinking at the moment of a conversation with a fellow seminarian. He was a very decent guy and of perfectly normal mental capacity, but remained staunchly "fundy" at a school which was much more moderate. One day I happened to say something to the effect that "you have to realize that it sounds a little outrageous to say that your faith is right, and everyone else is wrong." He just looked at me, with his face blank, and said "What do you mean?". |
|
13 Feb 12 - 10:56 PM (#3308107) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: John P One day I was channel flipping when I happened upon the Dalai Lama. He was saying something along the lines of "It doesn't matter if a person is a Buddhist, a Christian, or has no religion. Our brothers are the people of good heart. Seek out people of good heart." Really the same message as Lewis gave in The Last Battle. If I have a religion, that's it. I really don't care what the Bible says, or what any religion believes. What is in your heart? |
|
13 Feb 12 - 11:26 PM (#3308119) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link thanks for the kind words penny.i was't aiming for an exact application in the aslan ref whereas perhaps yours was ,so i may have been misleading. not sure i would say you were "cherry picking" as i thought that meant being selective but claiming to embrace the whole text;and i know you dont accept all the text as legitamately christian. the light from the stars has been addressed by creationist scientists and i have read a book called"starlight,time and the new physics"which presents a model containing a lot of technical stuff which is beyond more than a sketchy understanding to me. i,ve also read that the big bang model has problems of its own in starlight travel. good to bring it back to topic.some are making a mountain out of a molehill by citing possible differences in a less relevant sideline. best wishes pete. |
|
14 Feb 12 - 01:46 AM (#3308142) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST Tom Swifties in Gutenberg's bible, Don? Oh yes: "The ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is three", said Tom piously. |
|
14 Feb 12 - 03:13 AM (#3308163) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Ok, I agree we have gone quite some way from the young earth issues, but we got there not by following side issues but by pursuing points that were raised in defence of a particular stance. I'm as happy as anyone to get back the core topic. So, pete, do you suggest any approximate age for a young earth, and if so what leads you to that figure? On the assumption it isn't anything to do with the Bible, naturally. {Good Swifty, guest!} |
|
14 Feb 12 - 04:49 AM (#3308179) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod "If one looks at a map of the Atlantic Ocean, it doesn't take much imagination to see that, allowing for some variation in outline over the eons, you could fit the west coast of Europe and Africa together with the east coast of North and South America, like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle. These four continents used to be in contact with each other. Essentially, one continent. And over time, due to the action of plate tectonics driven by the monumental forces at work in the earth's interior, they have drifted apart." Don, I remember that as a child, in the 1950s, I pointed out to one of my teachers that the two sides of the Atlantic looked like they fitted together ... and was told that I was being stupid! |
|
14 Feb 12 - 04:50 AM (#3308180) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Ok, back onto the core topic. A good idea as our creationist friends seemed on unsteady ground when the debate was widened. There is proof, and by proof I mean you can see it, carbon date or other means test it and set every single discovery against it. It being that we have evolved over a long period, much longer than parochial observers in a small part of the planet two thousand years ago claim. Our observations of the universe put the wonderful yet fictional stories in genesis into perspective. It would be churlish to decry the bible for not being factual in the same way it would be wrong to dismiss Lord of the Rings for the same reason, but if somebody tries saying Middle Earth exists and The Silmarillion is the good book, I will gently move to another area of the bar. So.. what can pete and Iona say to the rest of the population of the planet to convince us their misplaced faith is literal? Or indeed, as they seem to be telling us without convincing us, what would it take? A conjuring trick? A brain washing period every Sunday till it is drilled in? I notice Baroness Warsi, who insists on saying she is a Muslim politician rather than, say a female, or Dewsbury inhabiting politician is at The Vatican today, telling the Pope that religion is under threat from aggressive secularism. Yeah, a few hundred years ago, the flat earth hypothesis was under threat too.... I suppose if the chips were down, and people did their usual thing and took such nonsense seriously, we might see a threat fall into conflict? Bandits at 2.00, operating a pincer movement from behind the vicarage? Me? So many Christians, never enough nails when you need them...... |
|
14 Feb 12 - 06:42 AM (#3308223) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Ed T ""...the operative question never has been "Is there a God?" but always "Who is authorized to speak for God?"" F. C. Thayer, An End to Hierarchy and Competition: Administration in the Post-Affluent World, Second Edition, (New York: New Viewpoints, 1981), A-14. |
|
14 Feb 12 - 06:44 AM (#3308226) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Shimrod, me too. "Don't be silly, Penny". But we were in good company, as David Attenborough had the same reaction at university at about the same time as me - probably with a little more academic backing. Penny |
|
14 Feb 12 - 06:58 AM (#3308238) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. And I've just looked up Answers in Genesis on starlight travel time. It claims to refute the argument from distant galaxies by, if I have grasped it properly, one or some of the following: 1. The speed of light has changed since creation. 2. The flow of time varies across space, and there is a cosmic local time in which light is transmitted instantaneously. I couldn't get quite where this was local to - the Sun's light takes 8 minutes to reach us. 3. The Earth is at the bottom of a gravity well, which we would not notice, but which accelerates light approaching us. 4. Because creation was supernatural, there could be supernatural means for light to reach us as if from longer ago than creation. No experimental evidence was cited for any of these ideas. They did, however, accept that when we observe changes in stars and galaxies these must have originated in the apparent source objects, because it would not fit the character of God to produce such features, which would be art and misleading, rather than facts. Penny |
|
14 Feb 12 - 06:58 AM (#3308239) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG what can pete and Iona say to the rest of the population of the planet to convince us their misplaced faith is literal? Well, there are several prerequites. One is to get a grasp of English and recognise that asserting something is not the same as demonstrating it. Another is recognising that most people are able to spot such sleight-of-hand [if deliberate] or clumsiness [if accidental]. Another is recognising that we are all limited and on a forum such as this, whoever we are the odds are quite good that there are readers smarter or more knowlegable than us - and I certainly include myself as one of the outclassed people on many topics. Another is to understand we are interested in what you think, not what cross-references you can bring. You can argue from what you think, but not from what other people think. Another is to get a handle on what constitutes a logical argument. Once those have been mastered, we can move onto what constitutes evidence. Then we are ready to begin. |
|
14 Feb 12 - 07:19 AM (#3308251) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG [Fortunately for me, accurate typing is not one of the prerequisites! Though of course, it is highly desirable] |
|
14 Feb 12 - 07:50 AM (#3308271) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Oddly, I read it correctly! Penny |
|
14 Feb 12 - 09:33 AM (#3308319) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod As far as I am concerned Iona and pete have not demonstrated that the contents of the Bible constitutes evidence for anything very much. |
|
14 Feb 12 - 09:53 AM (#3308327) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: John P Iona and Pete have demonstrated that rational discussion with them is a waste of time. But they have actually won the debate, if you take being taken seriously as a victory. Attempts to engage them on this topic just makes them feel relevant. The first step for a lie (or for willful ignorance), always, is to be taken seriously. I think they should believe whatever they want to believe. If they present poppycock in a public forum, they should be either ignored or laughed off the stage. There is only one area where we should be concerned about their beliefs: Iona and Pete, do you think your religious beliefs should be taught in our schools and enacted into our laws? |
|
14 Feb 12 - 10:05 AM (#3308334) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG While I don't fully agree, John P, there's definitely something in what you say. I remember watching a documentary about a gallery which decided to some work by a prominent artist, that a right wing group wanted to ban because they felt it was pornographic. While the right-wingers eventually lost the case in court, a spokesman afterwards said it didn't matter, because they had won in practice: few if any galleries would be prepared to undertake such a long drawn out and expensive court case in future and would stick to 'safer' exhibitions. |
|
14 Feb 12 - 04:19 PM (#3308546) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link i think it is often a case of who shouts louder.here in the UK IMO it is the atheist/evolutionists who are currently on top as far as the law relating to education is concerned.across the pond i think the picture is different.there is more God awareness and though they will not all be YEC i suspect that evolutionism is not accepted as credible by most of the populace .of course i agree with them.the whole thing starts with a scientific impossibility, but as atheists are committed to a no God philosophy they hope i,m sure,to explain abiogenesis sometime.probably most UK residents accept darwinian ideas but would not know why if they were pushed.i hope to make poeple reconsider by posing questions. if asked why i am YEC it is because i believe the bible.and despite assertions to the contrary that is not despite the evidence.nothing has been presented that demonstrates darwin to be true,other than what he himself said on p8 of origins;ie-acknowloging that the evidence he presents could as well be otherwise interpreted. |
|
14 Feb 12 - 08:43 PM (#3308665) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Highly questionable, Don. They only hanged Evans for ONE of the crimes [not 'the selfsame crimeS; that of Mrs Evans. It is highly probable that Evans was complicit with Christie thus spelt in that one"" I lived in Ladbroke Grove 500 yards from Rillington Place from 1941 till 1958, but I fail to see how proximity would give either one of us greater knowledge. However, while you are correct in stating that Evans was hanged for just the one murder, that of his daughter, he was also accused of killing his wife but back then the judicial system always kept one crime in reserve to avoid losing a case through the double jeopardy law. There is no credible evidence for his having been complicit, especially as Christie admitted the killing of Beryl Evans (the wife). Evans accused Christie at the time, but the police did not believe him, and set out to get damaging admissions from a man who today would, by reason of severe learning difficulties, be considered a vulnerable person and treated with much greater care. It seems that the judiciary no longer agree with you, having awarded a posthumous pardon to Evans years ago. Now back to the topic. Don T. |
|
14 Feb 12 - 09:17 PM (#3308672) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 Hi, Pete. "the evidence he presents could as well be otherwise interpreted." True, but it could not otherwise be interpreted as well. |
|
14 Feb 12 - 09:36 PM (#3308680) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth That was 666. "Did somebody ring?" Don Firth |
|
15 Feb 12 - 02:20 AM (#3308714) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG he himself said on p8 of origins Could I make a plea? Not all editions of "Origins" are typeset identically, so 'page 8' isn't ideal. Could you always add in the first few words of the relevant paragraph to ensure people are talking about the same thing? Thank you for the honesty of that post, pete. As I read it, you have precisely one piece of evidence for YEC, namely the belief that the Bible is literally true. However much you may doubt the evidence against YEC from science etc, that's your only evidence to support it. Somewhat regretfully, that means we had not drifted off topic at all, since the literal interpretation of the Bible is your key evidence. I am not sure Iona would accept that there are "molehills" in the bible we could make mountains out of, but which of the comments we raised do you think are molehills? Surely not my arguments about what the fifth commandment means? That seems pretty central. |
|
15 Feb 12 - 04:03 AM (#3308737) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod "probably most UK residents accept darwinian ideas but would not know why if they were pushed." A completely irrelevant point, pete - we're not dealing with a 'popularity contest' here! Having said that, UK residents probably "accept darwinian ideas" because the alternative means accepting the incoherent ravings of 'poppy-eyed' religious fundamentalists - and the majority of people know how dangerous they can be! |
|
15 Feb 12 - 07:48 AM (#3308815) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket I wasn't ever aware that there was a Darwin vs religion debate? (Other than Huxley vs "Soapy Sam" before we were all born.) I love this weird idea that if you accept the science of evolution, you can't embrace the bible or vice versa. What absolute bollocks.. Science is not about making religions look absurd, it is about science. If by advancing scientific discovery we make ancient scriptures look less real, that is an accidental by product rather than some sinister plan. I can believe in Sheffield Wednesday and know, (not believe mark you, actually know) they are the best team ever and no matter where they are in the fizzy pop league, premiership or Sunday pub league, they are still the best. Yet at an academic level, I am capable of looking at league tables and results and know my faith is tested by reality. The point is, I don't then question the reality. Reality doesn't have any bearing on my faith. If reality troubles your Christian faith, I can only suggest you are not really faithful. Otherwise, you wouldn't be so defensive. There are many, the vast majority in fact, of Christians, Jews, Muslims, whatever who have a strong faith but don't for one minute see their scriptures as historical fact. It must be hugely insulting to have literalist evangelical people with views borne of ignorance twisting their faith into believing fantasy. Like I said; so many Christians, never enough nails when you need them. |
|
15 Feb 12 - 10:41 AM (#3308897) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 Part of the difficulty as I see it is that The Bible is interpreted in more ways than Darwin can be. "In one very limited sense, as we shall hereafter see, this may be true; but it is preposterous to attribute to mere external conditions, the structure, for instance, of the woodpecker, with its feet, tail, beak, and tongue, so admirably adapted to catch insects under the bark of trees. In the case of the misseltoe, which draws its nourishment from certain trees, which has seeds that must be transported by certain birds, and which has flowers with separate sexes absolutely requiring the agency of certain insects to bring pollen from one flower to the other, it is equally preposterous to account for the structure of this parasite, with its relations to several distinct organic beings, by the effects of external conditions, or of habit, or of the volition of the plant itself. The author of the 'Vestiges of Creation' would, I presume, say that, after a certain unknown number of generations, some bird had given birth to a woodpecker, and some plant to the misseltoe, and that these had been produced perfect as we now see them; but this assumption seems to me to be no explanation, for it leaves the case of the coadaptations of organic beings to each other and to their physical conditions of life, untouched and unexplained. It is, therefore, of the highest importance to gain a clear insight into the means of modification and coadaptation." ########################## When I read in The Bible that "Thou shalt not kill", I take that to be an imperative from The Boss, period. Far as I know, the only group of people who adhere to that philosophy are Jains. Not Christians, Jews or Moslems. I have asked Christians how they reconcile capital punishment, eating meat and the casualties of war with their beliefs based on the word of God and received pretty much the same answer which boils down to "That's not what God meant." I have in the past replied, "I thought He'd already spoken for Himself when He said, 'Thou shalt not kill.'" I seldom waste the breath anymore. |
|
15 Feb 12 - 10:49 AM (#3308902) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: beardedbruce "read in The Bible that "Thou shalt not kill"," Ain't what it says in the original. The word used is the Hebrew for "murder", ie, to unlawfully kill a human being. OK to kill anyone, as long as you do it legally. |
|
15 Feb 12 - 10:59 AM (#3308908) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy No life could exist on earth without killing. We & the other life forms would have nothing to eat |
|
15 Feb 12 - 11:09 AM (#3308916) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 "We & the other life forms would have nothing to eat" I'll pass that on to the Jains. |
|
15 Feb 12 - 11:15 AM (#3308920) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 'Ain't what it says in the original. The word used is the Hebrew for "murder", ie, to unlawfully kill a human being. OK to kill anyone, as long as you do it legally.' OK, "Thou shalt not murder" is good, too. |
|
15 Feb 12 - 11:27 AM (#3308928) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy Ok, Jains & other veggies don't consume animals, but vegetables, fruit & seeds are life forms too & can't be eaten without them having to die |
|
15 Feb 12 - 11:28 AM (#3308933) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket On that subject; Isn't there something about thou shalt not bear false witness? (Can't remember the full text, been many years since I was a last in an RE lesson at school!) Seems to sum up the usual evangelist tripe about twisting the bible to suit their particular brand of bigotry? |
|
15 Feb 12 - 12:52 PM (#3308982) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST Hi, Mr Happy. "Apart from not eating meat, fish and eggs, strict Jains do not eat onions and garlic because they increase sexual desires. Strict Jains also do not eat any root vegetables like potatoes because smaller insects are killed in their harvest and the vegetable itself will have millions of bacteria." I don't know that they are always successful, but they try. ############################# My point was that God's word is interpreted by some people for other people, and not always for the best of reasons: "God meant to say . . ." or "God meant that law for an older time when . . .", etc. It either is or is not God's word. If The Bible is read as a divinely-inspired book that tells humans God's laws and thoughts on things--as some folks say it does--then don't dick with what He said. I live in a simple world. |
|
15 Feb 12 - 12:52 PM (#3308983) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 Me again not entering my 999. |
|
15 Feb 12 - 02:31 PM (#3309045) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Did you hear about the Jehovah's Witness who converted to Unitarianism? He still goes around knocking on peoples' doors, but he doesn't know why. Pa-dum-pum!! (Rim-shot.) Don Firth |
|
15 Feb 12 - 02:43 PM (#3309049) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D a reply to pete: He said "nothing has been presented that demonstrates darwin to be true,other than what he himself said on p8 of origins;ie-acknowloging that the evidence he presents could as well be otherwise interpreted." Pete- the argument in NOT with Darwin directly. He merely came up with a theory, based on physical evidence he found in his travels. He was trying to explain certain aspects of diversity. Others soon saw that his theory needed to be investigated, as it was important to understanding the world and our place in it. For over a hundred years science has been 'interpreting' the evidence, and gathering MORE evidence. You, pete, make far too much of the phrase "could as well be otherwise interpreted.". Otherwise does not mean just denied! Of course there are varied interpretations...and additions... and revisions. That is what science does! New evidence requires it. What has become clear though, is that the basic point remains-- species DO change over millions of years....and eventually some lines grow apart until they can no longer cross breed. We do **NOT** see a duck become a lion, or even a dog become a cat. Evolution does **NOT** work that way, and when you use that assertion to argue agains evolution, YOU are missing the point! (I tried to state that when I said that it does not happen in a straight line.) It happens in a multi-branched tree...and some branches die and go nowhere....and many/most of the bones we dig up are example of dead branches-- and there are branches & twigs that will simply never BE found. If you eve get a chance, look into Stephen Jay Gould's "A Wonderful Life".... and plow your way thru the 1st 25-40 pages.(Much of the book is detailed analysis of the various specimens) There is no better explanation of HOW evolution works and how we KNOW that the fossils in the Burgess Shale prove the theory. If you truly grasp what Gould explains, you cannot doubt the truth of the basic concepts... it is only the details of the billions of stages that are evasive. Understanding the basics of evolution does NOT disprove a 'God' starting it all.... it only shows what happened after BEING started. Remember... there is a good reason why you and others say "I believe" in the Bible. Belief is a word that shows something other than "know". |
|
15 Feb 12 - 02:53 PM (#3309054) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D "He still goes around knocking on peoples' doors, but he doesn't know why." No doubt singing the hymn, "We Would Rather Not Be Moved" |
|
15 Feb 12 - 03:27 PM (#3309069) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG <-> If The Bible is read as a divinely-inspired book that tells humans God's laws and thoughts on things--as some folks say it does--then don't dick with what He said. Well, ok, as you as you understand that when you read the words you are still imposing your own interpretation, that's how all words work. And you can NEVER be sure that your interpretation matches the intention |
|
15 Feb 12 - 04:52 PM (#3309098) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 "And you can NEVER be sure that your interpretation matches the intention" Ain't that what I said? Don't dick with it! |
|
15 Feb 12 - 05:39 PM (#3309114) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG And there's a demonstration you were right! |
|
15 Feb 12 - 05:51 PM (#3309121) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth I'm in the habit of watching programs like "NOVA" on PBS, and a decade or so back, I thoroughly enjoyed Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series. Solid science, along with some of Sagan's interesting speculations based on that science—complete with often spectacular visual effects, some of which are from powerful telescopes, NOT special effects. Within recent years, I've followed the occasional programs (and the fascinating books) by theoretical physicist Michio Kaku. A couple of years ago, another such program (or so people were led to believe) entitled "The Privileged Planet" was show. Beautiful visuals taken from astronomical photos along with narration by rich-voiced British actor John Rhys-Davies (Gimli the Dwarf in the "Lord of the Rings" series). Right up there with all the production values of the best of "NOVA." It wasn't until the last fifteen or twenty minutes or so that I tumbled to what the program was really all about. It had talked about how the earth was the "Goldilocks planet" of this solar system—not too cold, not too hot, but "just right." It slithered past the issue of evolution, but, in a sense, capitalized on it by indicating that this was the only planet in the solar system that was hospitable to the higher animals—and man. Futhermore, the solar system was not surrounded by thick clouds of interstellar dust, so we are able to see a great deal of the rest of the universe, and learn just how huge and magnificent it really is. All of this, of course, is true. But then came the sucker punch: without really saying so in so many words, the statement was made—or the question asked—how could this have all worked out so beautifully for mankind if there were not some Intelligence behind it all? I had damn near been sucked in! This program was a propaganda film for "Intelligent Design." I did a bit of research and discovered (!) that it was put out by The Discovery Institute, a creationist think-tank based right here in Seattle, well-funded nationally, whose purpose was to, among other thingsm, influence school curricula nationwide in terms of replacing scientific education with Creationism—or at least "Intelligent Design," which is nothing more than Creationism in a lab coat! The Discovery Institute is a non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design. Founded in 1990, the institute describes its purpose as promoting "ideas in the common sense tradition of representative government, the free market and individual liberty."Its Teach the Controversy campaign aims to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses alongside accepted scientific theories, positing a scientific controversy exists over these subjects.The rest of the story HERE. One of their chief tactics is outlined HERE. This smacks of "conspiracy theory." But, sports fans, this is not THEORY. Don Firth P. S. I wonder if Iona and pete know anything about this. . . . |
|
15 Feb 12 - 07:46 PM (#3309177) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: John P Speaking of Unitarian jokes: The only time God gets mentioned in a Unitarian church is when the janitor kicks over the mop bucket. |
|
15 Feb 12 - 10:09 PM (#3309245) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D I was personally told by someone that they "couldn't imagine" the complexity of the wonders of the Universe without it being 'designed' by some intelligent force. I replied, "I can!" Whether you can or cannot is merely how you look at things. I do not require a simple 'cause' to explain *everything*. I see how complex it is... and I see the science beginning to work out the necessary processes. First Cause? *shrug*... it doesn't worry me that we may never be able to definitively state how it all began. Those who cannot bear not knowing just *name* that elusive cause "God"... sure saves a lot of studying.,,, and if lots & lots of theologians have not only done it before, and attached crumbling manuscripts as 'evidence', why that makes it easy. You just chant 'ditto' and sign the book. That 'thinking' stuff is way too time consuming.... (who.. me?- sarcastic?....nawwwww...) |
|
15 Feb 12 - 11:49 PM (#3309272) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 He's a stochastic scholastic His words ain't plastic Ain't ecclesiastic An' he ain't sarcastic This man talk philosophy Ain't hung up on Calvary He ain't involved with prophecy It seems he's very what you see And what you get is brevity No bombastic monastic's he An' that's the way I think it be Amen (I don't mean the rifle) Amen (I don't mean to trifle) Amen (I don't mean to stifle) Anyone who bursts into to song Amen (and please pass me the bong) OK, so now I'm thinking of pursuing a career in rap. People have said Don't give up the day job (from an opera fan) What did I ever do to you? (from a guy with rap-writer envy) Sh#t dad, that's bad (from my daughter) What does stochastic mean? (from a Republican) The End |
|
16 Feb 12 - 02:18 AM (#3309296) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke "one churchy elderly Oxford/Cambridge don's unconvincing attempts at a fantasy world." Not to the C S Lewis Society of Florida. Surprise, surprise, they are creationist propagandhies. |
|
16 Feb 12 - 03:17 AM (#3309302) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona Since continental drift happens at a rate of one to ten centimeters per year, contemplate how long it took for the North and South American continents and the European and African continents to drift the approximately 3,000 miles apart. Or the Hawaiian Archipelago to form. Now— Reconcile that with the fundamentalist Christian idea that the Earth is only 6,016 (4,004 + 2012) years old!. This type of argument has been addressed before between Evolutionists and Creationists. You're proposing that if the rate of continental drift is consistent, and has been so for eons of undocumented time (i.e. before man evolved). Your illustration of the continental drift is a uniformitarian assumption--the same as the one Charles Lyell made at Niagara Falls. Niagara Falls has four million cubic feet of water flowing over it every minute. *whistles* No wonder it's the most powerful waterfall in N. America! Charles Lyell traveled there in order to find evidence to support the uniformity theory. He tried to find the age of the falls and calculated it to be 35,000 years old. He got this date by calculating the rate of erosion. One man who lived near the falls told Lyell that the falls had eroded 150 feet in the past 40 years. Divide 150 by 40 and you get 3.75 feet of erosion per year. If we use this method to date the falls, it comes out to the age of 7 to 9 thousand years old. For some reason Lyell did not use this rate, but rather claimed that it was 35,000 years old. But neither date can be correct because of further factors: Niagara Layers Like many canyons, gorges and cliffs, we can see multiple layers of sediment at the Niagara site. Lockport Dolomite is the top layer, and is pretty hard. The middle layer is the Rochester shale. Now, as the water cascades down the falls it erodes the softer shale away from under the dolomite, leaving the latter sticking out in a ledge until it eventually breaks off in large chunks. At the current location of the falls, the dolomite is about ninety feet thick. Throughout the rest of the length of the gorge it gets thin, to about 45 feet thick. This means that in the past, the Falls probably eroded faster because of the difference in thickness of the hard top layer, plus the amount of water that flows over the falls will effect the rate. So there goes the 35 thousand years age. *chucks number out window* Even evolutionary scientists have concluded that the age of the falls is much younger than that. The general consensus is that the falls are twelve thousand years old. But does this date fit? Carry on, my dear Watson. Let us investigate. Two separate views Evolutionists divide upon this point into two camps: the Uniformists and the Actualists. The Uniformist says that the rock layers were made only by slow gradual processes. The Actualist says that the earth's rock layers were made by slow gradual processes plus natural catastrophes. Most actualist geologists say that the evidence shows natural catastrophes forming the earth and changing erosion rates. However, they still hold to the Uniformitarian views when they try to date the Niagara Falls. Again, they say the date is 12 thousand years. Why? They use carbon dating and look at the general 'evolutionary age' of the surrounding area. Carbon Dating Carbon is an element on the earth, just as oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen (represented by the letters C-carbon; N-nitrogen; O-oxygen and H-hydrogen). Water, as we all know, is made up of two H's, and an O, giving us the common prefix of "H2O". That's the basics. Now, all living things take in carbon from their environment. Only living things, not rocks or things like that. This type of carbon is the type that they measure in dating, and is called Carbon 14 or C-14. When a tree, shell, or bone dies it stops taking in C-14 and the existing C14 begins to deteriorate and become nitrogen 14 (N-14). If we know the rate at which the change from C-14 to N14 happens, we can tell how long the tree has been dead. Easy, right? Right. As long as we are Uniformitarians! The problem is that we do not know the amount of C-14 in the environment when the plant or animal died. We can measure what it is at the moment, but what if the amount was different in the past? We already know that there were different C-14 levels in the past environment! If we guess the wrong amount of C-14, then the log will not be the right age when 'dated' using Carbon dating. Although the uniformitarians have ways to try and correct these 'differences' or 'problems', their dates are still wrong if they do not assume the correct amounts of C-14 in the past. A second problem with Carbon Dating Some plants and animals take in different amounts of carbon. This makes them appear older (or younger) than they really are. there are many unknown factors that may have changed the rate of amount of C-14 in the environment. So we can see that though evolutionists may call themselves actualists, but their reliance on carbon dating is still founded upon the basis of uniformitarianism because they trust that the rate of carbon decay is consistent. Glaciers and conclusion Evolutionists say that the Niagara falls area was formed after the melting of the 18,000 year old Wisconsin glaciation (the glaciers that carved the Great Lakes), making the falls area about twelve thousand years old. Creationists would say that the glacial period took place after the worldwide flood and the falls area is less than 5,000 years old. The current rate of erosion is 1 foot per year (but the historical rate has been about three feet), and the falls have moved back seven miles from their probable starting point. So if we're going to go by the current rate of erosion, it'd take a long time for the falls to get where they are today. But since the Niagara river was carved by the Wisconsin glaciers, there would have been a lot more water going over them than there is now. All factors considered (and also bringing into account the fact that we don't know the entire environmental history of the falls), what once was thought to be a huge blow to Creationism is now a strong proof for it! The same basic arguments apply to your 'continental drift', Don. I don't deny that the continents look like they were at one time connected. Perhaps they were. I wouldn't be surprised. Your taking a uniformitarian stance on the issue doesn't dissprove me: after all, uniformitarianism doesn't really fit the facts, as I just illustrated. "Get it? Got it. Good!!" ;) {Iona} |
|
16 Feb 12 - 06:42 AM (#3309363) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw No-one "guesses" the amount of C14 in the past. Do study the wiki article on radiocarbon dating to find out just how much work goes into the calibration on which accurate carbon dating is predicated. If I told you that you were absolutely bonkers because of your belief in this God fellow of yours, ridiculing you in offensive and dismissive terms, you'd be mightily offended. So kindly refrain from ignorantly offending the scientific community in this manner, OK? Incidentally, radiocarbon dating is applied only to relatively recent material, 60,000years old or less. |
|
16 Feb 12 - 06:46 AM (#3309364) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Incidentally, I doubt whether most evolutionists [sic]give a damn as to how old Niagara Falls are. Curious about it and vaguely following the arguments, perhaps, but I don't see an awful lot of scope there for emotional involvement, frankly. |
|
16 Feb 12 - 06:54 AM (#3309370) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Incidentally numero two, do update yourself on the matter of "continental drift", a long-outmoded (though not wrong, exactly) and potentially misleading notion, particularly to the uninitiated and/or Aunt Sally brigade, of which you appear to be a proud member. You may or may not care to investigate the theory of plate tectonics, which posits a driving force behind the movement of the plates which constitute the land masses and oceans. Interesting stuff it is too, though you may not like it. |
|
16 Feb 12 - 07:22 AM (#3309387) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. "The same basic arguments apply to your 'continental drift', Don. I don't deny that the continents look like they were at one time connected. Perhaps they were. I wouldn't be surprised. Your taking a uniformitarian stance on the issue doesn't dissprove me: after all, uniformitarianism doesn't really fit the facts, as I just illustrated." Arguments from the supposed erosion rates of Niagara and carbon dating do not apply to plate tectonics, which does not require quotes, as continental drift does not. There is the obvious apparent match in shape, first spotted from primitive mapping by Francis Bacon, but the theory uses much much more information than that. (Incidentally, the match is along the submerged continental rise, not the exposed land.) For instance, older geological structures on either side of the Atlantic match in detail. (There's a map of Precambrian rocks here) which illustrates this point, along with some other evidence. There is also evidence from the distribution of fossils, but I doubt you would believe it. Beyond the shape and rock distribution evidence, there is that from the ocean floor. Before evidence from naval surveys became available, the reasons the base of the oceans was of much younger age than the continents, and of basalt were unclear. But those surveys revealed the worldwide ranges of mid-oceanic ridges, down the centre of which ran a rift, in which lava was still being erupted. Examples of ridge structures can be seen in Iceland, currently active, but also in Cornwall, Cyprus, the Alps and other sites where they have ended up on land. The latter are called ophiolite complexes, and include sheeted basalt dykes and pillow lavas (extruded under water - look for video from Hawaii). Igneous rocks can be dated by alternative radioactive decay products to C dating, and these dates can also be linked to the magnetic regime under which they cooled. It is known from this that the Earth's magnetic field has reversed through time on a number of occasions - these changes can be found in layered igneous rocks on land, such as the Deccan Traps in India. (These rocks include between the layers ancient soil horizons, suggesting emplacement over long stretches of time, and are quoted in a real scientific argument about the extinction of the dinosaurs as an alternative to the Chixulub impact. a similar set of rocks in Siberia has been dated at the same time as the much greater Permian extinction, which happened at an identifiably different time from the K-T extinction.) Magnetic reversals can also be found on the floors of the oceans, showing that new floor is laid down at the ridges, and then forced apart as yet further basalt in intruded. There are many such reversals which can be mapped and dated. Pacific Northwest map here To hypothesise that there has been a significant change in the rate of generation of ocean floor you would need evidence of such a change. You would also need to explain the existence of the older ocean floors which have left their traces in the ophiolite complexes on land. I believe there is reasonable access to the ocean floor data if you want to examine the source data. (It is no longer ocnfined to the US Navy.) Penny |
|
16 Feb 12 - 07:39 AM (#3309395) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Here's a map showing how oil prospecting is helped by assuming the link between Africa and South America have related geology. Depositional environments in Pangaea I can't find the one I was looking for which not only relates gem and gold bearing strata, but also landforms. But it's out there somewhere. Penny |
|
16 Feb 12 - 07:44 AM (#3309398) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: beardedbruce Iona, C-14 is an isotope of carbon. The RATION of C-14 to other isotopes is relatively constant ( within the error of the measurements being made) and the total amount of carbon around does not affect that ratio. Thus, your comments about carbon abundance have no bearing on the use of C-14 to date biological materials. Of course, one MIGHT say that God provides all this evidence of evolution and just created everything a few thousand years ago, fossils et al. If that is the case, who are you to argue with the FACT that God WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, from his own created works, and has provided all this evidence in support of it? Aren't your arguments the work of Satan, trying to get you to believe other than what God WANTS you to believe?? |
|
16 Feb 12 - 07:54 AM (#3309399) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Iona works hard to say why she doesn't like any of the scientific evidence but says nothing in support of YEC. If YEC is true, what evidence would you present to a non-believer, Iona? Or is it only possible to believe in YEC if you also believe in the bible? ['possible' is not the ideal word, but I draw the line at words like 'reasonable' or 'sensible'] |
|
16 Feb 12 - 09:06 AM (#3309438) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: beardedbruce typo- The RATION of C-14 should be The RATIO of C-14 |
|
16 Feb 12 - 09:14 AM (#3309439) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: beardedbruce 700! |
|
16 Feb 12 - 09:15 AM (#3309441) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy Ok, all bible scholars, which of these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_errata do you believe to be the true gospel word of your imaginary deity? |
|
16 Feb 12 - 09:56 AM (#3309461) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod I still haven't grasped what Niagara Falls has to do with anything (have so far found no reference to Niagara Falls in the Bible - I'll keep looking). Anyway I couldn't help noticing this little gem among your latest 'cut-n-paste-from-the creationists-website' diatribe, Iona: "One man who lived near the falls told Lyell that the falls had eroded 150 feet in the past 40 years. Divide 150 by 40 and you get 3.75 feet of erosion per year. If we use this method to date the falls, it comes out to the age of 7 to 9 thousand years old." How do you know that the rate of erosion has been constant over time? Isn't that a "uniformitarian" argument? |
|
16 Feb 12 - 10:03 AM (#3309465) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA 1) Any discussion of the history of Niagra Falls that does not mention the Wisconsinan galciations and isostasy rebound is pure rubbish. 2) It reveals total ignorance to state that we need to know how much C-14 was initially present to get an accurate date. As BB points out, as with all radiometric dating techniques absolute amounts are never known and are irrelevant. It is always the *ratio* of parent to daughter product that fixes the date. The starting amount of parent does not matter in the least. 3) Steve Shaw is also correct. It is thoroughly insulting to those who know what they are talking about to be lectured by an ignoramus who is not even aware of how ignorant she is. Every time you post one of your pseudo-scientifc screeds it becomes ever more obvious that you read selectively and with little will (perhaps capacity?) for comprehension. I think it is time for me to start writing pseudo-scholarly lecturettes on the Bible... Sheesh. Not worth it. Why should I bother with a closed (and small) mind, when I can address 65 young open minds four times a week (and get them in on the big hoax, right Iona?) |
|
16 Feb 12 - 01:00 PM (#3309588) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Why should I bother with a closed (and small) mind The only reason I can think of is to make clear to third parties that that is what we are dealing with. It's quite easy to illustrate. On 02 Feb 12 - 03:58 AM she said "Let's drop the slurs and talk epistemology". Then again a little while later (at 06 Feb 12 - 02:16 AM) she says "I really think that we ought to talk epistemology". So on 06 Feb 12 - 03:26 AM, I say something, while admitting I am no expert on the subject. I may have miscounted, but I think she's posted 17 times since then. And where is the evidence that she 'really thinks we ought to talk epistemology' in those 17-odd posts and 10 days? Answer: absolutely nowhere, because she hasn't mentioned it since. And that happens pretty much whatever the topic. |
|
16 Feb 12 - 01:13 PM (#3309594) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke There's no evidence Iona is a she. I suspect they are in fact a committee. |
|
16 Feb 12 - 02:15 PM (#3309630) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona And where is the evidence that she 'really thinks we ought to talk epistemology' in those 17-odd posts and 10 days? Answer: absolutely nowhere, because she hasn't mentioned it since. And that happens pretty much whatever the topic. I know, I know.....I haven't answered a lot of the arguments that have been presented. I've got about three drafts full of them, but it's hard for one person to keep up with the arguments of who-knows-how-many. I am doing my best. And yes, I plan on getting back to epistemology here soon. You all haven't answered my question yet! |
|
16 Feb 12 - 02:29 PM (#3309638) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona "Iona works hard to say why she doesn't like any of the scientific evidence but says nothing in support of YEC. If YEC is true, what evidence would you present to a non-believer, Iona? Or is it only possible to believe in YEC if you also believe in the bible? " There is tons of evidence for creationism. I've posted a lot already! The Mosinee Jellyfish, man besides dinosaurs, the problem of causality and inductive inference, the problem of evil, the rate of fossilization, great Creation scientists of the past, Niagara falls and uniformity......Both evolutionists and Creationists see the very same evidence, but come out with two completely different interpretations. And only one can be right. I believe that my worldview best fits the facts of the worldwide picture; which strongly upholds Noah's Flood! |
|
16 Feb 12 - 02:34 PM (#3309643) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Oh, I'm not insisting we discuss any particular topic; the epistemology was merely an example and I picked on that because it was one +you+ said you wanted to talk about. As for preparing drafts over days - that's fine but rather an odd way to carry on a conversation, don't you think. Everyone else here seems to post based on what they thi without feeling the need to go off to build a large cut'n'paste from other sites with what appears to so little personal knowledge that your only option if challenged is to go off and search the websites again. That's the only reason you can't keep up - you do not appear to be responding from your own knowledge. Go on - surprise us. Make your next 10 posts without using any phrases we can find on other websites. |
|
16 Feb 12 - 02:51 PM (#3309655) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG There is tons of evidence for creationism. I've posted a lot already! ... The problem of evil ... (etc) Try reading the posts from people who understand all the things in your list. And I be glad if you could explain any remotely feasible connection between what you call 'the problem of evil' and the age of the earth which would be meaningful to a non-believer (which was my question if you remember) |
|
16 Feb 12 - 03:04 PM (#3309663) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 Hi, Iona. The problem I see with Noah's flood is this: where did the water come from? |
|
16 Feb 12 - 03:55 PM (#3309695) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Don't even ask. There's an answer. Can't remember it, because it doesn't make sense. Penny |
|
16 Feb 12 - 04:01 PM (#3309698) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona Funny thing, DMcG. I don't go to creationist websites very often. And I DON"T cut and paste. You have no evidence that I'm cutting and pasting. I can just as well say that you all are cutting and pasting--I have the same amount of evidence! Anyway, even if I *was* cutting from websites, you can't just discredit it because of that. It's still an argument, and you really ought to answer it! I am not illegitimate because I learn from like-minded scientists, just like you aren't a non-thinking idiot because you've learned your arguments from Evolutionary thinking. ;) We all have presuppositions. |
|
16 Feb 12 - 04:26 PM (#3309714) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG I don't cut and paste ... Well, if you insist, I'm happy to take your word it, but expect to be jumped on by someone if you do! Anyway, even if I *was* cutting from websites, you can't just discredit it because of that. It's still an argument, and you really ought to answer it! The problem with that is that there is no discourse. I may agree or disagree, but unless an individual takes responsibility and says implicitly "this is what I believe and am prepared to defend" then it is no more of an argument then shouting at the television. If you cut'n'paste something you actually believe it is better if you write what you believe, because then you have expressed your belief as you see it. So no need for a cut and pasdte there. But if is something you more or less believe but wouldn't put it quite like that, it's not easy to defend because it's not really yours |
|
16 Feb 12 - 04:46 PM (#3309726) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona Good thing I don't cut and paste, then---isn't it, DMcG? __________________________________________________________________ Hi, Iona. The problem I see with Noah's flood is this: where did the water come from? Good question. It stumps a lot of people (even those who are Creationists). In Genesis 7:11b, we read that "all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." John Morris does a better job than I could when he explains in this short article. {CLICKY } |
|
16 Feb 12 - 04:56 PM (#3309732) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG I suppose I should have guessed someone who is a literalist would think a link is dramatically different to a cut and paste. Admittedly you are not passing off something as yours when it isn't, but it's not explaining things in your own words is it? |
|
16 Feb 12 - 05:18 PM (#3309741) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke I told you Iona isn't a person! |
|
16 Feb 12 - 05:35 PM (#3309749) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Iona, your assumption that I am making a "uniformitarian assumption" is incorrect. On some parts of the earth, the action of plate tectonics is a gradual, relatively smooth process. The separation of the continents at the mid-Atlantic ridge, for example. For the most part, this is an up-welling of magma which pushes the two sections apart. And this happens at a fairly predictable (and predicted) rate. There are other parts of the earth, however, when the shifting of plates is sudden and violent. The Fukushima earthquake is one example. Also, there is evidence that within recent history, the western side of the San Andreas fault suddenly shifted some fifteen feet to the north, relative to the rest of California (That must have been a lollapalooza!). I could cite example after example of sudden (NON-uniformitarian) changes of position in the earth's crust, often followed by a long period of relative quiescence—due to the fact that the stress built up over time has released the tension, and it takes time for the slowly moving plates to build up tension again. It is these sudden "nonuniformitarian" shifts that cause earthquakes. I was citing the AVERAGE rates of continental drift, which includes BOTH gradual movement and sudden shifts. I'm sorry, but if you think you have refuted my argument, then you are mistaken. By the way, your Niagara Falls erosion argument does not relate to matters of plate tectonics. The two are quite different geological phenomena. Don Firth |
|
16 Feb 12 - 05:45 PM (#3309751) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Told you it didn't make sense - it calls upon large underground reservoirs for which there is no evidence. Nor does it explain where the water went afterwards. Back to these reservoirs, which do not show up in analysis of seismic wave passage through the Earth? Penny |
|
16 Feb 12 - 06:38 PM (#3309770) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth I kept reading that the flood in New Orleans that accompanied hurricane Katrina was "of Biblical proportions." Unless one can find evidence for there having been a globe-covering flood, which the Biblical Flood is purported to be, and for which there is none, save, of course, for Biblical account, then it's more than likely that it was large, perhaps, but a LOCAL phenomenon. By the way, one could make a case that the tale of the Flood makes a strong case for Evolution. If backed into a corner, Creationists will admit that the ark was simply not large enough (and dimensions, prescribed by God, are readily available to anyone who cares to do a Google search) to carry a mating pair of every species. But God said "two of each kind," not "each species." So instead of having a pair of wolves, foxes, jackals, dingoes, and various canis familiaris aboard the ark, Noah would have to select only two canines, one male, one female. Then, when the ark moored at Mount Ararat and the animals dispersed, ALL dog-like creatures, wolves, foxes, jackals, dingoes, Great Danes, corgis, St. Bernards, poodles, Yorkshire terriers, dachshunds, greyhounds, Chihuahuas, et al would evolve from this one pair. (Get it? Got it? Probably not. . . .) Don Firth P. S. Oh, by the way. While on their cruise, what would keep the cheetahs from eating the gazelles? |
|
16 Feb 12 - 07:31 PM (#3309795) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw I kept reading that the flood in New Orleans that accompanied hurricane Katrina was "of Biblical proportions." You wouldn't say that in the UK. You'd say "the flood covered an area the size of Wales." |
|
16 Feb 12 - 07:38 PM (#3309798) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST Thanks, Iona. If you'd take unsolicited advice from an old street-fighter, always deal with the biggest problem first. Then take 'em one after the other. I appreciate your answer because it was honest, and whether or not I agree with your beliefs (which I'm sure you have surmised by now I don't), I like your spirit. The universe itself is more than I can take in and I'm not smart enough to complicate my love of nature, science, philosophy, politics, anthropology, religions, farming, bird watching, songs, medicine, math, history--basically stuff I don't know much about--with other stuff I know even less about. Way earlier in this thread Joe Offer said something that made absolute sense to me (not the first time he's done that but the first I'll admit to). It was a remark wherein he said that there is a 'force' that causes us all to seek, look, even argue over beliefs; he didn't say it that succinctly, but he was pretty good about making himself clear :-))). I took from that something I've thought since my youth: God's the reason we're here to figure all this out. I don't know whether God looks lots like my friend Vito or more like my friend Alain. Don't matter. The people I know who believe in something are better off than those I know who believe in nothing. They sleep better at night. But please keep in mind that the people posting to this thread with whom you disagree and they you, have beliefs that are as sound as your own. S'true, the reasons are different, but the bottom line is the same. Best regards to you. PS I was a big fan of Roy's when I was a kid. PPS The university education wasn't wasted on you. |
|
16 Feb 12 - 07:42 PM (#3309800) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggh. Sorry, that was me. And since I'm posting anyway, I am terribly disappointed that NO ONE--and that means you, Jack!--had the verve, elan or common decency to say something nice about my rap song. Eff the lot of you. |
|
16 Feb 12 - 08:25 PM (#3309815) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Please forgive the oversight, 999. But with all this dealing with earthquakes, floods, and other cataclysms, I'm sure you'll understand the oversight. Far be it from me to rap a rap song. And that's a wrap! Don Firth |
|
16 Feb 12 - 08:38 PM (#3309819) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D "....where did the water come from?" Iona provided the explanation....It rained.. from her link: "the "great deep" which was "broken up" evidently speaks of great subterranean reservoirs or chambers deep inside the earth, all of which spewed forth their contents at the same time. " Simple, hmmm? ...except for the math and geological pre-suppositions required to clarify where "great subterranean reservoirs" got there, and how they re-absorbed all the water after 40 days.... And STILL she says "There is tons of evidence for creationism. I've posted a lot already!"...using a Biblical definition of 'evidence'. |
|
16 Feb 12 - 09:31 PM (#3309829) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 Gentlemen, if you don't know, why do you think Iona should? Lemme tell y'all something: if she's Scottish or Greek, which I think she is (or at least should be) you may as well stop arguing. She will never surrender nor will she ever quit. Remember the Spartans, and Joltin' Joe. Hard heads! One more thing: I like this thread because I like all the people on it. |
|
17 Feb 12 - 03:02 AM (#3309901) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Gentlemen, if you don't know, why do you think Iona should? There's a proverb that is, I think, Persian in origin that goes something like: He who knows, and knows that he knows, he is a wise man, follow him. He who knows not, and knows he knows not, he is a child, teach him. He who knows, and knows not that he knows, he is asleep, wake him. He who knows not and knows not he knows not, he is a fool, shun him. It can be surprisingly difficult to distinguish the wise man and the fool in the proverb, and the best way of doing it is to see how they put together their solutions, propositions and arguments. The Socratic method is primarily to adopt the stance of the second line: I do not claim to know, you claim to know: show me why you are sure you know. I have suggested that Iona tends to make some assertion, be challenged and then move onto something else without addressing the challenges. So I propose we concentrate on these mysterious underground chambers, and forget all the other issues until we have got to the bottom of this one. We all understand Iona believes in the Flood, but she proposed the link not as a defence of that belief, but as an explanation of where the water came from. So that's the challenge, really, Iona. Do you think the link is correct in claiming the waters came from these chambers? If so, it behoves you to answer Penny and Don about where they are. If, on the other hand you don't the link is correct on that matter, perhaps you will explain why you used the link in the first place. |
|
17 Feb 12 - 08:21 AM (#3309994) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: beardedbruce A number of the Pre-Judaic religions of the region have flood "myths". The best explanation so far has been that they are from the flooding of the Mediterranean valley in pre-historic time, when the Atlantic broke through ( see Atlantis legends, Babylonian myths, et al). There have been some recent discoveries of indications of villages well below the water line of the present Med. To a culture of that time ( before 1500 BCE) that would have seemed like a world-wide flood. I am not aware of any similar myths associated with Asian or American cultures, though, so a "local" flood seems to be the likely source for the Biblical story. |
|
17 Feb 12 - 08:35 AM (#3309998) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Also suspected, the inundation of the Black Sea, more recently than the Med, also with old settlements below the current shoreline. Also suspected, river floods in Mesopotamia, evidence for which is in clay horizons burying habitation sites. Penny |
|
17 Feb 12 - 10:06 AM (#3310029) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link i dont know why underground water is discounted seeing the russians have just succeeded in drilling down to a huge underground lake in antartica or why if for example catastrophic plate tectonics remodelled the topography,all the water that covered all the hills could not then drain into the new deeper ocean basins. i suppose all you geologists have a reason you discount that but the theory would need to be layman friendly for me. |
|
17 Feb 12 - 10:14 AM (#3310035) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG There's not a lot of water on earth - even now I have no idea how accurate this is, but it is a fun image anyway. |
|
17 Feb 12 - 10:20 AM (#3310041) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: beardedbruce Thanks, Penny. |
|
17 Feb 12 - 10:32 AM (#3310051) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Lake Vostok is under the ice, not under rock. and there are easy to understand reasons for it being there, as for the other lakes in Antarctica. It is the same as any water under ice anywhere. It is three times the volume of Lake Ontario, and about the same in area. This is large for a lake, but not by comparison with the oceans. Underground lakes would have shown up by the way that earthquake waves pass through different materials, the way that the structure of the Earth has been determined. They haven't. We know about the shape of the solid core (it isn't smooth), and about the slabs of rock descending into the mantle from subduction zones along the trenches in the oceans, and about the semifluid layers on which the plates slide. But no-one has found evidence for buried lakes, and there would need to be many of them, and very large in order to inundate all the Earth. Scale is important. Penny |
|
17 Feb 12 - 10:36 AM (#3310055) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 Genesis 7:21-23 New International Version 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. The difficulties presented by those lines to people who believe in a word-for-word interpretation of The Bible are certainly far-reaching, imo. |
|
17 Feb 12 - 10:53 AM (#3310061) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. One of the reasons plate tectonics was initially not accepted was because no-one could work out a mechanism for the movement. To postulate catastrophic tectonism, a catastrophic mechanism would be needed, and none has been shown to exist. Nor has any such event left traces of itself. There is evidence of many phases of continental movement, lifting up successive ranges of mountains which havde then been eroded down, leaving traces of their granite cores in such places as Cornwall. But no evidence for a complete resurfacing. (Interestingly, there is evidence for something like that on Venus.) We have evidence for major impacts, not just Chixulub - there was one at the Permian extinction as well as all that basalt (another ongoing bona fide argument there), but none of them has had the energy to completely remodel the Earth. It is believed that there could have been a much greater impact creating the Moon, but that, though big enough for remodelling, would also have been big enough to destroy the whole surface. No evidence in the structure of the Earth has been found for this, though there is possibly some in lunar rocks and structure. (Another ongoing discussion about rival hypotheses there.) It would take somthing of that size to completely resurface the Earth. Life would not survive. Not even bacteria would be likely to persist. Penny |
|
17 Feb 12 - 11:09 AM (#3310070) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy Re: Noah & water How did the ark carry enough water to keep the passengers alive, or did they have a solar still? |
|
17 Feb 12 - 12:06 PM (#3310095) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Not a problem! It was still raining when Noah got them animals on board and floated off. It would have taken 'awhile' to "cover the entire Earth"...maybe for...ummmm.. 20 days? Then 20 days to recede and drain back into those convenient underground chambers. (which, I assume, God closed for those 20 days to allow the flood to progress.) Perhaps it continued to rain off & on, even as the flood was receding.... (and of course, the two camels had plenty stored) It's easy, if you just start with the assumption that it DID all happen, and that God could arrange it anyway he wished. |
|
17 Feb 12 - 12:30 PM (#3310108) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 Adam and Eve got the ball rolling but the second birth of human kind was due to Noah and his family. This will drive geneticists crazy. A monologue that changed a generation's views. |
|
17 Feb 12 - 01:41 PM (#3310151) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D "This will drive geneticists crazy." well, not those who accept the theory of Mitochondrial Eve |
|
17 Feb 12 - 01:54 PM (#3310164) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 Bill, behave. I spend more time looking in dictionaries with your posts than I do reading them--the posts, not the dictionaries. Then I end up looking at this this haplogroup chart which is really cool. I find the colour scheme a little less than aesthetically pleasing, but then I like ketchup and raspberry jam on hot dogs. |
|
17 Feb 12 - 01:54 PM (#3310165) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D However....it seems even the usual details of this idea has been challenged by creationists who do contorted calculations to 'prove' that the Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) of extant humans was only 6500 years ago. (the usual calculations say about 150,000-200,000 years) Here is an article about one such claim made on "the Answers in Genesis website" http://www.evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial%20Eve.htm |
|
17 Feb 12 - 02:02 PM (#3310171) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Oh, those ARE bright colors! I think I prefer the colored charts showing migration patterns (and remind me to not watch when we go out for hot dogs) |
|
17 Feb 12 - 02:15 PM (#3310179) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D another biblical view of the Eve problem |
|
17 Feb 12 - 02:34 PM (#3310186) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 Mitochondrial Eve T'was the night before Mitochondrial And all through the whole land Not a creature was living Except Noah's small band Of humans and animals Of albatrosses and ducks Of mosquitoes and leeches Of critters that buck On Mitochondrial Eve we all sat very still Because water was rising And the bilge pumps was broke Caused by recent downsizing Haul on that bowline And get set said he For we're off and gone Forty days on the sea It's a work in progress since no one liked my rap tour de force. Me, bitter? Pshaw. |
|
17 Feb 12 - 03:11 PM (#3310210) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. You need to get the timing right. Forty days of rain. Seven months afloat before running aground. Three more months before the mountain tops are visible. Penny |
|
17 Feb 12 - 03:19 PM (#3310216) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth On the flood thing: A great web site, complete with lots of photos, graphics, and links to related pages HERE. I've driven through this area a number of times, and it's pretty awe-inspiring—if a bit bleak. This is referred to, rather unappealingly, as the "Eastern Washington Scablands." This happened no later than about 12,000 years ago, with the receding of the ice sheet and the melt and collapse of an ice dam, which released a huge flood over the area. This may have happened several times and in several locations. Northwest Native American tribes have some really dandy Flood Legends. Note the date. No later than 12,000 years ago, and as far as topsoil and such is concerned, it has only recovered this much in twelve millennia. If Noah's flood had happened within the time frame the Young Earth Creationists insist upon—no more than 6,000 years ago—and was world-wide, the whole earth would look no better than this!. And there would not be enough arable land to sustain a few small tribes, let alone 7 billion people! Don Firth P. S. None of this, the idea that the Bible is a book of folk legend, myth, and metaphor rather than a rigorous book of literal history, and that scientific research into matters of cosmology and evolution provides a far more reasonable and believable explanation of the Way Things Are than the myths and folk tales espoused by Creationists and Fundamentalists, in no way contradicts or interferes with my religious beliefs and my sense of morality (good and evil), which I got more from Greek philosophers than I did from any religious teaching. And I reject the idea that Plato got it from Jesus, because Jesus was born over 300 years after Plato. And no, the idea that Christianity is "retroactive," I'm sorry, is just plain silly. |
|
17 Feb 12 - 03:20 PM (#3310218) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 "You need to get the timing right. Forty days of rain. Seven months afloat before running aground. Three more months before the mountain tops are visible." Gonna be tough getting that to scan, Penny. |
|
17 Feb 12 - 03:21 PM (#3310219) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jeri 999, I haven't seen your rap. Must look for it. This is from me: Maybe you're pissed, but I ain't gettin' the gist All of this history, really just mystery Of Adam and Eve, stuff I don't believe in Cus way back when, there were no men Except Adam and Eve with the whole world at stake, And like evey good story, there was a snake. Cain killed Abel and was banished from Eden, And the people left, lookin' for things they were needin', But they were intendin' there be no inreedin'. So when Cain found a wife in the land of Nod We see that SOME people were NOT made by God. Where did those people come from? Where did they go? I'm guessing creationists don't really know According to them, the world WAS the Garden Seem somewhat apochryphal, beggin' your pardon. Word |
|
17 Feb 12 - 05:02 PM (#3310271) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link enjoyed the pics and video don . |
|
17 Feb 12 - 06:28 PM (#3310305) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Just so its not forgotten this time: I enjoyed 'Eve', 999. And that one, Jeri [I sang 'Why we Sing' two weeks ago at our local club - do you want royalties? *smile*] |
|
17 Feb 12 - 07:04 PM (#3310316) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D 40 days? 150 days? 300 or so days? not simple... but we sure can interpret...which merely changes the span, not the issue, of where all the water came from and went. |
|
17 Feb 12 - 07:20 PM (#3310319) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth The video of the ultralight fly-over of the Eastern Washington Scablands is pretty spectacular. But how about THIS for "Extreme Sports"?? Palouse Falls in the Scablands area. Don Firth |
|
17 Feb 12 - 07:31 PM (#3310322) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""It's easy, if you just start with the assumption that it DID all happen, and that God could arrange it anyway he wished."" Even easier if you read Iona's actual words, when she said that ""God opened the windows of heaven"". So the water didn't all originate on Earth (according to Iona). A good thing the old boy had a supersized mop and bucket, or we'd all be sporting gills and fins. You cannot reason with the terminally deluded when they simply come up with more and more outlandish opinions (which is all they are, opinions) backed up with the "evidence" of their chosen book of mythology. Don T. |
|
17 Feb 12 - 07:40 PM (#3310328) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jeri DMcG, WOW! Thanks--I thought that song was long forgotten, and it's good to know it's still alive! |
|
17 Feb 12 - 07:48 PM (#3310334) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jeri Oh yeah, I DID see 999's rap (lovely!). Guess I was waiting for something about a unicorn. |
|
17 Feb 12 - 10:19 PM (#3310371) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 Thank you Jeri and DMcG. You have kick-started my rap career. Lemme tell you two That my heart is all a-flutter Please pass the potatoes And don't forget the butter Now, the rap version Hey you two I'm chuff-ed My pump is all a-flutter, yo bro, Please pass the spuds my buds And n'oublie pas the butter, mofo |
|
18 Feb 12 - 01:17 AM (#3310401) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona "God opened the windows of heaven". So the water didn't all originate on Earth (according to Iona). "Heavens" in this case means "Sky/Atmosphere". But the water didn't all come from the sky, as we see; "And all the fountains of the great deep were opened up"...This issue has been dealt with many times by reliable Creation scientists like the ones at ICR. I'm sure they have an article on it. And, contrary to what was said earlier, I can reference Creationist scientists and still have my own beliefs. It just happens that I agree with them, just as you would agree and reference many evolutionary scientists. I don't have to have a PhD in order to debate, and it's perfectly acceptable for you or I to reference articles, quotes or whatnot that we agree with. Iona (Ps. I've heard that PhD is short for Permanent Head Damage, but I can't be sure of the truth of it) |
|
18 Feb 12 - 01:31 AM (#3310404) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona Arguments from the supposed erosion rates of Niagara and carbon dating do not apply to plate tectonics, which does not require quotes, as continental drift does not. Then I'll directly apply it. Don Firth said: Rate of continental drift – 1 to 10 centimeters per year. If one looks at a map of the Atlantic Ocean, it doesn't take much imagination to see that, allowing for some variation in outline over the eons, you could fit the west coast of Europe and Africa together with the east coast of North and South America, like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle. These four continents used to be in contact with each other. Essentially, one continent. And over time, due to the action of plate tectonics driven by the monumental forces at work in the earth's interior, they have drifted apart. Another example of continental drift are the Hawaiian Islands. The islands formed due to an up-welling of magma, or a "hot spot" in the ocean floor. Lava spews out of the hot spot, builds up, and hardens, and forms an island. But the Pacific Plate gradually moves northwest until the magma upwelling from the hot spot seeks a more direct route and another island forms. Hawaii, the "big island," is now over the hot spot. Lava is upwelling through the volcanoes on the island, flowing to the sea where it cools and hardens, and the island increases in size. Soon (in geological time), the plate will move far enough northwest that the upwelling will burst through somewhere southeast of the big island, and another Hawiian island will begin to emerge from the sea. The drifting of the Pacific plate formed a subduction zone off the coast of Japan. Tension built up until it released, part of the Pacific plate suddenly slid under Japan, and this is what caused the Fukushima earthquake. It is this sort of tectonic activity that causes earthquakes. It also raises mountains. The African plate, forcing itself against the European plate is what "wrinkled" the earth's crust and raised the Alps. The Juan de Fuca plate pushing against the North American plate is what raised the Cascade Mountains on the west coast of the United States. This, coupled with a subduction zone, causes some volcanoes. Etna and Vesuvius in southern Europe and Mt. Lassen, Mount St. Helens, and Mount Rainier in the western U. S. The South American plate is pushing against another Pacific plate, hence, the Andes. And the sometimes severe earthquakes alone the west coast of South American. What it amounts to is the WE are living on top of the crust of slag that's drifting around on the surface of a ball of boiling nickel-iron. Since continental drift happens at a rate of one to ten centimeters per year, contemplate how long it took for the North and South American continents and the European and African continents to drift the approximately 3,000 miles apart. Or the Hawaiian Archipelago to form. Now— Reconcile that with the fundamentalist Christian idea that the Earth is only 6,016 (4,004 + 2012) years old!. That would make sense, assuming that the rate of drift has been continuous. But it assumes that there hasn't been radical differences in the past such as hypercanes, huge earthquakes and major volcanic activity. It is assuming that the present is the key to the past--aka uniformity. During the Biblical flood, there would have been catastrophic forces at work: earthquakes, volcanoes, underwater calderas going berserk, etc. etc. If all the land of the world was at one time connected, then it could easily have been split apart. Again, I do not know if all the land on earth was at one time one land mass (although it's possible, since it could be implied by Genesis 1:9; all the waters being gathered together in one place could suggest all the land being in one place too). The only time that continental splitting could have occured would have been when 'all the fountains of the great deep were broken up", which would have provided enough water to cover the entire earth, as well as producing tremendous force that would have enabled the tectonic plates to wrench apart. The Flood is the answer to all of the evolutionary problems raised by 'continental drift': For instance, Evolutionists don't know the root cause of tectonic plates beginning to drift in the first place. But if the Flood really did happen like the Bible says, then we would see evidence of catastrophic rift all over the world. And we do. "The African plate, forcing itself against the European plate is what "wrinkled" the earth's crust and raised the Alps.The Juan de Fuca plate pushing against the North American plate is what raised the Cascade Mountains on the west coast of the United States. This, coupled with a subduction zone, causes some volcanoes. Etna and Vesuvius in southern Europe and Mt. Lassen, Mount St. Helens, and Mount Rainier in the western U. S. The South American plate is pushing against another Pacific plate, hence, the Andes. And the sometimes severe earthquakes alone the west coast of South American." So obviously we both agree that these sites were 'created' by rather violent forces. After all, the "African plate forcing itself against the European plate" implies.....force. Strong ones. Noah's flood would have created the force needed to quickly and effectively 'buckle' the gelogic plates and create mountains and valleys, etc. There is no evidence of them being formed over long gradual processes. Again, what you call 'evidence for Evolution' fits better with the Creationist model. |
|
18 Feb 12 - 01:55 AM (#3310406) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona you have to realize that it sounds a little outrageous to say that your faith is right, and everyone else is wrong. Sounds rather relativistic to me. How many truths can there be? If you say that there is more than one truth, then what if my truth says that your truth is false? Obviously your truth says that my truth is false, so it must work both ways. So whose truth is the true truth? Perhaps you're saying "There are no absolutes and no truth. That's why it's outrageous for you to say you've got truth". Is that true that there are no truths? Is it absolutely true that there are no absolutes? Is nobody right? If you're right about nobody being right, well, then you're wrong about nobody being right! __________________________ I'm sorry. That just doesn't work. In order for there to be truth, it has to be universal, absolute and exclusive. Ther can be only one truth. And God's word is true. "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." (John 7:17) |
|
18 Feb 12 - 03:41 AM (#3310421) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG And, contrary to what was said earlier, I can reference Creationist scientists and still have my own beliefs. It just happens that I agree with them, just as you would agree and reference many evolutionary scientists. I don't have to have a PhD in order to debate, and it's perfectly acceptable for you or I to reference articles, quotes or whatnot that we agree with. And yes it is, providing, in your own words, that it is ' that we agree with' That's so important, I think I'll repeat the key constraint in capitals: IT MUST BE SOMETHING YOU AGREE WITH IF YOU WANT IT TO SUPPORT YOUR CASE. So I repeat my question, which you haven't addressed: Do you think the link is correct in claiming the waters came from these chambers? If so, it behoves you to answer Penny and Don about where they are. If, on the other hand you don't the link is correct on that matter, perhaps you will explain why you used the link in the first place. |
|
18 Feb 12 - 03:59 AM (#3310422) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG (Ps. I've heard that PhD is short for Permanent Head Damage, but I can't be sure of the truth of it) PPS. If that's supposed to be a sly 'ad hominem' attack, by the way, I'm afraid you've got the wrong hominem - I can't speak for anyone else here but I don't have a PhD. |
|
18 Feb 12 - 04:55 AM (#3310442) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod "Noah's flood would have created the force needed to quickly and effectively 'buckle' the gelogic plates and create mountains and valleys, etc." No it wouldn't! That's the most ridiculous claim you've made yet, Iona! |
|
18 Feb 12 - 06:10 AM (#3310466) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Ok, after all that, I have grasped the underlying issue here. I quote from Iona; "This type of argument has been addressed before between Evolutionists and Creationists." I take it there are people about who call themselves evolutionists and therefore evolution is a belief stance. Iona is, either naively or knowingly, assuming anybody who disagrees with her falls into such a category. Whereas, without putting words into the mouths (typing fingers) of others, mot of the people posting here aren't evolutionists any more than they are "radiators tend to be white ists" Evolution is an observed explainable natural fact, not a belief. I don't believe in evolution, but that's because I don't "believe" what I experience or notice. Although if we had this discussion at the quantum level, faith in observable physics does tend to be tested...... Although the hilarious nugget Shimrod has nicely picked out does make any debate a bit silly. best stick to pointing and laughing, it makes more sense. |
|
18 Feb 12 - 08:38 AM (#3310507) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail I have a theory! |
|
18 Feb 12 - 10:38 AM (#3310543) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG "Noah's flood would have created the force needed to quickly and effectively 'buckle' the gelogic plates and create mountains and valleys, etc." No it wouldn't! That's the most ridiculous claim you've made yet, Iona! Not too mention the forces on and presumably rather dramatic movements of the ark itself. That's clearly what stopped the cheetah eating the gazelle: they were all very seasick indeed. Can't have been too pleasant. |
|
18 Feb 12 - 01:03 PM (#3310596) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor "Sh#t dad, that's bad (from my daughter)" 999, your daughter is a wise young woman. "If that is the case, who are you to argue with the FACT that God WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, from his own created works, and has provided all this evidence in support of it? " Good point, Bruce, essentially what I said in the first post put more forcefully. |
|
18 Feb 12 - 01:23 PM (#3310606) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA For a creationist to claim being a "creation scientist", the creation must state what precisely is the evidence they might observe that would cause them to abandon their creation theory. If the creationist cannot state specifically what these observations would be, they cannot begin to claim they are doing science. So, reference all the creationists you wish, but please do not claim they are creation science references. |
|
18 Feb 12 - 01:45 PM (#3310613) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth "Creation scientist" is an oxymoron. Don Firth |
|
18 Feb 12 - 01:55 PM (#3310618) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona (Ps. I've heard that PhD is short for Permanent Head Damage, but I can't be sure of the truth of it) PPS. If that's supposed to be a sly 'ad hominem' attack, by the way, I'm afraid you've got the wrong hominem - I can't speak for anyone else here but I don't have a PhD. It was a joke!! Iona |
|
18 Feb 12 - 02:48 PM (#3310639) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Sorry i missed it, then. Though a joke that is based on mocking learning could be seen as a tactical error. It's a matter of opinion, but you might have been better off had it been a straight insult *smile* |
|
18 Feb 12 - 02:48 PM (#3310640) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona There was a link to an evolutionary article posted here a while back. I read it. Evidence for evolution? Because human kidneys while developing resemble the kidneys of hagfish?? *stifles giggle* I'm sorry, if that's evidence for evolution, then my name's Bianca Castafiore.(If any of you grew up on Tintin.....) Here's a few quotes direclty from the article; why would a creator bestow the embryo with three kidneys, trashing the first two (one of which doesn't do anything) before making the final one? The author here is insinuating that the 'third kidney' doesn't do anything. A.K.A a vestigial structure. Funny thing about vestigial structures is this: there used to be a number of them in the body. For instance the appendix. Not too long ago, (no wait, I guess they still do it today) medical 'experts' would just rip out the appendix at the first sign of trouble, because after all, it's just a useless little post-evolution piece of junk. Now we know that it's not, and it's thought to be important to the immune system. Same with the thyroid and other organs! But over the years, the many 'vestigial organs' that were thought to exist in the human body have been whittled down to zero. And I think the same thing could be said about this "third kidney".... we still don't know everything about the human body. I shan't be surprised if they discover that these two 'trash kidneys' don't serve a purpose. God doesn't create useless things. |
|
18 Feb 12 - 03:04 PM (#3310644) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Are we to take it that you want to avoid talking about where those underground reservoirs for the Flood are, then? |
|
18 Feb 12 - 03:20 PM (#3310646) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jeri Everybody knows water flows DOWN, so if some underground valve were opened up, it would e more likely the ocean would drain into them, wouldn't it? |
|
18 Feb 12 - 03:31 PM (#3310648) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""I can't speak for anyone else here but I don't have a PhD."" A very good point. Iona does rather specialise in making unwarranted assumptions about people, based on a profound absence of knowledge. Of one thing I am absolutely certain. Not one of her "Creation Scientists" (so-called) ever achieved a PhD based on a thesis on the subject of Creationism. Some theologians, however, more than likely have qualified as DD on that basis, which is how it should be. Keep religion in its proper place. The majority of Christians would agree. Don T. |
|
18 Feb 12 - 03:58 PM (#3310657) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona Are we to take it that you want to avoid talking about where those underground reservoirs for the Flood are, then? In the words of Thompson (from the Tintin series): "Time, gentlemen, please," I shall get to it, hopefully today. But I'm rather busy, so please be patient! |
|
18 Feb 12 - 04:07 PM (#3310668) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG That's fine, but please be sure you are prepared to defend what you say from your own knowledge. Make the case and if you want to have references that's fine, but remember the academic standard is that the argument presented should be complete and understandable without following any of the references at all. References are to back up the case, not make it. |
|
18 Feb 12 - 04:08 PM (#3310669) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Subjecting Noah's flood to modern scientific analysis is always fun. It rained 40 days and nights straight, a constant torrent, all over the planet. With constant cloud cover so that the sun could not add to the water in the atmosphere through evaporation. Obviously the water vapor was coming from an external source. Lets call it "Jehovah's cosmic humidifier". Then there were many weeks in the aftermath that the water slowly receded until the doves found Mt Ararat. Due to the slowness and lack of drain vortexes this was almost certainly done with a process of evaporation where the excess water was used. "Jehovah's cosmic humidifier" is a logical extension of the first gadget. But then there is the problem of salt. wouldn't the salinity have mixed evenly everywhere as the water rose? Our grand designer must have staged mini floods at a later time to flush the salt from low lying basins such as Lakes Superior and Baikal perhaps "Jehovah's desalinating sump pump" was used. Then there was the scale of the water. of the amount of the water compared to the sphere of the Earth today is the size of a ping pong ball it would take at least a soft ball to cover it to the depth of a puny mountain like Ararat and when we are talking about the mountains not known in the Mid East when the story was first heard, The Andes, Everest, we are talking about at least a couple of basketballs. But "Jehovah's cosmic humidifier" easily solves that problem of scale if you believe God in infinite, with abilities beyond our comprehension. Of course believing in such things is not science. It is faith. It is not just blind faith. It is willfully blind faith. |
|
18 Feb 12 - 04:27 PM (#3310675) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG By the way, when I say 'where' they are, a geographical location or two would be nice. A vague 'under the ocean' for example, wouldn't really do - which ocean? which part? you get the idea. |
|
18 Feb 12 - 04:47 PM (#3310680) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link dont think i would do that don.he must have been feeling washed out after that!impressive closer filming of the falls. jeri-when they drilled down to lake vostok the bore hole was sealed to prevent upthrust of underground water if i recall correctly.the upthrust from the underground waters in noahs time would likely be very forceful .this may then have returned again as additional rain. dmcg-agreeing with shimrods unsubstantiated assertion that the factors involved in the flood could not produce geologic change; even though demonstrating no rationale for that denial. certainly the flood was no tranquil cruise but it has been demonstrated that the dimensions of the ark would make it seaworthy and stable in the most adverse conditions.this is in contrast to the alternative accounts which i believe distantly recall the flood but contain unrealistic details. |
|
18 Feb 12 - 05:03 PM (#3310687) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stringsinger I don't think that we have to agree that a god exists. The argument is whose god? There are so many of them and each worshipper doesn't think the other god is good. Suppose that none of them are good? Creationism is nonsense. There is no intelligent argument here. Anyone can believe in god, mickey mouse, santa claus, the tooth fairy or that the world is flat if they want to but: When they indoctrinate children with their nonsense, this is a form of child abuse. Get creationism the hell out of public education. It doesn't belong there. |
|
18 Feb 12 - 05:06 PM (#3310689) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Iona, judging from the repetition of your objections to my citing plate tectonics and continental drift in your post of 18 Feb 12 - 01:31 AM, I answered those objections in my post at 16 Feb 12 - 05:35 PM, which, apparently, you didn't bother to read. The figures cited by geologist and earth-scientists are an AVERAGE of both gradual drift and the catastrophic events that have occurred over the past multi-millions of years. The driving force of plate tectonics is that the earth's core is a boiling ball of nickel-iron, and the various plates are riding on, and being moved by, convection currents. This is established geology and is readily observable by anyone who is willing to examine the data with an open mind. And to sell your ideas about Noah's flood and the source of the water that would account for it, and where it all went, it would help you a great deal to posit the belief that the earth is flat. But I think that's going to be a hard sell. I've noted that most evangelicals and Creationists are completely oblivious to known cosmology. In fact, I have been "evangelized" by people who are convinced that Heaven and Hell are actual geographic locations, like Alabama or Tierra del Fuego. I've even had the Wonders of Heaven described to me in great detail, but all that gold and those glittering jewels! THAT'S Heaven!? Endless Bliss? I don't see the point. And the torments of Hell, in lurid detail, an obvious ploy to try to frighten me into accepting what the evangelist was trying to sell me. BECAUSE of my scientific view of Life, the Universe, and Everything, and my rejection of the Creationist view of the universe (the whole shebang created in 4004 BC with the wave of a magic wand by an Entity with long hair, a full beard, and big muscles—Gandalf on steroids) as being Far Too Simple. Augustine (354-430 AD) warned against what he called "the Lust of the Eyes." By this, he meant questing for knowledge beyond what was taught by the Church. The fear was that if someone looked for himself—as Galileo did—he might find something that raised questions and doubts about the Church's teachings. Thus learning too much was not to be allowed. What it boils down to, Iona, is that by following the teachings of Jesus (as best as they can be understood, filtered through many editings, translations, and interpretations), especially His admonitions as recorded in Matthew 25:35-40, which I have cited before, one can be a Christian without having to be a Creationist. A far better one, in fact, than a Creationist who does NOT. What do YOU do for the poor, the hungry, the homeless, and the troubled? Don Firth |
|
18 Feb 12 - 05:06 PM (#3310690) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor "distantly recall the flood but contain unrealistic details." As opposed to "realistic details" like covering the entire globe to a height of more than 7 miles? (Everest) Or lions on the same vessel with antelope and sheep eating pancakes (or whatever was offered them) instead. Or Noah walking to Australia and picking up all those marsupials which were all created on one day, fully formed, before the flood AND THEM ALL WALKING BACK to Australia without settling in somewhere else? It is pretty obvious that this event happened in a supernatural way. Natural laws as our science knows them do not apply. |
|
18 Feb 12 - 05:13 PM (#3310696) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG dmcg-agreeing with shimrods unsubstantiated assertion that the factors involved in the flood could not produce geologic change; even though demonstrating no rationale for that denial. certainly the flood was no tranquil cruise but it has been demonstrated that the dimensions of the ark would make it seaworthy and stable in the most adverse conditions.this is in contrast to the alternative accounts which i believe distantly recall the flood but contain unrealistic details. I asserted that the flood could not cause geological change on anything like the scale you require. You can check that very easily at any library, but you don't have to, because of course the bible claims the geological changes gave rise the flood, not the other way around. You say the ark would be seaworthy and stable in the most adverse conditions. Really? You know what the recent tsunami was like for those nearby? That is negligable compared to the ones that would occur if the entire surface of the earth was being reshaped in a matter of days. And did I even claim the ark would be sunk? No, I claimed that sitting next to elephant turning a funny shade of green would be unpleasant. |
|
18 Feb 12 - 05:26 PM (#3310702) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link long time no hear stringsinger-hope you are well. how does the multiplicity of gods on offer mean that there is no God. just claiming that creationism is nonsence does not make a very intelligent argument;you can do better than that surely. which sacred text are you referring to that narrates the tooth fairy creating the universe? i hear that the president of the flat earth society is an evolutionist!from one unproven theory to another! teaching kids that they are nothing more than modified pond scum IMO is more damaging than teaching them they are the creation of a loving God. i dont see why evolutionism should have such a priveleged position in education as though it was a proven fact.pete |
|
18 Feb 12 - 05:33 PM (#3310704) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke More ignorantism. It's under a mile and three quarters of ice (3700 metres). It's in a cavity. When you drill into it, the static pressure is huge. Ice is just a little less dense than water, that's why icebergs float. Pressure increases as you go down under water, about 1 atmosphere for each 10 metres. So the pressure is 370 times atnospheric. That doesn't matter much if the container is rigid, punch a hole in it and about a wineglassful of water comes out, and the pressure drops to atmospheric. Water is almost incompresible. But Lake Vosok's roof is the ice bearing down on it. It's more like the piston of a pump. If you don't seal it off, it could squirt the whole lake, and it's precious content of three-million-year-old lifeforms (if they're there?) up into the Antarctic air and fall down as snow and ice. And as the water comes out, the land surface should go down, like mining subsidence... but because water is resistant to compression, the difference in land level between water being liquid in the underground lake, and the new level with it frozen on top would be surprising- the level would rise because ice is less dense than water. S they sealed it, responsibly, to keep it there. |
|
19 Feb 12 - 12:46 AM (#3310842) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA pete and Iona, To retain any credibility RE science, I must insist again... What evidence (specifically) would be required for you to abandon your belief in YEC? Please provide this for us. If you do not, you highlight the chasm between science and religion. This is not a trick question. It is THE question. If you cannot answer this question, we know that we are speaking different languages. You are arguing religion, and some of us are arguing science. Without your specific answer, we cannot continue to try to meld these conversations. So, answer the question, or admit that you are not talking science. Sorry, but those are the only options. And I totally respect either answer you might give (if you give an answer). |
|
19 Feb 12 - 03:57 AM (#3310866) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG teaching kids that they are nothing more than modified pond scum IMO is more damaging than teaching them they are the creation of a loving God. Your are perfectly entitled to your opinion, pete. I have said several times that, while I disagree with many of your conclusions, I admire your honesty about what and why you believe it. I ask you to recognise that there are plenty of Christians who do not see those two viewpoints as contradictory and that the fact God chose to create people through that route is a source of wonder, not something offensive. Equally, you will find there are not very many scientists who object to people being taught about creationism in religious education or social awareness classes. The main and ongoing objection is the insistance that creationism is not science, and so should not be taught in science classes. |
|
19 Feb 12 - 04:23 AM (#3310871) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG What evidence (specifically) would be required for you to abandon your belief in YEC I think there's a mistake in thinking that is the core question, and its one I made myself earlier in the thread but no-one picked up on it, so I didn't highlight it. Here's the definition of YEC from Wiki, but something similar could be found elsewhere: Young Earth creationism (YEC) is the religious belief that the Universe, Earth, and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of the Abrahamic God during a relatively short period, sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago Ok? So that's actually three statements combined Young Earth creationism (YEC) is i) the religious belief[1] that the Universe, Earth, and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of the Abrahamic God ii) This took place during a relatively short period iii) This was sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago So, without spelling it out too much, I asked pete and Iona what the evidence for (iii) was for non-believers, i.e. for those who did not accept (i). Pete was, as before, quite honest and said he did not know of any. His approach was that (i) was true because it was revealed in the bible, and that lead him to (ii) and (iii). Any evidence to the contrary must therefore be misunderstood or flawed. Pete, feel free to contradict if I have misunderstood. Iona, not surprisingly, missed the question and tried to give evidence for creationism, not for a young earth. All of which leads back to why I don't think you are asking quite the right question. Which is, imo, "What is your measurable evidence that the earth is young?" You can find as many objections as you like against>/u> the evidence for an old earth, but that is not evidence for a young one. |
|
19 Feb 12 - 04:58 AM (#3310878) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod Whichever way I look at it I am very comfortable with the fact that I am descended from (something like) "pond scum". Why is that a problem? How can children be harmed by knowing that fact? If you teach children their proper place in Nature they have a better chance of growing up to respect it. If you (erroneously) teach them that they were 'created' separately from the rest of Nature, and were born to have 'dominion over it', then they are more likely to participate in its destruction when they grow up. I strongly suspect that the various environmental and ecological catastrophes that we presently face actually have their roots in ancient, outmoded and dangerous Judaeo-Christian traditions; I utterly reject them as a source of 'truth' about Nature and man's place in it. |
|
19 Feb 12 - 05:00 AM (#3310879) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Pete, last time I looked before today, the Flat Earth lot were led by an American who was a YEC as well. The founder wasn't, and lived in Dover, where he would insert pieces in the local paper based on the view of France from the seafront, which were manifestly untrue, and anyone could verify their falsity by taking a brief walk on a clear day. I see that the society is now back with his son, whose other beliefs I am not aware of, but from all the material previously put out by the American, it isn't surprising that the two ideas are associated in the minds of outsiders. Penny |
|
19 Feb 12 - 06:08 AM (#3310895) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw teaching kids that they are nothing more than modified pond scum IMO is more damaging than teaching them they are the creation of a loving God. Two things here. First, there is nothing more damaging than teaching kids that myth is true. The crucial thing is to teach kids what is true, and to teach them how to separate truth from myth. In other words, to teach them how to find evidence and how to assess it using reason. If the truth ends up being a little uncomfortable, well so be it. Incidentally, if you scrape out some of that pond scum and dress your vegetable beds with it, you will get superb and abundant produce, showing that pond scum can indeed bring forth new life and bring it forth abundantly! Second, I thought the whole drift of Christian teaching is that we are in any case all hopeless, miserable pond scum who can only be saved by the blood of Jesus. |
|
19 Feb 12 - 06:15 AM (#3310902) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Equally, you will find there are not very many scientists who object to people being taught about creationism in religious education or social awareness classes. The main and ongoing objection is the insistence that creationism is not science, and so should not be taught in science classes. I don't object to anyone being taught about creationism in whatever subject, but I do object to children being taught creationism whether in science, religious instruction or anywhere else. Children must be taught only what is true or how to find and use evidence to investigate whether something is true or not. Even in Sunday School. Anything else is not education. |
|
19 Feb 12 - 06:20 AM (#3310905) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke Modified pond scum? Rubbish! We're failed bacteria. They didn't have to do much to stay alive for four billion years. We've had to twist and tuen, add structures to our cells, cooperate with other bacteria (now called mitochondria- but which bacterium is "me", the nuclear one or the mitochondrial one?- make our cells cling together after fission, specialise in different functions, chase after other organisms for nutrition, keep the sea inside us when it's dry outside, repel attacks from invaders (none too successfully- most of the cells in our bodies are not human!), keep our temperatures just right, compete for mates, learn to ferment wine and to sing songs. And the bacteria are still just bacteria, bacteria-ing sweetly along like they did four billion years ago. We are failures- but rather glorious ones sometimes, don't you think? |
|
19 Feb 12 - 07:00 AM (#3310923) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy 'So the water didn't all originate on Earth (according to Iona)' From Iona's sphere, perhaps? {swiftly donning anorak!] |
|
19 Feb 12 - 07:57 AM (#3310937) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG I don't object to anyone being taught about creationism in whatever subject, but I do object to children being taught creationism whether in science, religious instruction or anywhere else. An important distinction, Steve, which I'd agree with |
|
19 Feb 12 - 09:34 AM (#3310960) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket If you shouldn't teach evolution, as Starry Pete reckons, what is the argument for teaching history, maths, science, geography? I can't prove Paris is the capital of France any more than I can prove we evolved over a period that makes the stories that formed the bible look like yesterday. Children should be taught facts. Young children can be taught fairy stories too. It doesn't harm them to know about Hansel & Gretel or the BFG. Just so long as they aren't scarred into believing them in later life. They might get a complex you see. Some fairy stories can do that. Sorry, too obvious. The bible is a lovely old book of fables, some loving, some gruesome, and with the moral compass of ignorance as fits earlier in human history. The problem is believing them in later life. If a bloke in his 60s came up to me and swore Santa Claus existed, such a trait would prejudice my take on whatever else he had to say. So why do blokes in pointy hats insist we take them seriously too? Just because they prey on weak minds and brainwash people into feeling guilty and grateful? The worst ones being, of course, those who (staying on topic at last) reckon supernatural events can and did happen, on the absurd basis that where we don't understand yet, they can fill the gap with bollocks. |
|
19 Feb 12 - 11:15 AM (#3310976) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy Ian Mather 'So why do blokes in pointy hats insist we take them seriously too? ' Raising another aspect - hope not thread drift - is the question of special uniforms & religious attire to perhaps enhance authority? I'm taking that you mean 'pointy hats' popes, priests, kkk, why? |
|
19 Feb 12 - 03:38 PM (#3311020) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke Too defensive Kyrie Eutychismenos. We KNOW what your hats are like. |
|
19 Feb 12 - 04:04 PM (#3311025) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth "Raising another aspect - hope not thread drift - is the question of special uniforms & religious attire to perhaps enhance authority?" Just an aside here. In the church I attend, there is no fancy costumery of the kind found in many churches. During the services, the pastor, assistant pastor, and the acolyte wear a plain, white alb (CLICKY #1>) — (and no, women pastors are not at all rare in the Lutheran Church, at least around here). The presiding pastor also usually wears a stole (CLICKY #2). I walked with a pair of aluminum forearm crutches, and now I use a wheelchair, and the looseness of the alb could make things a bit complicated, so when I act as assisting minister, I just wear a dark suit and tie. The choir director, the choir members, and the organist wear lightweight black robes with white stoles. This makes for easy eyeball identification of who's who for anyone attending for the first time. The vestments my church uses are fairly simple compared to those worn during services by many churches CLICKY #3). Some years ago, when we had a male pastor, I was chatting with him one Sunday morning after the adult forum but before service. He interrupted the conversation, glanced at his watch, and said, "Excuse me, it's almost time for the service. I've gotta go put on my monkey suit." A few years later, we had a woman pastor. At the coffee hour after the service, she appeared wearing—instead of her casual clothes or "civvies"—clerical garb. Black skirt, black stockings or pantyhose (other than eyeballing her, I didn't investigate further), a black suit jacket, and a black blouse with the identifying white collar. She was attending a synod meeting that afternoon, and all the attendees at such meetings went in formal clerical dress. As she and I were chatting, I looked her up and down appraisingly (she was an attractive woman in her mid-thirties, after all) and said, "You look great! I love a woman in uniform!" She blushed. Don Firth |
|
19 Feb 12 - 07:02 PM (#3311057) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link dcmg-i think you read me pretty accurately.however evidence produced against an ancient earth i would have thought is evidence for a younger earth ,though of course not proving the actual age deduced from biblical data . i dont actually object to evolutionism being taught either as long as it is not pushed as a proven fact.history is eye witness accounts ;geography is verifiable ;operational science is subject to repeat experiment etc etc.origins science is not repeatable and the data is interpreted. |
|
19 Feb 12 - 08:02 PM (#3311068) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw i dont actually object to evolutionism being taught either as long as it is not pushed as a proven fact. Right, so you want teachers to tell kids lies. I see. |
|
20 Feb 12 - 02:34 AM (#3311134) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona The question that seems to be keeping all of you awake at night these days seems to be: The Bible says that the entire earth was covered with water. If that is true, then where did all the water come from, and where did it go after the flood? In order to answer the question, we have to look at the pre-flood atmospheric conditions. First of all, we know that there was no rain until the flood occurred. Instead of rain, the earth had a heavy mist encircling the globe, which kept everything lush and green (which is why we always picture dinosaurs in a jungle-like, lush environment--the world was much more beautiful back then because it was fresh from creation!). Second, the world didn't have huge mountains like we have today (since modern mountains and mountain ranges were formed by volcanic activity and sedimentary rocks. This is a vital point, because if the mountains back then weren't as high as they are now, then it wouldn't have taken an impossible amount of water to cover them! As it is, if we took all the water in the oceans today we could cover the whole earth (were it smooth) quite a ways (I can't recall the exact number, but it was at least seven thousand feet). Since there was no rain before the flood (and yet there *were* rivers), it makes plain sense that there were underground reservoirs of water which fed springs. When these underwater lakes were broken, there would have been a lot of water geysering out of the ground. Then, the rain would have been supplied by the large moisture density which covered the earth: The catastrophic hypercanes and other weather factors would have caused all that moisture to form water droplets which would have torrented to the earth. The oceans were likely much warmer back in the pre-flood days, which would have created ideal conditions for gigantic hypercanes and other disasters. Couple with that earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, overflowing rivers and geysers, huge torrents of water sheeting from the skies, giant tsunamis destroying the civilized world --havoc reigned. People have gotten into their heads that the flood was just a calm little pond that washed over the earth, with Noah and all the animals sticking their heads out of a little houseboat. But this is not what really happened. For one, a houseboat would not have fit all the animals. ;) We can see the measurements for the Ark in Genesis 6:15-16, and it was no pleasure yacht. The Since God commanded two/seven of every kind of animal, (kind meaning species, as in Genesis 1:25), then there wouldn't have been that many. There is a hypotheses that the Lord put the animals into a sort of hibernation so that they wouldn't require much food or water or anything.*shrug* Again, what is given as evidence against the flood, when we take all factors into account, actually support the Flood of the Bible. |
|
20 Feb 12 - 03:08 AM (#3311136) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Rather than respond off the cuff, as I usually do, I will take the time to consider your answer, Iona, but I am at work at the moment, so I expect it to be around 12 hours before I get the chance Pete said: <>I>however evidence produced against an ancient earth i would have thought is evidence for a younger earth That's an easy mistake to make, but it isn't the case. Evidence against against anything is not evidence for something else. Otherwise all the police would have to do to demonstrate a person is guilty is to demonstrate a hundred other people couldn't have done it. A more serious example. Suppose I present something and claim it shows the earth is 14.odd billion years old. You demolish the evidence. All that shows is the evidence is no good. The earth could still be 14.odd billion years despite my ineptitude. Even if you were to to be able to prove it is not 14.odd billion, it could be 7 billion unless you actual prove some date. So if you want to claim the earth is of some age, you need to produce evidence that it is, not lots of evidence that it isn't. |
|
20 Feb 12 - 03:22 AM (#3311138) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG ... but I can't resist pointing out that you've gone wrong from the start! You said 'The question that seems to be keeping all of you awake at night these days seems to be: The Bible says that the entire earth was covered with water. If that is true, then where did all the water come from, and where did it go after the flood'. It isn't. The question that I want to explore is whether when you claim via a link that the water came from underground reservoirs it is what you believe. The question is really about when you make any assertion, are you doing so because it is what you actually believe, or are you linking to sites, etc, that you haven't really thought about. It's a question about how you behave, not really a question about the flood. |
|
20 Feb 12 - 03:56 AM (#3311150) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona That's the question that you posed, yes. But other posters were asking about where did all the water come from. Underwater reservoirs were most likely a factor, yes, but again, that was not the only source for the water. We see Texas rains--they can flood a place pretty fast. Multiply that by a hundred and you've got Noah's flood. And yes. I say what I believe. I don't just parrot different sources because it 'sounds good'. If I was doing that, I wouldn't find it worth it to discuss this! :) "I say what I mean, and I mean what I say"... Iona |
|
20 Feb 12 - 04:05 AM (#3311153) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. "In order to answer the question, we have to look at the pre-flood atmospheric conditions. First of all, we know that there was no rain until the flood occurred. Instead of rain, the earth had a heavy mist encircling the globe, which kept everything lush and green (which is why we always picture dinosaurs in a jungle-like, lush environment--the world was much more beautiful back then because it was fresh from creation!)." We know nothing of the sort. There is no evidence for this. there is not even evidence in the Bible. There is, however, evidence for earlier atmospheres which were not nice at all. Materials found in rocks identified as most ancient are indicative of a reducing atmosphere - that is one without oxygen. The change into an oxidising atmosphere can be traced in succeeding formations. "¬Second, the world didn't have huge mountains like we have today (since modern mountains and mountain ranges were formed by volcanic activity and sedimentary rocks. This is a vital point, because if the mountains back then weren't as high as they are now, then it wouldn't have taken an impossible amount of water to cover them! As it is, if we took all the water in the oceans today we could cover the whole earth (were it smooth) quite a ways (I can't recall the exact number, but it was at least seven thousand feet)." Again, you have stated as fact something for which there is no evidence. Where is the evidence for the lack of mountains? Ranges are actually formed by the motions of plates pushing up the sedimentary rocks, and others, and there is evidence for ranges which have existed in the past but have since been eroded, such as the Variscan or Hercynian range across the south of Britain. This evidence is the folded rocks, the metamorphism from deep burial and heating with intruded igneous rocks, changes which could not have happened at the surface. The conditions required to form such rocks can be reproduced in laboratories. The time taken to erode these ranges has to be greater than that allowed for in YEC. I would ask you for you evidence for a smooth Earth surface. I don't recall it being described as such in the Bible. I acknowledge that there is enough water to flood a totally smooth Earth, but there is no evidence for this condition having existed in the past. "Since there was no rain before the flood (and yet there *were* rivers), it makes plain sense that there were underground reservoirs of water which fed springs. When these underwater lakes were broken, there would have been a lot of water geysering out of the ground." Still assertions without evidence. Current aquifers, by the way, are not reservoirs in the sense of lakes, but porous rocks which hold water between the rock particles. These rocks are usually sedimentary, but there are volcanic aquifers. You maintain that neither of these rock tyoes existed before the flood. (Incidentally, while fact checking, I discovered a paper which suggests that the conditions in volcanic aquifers could have contributed to the formation of organic compounds and possibly even RNA, the building blocks of life. This probably means that the state of the water would not have been good for supporting any life which drank it.) So where is the evidence for these lakes which you adduce through conjecture? What is the actual location? There is evidence for rainfall in the PreCambrian (e.g. Long Mynd, Shropshire, England,) where raindrops have left impressions in rocks identified by other means as very old. (565 my in the Long Mynd case.) "The oceans were likely much warmer back in the pre-flood days, which would have created ideal conditions for gigantic hypercanes and other disasters. Couple with that earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, overflowing rivers and geysers, huge torrents of water sheeting from the skies, giant tsunamis destroying the civilized world --havoc reigned." During which havoc, there were large areas of such calm clean water that huge depths of almost pure limestone was laid down as chalk, in both the northern and southern hemispheres. You haven't anwered my earlier points about this rock type. As for the oceans being likely to have been much warmer, where is your evidence, and how does this counter that from glacial dropstones being found in low latitude sediments in the Early Cambrian? "Again, what is given as evidence against the flood, when we take all factors into account, actually support the Flood of the Bible." You haven't taken all the factors into account. There is, for example, the neat way in which rocks dated by radioactive decay of various elements as very old tend to lie under rocks dated as younger, and where they don't, clear mechanisms in the form, for example, of large thrust faults can be identified. There is the way in which fossils clearly of earlier forms tend to be found in rocks older and lower in the geological column than later forms, and that no-one has ever found chronologically confused assemblages of fossils such as a dinosaur, a placental mammal, and a Burgess shale creature lying together in a group clearly emplaced together as corpses, or even better, living together and suddenly buried in a catastrophy. If you do actually look, clear eyed and open minded, at ALL the evidence, there is absolutely no way it can be made to support that Flood. And that even includes the evidence in the Bible itself, which simply does not go into the detail which you are citing. I do think you have a problem with scale. If your description of the turmoil of the Noachian flood is correct, and it is probably rather mild when you argue that all the sedimentary, volcanic and metamorphic rocks were formed during it, and all the plate tectonic moveents which can be traced depend on it, the disruption would have been unsurvicable by anyone. The Ark may have been larger than most people imagine, but it would not have been able to survive what you are postulating. And BTW, there is no Biblical support for the hibernation supposition. You either use the Bible as a source and stick to it, or you are doing what you accuse others of, and making special arguments. Penny |
|
20 Feb 12 - 04:15 AM (#3311155) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Sorry but when Iona said she says what she means and means what she says... A little voice in my head carried on the sentence to say "and I don't let facts get in my way." Now, that is cheap and nasty of me, twisting what people say to satisfy your own warped view. Wonder if anybody else on this thread has ever done that? Oh... |
|
20 Feb 12 - 04:33 AM (#3311161) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod A very full and eloquent answer to Iona's last (rather ...ahem! ... 'startling')post, Penny - if I may say so? You wrote: "You either use the Bible as a source and stick to it, or you are doing what you accuse others of, and making special arguments." I don't think she's making "special arguments" (that's being too kind) - I think she's just making it up as she goes along! |
|
20 Feb 12 - 04:59 AM (#3311168) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Underwater reservoirs were most likely a factor, yes, but again, that was not the only source for the water. We see Texas rains--they can flood a place pretty fast. Multiply that by a hundred and you've got Noah's flood. According to Creationist Literature which passed my way as a kid (and still holds some perverse fascination on me to this day) Pre-Flood Earth was a very different place: shallow seas, no mountains, one central land-mass and the earth contained within a thick sphere of liquid. Basically it was a steamy greenhouse - hot, humid, without rain; apparantly all this can be found in the Bible if you know where to look. When God brought the flood, He collapsed in the liquid sphere, flooding the entire planet and creating the seas we know today; after the flood, He tore apart the land-mass, sank the depths, raised up the mountains thus creating the more familiar landscapes pretty much overnight that Geologists insist are the product of billions of years of tectonic shift. And what about the drogue stones of Noah's Ark that might still be seen in the Durupinar region? I dare say all this is on-line if you've a mind to look for it. |
|
20 Feb 12 - 05:11 AM (#3311170) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Why are you all trying to explain this flood thing so painstakingly when we all know that God can do what he damn well likes anyway? Dam well likes? Er... |
|
20 Feb 12 - 05:12 AM (#3311173) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG We see Texas rains--they can flood a place pretty fast. Multiply that by a hundred and you've got Noah's flood. Wow! I hadn't appreciated you thought Noah's flood was so small! *smile* [And are there any Texas rains that flooded the whole of Texas in the last few hundred years?] |
|
20 Feb 12 - 05:15 AM (#3311174) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stu Having been away for a week doing the sort of science that brings creationists out in hives, I've had some time to consider this thread. Here's what I've come up with: 1) You will not convince Iona or Pete. 2) Iona and Pete are either a) deluded, b) ignorant or c) wilfully ignorant (the worse one) 3) The creationist arguments presented here are strewn all over the internet. None are original. 4) People like Iona and Pete are positively dangerous, or worse. If that seems harsh, then consider the fact they would wilfully indoctrinate your children with their brand of superstitious bile to the exclusion of all others; in short they believe they are superior and everyone else is wrong. Full stop. They have no desire or will to accommodate any other belief system, they have no ability to accept other belief systems and accord them equal status. Apart from all other belief systems they also reject science (although they seem happy to use the products of the research they debunk), reason and presumably logic. They pour scorn on the combined work of millions of talented people who are genuinely interested in the truth. This is fanaticism and is inherently dangerous wherever it rears it's ugly head, by whatever religion. 5) The ills of the world will not be healed by any brand of divisive, ignorant and unmerciful religious fanaticism such as this. We need science to cure cancer and dementia, communicate and travel, understand and comprehend. Our moral and ethical codes are born of our common humanity, our connectedness with nature and our natural curiosity. We are the universe made conscious, contemplating itself - and that's a scientific fact no religion can top in terms on profundity or wonder. |
|
20 Feb 12 - 05:29 AM (#3311177) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw They pour scorn on the combined work of millions of talented people who are genuinely interested in the truth. That's exactly right, yet public religion gets a bye, thanks to the likes of Baroness Warsi et al., for insulting science and for insulting everyone who prefers to live by evidence and reason. When religion is questioned by genuine truth-seekers, they are branded aggressive secularists and waspish and militant atheists. |
|
20 Feb 12 - 05:37 AM (#3311181) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Quite right, Sugarfoot. I don't expect to convince either Iona or Pete, though I have to say I find Pete a little more open to rationality in at least some areas. I'm not certain whether that makes him more or less dangerous in the sense of (4) though. As I have said before, in so far as I have a goal, it is to make it obvious to third parties just how threadbare the creationist arguments are - they can't even be clear about what they believe as individuals, never mind as a group. For example, most recently we had, in response to the repeated direct question do you believe in these underground reservoirs we had 'Underwater reservoirs were most likely a factor, yes' Weasel words: were they are factor or were they not? If they were, where are they? If they were not, why did you say they were? And Penny: an excellent summary. I could add more, and maybe will, but I see little point since your critique is so good. |
|
20 Feb 12 - 06:27 AM (#3311186) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Thanks Shimrod and DMcG. While hurrying to finish before going to the doctor (tiny ganglion on finger, feel guilty for bothering him) I missed the reference to Texas. I had made a private prediction to myself and placed Iona a bit further north, somewhere flattish with no beaches and geology largely buried and invisible. It's much easier to understand it in areas which have been the battleground of plates on several occasions and are still mobile, even if only slightly. Texas fits, though. One of my geology lecturers told a story about Texan senses of scale, in which some Texan students were certain that their desert was the largest, and he had to cut out Texas from a map and put it over the Sahara on a map of the same scale. Not to poke fun at the state, but I feel if your horizon is at the same level as you are, it could be hard to understand the size of things. Even if not, seeing the curvature of the Earth over water (see above re Dover and Calais, or any loch in the Great Glen)could give the impression that it is smaller than it actually is. I think the arguments of Delugians have somehow traded a size scale along with the heaven-knows-its-hard-enough-to-get-a-grip-of geological time. The Earth has become less massive, and the energy involved in the turbulence of their projected interpretation has become far, far, less, so that a comparison with a localised flash flood can make sense. Homer has a passage in the Iliad in which he describes Apollo destroying the Greek defence walls as a child wrecks the fort he has built on a beach. Along with casting an interesting light on the continuity of children's activities, it also, and I suspect is designed to, casts light on the expression on Apollo's face. I don't think Homer is entirely convinced about Apollo's status as worthy of worship. And why am I diverting into pagan behaviour? What has Apollo to do with anything real? Because I believe that by building up an image of a god who wrecks everything he has made because of the misbehaviour of one very small group of creatures (and it was, at the time, very small) they are conjuring up someone who will repel many many people from belief in the real God. In some cases I have met, they have opposed evolution because it depends on death and predation. Ironic, really. Penny |
|
20 Feb 12 - 07:33 AM (#3311205) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Even if not, seeing the curvature of the Earth over water (see above re Dover and Calais, or any loch in the Great Glen)could give the impression that it is smaller than it actually is While on that point, it's worth remember that any seafaring nation, and certainly the ancient Greeks, knew that boats 'disappeared over the horizon' quite slowly (boat first, mast last, for example) and the Greeks at least realised that meant the earth was not flat. In fact we know they had surprising good estimates for the size of the earth given they had such limited means of measuring it. So forget any of this nonsense about everyone believing the world to be flat ... where did that come from? Oh, yes, I'll treat myself to a cut'n'paste' from The history of the flat earth society The modern age of the Flat Earth Society dates back to the early 1800s, when it was founded by Samuel Birley Rowbotham, an English inventor. Samuel Rowbotham's Flat Earth views were based largely on literal interpretation of Bible passages. Now, who know's whether a site that purports to represent Flat Earthers is official or not? I certainly don't. But there's that literal interpreation of the bible rearing its head again ... |
|
20 Feb 12 - 07:34 AM (#3311206) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy GUEST,Shimrod I think she's just making it up as she goes along! Don't feel alone with that impression, mate! |
|
20 Feb 12 - 01:51 PM (#3311307) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG I said I'd get back to you, Iona, in around 12 hours so this is it. As I said, I think Penny has done a sterling job of producing a critique of your post, so to add anything to her comments would, I think just make things more confusing. There's plenty of things to get to grips with there and giving more would be more of a hinderance than a help. In the interests of helping you state things more clearly, I did write a long scribe which would assist you in formulating your arguments better, but then I thought, why bother? But if you want to do so youself, I suggest you read about 'Two Column Proofs'. |
|
20 Feb 12 - 02:12 PM (#3311310) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""We see Texas rains--they can flood a place pretty fast. Multiply that by a hundred and you've got Noah's flood. Not if you multiplied it by a hundred million Iona. You simply cannot extrapolate from an local event, however extreme, to the kind of global catastrophe you posit. There simply isn't sufficient water over, on, or under the Earth's surface, and there never was. The Earth, has from its first cooling, contained a constant quantity of water, which cycles and recycles from sea to atmosphere to land and back to sea. There is no physical or chemical process which is currently producing extra water as an end product. That process took place before the cooling of the planet and before the existence of any but the most basic beginnings of life, extremes of temperature and pressure producing results which could not and cannot take place without those conditions. Supposing you were correct in your statement that water welled up from underground, then without its support that ground would collapse into the void. Result?..........same surface level with the water now on top, but plenty of land masses a boat might reach, aalways provided that the collapse was sufficiently gentle and gradual. Nothing remotely like your flood though. That is a complete and utter physical impossibility. Don T. |
|
20 Feb 12 - 02:28 PM (#3311314) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Bulletin: It is neither necessary nor mandatory to believe in Creationism, OR that the Bible is the literal, inerrant word of God, to be a good Christian. Don Firth |
|
20 Feb 12 - 02:36 PM (#3311315) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D "I think she's just making it up as she goes along!" If someone has a non-negotiable belief...such as "the Earth was created wholesale less than 10,000 years ago, with people and animals much as they are today" they have little choice BUT to "make it up" in order to fit all the scientific facts they are confronted with into their pre-determined format! One....more...time.. "From false premises, anything follows!" |
|
20 Feb 12 - 02:42 PM (#3311318) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona Not to poke fun at the state, but I feel if your horizon is at the same level as you are, it could be hard to understand the size of things. Even if not, seeing the curvature of the Earth over water (see above re Dover and Calais, or any loch in the Great Glen)could give the impression that it is smaller than it actually is. If you're speaking to me....I'm not from Texas, so you needn't worry. Where I live there is no horizon because there are too many trees! *grin* But since I've done a fair bit of traveling cross-country, I know just how big a horizon can be.......not that it applies in any way, shape or form to this debate! I shall answer your (biggest) post soon. |
|
20 Feb 12 - 04:05 PM (#3311343) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Absolutely right, Don F. I said a lot of posts ago that the greatest commandment of Christ involves using your full mind. A lot of Christians try; they should not be judged by those who subbornly refuse. |
|
20 Feb 12 - 04:24 PM (#3311347) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Just curious, Iona... are you willing to give a brief summary of how you grew up and/or became Christian and came to these viewpoints? (Somewhere back up there I mentioned my basic history and how it changed over the years.) |
|
20 Feb 12 - 04:30 PM (#3311348) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG I shall answer [Penny's] (biggest) post soon. Unless you can reach a much higher standard, there's little point. But one should always strive to do better. Take the advice I gave before and read up on 'Two Column Proofs" before composing your response. |
|
20 Feb 12 - 04:56 PM (#3311363) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D I had to laugh at the relevance of some of this to that short thread "Dawkins criticized for ancestors's faults." As pointed out in the thread, the whole story about Dawkins has been satirized: "Prominent atheist Richard Dawkins has been hit by fresh scandal today after it emerged his ancestors were single-celled organisms who metabolised sulphur. New findings have shown that the outspoken atheist is the direct descendent of a primordial soup-dwelling thermophile – a particular variant of extremophile which clung to hydrothermic vents just 3.5 billion years ago. Adam Lasher of the Telegraph said of the shock findings: "This comes after I found out that someone in Dawkins' family did something three hundred years ago which we now consider bad – so these latest revelations finally put paid to the belief that Dawkins comes from an infinite line of human beings with an exclusively 21st-century moral code." "That nobody has at any point ever held that belief is neither here nor there. All we really know is that this definitely proves that Dawkins is wrong about God". To many it appears clear hypocrisy that Professor Dawkins – who has spent much of his career talking up the benefits of being a multi-cellular organism – is directly related to a single-cell organism. It's not apparent at this time how Dawkin's justifies this relationship, beyond the dozen or so books he's written about the evolution of life." You know... I think *I* might have some explaining to do... some of my own ancestors were pretty strange! ☺ |
|
20 Feb 12 - 04:59 PM (#3311365) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod I'm still puzzled as to why I, or anyone else, should be concerned about the fact that we are all evolved from 'simpler' life-forms ("pond scum" - or rather, as Paul Burke has pointed out, bacteria)? To me it's no big deal - but it's obviously important to the creationists and, I suspect, lies close to the heart of the matter. I wonder if Iona and pete would care to explain? |
|
20 Feb 12 - 05:31 PM (#3311373) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Oh, HORRORS!! My great-grandparents on my father's side were Scottish!! Don Firth |
|
21 Feb 12 - 03:24 AM (#3311491) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Iona, I may have been doing you a disservice: When you said 'Underwater reservoirs were most likely a factor, yes' I thought you were avoiding committing yourself. I suddenly realised you might be saying "I don't know" and that would be a real breakthrough. Is that it? Were you finally admitting that you don't know? |
|
21 Feb 12 - 03:42 AM (#3311496) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona DMcG: The fact that I don't know every single detail of the flood doesn't mean that I don't have a good case for it. I don't have to know as much as God in order to know the truth of God's word! You wouldn't claim that you know every detail of evolution, do you?? ;) Now, onto my next post..... |
|
21 Feb 12 - 03:50 AM (#3311497) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Ah, but the difference is you claimed you did know that the water came [in part] from the reserviors. The step from "Yes I know" to "Maybe I don't" is the important one. |
|
21 Feb 12 - 03:52 AM (#3311498) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona "What is your measurable evidence that the earth is young?" Evidence from lack of minerals There's the silt on the sea floor, for instance. If the earth was millions of years old like you say, the silt on the ocean floor should be much, much thicker than it is, because of the rate it collects from rivers and such. Evidence from the presence of earth's magnetic field The earth's magnetic field is deteriorating rapidly, and if the earth really is billions of years old, as Evolutionists claim, then there would be no magnetic field at all by now! Evidence from the earth and moon The moon and the earth must be young or they could not exist today. The moon is gradually pulling away from the earth, but it also could never have been too close to the earth (the Roche limit). The present recession rate of the moon, multiplied by millions of years, would result in the moon being extremely farther from the earth than it really is. Also, the earth's shape is round. If it were really millions of years old, and the moon were closer to it to begin with (as evolution requires), then the earth would be kind of oval--bent out of shape. But it's not! There are tons of different problems for evolutionists in this thing....in the words of one of them: "the time scale of the earth-moon system still presents a major problem." (Louis Slichter, evolutionary scientist) (this is more of a side note), the term 'young earth' should be used by evolutionists; Because evolution says that the universe is older than the earth, so in comparison to the universe, the earth is 'young'. In Biblical history, the Bible was one of the very first things created ("In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth", Genesis 1:1), so we should consider the earth to be the oldest creation in existence. So really, we have our terms backwards, but since 'young earth'=literal Bible history and 'old earth'=evolutionary worldview are general terms that people recognize as identifying the opposing worldviews, they can still be used, even if they aren't really consistent. :) Evidence from agriculture Evolution says that man split from the apes about 3 to 8 million years ago. About a hundred thousand years ago, man was unable to farm. They hunted and gathered for their food, just like their primate cousins. Then, about ten thousand years ago man learned to plant seeds and farm (the latter claim is based on archeological evidence). So here's the bottom line of this evolutionary assumption. You're trying to tell me that man lived for ninety hundred years doing nothing but scavenging for food?! It doesn't make sense. Doesn't it seem more likely that someone would go "hey, look--food, he grow from seed! Ogga, lookie!" (pardon the play-acting)-? I mean, NINETY HUNDRED years without knowledge of farming. Evidence from archaeology and historical documentation Archaeology has found lots and lots of sites and show the intelligence of these early peoples. For example, they constructed huge monuments, drew amazing cave paintings, and kept records of lunar cycles (these are the people didn't know how to farm, remember. Instead of fitting with the rather disjointed evolutionary interpretation, it fits beautifully with the Bible, that man was smart from the start. Another question: If evolution is true, then when did man begin to keep a record of history? Evolutionists say that it was only 5,000 years ago. Does that sound logical to you? I mean, after all, if early man could do all these wonderful things like I listed a minute ago, then don't you think it'd occur to them to write it down? Again....the facts fit the Biblical account. |
|
21 Feb 12 - 04:07 AM (#3311508) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG It really is a pain that since we live in different parts of the world your posts arrive when I'm at work, when I can't give them the attention they warrant. I will say your post is heavy on assertion and short on actual evidence, though. For example I don't know why a long time without farming strikes you as impossible or absurd. Why shouldn't it be so long? There are severe costs to farming, primarily the need to stay in one location [i.e. where the farm is] and that restricts your feeding opportunities from other sources [eg migrating animals] dramatically. Farming only becomes viable and cost-effective when the benefits outweight the disadvantages. In fact we know of an example in very recent times [a vague memory puts it at 11c, but that might be wildly out, and isn't too crucial; I will look it up if you want]. A modern-style farming community set up on the cost of Iceland and pretty much sneered at the 'primitive' nomadic indiginous people. Come a series of hard winters, the farms were ruined, and all the incomers died whereas the nomadic people coped without any problems at all. Farming is not a wonderful thing in itself - it is a solution to a particular problem. |
|
21 Feb 12 - 04:34 AM (#3311515) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy The moon and the earth must be young or they could not exist today. Eh?? |
|
21 Feb 12 - 04:58 AM (#3311519) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy the world didn't have huge mountains like we have today Iona, If you believe that AND you believe Genesis 8:4, then there's another contradiction - could you explain please? |
|
21 Feb 12 - 05:24 AM (#3311524) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Here we go again. (I was guessing about where you live - obviously. But I still think you have a problem with the scale of the Earth.) "Evidence from lack of minerals There's the silt on the sea floor, for instance. If the earth was millions of years old like you say, the silt on the ocean floor should be much, much thicker than it is, because of the rate it collects from rivers and such." I think I may have mentioned the age of ocean floors. They are young, the silt is not so thick as it would be if the oceans remained as they are over the age of the Earth. But they have not. Ocean floor spreading, which is observable in action, is the responsible mechanism for this. In fact, the depth of silt can be found to increase the further from the mid-ocean ridge the ocean floor is. River silt, BTW, tends to accumulate close to the continents, because when the fresh water hits the salt, the silt flocculates and drops quite quickly. You can test this out by stirring up some soil in a jar of water, making some salt solution separately and adding it to the soil mixture. "Evidence from the presence of earth's magnetic field The earth's magnetic field is deteriorating rapidly, and if the earth really is billions of years old, as Evolutionists claim, then there would be no magnetic field at all by now!" I think I have also mentioned the frequent magnetic reversals, which involve deterioration of the magnetic field as at present, followed by a restoration with the north magnetic pole at the south, and vice versa. These can be confirmed by studying the rocks in such places as the Deccan Traps where there are multiple layers laid down over many years, but are also traceable in oceanic crust. (I posted a link to a map showing this.) "Evidence from the earth and moon The moon and the earth must be young or they could not exist today. The moon is gradually pulling away from the earth, but it also could never have been too close to the earth (the Roche limit). The present recession rate of the moon, multiplied by millions of years, would result in the moon being extremely farther from the earth than it really is. Also, the earth's shape is round. If it were really millions of years old, and the moon were closer to it to begin with (as evolution requires), then the earth would be kind of oval--bent out of shape. But it's not! There are tons of different problems for evolutionists in this thing....in the words of one of them: "the time scale of the earth-moon system still presents a major problem." (Louis Slichter, evolutionary scientist)" First comment here - an evolutionary scientist, one assumes, is a biologist not an astrophysicist. Not since the 19th century has science been something that one person could know everything about. But is appears that this person was, in fact, a geophysicist and an expert in planetary physics. So is he an evolutionist, or simply someone who doesn't follow creationism? His work on the Earth Moon system and the problems it poses was published in 1963, and has been dealt with since. Here's a heavy duty page on the issue, a tough read (and I already know a lot of it) but worth it because it directly addresses the creationist view. (You have not mentioned Barnes, 1982 as the source of your arguments. Is he? References to his work are given at the foot of the page, along with all the other resources. ) Earth Moon link "Evidence from agriculture Evolution says that man split from the apes about 3 to 8 million years ago. About a hundred thousand years ago, man was unable to farm. They hunted and gathered for their food, just like their primate cousins. Then, about ten thousand years ago man learned to plant seeds and farm (the latter claim is based on archeological evidence). So here's the bottom line of this evolutionary assumption. You're trying to tell me that man lived for ninety hundred years doing nothing but scavenging for food?! It doesn't make sense. Doesn't it seem more likely that someone would go "hey, look--food, he grow from seed! Ogga, lookie!" (pardon the play-acting)-? I mean, NINETY HUNDRED years without knowledge of farming." Oddly, there are still definitely human groups who manage by hunting and gathering - it isn't scavenging, it's foraging, and requires sophisticated knowledge of plants, their properties and their growth, as well as animals and their behaviour. Or they manage until the civilised agricultural groups destroy their territory. In addition, there are many animals who manage quite well without farming. Foraging lifestyles are a lot more relaxed than farming - especially for the men! Farming is hard work. It would take need to make the change, perhaps from climate changes or population pressure. "Evidence from archaeology and historical documentation Archaeology has found lots and lots of sites and show the intelligence of these early peoples. For example, they constructed huge monuments, drew amazing cave paintings, and kept records of lunar cycles (these are the people didn't know how to farm, remember. Instead of fitting with the rather disjointed evolutionary interpretation, it fits beautifully with the Bible, that man was smart from the start." Interesting ideas here. I don't think anyone has ever suggested early people weren't smart. That is, if by early people you mean homo sapiens, and include neanderthals. (In fact, I think a lot of modern people know quite well that they don't have the ability to survive if they had to in the conditions that early people lived in.) BTW, there are arguments about the lunar cycle records and exactly what they record - there is an alternative in some cases. Back before them, all the other versions of humans that have been found in Africa did take a long time to develop. How do you explain them? "Another question: If evolution is true, then when did man begin to keep a record of history? Evolutionists say that it was only 5,000 years ago. Does that sound logical to you? I mean, after all, if early man could do all these wonderful things like I listed a minute ago, then don't you think it'd occur to them to write it down?" There are a variety of sources about the reaction of people to the development of writing. For instance, the Druids in Britain are reported as refusing ot use it. The reason being that the keepers of history believed, with what has turned out to be prescience, that the art of memory of the oral tradition would be lost. It is known, from recent studies in still oral societies (poetry in the Balkans, for example) that preliterate people can learn huge amounts of material and reproduce with without error. In ancient Greece, a poet could be expected to recite the whole of the Iliad and the Odyssey from memory, plus other matter which unfortunately did not make it into the written record. We have lost these skills. (Most people in the clubs I sing at now use sheets of paper to remind them of the words and chords!) (I use a PDA some of the time!) Sadly, the development of writing had, at first, nothing to do with recording history, but everything to do with the tax office - possibly another reason for people to dislike it. "Again....the facts fit the Biblical account." Again, they don't. Penny |
|
21 Feb 12 - 05:58 AM (#3311534) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stu "There's the silt on the sea floor, for instance. If the earth was millions of years old like you say, the silt on the ocean floor should be much, much thicker than it is, because of the rate it collects from rivers and such." Brilliant - this gave me a belly laugh. If you think that the sedimentation of ocean basins is the result of the dumping of terrestrial sediment by rivers then you don't know what you're talking about. Go and learn. Also, the earth's shape is round. If it were really millions of years old, and the moon were closer to it to begin with (as evolution requires), then the earth would be kind of oval--bent out of shape. But it's not!" The earth is an oblate spheroid and not round at all. Pretty basic stuff you're getting wrong here. Again. "Another question: If evolution is true, then when did man begin to keep a record of history? Evolutionists say that it was only 5,000 years ago." You're getting confused between archeology and evolutionary biology, mixing your hopeless little arguments. This is really fucking simple stuff. I mean basic. Just say you reject all science, turn your computer off, unplug it and sacrifice a cow or something. |
|
21 Feb 12 - 06:10 AM (#3311540) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket it occurs to me that Iona and Pete may say what they wish, but by stating their views on evolution, they are actually proving it exists! Here's my logic. Evolution infers by its very terminology that things evolve, rather than instantly occur. Well, bear with me, their stance proves it. Many years ago, we were all superstitious and assigned anything we didn't understand to a God. Our brains have evolved to the stage where we don't need such tosh, but as it is an evolutionary process, some have evolved further than others. Hence Iona, Pete and many others, sadly. In the words of the late, lamented, fully evolved Douglas Adams; "Keep banging those rocks together guys!" |
|
21 Feb 12 - 06:57 AM (#3311553) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T As a non creationist Christian (I believe the man and the message, but not the mythology), I have an image in my mind of Judgement Day, when people like Iona (willfully ignorant) and Pete(woefully misled) will face whatever God they believe in (there's probably only the one, but hey....?) and hear his judgement. He will say ""I put you on this Earth with the advantages of both intelligence and free will. How then can you be so stupid as to believe that a concoction, BY MEN, of fable myth and legend driven by a desire to control others, could possibly be the inerrant expression of my will. How could you worship a God whose inerrant word was so full of contradiction, cruelty and vengeance, when the only direct instructions I gave were "Love one another" and "Go forth and multiply"? I hope they have a very good answer ready. Don T. |
|
21 Feb 12 - 07:30 AM (#3311565) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG If you believe that AND you believe Genesis 8:4, then there's another contradiction - could you explain please? Well, here's how I think it goes. "The world was flooded" - "But there's not enough water". "Oh. Then the earth must have been much smoother so there was enough water to go round." - "But then where did Mt Ararat come from?" "Oh. Then there must have been mountains raised AFTER the flood". Otherwise known as 'making it up as you go along.' |
|
21 Feb 12 - 07:42 AM (#3311571) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG PS Penny - another good example of what a rational argument looks like. You keep leaving me nothing to do! (But I'm not complaining.) I have to say Iona did somewhat better in style this time - far less Blytonesque than the first attempt. Unfortunately the substance is no better. |
|
21 Feb 12 - 12:44 PM (#3311651) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 If I had any hair left I'd pull it out! |
|
21 Feb 12 - 05:03 PM (#3311683) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke "the time scale of the earth-moon system still presents a major problem." (Louis Slichter, evolutionary scientist) As you'll find if you look it up, Slichter's simplified model gave him an age for the moon of about one and a half billion years. That's close enough to 6000 for me, I haven't got my calculator handy to check it accurately. So here's the bottom line of this evolutionary assumption. You're trying to tell me that man lived for ninety hundred years doing nothing but scavenging for food?! It doesn't make sense. Doesn't it seem more likely that someone would go "hey, look--food, he grow from seed! Ogga, lookie!" (pardon the play-acting)-? I mean, NINETY HUNDRED years without knowledge of farming. A farming expert too I see. Farming's not difficult is it? just round up the animals and keep them in one field, and grow asparagus and avocados in the other. What's more, for EIGHT THOUSAND years after they started planting, they had no steel to make their ploughs with. Like, come on, you want this field to grow something? And you mess about with WOOD? Then another three thousand before they realise that they need tractors. As though Ugg woundn't have said "Why me dig pathetic hole in ground with stick? Me go hunt big green John Deere!" And as if Adam wouldn't have said "You want me to live by the sweat of my brow? Well give us that flaming sword to cut some trees down with then!" |
|
21 Feb 12 - 07:26 PM (#3311694) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth A serious question for Iona and pete. This question demands an answer. There were sixty gospels altogether, including the Gospel of James, Jesus' brother. Yet only only four were included in the Bible. There are Bible scholars, made up of clergy and laity of all denominations, who have gone through these excluded gospels and compared them with the included four. One of the products of this extensive study is that they have made up a general breakdown of the quotations of Jesus in the included Gospels and gave each quote one of four ratings: Definitely said.I won't go into detail about how they came up with these ratings, but they discussed, argued, and debated each quote long and hard before they drew these conclusions. Partial criteria were, how closely did the Gospels, included and excluded, agree, and how consistent is a particular quotation with the general views that Jesus expressed? So, Iona and pete, even your "red-letter editions" of the Bible leave a great deal to be desired when it comes to Jesus' teaching. The Bible is a book of mythology. This does not mean that it is all lies and fluff. Far from it. Nor does it mean that some events described in the Bible did not actually happen, if not necessarily exactly as described. Oftentimes mythology can tell you a great deal, and express great truths. In fact, that's what a myth is all about. But the mistake is in taking a myth as historical fact, which is what fundamentalists and Biblical literalists insist on doing—often obscuring the real truth that lies within the myth. By nit-picking over such things as the details of Noah's flood—where did the water come from, did it cover the whole earth, or was it just a very large local event, etc., you miss the whole point of what the myth is trying to impart. Instead, you writhe and twist trying to make meteorological, oceanographic, geological, zoological, and ship-building impossibilities fit in order to prove the reality of a whole string of impossibilities. The story of Noah's flood, the ark, and the animals is a myth. Or at the most, it was based on a local event that has subsequently been mythologized. The process of evolution is an established fact. The only arguments about evolution (apart from the ones that Creationists make because they find it inconvenient) is in the nuts-and-bolts details of how certain specific things took place. By the way, evolution is STILL going on! Did it ever occur to you that evolution is the mechanism by which God did it? But to cut to the chase: I know people who are scientists and who have no doubts whatsoever about the size and age of the Cosmos, and the age of the solar system, including the earth, and who do not doubt evolution--AND who would merely shake their heads over the attempts to rationalize the details of the Noah's flood myth—who are regular, church-going Christians. I know Christian ministers, including a couple of bishops, who can give you chapter and verse on where the Bible obviously goes off the rails as a book of moral instruction, and who certainly don't look to it for accurate historical facts. Yes, Christians, including clergy. Answer this question please: Do you believe that it is possible to question, doubt, or disbelieve some of the contents of the Bible and still be a Christian? If not, why not? Don Firth |
|
21 Feb 12 - 08:41 PM (#3311705) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth By the way, on the idea that Christianity, which got it's start in the first century A.D., is "retroactive" to the creation of the earth and the Garden of Eden in 4004 B.C., I have a number of Jewish friends and acquaintances who would have some fairly tart things to say about that idea! Don Firth |
|
22 Feb 12 - 01:57 PM (#3311864) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stringsinger What needs to be said, here, is that forcing young children to believe in Young Earth Creationism is a form of child abuse. No one can live long enough in geologic time to observe the changing or the origin of species firsthand. For this, we rely on scientific tools such as carbon dating, tree rings and geological strata and the cross referencing of these tools without relying on any one exclusively. The bible has gone through so many changes starting with the copying of ignorant scribes to the Constantinian agenda of domination by newer authors and the appropriation of wild interpretations by those who claim to know all about it. None of the apostles wrote any of the so-called "books". If they existed, they would have died before the inception of this tome. Even the "dead sea scrolls" make no mention of Jesus. Conclusion: We are dealing with folklore and mythology. I agree with Joseph Campbell, that the mythology of Christianity makes it a Pacifist religion (The Sermon on the Mount). It has been appropriated by that scoundrel, Augustine in his propagandistic "just wars" doctrine. The Crusades were a complete hi-jacking of the intent of early Christianity which I now call Cristia-insanity. |
|
22 Feb 12 - 06:13 PM (#3311912) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth I repeat the question I asked above: "Do you believe that it is possible to question, doubt, or disbelieve some of the contents of the Bible and still be a Christian? "If not, why not?" So far, from Iona and pete, thundering silence. Don Firth |
|
22 Feb 12 - 10:24 PM (#3311964) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 "The Dead Sea Scrolls were most likely written by the Essenes during the period from about 200 B.C. to 68 C.E./A.D. The Essenes are mentioned by Josephus and in a few other sources, but not in the New testament. The Essenes were a strict Torah observant, Messianic, apocalyptic, baptist, wilderness, new covenant Jewish sect. They were led by a priest they called the "Teacher of Righteousness," who was opposed and possibly killed by the establishment priesthood in Jerusalem." From the www, and easily found with a Google of that paragraph. |
|
23 Feb 12 - 11:48 AM (#3312170) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Here is the one man who most influenced how I think today... everyone concerned with the issues in this thread might get some insight from this short article. Walter Kaufmann I heard him live at Washington U., in St. Louis, MO in 1959, bought his books, and modeled most of my philosophical studies on the attitude he infused me with. |
|
23 Feb 12 - 12:11 PM (#3312177) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link shimrod-i dont normally reply to you but as this seemed a civil enquiry ,i am. i suppose there is no reason why you as an atheist[?]should be concerned that [rather if] you evolved from bacteria.why would you want to believe God created you if there is a possibility that you are answerable to him. if you mean;why i think the YEC position is important,then it is what we read in the bible; which i believe is authoritative.dawkins commended darwin for making him "intellectually fulfilled atheist". atheists have to believe in evolutionism to deny a God and Creator. as a YEC i see darwinism as an ungodly philosophy that bolsters unbelief. i am aware that some christians claim to believe genesis and darwinism but i leave that to them to reconcile. |
|
23 Feb 12 - 12:58 PM (#3312194) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG atheists have to believe in evolutionism to deny a God and Creator Not really, pete. It depends a certain amount what you mean by 'evolutionism', but there were plenty of athiests before Darwin, and indeed plenty of atheists today whose knowledge of Darwin's original proposal and its developments is more than a little shaky. If you simply mean not believing in a creator god or gods they need some other mechanism for how we came to be, then yes, I'd agree. But it is probably not a good idea to lump every other possibility than creationism under a single heading. And there's no logical reason why a person might not deny creationism and deny Darwin's theory [mind you, they would be rather an odd sort!] i am aware that some christians claim to believe genesis and darwinism but i leave that to them to reconcile But you are willing to regard them as Christians? I think that was Don's point. If I understand your phrase correctly, you are willing to accept them, but don't want to put words in your mouth. |
|
23 Feb 12 - 01:03 PM (#3312195) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy Pete, I'm mystified, what is 'Seven Stars' - is it a pub? |
|
23 Feb 12 - 01:26 PM (#3312207) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke why would you want to believe God created you if there is a possibility that you are answerable to him. I think what our somewhat hard-of-thinking friend is getting at is Pascal's wager. If you believe in God and there is a God you go to heaven; if there isn't you don't notice. Conversely, the unbeliever if right will not notice, whereas if wrong will face eternity in hell. Which works (for cowards) if there is only one possibility of the identity of God. But if you spend your life pleasing the wrong god you are no better off than the atheist. So you spend your time in fear of Jesus or Ahura Mazda, and it turns out Allah was the boy all along. Or one of ten thousand others. All in all, if you only have one life, and you waste it living in fear of a bogeyman, that's it, it's gone. So an agnostic might reason that he's as well off living without the specific prescriptions of any one presumed deity, and hope that if a god actually exists he/ she/ it will be amenable to reason. |
|
23 Feb 12 - 02:17 PM (#3312234) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Paul Burke is exactly right. Pascal's wager only allows 4 possible situations. Even IF there is a god, he may not be as all the different religions 'define' him...(if fact, how could he?) ...why, as the above mentioned Walter Kaufmann notes, he may reserve a special spot in Hell for those who go to mass! Almost ALL religious positions make unwarranted assumptions about the basic truths, then adapt everything else to fit. |
|
23 Feb 12 - 02:50 PM (#3312250) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod pete, I've read your answer several times and I still don't really understand it (thanks to Paul Burke and Bill D for pointing out that it might have something to do with Pascal's Wager). What I was getting at is, do you believe that humans are superior to the rest of Nature (note how I avoided the word 'Creation'!)? And do you, and your fellow creationists, believe that God has given us humans the right to destroy the other living things that we share this planet with? If your answer is "yes" - that's one of the main reasons why I am opposed to religion(s); if your answer is "no" what has your religion done to oppose the appalling destruction of biodiversity that is going on all around us? And by the way, I am not an atheist, I am an agnostic. As I've written many, many times it's not possible to prove that God does not exist because, logically, no-one can prove a negative. Therefore it is the RESPONSIBILITY of 'theists' to prove that God exists. If you believe in God so fervently, pete, I challenge you to prove that He exists! If you can do that I promise not to be mean to you again! |
|
23 Feb 12 - 04:28 PM (#3312302) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 "I challenge you to prove that He exists! If you can do that I promise not to be mean to you again!" If I accept that challenge, will you promise not to be mean to me again? If so, I'll need a day or two to consider the proof. |
|
23 Feb 12 - 05:09 PM (#3312318) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. The Seven Stars is a pub just off the A20, just inside Greater London, where folk sing on a Monday. Including Pete. Penny |
|
23 Feb 12 - 05:37 PM (#3312329) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Does that mean Pete only types all that while at a pub? Mercy... Before, during, or instead of singing & drinking? I used to sing in a pub on Mondays... but never thought much about evolution while I was there... ☺ |
|
23 Feb 12 - 05:41 PM (#3312331) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. I think that what bolsters unbelief are a number of things which people outside belief systems see as - how shall I put this - at least difficult, but grading to intolerable, about those systems. Nothing at all to do with a belief in evolution. As an example, when King John, known to be an atheist, had a dispute with the Pope over the appointment of the archbish of Canterbury, th ePope put England under interdict. This did not bother John at all. Oddly, it did not bother the population much, either, despite being denied the sacraments, holy matrimony, proper funerals, absolution of sins and so on. (For someone not a good man, it's quite interesting that the common people came out to support him when the barons brought the French prince over to replace him.) We don't know, though, why John was an atheist. But it wasn't because of evolution. A lot of people never have a direct experience which they can describe as being communication with God. That makes belief difficult. Personal contact is really the only way there can be belief. A lot of people have direct experiences of people claiming to be in communication with god whose behaviour is not consistent with a god anyone would want to worship. A lot of people are taught about a god whose behaviour is not consistent with someone anyone would want to have as a friend. They don't want to be told that when they are in heaven they will not be troubled about those of their family who rejected god and are in hell for ever. They want to be troubled about that. They don't much like the idea of a god who sets up what Rabbi Blue called a concentration camp, or allows it to be set up, and they find a lot of the arguments in favour of it slithery and unconvincing, if not downright nasty. There is a church by the South Circular (have I ever mentioned this) which has a regular large notice preaching to those stuck in the bottleneck traffic jam. Once, a long time back, it was split in two halves. One said "God Loves You". The other added "And if you don't love Him, you will go to Hell." This is not how to win friends and influence people. They've been much better since. Though the current one, using the Olympics logo, states "God has YOU on his calendar", which I'm sure they think is welcoming, but somehow has a touch of threat about it. It isn't evolution that drives people from belief. It's belief itself. Especially when it expects people to disconnect their brains. (The Dean of King's College in London has a notice about this - Jesus did not come to get you to stop thinking - but I can't remember it accurately). Jesus said that we should love God with all our heart and our soul, and our mind, and our strength. Suggesting that not using our mind is a necessary part of belief goes against that. (And while I was seeing if the Dean's notice could be found on the net, I found a few sites that suggested people should do just that. Turn off your mind to be open to the Spirit.) People should be showing that God is Love in their lives, not presenting him like some sort of mafia boss who gets the sulks if dissed. That's what drives people away. Not science. Penny |
|
23 Feb 12 - 05:59 PM (#3312337) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D "I found a few sites that suggested people should do just that. Turn off your mind to be open to the Spirit.)" and I have been told, right here on Mudcat, to do essentially that-- in relation to God, Spirit, telepathy...etc. "Accept in order to believe"... I just cannot wrap MY head around the idea. |
|
23 Feb 12 - 06:05 PM (#3312343) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Wow! Penny definitely knows where her towel is! (See The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas Adams). Don Firth |
|
23 Feb 12 - 06:08 PM (#3312347) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. You are going to make my hats unfit for purpose. Thanks, anyway. I got some nasty stuff aimed at me at a religious site the other week (generally a place not given to extremism) when I got up the nose of some people I had thought were older than the playground, so it's nice to be appreciated. Penny |
|
23 Feb 12 - 06:19 PM (#3312358) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod OK, 999, it's a deal! Get working on that proof! |
|
23 Feb 12 - 06:35 PM (#3312366) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 Yer on (or I am) Shimrod. ########################## Penny: "It isn't evolution that drives people from belief. It's belief itself." I disagree mildly because it's not belief itself that does that but rather being told what that belief is or should be. That's what turned and still turns me off. |
|
23 Feb 12 - 06:56 PM (#3312377) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link bill-no i dont type at the singaround but i do have a couple of songs about evolutionism. the name is from that pub ;seemed imaginative at the time! shimrod-it was no-ones wager i was thinking of.time has been short and i may not have been clear enough. the dominion mandate in genesis is not one of destruction but stewardship.adam was put in the garden to tend it after his creation. however i believe man is above nature and is to use its resources responsibly. i cannot prove Gods existence and i dont think it is the christians responsibility to do so but to testify as to why we believe, though this may well involve offering evidences and arguments which no doubt you've heard before.so go back to being uncivil if you wish-and i go back to not responding!. penny-too many points in your post to respond to but just a couple of comments. certainly there are many things which hinder faith but IMO evolutionism is the worst because it is more subtle.it attempts to explain creation without a need of a creator. but that is not to negate some of the other reasons. i have to confess the thought of anyone in hell is painful,let alone loved ones,but i cannot be certain they passed away unbelieving ,and if they did the story of dives and lazarus teaches us that they dont want their loved ones following them there. but perhaps that another part of the bible you dont accept? best wishes-pete. |
|
23 Feb 12 - 07:37 PM (#3312400) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""bill-no i dont type at the singaround but i do have a couple of songs about evolutionism. the name is from that pub ;seemed imaginative at the time!"" In truth Pete you have, or at least you sing, no other songs than those which are anti evolution or pro Creationism. You really need to broaden your horizons, religious and musical. Too much monkey business is a classic example of misunderstanding what Darwin was saying about natural selection, and you have nothing but your belief/opinion to rebut his work. Don T. |
|
24 Feb 12 - 12:47 AM (#3312522) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona "Do you believe that it is possible to question, doubt, or disbelieve some of the contents of the Bible and still be a Christian?" It's not that I don't have an answer to this question, Don. The Bible does. But I don't think that it's relevant to the discussion, and I don't have the time to deviate from all the dozens of other arguments that I have yet to answer. Your 'important question' is important, yes, but not vital to the discussion at hand. If you really want me to answer it, you can find my email address in this thread on one of the last posts. Iona |
|
24 Feb 12 - 01:50 AM (#3312533) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Iona, it is the very core of the matter. Don Firth |
|
24 Feb 12 - 02:06 AM (#3312538) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Paul Burke Do you believe that it is possible to question, doubt, or disbelieve some of the contents of the Bible and still be a Christian?" It's not that I don't have an answer to this question, Don. The Bible does. Round and round. If the Bible isn't 100% literally true, whatever answer the Bible gives has to be examined to decide whether it is to be taken literally or metaphorically. At school, they taught us that some saint's prayer was highly sophisticated: "Oh my God, I believe in Thee and all thy Church doth teach, because Thou hast said it, and Thy Word is true" (their capitalisation). Even as ten-year-olds, we could see the flaw in that. in any case, even if the Bible were 100% true, all Christians accept that parts of it (at the very least the bits about sacrificing lambs) were superseded in the New Testament. But since there's no list of which bits were repealed and which still hold, you still don't know when you read a statement if it is the working rule or not. Which of course is where Protestantism came in. The Pope and his butties claimed a monopoly in interpretation, and justified it with biblical references. Now we have the descendants of those who fought and fried and died for their right to their own interpretation, claiming that they (or their local pope/imam) own God. |
|
24 Feb 12 - 02:19 AM (#3312541) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona I disagree, Don. I don't think that the issue of assurance is going to determine whether the Lord created the earth in six days -as He says He did- or not. Email me anytime, though. I don't propose to have answers to everything--but the Bible does. Iona |
|
24 Feb 12 - 04:35 AM (#3312562) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod "the dominion mandate in genesis is not one of destruction but stewardship.adam was put in the garden to tend it after his creation. however i believe man is above nature and is to use its resources responsibly." Aha! Thought so! Well, pete, Christianity has evidently failed on the 'stewardship' front, hasn't it? As far as I can see Christian missionaries were in the vanguard when Western, Christian 'civilisation' went out to conquer, rape, despoil and enslave the rest of the world. "i cannot prove Gods existence and i dont think it is the christians responsibility to do so but to testify as to why we believe, though this may well involve offering evidences and arguments which no doubt you've heard before.so go back to being uncivil if you wish-and i go back to not responding!" No, of course you can't prove the existence of God! But if you want me, or anyone else, to believe in Him I insist that it IS your responsibility to prove His existence. I must also remind you that respect has to be earned. Having said that, I don't usually begin a relationship by dis-respecting someone - but if they continue to spout dangerous tosh my respect for them certainly doesn't increase! I also strongly believe that, in this day and age, the religious and the pious are not automatically entitled to respect - as they may have been in the past. |
|
24 Feb 12 - 04:49 AM (#3312564) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket If the bible has an answer to everything, where does it tell me next week's lottery numbers? it doesn't. Thought so. Not much use to me then, is it? |
|
24 Feb 12 - 06:38 AM (#3312592) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Pete, I'm glad you aren't one of those who sees one of the joys of heaven being watching the sinners in hell (medieval idea, that one), or one of those who thinks that those in heaven forget the lost - but I didn't think you would be. That parable is interesting. OK, Abraham tells Dives that he can't do anything for his brothers, but, as you say, Dives is deeply concerned for them - someone damned is shown as having more concern for others than later people thought the saved can have. A bit ironic. I wonder what we are supposed to come away from that with. There's more there than a warning about changing our lives in this life, maybe. It is, of course, a parable, a story intended to make us think about things, and usually people do not think that those stories are factual. Penny |
|
24 Feb 12 - 12:12 PM (#3312788) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod Yesterday (23.02.2012) Professor Richard Dawkins and Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, held a televised debate on Evolution. I didn't actually see the debate on TV, but I read about it in today's 'Independent' newspaper (UK). Apparently Dr Williams " ... even confessed his belief in evolution, and agreed with Dawkins that humans shared non-human ancestors." "Rather than arguing, Dawkins and Williams seemed intent on finding areas of agreement. Did the Archbishop agree that there was probably no "first man", that human evolution was gradual, and that - in Dawkins' formulation - no pair of Homo erectus parents gazed down proudly at their Homo sapiens new-born? He [the Arcbishop] did." "Could Dawkins disprove the existence of God? He could not, he confessed, describing himself as an agnostic [rather than an atheist] ... On his own atheism scale of one-to-seven, the Professor suggested, "the probability of any supernatural creator existing is very, very low, so let's say I'm a 6.9"." Spot on - in my opinion! So, there you go, Iona and pete, even a head honcho of the God-squadders believes in evolution! Oh, sorry! He doesn't belong to your particular fundamentalist micro-sect(s) - does he? |
|
24 Feb 12 - 01:08 PM (#3312812) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke as He says He did- No he doesn't. Not even the most rabid fundie thinks god wrote the bible. The more gullible think Moses wrote bits of it. The exception might be perhaps our dear interlocutor, who seems to have no critical faculties whatsoever, and will swallow any tale, provided it's the one they want to hear. |
|
24 Feb 12 - 02:23 PM (#3312838) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth "I don't think that the issue of assurance is going to determine whether the Lord created the earth in six days -as He says He did- or not." No, Iona, the Lord did NOT say that. The very mortal, fallible person or persons who wrote the book of Genesis said that. Let me ask you this. Do you believe that Adam and Eve are actual historical persons? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. It will tell me whether or not there is any point in pursuing this conversation any further. Don Firth |
|
24 Feb 12 - 02:26 PM (#3312839) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG They may well believe that other people wrote it under Divine Guidance. Which raises some interesting free will questions ... |
|
24 Feb 12 - 03:01 PM (#3312869) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stringsinger Not true. The very definition of an atheist denies the validity of Christianity as a worldview. < 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?> This is not an imposition of a world view but a practical agreement that people were able to do before Christia-insanity came into the world. < 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).> These ideas predate Christia-insanity. Most of the tenets of the bible were borrowed from other cultures and religious ideas much earlier. < If you reject the Bible, you must reject all the worldview that you hold because of Biblical ethics. If we are all just aquatic sludge, humans are no different than earthworms.> This doesn't follow. Biblical ethics are a recent phenomenon and have been grossly distorted and if you read the bible, you can see how this is true. The King James image of god in the old testament is a tyrant and a mass murderer. At no point in Origin of Species did Darwln ever state that humans were aquatic sludge. This is a misconception used as propaganda by fundamentalist Christians. |
|
24 Feb 12 - 04:02 PM (#3312902) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link don T -That is a very sweeping statement.true i have 4 songs i sing regularly [but not all at every session ]that deal with the subject plus a xmas song and a harvest song sang seasonally.most of my songs relate to my faith which is the core of who i am.my songwriting flows out of that;why should that bother you?.i'm not insisting on you believing.but to your credit you listen[or switch off maybe]respectfully so thanks for that. as to monkey biz;if you care to be more specific i am happy to discuss any possible inaccuracies in my song. pete. |
|
24 Feb 12 - 04:24 PM (#3312914) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke i have to confess the thought of anyone in hell is painful,let alone loved ones,but i cannot be certain they passed away unbelieving ,and if they did the story of dives and lazarus teaches us that they dont want their loved ones following them there. I do know that the writer of this is very intellectually challenged, but even children revolt at the thought of their "loved ones" burning for all eternity. They even get upset about goldfish not going to heaven. God, the morass of this benighted mind! He has obviously never heard of the term "wrestling with God", or is such a wimp that he'd swallow muck sooner than use his brain. As for Dives and Lazarus: There was a rich man and he lived in Jerusalem Glory Hallebalooya, hi rogerum He wore a top hat and his coat was very sprucium, Glory Hallebalooya, hi rogerum Hi rogerum, hey hi rogerum Skiddly dinky doorium, Skiddley dinky doorium Glory Hallebalooya, hi rogerum Does that get us Above The Line? |
|
24 Feb 12 - 04:40 PM (#3312923) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona Don: Yes. Adam and Eve were flesh-and-blood people, like you and I. So were all the historical people in the Bible, which was written (put pen to paper) by men, but written by God because He gave them the words to write. "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." (1 Thessalonians 2:13) Another thing I want to address is that you all are always bringing up the bad things that professing Christians have done, and then using it as a proof against Christianity. In logic that's called Ad Hominem, and it's a fallacy. Just because sinful men who call themselves Christians (who may not even be regenerate) do bad things, does not discredit the truth of the Scriptures.It just goes to prove that God is very merciful that He will save even the worst of men, if they repent. The Bible is historically, mathematically and scientifically accurate and has withstood the test of time and come out on top of all criticism, as even Times Magazine said: "After more than two centuris of facing the heaviest scientific guns that could be brought to bear, the Bible has survived, and is perhaps the better for the siege. Even on the critic's own terms -historical fact- Scriptures seem more acceptable now than i t did when the rationalists began the attack." (Time Magazine "How True Is the Bible?") If the bible has an answer to everything, where does it tell me next week's lottery numbers? The Bibile does not have specific references to everything. But it has principles, in it which apply to every area of life. In the case of gambling, we can apply 1 Timothy 6:10, Hebrews 13:5, Proverbs 13:11, Proverbs 23:5 and Ecclesiastes 5:10. Also we can apply the commandment that 'Thou shalt not steal" in the context that gambling takes money from one person and gives to another. Ther are many other scriptures that we could also apply to gambling. Again, the Bible is perfect, the Word of God. The 66 books and those 66 books alone are the infallible Scriptures, because those are the books that God inspired. |
|
24 Feb 12 - 04:42 PM (#3312927) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: beardedbruce Matthew 24;23 tells me not to believe you. |
|
24 Feb 12 - 05:16 PM (#3312934) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona Acts 17:11 tells you to test everything in the light of the Scriptures. |
|
24 Feb 12 - 05:18 PM (#3312936) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 "Yes. Adam and Eve were flesh-and-blood people, like you and I. So were all the historical people in the Bible, which was written (put pen to paper) by men, but written by God because He gave them the words to write." The Book of Mormon was written under the same circumstances. |
|
24 Feb 12 - 05:19 PM (#3312937) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Greg F. Dear Lord, protect me from your followers and their rabbitting on... perhaps we need the Ezekiel 3:26 treatment here...... |
|
24 Feb 12 - 06:03 PM (#3312952) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth . . . pass the peanut butter. . . . Don Firth |
|
24 Feb 12 - 06:11 PM (#3312954) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D "I don't propose to have answers to everything--but the Bible does." And *I* must read those answers and 'decide' whether to believe them. I put it to you this way: If God exists AND is all-powerful and controls how everything is, then HE gave me (us) brains which are able to question & doubt. *IF* he allows us to use our brains to question and debate all this, then it is a very unfair &, I might add, un-Godly thing to demand we believe that those words "which was written (put pen to paper) by men", are in fact, inspired by Him. Why bother to make the eternal souls of we poor, fallible mortals dependent on accepting 2000 years of selecting, editing, translating, and interpreting words "written by other men"? No matter how I got this brain, it has the ability to analyze and judge claims & assertions about its own essence and creation. As we prove here, it is not only possible, but common, to see the problems with the status of the claimed evidence for theology!! If I were a (god) and NEEDED to be believed in & worshiped, I would most assuredly remind those poor, fallible, doubting mortals on a regular basis instead of ONE basic warning when we were just learning to write.~~~~~ Perhaps clouds parting and fiery letters in the sky saying "Hey! Pay attention! You all have been ignoring scripture again! Note what I said in Proverbs 13:3!" And... when some especially egregious sin was committed, one of those lightning bolts would ZAP the offender before he was able to, for example, do harm to masses of "true believers". You see, Iona... to we who assume that brains with the power of REASON would be used for reason, and not as rubber-stamps for interesting, but undocumented, stories told to us by other fallible men.....(and women.) "Acts 17:11 tells you to test everything in the light of the Scriptures." Ummm... so, when I said a few hundred posts ago, that that very admonition involves invalid, circular reasoning, it is especially relevant here. You can, of course, use YOUR brain to ignore and reject the logical flaws in your own reason...THAT is part of what "free will" means! |
|
24 Feb 12 - 06:13 PM (#3312956) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D ( I really like Proverbs 13:3) |
|
24 Feb 12 - 06:30 PM (#3312962) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Proverbs 13:3. I believe it was Mark Twain who said pretty much the same thing: "It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." #### If we are going to be literal about this, then we are required to be consistent. The Bible says that God formed Adam from the dust of the earth and breathed life into him. Then He made Eve from one of Adam's ribs— Well, this raises a couple of questions. How come men have the same number of ribs on each side? And how come they both have belly buttons??? Enquiring minds want to know. Don Firth |
|
24 Feb 12 - 06:51 PM (#3312969) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Also we can apply the commandment that 'Thou shalt not steal" in the context that gambling takes money from one person and gives to another. Ther are many other scriptures that we could also apply to gambling."" That is arrant nonsense, since it cannot be called theft when the loser is willingly, even enthusiastically, complicit in the loss. You believe that the bible is the word of God because the bible says so, thereby proving to your satisfaction the existence of God, and round and round....... "Shallow oh shallow brain" When you have finished with this discussion I have this amazing elixir for sale........call me. Don T. |
|
24 Feb 12 - 06:53 PM (#3312970) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D They weren't supposed to eat apples, so they ate navel oranges... ☺ (and Mark Twain's aphorism is a pretty watered down version of Proverbs 13:3 *grin*) |
|
24 Feb 12 - 06:57 PM (#3312972) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG which was written (put pen to paper) by men, but written by God because He gave them the words to write Ok. Let's assume consider that a little. The words were written (in many cases) in an ancient form of Hebrew, which is distinct from modern Hebrew. The only way anyone now knows what it says, is because that's what their teachers said the words meant, and so on through teacher after teacher. You can only learn ancient Hebrew in that fashion, based on what your tutors understand by those words. Then because of transcription errors and damage - why did God allow that to happen to his words? - you get the 'lion' effect, which I'm sure you remember that one from a few hundred posts ago? So even where the words were accurately written down, our ability to understand it is severely impaired, and where the text isn't accurate or is damaged there is much guesswork. Yes, there are specialist scholars. No, they can't achieve perfection. If you doubt that - and I am sure you do! - you can see the same effect if you try to read some English from let's say 10th century: it isn't easy and there's a heck of a lot of guesswork for all kinds of reasons, including changes in the meanings of words. ANY text, including this one, has to be interpreted by the reader: the idea that the meaning of any writer is perfectly captured by a series of sqiggles without the reader bringing their own interpretation as part of the transmission of the underlying idea is simplistic in the extreme. |
|
24 Feb 12 - 07:06 PM (#3312975) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Pete, I have absolutely no problem with your beliefs, whether you belief in God, Allah, Jehovah, or the Cosmic Pixie being a matter of supreme indifference to me. However, the place for religious music is surely in whatever house of worship you frequent, and you should expect that there will be disquiet about your relentless and constant insistence upon disseminating your particular obsession in every folk and acoustic session you can reach. Most of us go to these sessions to enjoy music rather than endure sermons. Nobody, I believe, would complain if you actually performed these songs interspersed with other material of a more usual character for the venues. Just a thought meant in the kindest way to persuade you to develop a little sensitivity to the mood of your audiences. Don T. |
|
24 Feb 12 - 07:16 PM (#3312980) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D "However, the place for religious music is surely in whatever house of worship you frequent, .." well, Don... I get your point but even I sing a few Pentecostal hymns...just because they are such amazing music. And..I once had the privilege of hearing Mahalia Jackson in person. You do not have to believe everything you sing or listen to. The sentiment and expression can be moving, even if it does not affect your ultimate beliefs. |
|
24 Feb 12 - 07:17 PM (#3312981) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke Waste of keystrokes. This "iona" isn't a person we can talk to about ideas with; there's a comittee hanging in behind there, to prevent compromise, to supply the right answers, to make sure the atttempts to make contact don't elicit human sympathy. It never responds to the killing objections, only to the ones it thinks it can answer. |
|
24 Feb 12 - 08:53 PM (#3313005) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D You may be right, Paul... I'll try once more by reposting "Just curious, Iona... are you willing to give a brief summary of how you grew up and/or became Christian and came to these viewpoints? (Somewhere back up there I mentioned my basic history and how it changed over the years.)" |
|
24 Feb 12 - 10:17 PM (#3313039) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail Found recently in a different context which mentioned Frank Luntz, a consultant to the Republican party. Luntz's technique was pioneered by the tobacco companies and the creationists: teach the controversy. In other words, insist that the question of whether cigarettes cause lung cancer, natural selection drives evolution, or burning fossil fuels causes climate change, is still wide open, and that both sides of the "controversy" should be taught in schools and thrashed out in the media. As John P said it a while ago - Iona and Pete have demonstrated that rational discussion with them is a waste of time. But they have actually won the debate, if you take being taken seriously as a victory. Attempts to engage them on this topic just makes them feel relevant. The first step for a lie (or for willful ignorance), always, is to be taken seriously. You are all giving Iona and Pete exactly what they want, attention. |
|
25 Feb 12 - 01:40 AM (#3313094) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona "Just curious, Iona... are you willing to give a brief summary of how you grew up and/or became Christian and came to these viewpoints?" I assure you, "Iona" is one person. Not a comitte. Not an 'it'. :) I don't think giving my life history would suppliment the debate at all, and that is why I haven't supplied it. God can save anyone. Iona is one of 'anyone'! |
|
25 Feb 12 - 02:22 AM (#3313095) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona "In order to answer the question, we have to look at the pre-flood atmospheric conditions. First of all, we know that there was no rain until the flood occurred. Instead of rain, the earth had a heavy mist encircling the globe, which kept everything lush and green (which is why we always picture dinosaurs in a jungle-like, lush environment--the world was much more beautiful back then because it was fresh from creation!)." We know nothing of the sort. There is no evidence for this. there is not even evidence in the Bible. I'm not sure which one of those statements I made you are saying that we know nothing about. The no rain theory? The 'lush and jungle like environment'? I'm not going to stake anything on the first claim, though I know I made it sound a little definite at first. I've done a little more examining of the issue, and I am not altogether sure that the Bible says that there was not rain until the flood, but neither do we know that there was rain. I first got the idea of 'no rain' from Genesis 2:5-6, but also in the verse is the statement that there was no man to till the ground. And applying that with the fact that Genesis 2 is a detailed recap of Creation Week, it's safe to say that it was referring to the period before man was created. There may have been rain before the flood (since rain is a vital part to the water cycle). But I still hold to the well founded assertion that the historic, pre-flood earth was very lush and beautiful. We find palm trees fossilized in Antarctica. We find 'jungle' plants (Cycads) alongside dinosaurs, and like I said, that's why dinosaurs are pictured in a jungle like environment. Even by evolutionists. ;) Iona |
|
25 Feb 12 - 03:37 AM (#3313098) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Iona, it was all of those statements. I take it you are ignoring the dating evidence for the Antarctic forests. Here's something else to worry about - that the ancient Earth was at least once almost covered by ice. Snowball Earth This idea caused a lot of argument among geologists when it was put forward, but the evidence which led to the idea has resisted being discounted. I did mention the dropstones from the glaciers, I think. There are also obviously glacial sediments, which differ from those laid down by water, whether in rivers, lakes, or larger bodies of either fresh or salt water, or in still, slowly moving, or turbulent environments. The idea also led to much argument about the mechanism by which an almost totally frozen world could then melt. Not a lush place. That was well before the dinosaurs, though. Also, the study of the environments in which dinosaur fossils are found shows a wide variety, as is found today. These variations are partly because the surface of the Earth differs because of latitude, and partly because conditions varied over the very long periods of time during which dinosaurs were the dominant fauna. If you are not happy to accept the long period evidence, look up Hadley Cells to find out how atmospheric circulation affects the environment. For example, rising air under the tropical sun causes heavy rainfall with associated forests, but when that air returns downwards, it is dry, causing the bands of deserts which lie to north and south of those forests. You wouldn't have world wide lush forest because you wouldn't have world wide rains. (This especially applies when the continents were together, as the rain would not penetrate into the continental interior.) I thought I had posted, but can't find it, a reference to the summary of the Law which occurs both in the Torah and the Gospels "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind". Mind, mind you. To be asked to accept the idea of a god who asks us to use our intelligence, and then constructs a world which is so easy to get wrong that the vast numbers of scientists who are trying to explain the evidence based on what the evidence shows, and trying to score points off each other by exposing errors cannot identify that it actually fits a brief account in a book recorded a long time ago, which does not go into the sort of detail they find, is not an attractive proposition. And you cite Genesis 2 as enlarging on the acount in Genesis 1. It is in a different order, is it not? Penny |
|
25 Feb 12 - 03:55 AM (#3313102) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG But I still hold to the well founded assertion that the historic, pre-flood earth was very lush and beautiful. We find palm trees fossilized in Antarctica. We find 'jungle' plants (Cycads) alongside dinosaurs, and like I said, that's why dinosaurs are pictured in a jungle like environment. Even by evolutionists. ;) If you are prepared to drop the words 'pre-flood' and replace them by 'long ago' we might have found something we can agree on! And you know why scientists picture them that way don't you? It's that little thing called testable evidence. And once again, as virtually throughout the thread, you are hopelessly confusing evolution with other things, such as geology. |
|
25 Feb 12 - 04:03 AM (#3313105) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG I should make clear, of course, that because some places were lush, it doesn't follow they all were. And beauty is, as I sure we all agree, in the eye of the beholder. What are your thoughts on the ability of dinosaurs to appreciate beauty, I wonder? *smile* |
|
25 Feb 12 - 11:34 AM (#3313227) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Interesting trivia re Dives and Lazarus. Dives is Latin, not Hebrew or Aramaic, while Lazarus is Jewish. Dives is also a nickname adopted by Crassus, who purloined Temple treasure to fund an expedition against the Parthians, which failed, according to Josephus. This would have been known to Jesus' audience. There is much more in that parable than obvious. Penny |
|
25 Feb 12 - 03:48 PM (#3313367) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link penny-correct me if wrong but dives is not in the text is it .i've no idea where/why the name, but presumably "much more in that parable" is only a later addition?.i only used the name for ease of reference. don T-4 maybe 5 songs in 3 hrs of singaround is hardly excessive whatever some may dislike in a performer-IMO. Bill-i appreciate your gracious comment in that regard. don firth-you are ribbing as are'nt you!? 1-if your dad had a leg removed would you be born with one leg. 2-ribs are known to regrow if the posterion is still intact. you was joking-were'nt you? |
|
25 Feb 12 - 04:09 PM (#3313392) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke Let me ask you this. Do you believe that Adam and Eve are actual historical persons? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. It will tell me whether or not there is any point in pursuing this conversation any further. Oy molotov! A few years ago, when there were klezmer sessions like Irish sessions, my brother (a guitarist) was trying to explain a difficult chord to a young lady. She couldn't quite get it... he reached across to put her hand in the right place, and she recoiled in horror. No man, she explained, could touch her unless her husband, when she married, or a relation. Do you believe in Adam? my brother asked. Of course, she replied. Then we're related, he says.. |
|
25 Feb 12 - 04:10 PM (#3313393) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Fair point, pete. Now--how about the belly buttons? Don Firth |
|
25 Feb 12 - 04:29 PM (#3313402) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Cross-posted, Paul. You know, if you think about that ("related"), it can have some pretty horrifying implications! Don Firth |
|
25 Feb 12 - 05:35 PM (#3313415) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona How's that, Don? The Gene pool was much, much stronger in the beginning than it is now. Intermarriage of family wasn't outlawed until Moses' time. Abraham was married to his half-sister Sarai, Cain and Seth married their sisters, and that was fine. It was lawful. The gene pool was very strong and it wasn't a problem. But as the human race degenerated after the fall of man, God ultimately outlawed the intermarriage of siblings when he gave the Levitical laws. Iona |
|
25 Feb 12 - 05:49 PM (#3313418) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod "Another thing I want to address is that you all are always bringing up the bad things that professing Christians have done, and then using it as a proof against Christianity. In logic that's called Ad Hominem, ..." Yes, Iona, I agree with you ... strictly in terms of logic, that is ... But: 1. You're always going on about "good" and "evil", and how it's only possible to tell the difference through reference to the Bible (utter tosh, of course). If your assertion is actually true (which it isn't) then lots of Christians appear to have failed to get the message and have done countless evil things in the name of Christianity. 2. Christianity puts humans at the pinnacle of creation. As a result our (nominally) Christian culture has come to believe that it is entitled to destroy 'inferior', non-human organisms and the natural environment - and even, in certain circumstances, to kill and enslave non-Christian humans. These points do not, of course, 'disprove' Christianity but they do tend to indicate that if the objective of Christianity is to spread 'good' throughout the world - as you are always asserting - then it's done a pretty poor job! |
|
25 Feb 12 - 06:35 PM (#3313435) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mrrzy Teaching people what to believe is bad, teaching them how to think is good. If Congress outlaws lying, will preaching be illegal? |
|
25 Feb 12 - 07:54 PM (#3313455) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Now this thread is well in excess of 900 posts, I think it has reached the point that I will be dropping out. I'll still read it, and if someone says something irresistable. well, by definition I couldn't could I? - but my intention is to stop now. So where have we got to? In my opinion only, of course. I've spoken with Pete on other threads, always on essentially the same topic. As I've said above, when challenged about how his ideas fits real life, I find pete is prepared to think about and consider the issues. While I very often don't agree with his conclusions, I do feel he is sincere and trying his best to make his ideas and life co-exist. In short, I find him essentially honest. I am afraid I can't say the same for Iona, who to me seems to pretty much treat the Bible disrepectfully as just a shield for views that are wholly secular in foundation, and those lacking any of the benefits that come from a solid humanist or humanitarian outlook. I will say no more. Yet like the proverbial grit in the oyster, these people have led to a thread of exceptionally high quality. I single out Penny and Don Firth for presenting views that are compatible with science and yet still compatible with a faith based outlook. They and many others here - I won't list you because this would end up like an Oscar speech - have given me much food for thought and much information that I previously did not know. So I for one am somewhat wiser as a result of this thread (and if I'm not greatly wiser, that's just because of my own failings.) So thank you one and all. Even, though it was very much not what they intended, Iona and pete. You have deepened my scientific knowledge. |
|
25 Feb 12 - 07:58 PM (#3313458) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Iona, I'm afraid you have the horse hitched to the cart with its rump foremost. Where is you evidence that the gene pool has degenerated? This flies in the face of the findings of Gregor Mendel (a good Christian monk) and the whole science of genetics ("Oh! There's that word 'science' again! I guess I can just dismiss that out of hand!"). Examples of inbreeding (legally, first cousins or closer) were rife in the European royal families such as the Hapsburgs, whose inbreeding led to all kinds of genetic defects, including such things as the "Hapsburg jaw". This made eating quite difficult because the lower teeth were in front of the upper teeth, and the molars didn't line up properly. Definite birth defect, and several members of European royalty were affected by this result of inbreeding. Since it was the general rule in European royal families that one must marry within one's own class, and as a way of forming alliances with other nations, it was not long until these aristocratic gene pools were full of recessive genes. This happens when close relatives procreate. The recessive genes become reinforced and genetic defects, such as the Hapsburg jaw, hemophilia, and various forms of mental retardation proliferated. This is exactly the kind of thing that would have happened right from the beginning if the Adam and Eve myth was actual history. And we would ALL be idiots with undershot jaws, crossed eyes, cone-shaped heads, and all manner of birth defects. The human race would have probably gone the way of the dinosaurs, but the "killer meteor" would have been its own gene pool! (Of course, that would tend to explain a lot. . . .) What we DID have was the benefits of what geneticists call "hybrid vitality" (NOT mating within one's immediate group tends to produce stronger and healthier offspring). Hybrid vitality, by the way, is a great argument for the general benefits of interracial marriage! Think about it. Don Firth P. S. " But as the human race degenerated after the fall of man. . . ." Would you explain what you mean by "the fall of man" and how and why the human race "degenerated?" According to my Bible (I have a couple of different versions, including the King James), the Fall came when Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden—THEN, they begot Cain and Abel. Then Seth and "other sons and daughters." So according to your timeline, the gene pool began to degenerate right from the start, before Adam and Eve began their begetting of children. So your timeline of Biblical events is a bit tangled there, isn't it? |
|
26 Feb 12 - 04:27 AM (#3313509) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Hands up to a couple of things I needed to be corrected on. Pete, I'd got so used to thinking Dives that I hadn't spotted that it was an intrusion after the origin. And I was rehashing something a friend said when discussing the story this week, and he didn't know, either. I don't expect that Jerome when translating into Latin, which is where the word crept in, had Crassus in mind. Interesting that Lazarus means "God is my help", though. Iona, I've found your mist - my translation suggests a flood coming from the earth is a better translation, while giving mist as an alternative in a footnote. It applies in the garden before the fall, and then nothing is said about weather until the Flood, though when that happens, it is clear that rain is understood, before it starts. Gen 6 v 7 says "I intend to bring the waters of the flood over the earth" which could refer back to that previous mist/flood. Gen 7 v 4 says "in seven days' time I will send rain over the earth". If it had not rained before that, God would have needed to explain that. So you can see why I had the idea that rain happened before the big flood. (This particular translation is the New English Bible, which was the first to hand this morning.) I have tended to listen to and read these accounts as to do with the relationship between humans and God, with the descriptions of landscape, weather etc as incidental, which has led to me not always recalling these details as important. Since, because of all the physical evidence to the contrary, I can't accept them as an accurate description of the development of the history of the planet, I shall probably continue not to take them as central to the passages in which they occur. (But I shall be more assiduous in checking before posting.) Penny |
|
26 Feb 12 - 11:06 AM (#3313626) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Wondered how many posts it would take before everybody was contemplating the navel. Iona said men wrote the bible but it was of God, or some such waffle. In that case, god wrote "The God Delusion" and the Egyptian hieroglyphs. He also told me to shake my head in disbelief that people can believe all that crap, hence ensuring my place at his side in paradise. Hell must be rather lonely, as god tells us all to do whatever we are doing; being friendly towards gay people, supporting the right for women to read aloud from their big book of fairy tales, drinking beer on their sabbath, relaxing with internet porn, having an affair with the woman down the road, making a bacon butty. Yep, all guaranteed to get you a first class ticket to heaven. Or if it isn't then your god isn't so much omnipotent as impotent. Thought so. |
|
26 Feb 12 - 02:35 PM (#3313697) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stringsinger The bible does have an answer for everything and that answer for the most part is all wrong. The bible is a form of folklore and should be taken as such. (Frankly, I'd prefer to read Shakespeare). How many Christo-maniacs really subscribe to the Commandment, "Thou Shalt Not Kill", or do they waffle about it as did Augustine, and claim "just wars" and that killing is different from murder in war time? Joe Campbell said that Christianity is a Pacifist Religion supported by "The Sermon on the Mount". Does this reach Christians? Christia-insanity is the order of the political day in Republican circles shown by Santorum, Romney, both Pauls, Newt, all who claim a moral high ground. Even Obama still pounds the pulpit once in a while. Young Earth Creationism adds to the cess pool of ignorance that swirls around minds of these Christo-maniacs who cling to their ideas as flies to fly paper or moths to light bulbs. They spout platitudes without thought, conviction without depth and panaceas without substance. Jesus was a folkloric figure who preached peace while so many Christians today justify war, murder (by lethal injection), robbery in the name of capitalism, freedom to ruin other lives with their vitriolic propaganda and the quest for money. Did these Christians actually study the words of Jesus in the Sermon? How many Christians today actually have read the bible? So many are ignorant of it. |
|
26 Feb 12 - 03:15 PM (#3313715) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth A point I've been trying to make all along, Strings. Don Firth |
|
26 Feb 12 - 03:48 PM (#3313737) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link thanks don firth and penny for admitting mistakes.it was big of you considering your greater academic acheivements. dmcg-will miss your contributions on the thread despite your usually disagreeing[though without the verbal gut rot of some posters!]. methinks you are a little hasty in your assessment of iona [being quite new on these thread].she also has rethought some of her former posts in the details thereof.but thanks for your kind words about me. pete |
|
26 Feb 12 - 04:46 PM (#3313760) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Excuse me, pete, but what mistakes were those we were supposed to be admitting? Don Firth |
|
26 Feb 12 - 05:20 PM (#3313774) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke Penny's "mistake" was to think the rich man (Andy lived in Jerusalem, glory hallebaluyah...oops) was callecd Dives in the story as reported by "saint Luke". Generously trying to engage with the extremists, she strayed onto their home ground. A victory for the nasty bigots, in their own estimation. I've no idea what mistake you admitted. |
|
26 Feb 12 - 05:48 PM (#3313796) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth There's an old—and quite sneaky—debating technique wherein, if you are getting thoroughly trounced, you thank the person or persons trouncing you for admitting that they made a mistake. The object is to bewilder them—and those following the debate—by getting them to wonder WHAT mistake they may have made, and when and where did they admit it, when they don't remember ever doing so. The point is to try to undercut their credibility by making everyone else (and THEM, TOO, if you can work it) think they are fallible and there are (unspecified) mistakes in their arguments. Okay, pete. What mistakes? And where did we admit to making them? Be specific. Don Firth P. S. I'm busy for the rest of the afternoon, so that will give you time to work out your tap dance. |
|
26 Feb 12 - 09:10 PM (#3313860) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""well, Don... I get your point but even I sing a few Pentecostal hymns...just because they are such amazing music."" Me too Bill (the odd gospel song), but the operative phrase there is "a few", and my comment was a suggestion to examine and perhaps alter the balance. I write mostly comic songs, but I sing pretty much a 50/50 comic/serious set. Even being made to laugh can be insufferable if carried out continuously and relentlessly. Don T. |
|
26 Feb 12 - 09:25 PM (#3313867) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""don T-4 maybe 5 songs in 3 hrs of singaround is hardly excessive whatever some may dislike in a performer-IMO."" Disingenuous answer Pete, since you know that each of us in those evening sessions only sings at the very most 4 - 5 songs. That then would be 100 percent, or damn close to it. My suggestion, kindly meant, was simply that you think about expanding the repertoire to allow some variation in both tone and tempo. If you would try it, you would quickly see the advantage to yourself as well as others. Don T. |
|
26 Feb 12 - 11:39 PM (#3313899) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA Sorry, got no repsonse. Not surprised, but trying again... pete and Iona, To retain any credibility RE science, I must insist again... What evidence (specifically) would be required for you to abandon your belief in YEC? Please provide this for us. If you do not, you highlight the chasm between science and religion. This is not a trick question. It is THE question. If you cannot answer this question, we know that we are speaking different languages. You are arguing religion, and some of us are arguing science. Without your specific answer, we cannot continue to try to meld these conversations. So, answer the question, or admit that you are not talking science. Sorry, but those are the only options. And I totally respect either answer you might give (if you give an answer). BTW Penny S. knows her sh@t in spades. I have taught Earth Science at three Unis. Makes me a godless liberal, I know (despite all those years of Quaker school). I do not have the time or inclination to tilt at the crazy windmills, but she pwns them every time (and they do not even realize it). Windmillers; answer my question above if you wish to have your views on science hold any water whatsoever. |
|
27 Feb 12 - 04:24 AM (#3313928) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Thanks TIA. It is some time since I did my OU Earth Science, and I am always reluctant to claim any comparison to those who do more conventional courses with MUCH more field work. Usually when you enter the fray I leave it to you, and learn. I note that we both have a Quaker connection. I've the odd strand in the family history, but came to it later when other places seemed to move away from where I was. Penny |
|
27 Feb 12 - 12:09 PM (#3314104) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link don firth i am sorry you found my last post an offence.there was none intended. the mistake i was referring to was that you asked about ribs in men following adams op.i answered that and you responded "fair point pete". again i say ,,i was not intending anything insincere. tia-i responded to that many posts past. pete. |
|
27 Feb 12 - 01:26 PM (#3314141) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: frogprince Everyone knows that Eve was formed from Adam's rib. What most folks don't realize is that Eve weighed only 12 ounces. She found sex with Adam rather painful, and giving birth was much worse. |
|
27 Feb 12 - 02:04 PM (#3314152) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray I think even within the Mythos of Genesis we're not expected to believe that Eve was the same size as Adam's rib, or even his dick; certainly the iconographic tradition depicts her as being the same size as one another. Creationists would balk at either being depicted with belly-buttons though, seeing as how neither was born from a womb. Did Adam have nipples? Or a line of labial closure on his testicles? How do Creationists account for male nipples or other such evidences of vestigial hi-jinx? Curiouser and curiouser, but no more curious than believers in the literal existence of Folk Music arguing the toss with born again cretins. Pots and kettles, my friends, pots and kettles... |
|
27 Feb 12 - 04:43 PM (#3314198) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth pete, that was not really a mistake. I was trying to make a humorous point. Apparently I failed, at least with you. But it was not a mistake in my basic argument against the veracity of the whole Creationist myth, and the Creationism vs. Science debate. Science has wrought wonders in revealing the nature and history of the Cosmos and the nature of our existence. And the existence of all life on the planet, and the possibility, perhaps even certitude of life on other planets in the universe. The telescope was a product of science. And it was railed against by the Church when it was first turned on the skies. Scientific findings and the applications thereof have resulted in things that would have been considered miracles in Christ's time. Space travel, medical breakthroughs, too many things to catalog. Science has done all this. There is an old cliché that says, "Faith can move mountains." I have yet to see this demonstrated. Don Firth |
|
27 Feb 12 - 06:57 PM (#3314257) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Or a line of labial closure on his testicles? Good God, so that's what it is!! :boggle: |
|
28 Feb 12 - 01:52 AM (#3314374) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Paul Burke I hope it's actually on his scrotum. And dynamite can move mountains. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition! |
|
28 Feb 12 - 03:06 AM (#3314386) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona "These ideas [of 'thou shalt not kill' and 'love thy neighbor as thyself'] predate [Christianity]. Most of the tenets of the [B]ible were borrowed from other cultures and religious ideas much earlier." And the reason that these doctrines were already existent when the Bible was compiled was because they were instituted in the first chapters of Genesis. Biblical principles were instituted in the consciences of men before God inspired the first words of the Bible, and that solves the supposed 'problem' of pre-canon (that is, when the Bible was compiled) ethics. God instilled right and wrong in the hearts of men from the beginning. Some men suppress the truth to a degree where they no longer are sensitive to right and wrong, but God does instill it. The Bible borrows nothing, but supplies everything! "Biblical ethics are a recent phenomenon and have been grossly distorted and if you read the bible, you can see how this is true. The King James image of [G]od in the old testament is a tyrant and a mass murderer. At no point in Origin of Species did Darwln ever state that humans were aquatic sludge. This is a misconception used as propaganda by fundamentalist Christians." Darwin might not have stated it, but hundreds of other evolutionists have, and Darwin's premises leads to that conclusion. Textbooks tell little Johnny that "you share a common heritage with earthworms". Chances are that little Johnny enjoys stomping on earthworms in puddles after a rain. And if little Johnny is taught that he is just another type of earthworm, what's going to stop him from beating up or even killing his fellow earthworms (children)? It's happening more and more these days. The Biblical God is morally perfect, and the Old Testament God and the New Testament God are the same. God never changes, and neither do His laws. (remember Annanias and Sapphira?--Remember, that's in the New Testament....) This will be much more exhaustively addressed in a further post, though. |
|
28 Feb 12 - 04:43 AM (#3314407) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Scrotum, of course. Bollocks in any case. The older you get, the lower they swing. And talking of balls... The Biblical God is morally perfect The Biblical God is one of the most hideous mythological creations humanity has ever devised. Vengeful, jealous, prone to absurd tantrums and testing the faith of his faithful by allowing Satan to wreck their lives. The whole concept is bullshit from the off; inconsistent, entirely imperfect and insanely barbaric: Deuteronomy 20:10-14 - When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. Exodus 15:3 - The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name. Zachariah 14:1-2 - Behold, a day is coming for the Lord, when the spoil taken from you will be divided in your midst. For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken and the houses plundered and the women raped. etc. etc. In what possible shape or form is this barbaric construct of a deity Morally Perfect? |
|
28 Feb 12 - 04:55 AM (#3314417) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod "And if little Johnny is taught that he is just another type of earthworm, what's going to stop him from beating up or even killing his fellow earthworms (children)?" Well, the Bible certainly hasn't stopped 'little Johnny' from 'stamping on' earthworms, has it? But it has taught him that he is superior to earthworms and it hasn't warned him of the consequences of destroying them. Neither has it stopped 'little Johnny's' God-fearing dad from clear felling forests, polluting the land, the streams, the rivers, the seas and the oceans. Neither has it stopped him from driving countless plants and animals to the brink of extinction - and far too many of them over that brink. It hasn't stopped LJ's dad from killing indigenous peoples all over the world or depriving them of their resource bases. It hasn't stopped LJ's dad from invading other parts of the world and subjugating and enslaving the people there and stealing their land and its resources. And it hasn't stopped LJ's dad from spending so much of the wealth, derived from the rape of the world, on appalling weapons of mass destruction - many of which end up killing innocent non-combatants. And don't give me all that sh*t about sin and sinners, Iona, and that if LJ and his dad truly BELIEVED and REPENTED they wouldn't do these things. Face it, Iona, your vile old book with its insane, confused and psychotic messages is an integral part of the f**king problem!! |
|
28 Feb 12 - 04:57 AM (#3314418) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stu "Or a line of labial closure on his testicles? Good God, so that's what it is!! :boggle:" The medical term for the line of labial closure is Notcher. Because it's notcher bollocks and notcher arse. |
|
28 Feb 12 - 05:10 AM (#3314426) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Because it's notcher bollocks and notcher arse. It's the Scrotal Raphe, part of the Perineal Raphe which (according to WIKI) is a visible line or ridge of tissue on the human body that extends from the anus through the perineum. In men, this raphe continues through the midline of the scrotum (scrotal raphe) and upwards through the posterior midline aspect of the penis (penile raphe). It is the result of a fetal developmental phenomenon whereby the scrotum (the developmental equivalent of the labia in females) and penis close toward the midline and fuse. * Meanwhile, more Moral Perfection from the Big Fellow: 2 Samuel 12:11 - Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. As kids we used to look this stuff up and giggle; now it's just a vile catalogue of sexual violence and depravity. And all in God's name. |
|
28 Feb 12 - 05:28 AM (#3314434) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy Iona, Thanks for your latest post & yourexplanations. However, as previously on a number of occasions, you've omitted to provide a source for your information. In any debate, its always most important to be able to substantiate your statements with evidence of this nature. |
|
28 Feb 12 - 05:46 AM (#3314442) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw This thread has become all smoke and mirrors now. Smoke pertaining to the biblical discussion and mirrors apropos of the perineal raphe... |
|
28 Feb 12 - 07:05 AM (#3314467) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stu From Genesis, 15:36: "And Adam spake unto the Lord saying "I know thou has named all things that liveth and crawleth on the Earth Lord, and thou has named all parts of my body made in the image of thy own, but I can not remember the name for that bit betwixt John Wayne's saddle bags and me nipsy wot gets reet sweaty in the summer?" And the Lord answered thus: "It shall be named thou's Barse, now go forth and multiply." |
|
28 Feb 12 - 07:53 AM (#3314485) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw I always associate stuff made of two halves joined together with a seam with those cheap plastic toys you get on market stalls. Intelligent design my arse (or, in this case, intelligent design my perineal raphe). |
|
28 Feb 12 - 10:13 AM (#3314548) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray We're all female by default really; another grave error in that MAN (by which I mean MEN) create GOD in the image of their very worst & most idiotic attributes. So we have GOD as DIY Cretin knocking together an IKEA flat-pack paradise where the shelves starts falling down with a few days; GOD as Warlord / Vengeful / Tantrum prone buffoon who throws the floodwaters about when he doesn't get his own way. GOD coming to earth (again in his guise of DIY cretin / Carpenter) and ending up getting nailed to one of his own flatpack IKEA crosses in an Antisemitic porno-snuff movie. D'oh!! |
|
28 Feb 12 - 11:09 AM (#3314582) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D "if little Johnny is taught that he is just another type of earthworm, what's going to stop him from beating up or even killing his fellow earthworms (children)? " I know!--I know! Kant's "Categorical Imperative" I doubt Iona will be studying the details, but it essentially explains why men should follow what it VERY similar to the Golden Rule. I suppose Iona will just say that Kant got his 'idea' from God and then over complicated it....but it IS possible to defend 'good' and identify 'bad' without recourse to a bible. Of course, the answer is also we are NOT "just another earthworm" |
|
28 Feb 12 - 12:19 PM (#3314626) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stringsinger It should be apparent to those who come in contact with fanatical religious types who rely on the so-called "inerrancy" of the bible, that there can be no argument of a logical or analytical basis to satisfy them. You will always be wrong if you try. Young Earth Creationism is a product of this fanatical thinking and is motivated by a religious worldview that keeps Israel from confronting its atrocities, condemning mankind to a mythical "hell" and reserving their right to an assumed superior morality. It also is predicated on a reading of Revelations in the bible whereby if you don't believe, you are consigned to destruction by a sadistic god. Santorum is an example of this kind of thinking which makes him a dangerous candidate for president. Perry and Newt followed suit and Romney may worm his way into this attempt to woo the GOP religious fanatics. |
|
28 Feb 12 - 01:16 PM (#3314654) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke . And if little Johnny is taught that he is just another type of earthworm, what's going to stop him from beating up or even killing his fellow earthworms (children)? (1) Humans are not dexcended from tapeworms, Nobody ever said they are. (192) And if little Johnny is taught that he is just another type of human, what's going to stop him from beating up or even killing his fellow humans (children)? That's right, the sense of morality taught him by his parents. And did that come from the bible, where it's OK to slaughter the children of entire communities, or even all the children in the world except those of one incestuous family? Not on your nelly. The way people deal with each other has constantly evolved as the best way we can live together. |
|
28 Feb 12 - 01:19 PM (#3314658) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke Scrotal Raphe I went to school with him. |
|
28 Feb 12 - 01:48 PM (#3314679) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod "The Biblical God is one of the most hideous mythological creations humanity has ever devised. Vengeful, jealous, prone to absurd tantrums and testing the faith of his faithful by allowing Satan to wreck their lives. The whole concept is bullshit from the off; inconsistent, entirely imperfect and insanely barbaric:" I recently read a book in which the God of the Bible is compared to an abusive father. An abuser is jealous, vengeful and prone to tantrums and rages. He also batters his spouse and children into believing that they are incorrigibly 'imperfect' - i.e. 'sinners'. Well I, for one, have no attention of being the victim of an entirely imaginary serial abuser! |
|
28 Feb 12 - 01:53 PM (#3314682) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG I was just passing! There is no point arguing with Iona by writing a long piece, because she can do blather at great length. In that last missive from her I counted 12 assertions and 0 pieces of evidence. If you attempt a rational response she simply dumps another mass of ill-considered declarations into the thread without dealing with your comments. Look over the past posts: that's all she does. No, I am convinced the only way to make any progress is to pick any detail you like of something she has said and get her to defend that until she is forced to admit she doesn't know. She will try all sorts of diversions - delays, attempting to talk about something else, whatever, but keep it focused and in the end she will either have to agree she doesn't know. Losing focus is important to her because its ideal waffle territory. Keeping focus puts her on the defensive. |
|
28 Feb 12 - 03:38 PM (#3314737) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Iona never did answer the question I posed. She ducked the question and simply referred me back to the Bible. I ask it again. Iona-- Do you believe that it is possible to question, doubt, or disbelieve some of the contents of the Bible and still be a Christian? A simple "yes" or "no," please. Don Firth |
|
28 Feb 12 - 03:44 PM (#3314742) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Don't hold yer breath, Don.. unless you look good in blue |
|
28 Feb 12 - 03:54 PM (#3314750) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Scrotal Raphe I went to school with him. I knew him too. He was just fienne. |
|
28 Feb 12 - 04:49 PM (#3314781) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth If she answers "no," then she condemns millions of people who are doing the very things that Jesus said they should do. Again, Matthew 25:35-40. This includes many, such as a friend of mine who works in the Astrobiology Department of the University of Washington. A thoroughgoing scientist, she is involved in research into the kind of conditions in which life can EVOLVE. Animals such as shrimp-like creatures, and tube-worms that survive—and thrive—in areas such as the mid-Atlantic ridge, near what they call "black smokers" (volcanic vents on the sea floor), where the water temperature is over 700 degrees F. Temperatures can rise to these heights without the water boiling because of the immense pressure at that depth. Many of these creatures derive their energy, not from sunlight like the life-forms we are more familiar with, but from heat. Research of this kind gives an indication that, even in the harsh conditions that may exist on other planets, life can still evolve. Why would God create such an immense Universe if S/He intended it to remain barren? Why would S/He not populate it? Evolution is the mechanism. A mechanism invented and used by God. Those who wrote the Bible—mere mortals—had no understanding of this. The instruction to humans may have been, "Go forth and multiply." But long before that, God's instruction to our one-celled ancestors was "Go forth and divide!" Don Firth |
|
28 Feb 12 - 04:57 PM (#3314786) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Well I, for one, have no attention of being the victim of an entirely imaginary serial abuser! It's in the psychology of Christians to equate such behaviour with LOVE; they both LOVE and FEAR The Lord, because of whatever darkness they cultivate in their rotten hearts. Do you believe that it is possible to question, doubt, or disbelieve some of the contents of the Bible and still be a Christian? Following on, I'd have to say NO. What's the point in being a Christian if you recognise that the Bible is just a book written by a bunch of whacked out blokes with a tendancy to whine and advocate wholesale genocide? Christianity is predicated on a fulfillment of OT prophesy; it makes no sense otherwise. I think Christians who don't believe in a 100% literal interpretation of the Bible are being a tad hypocritical. Those who do, of course, a bunch of delusional cretins. There are JESUISTS who run with the Gospel of Thomas or the Q-Text and selected bits of John, but see the teachings of Jesus in a Humanist context entirely removed from the supernatural. Note: there is a world of difference between The Supernatural and The Spiritual. It is possible (and desirable) to be Spiritual without believing in God, Angels, Devils, Prophets, Virgin Births, Ressurections, Heaven, Hell - or any of the other fantasy constructs integral to Christianity. It is possible to recognise Christ as a teacher without sinking so low as to be a Christian. * I'm thinking of changing my Mudcat handle to Perennial Ralph. |
|
28 Feb 12 - 05:09 PM (#3314793) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mrrzy Or, like George Carlin, you can pray to Joe Pesci... |
|
29 Feb 12 - 12:27 AM (#3314928) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA pete: "tia-i responded to that many posts past." No you did not. You ducked it many posts past. If you wish, you can realize that I am just stupid and copy and paste your answer again (please!). Just to be clear, the question is: "What evidence (specifically) would be required for you to abandon your belief in YEC?" Anything you say that does not directly answer this question places you outside of any scientific debate...you too Iona. Sorry, but that is the definition of science. If you want to have a philosophical or theological debate, that is fine. But if you wish to continue claiming that you are discussing science, you must explicitly answer this question. Not my rules. The rules of science. Join or not, your choice. |
|
29 Feb 12 - 02:22 AM (#3314940) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona "Do you believe that it is possible to question, doubt, or disbelieve some of the contents of the Bible and still be a Christian? A simple "yes" or "no," please." Don, I can't give a simple "Yes" or "No" because it's not a simple question. There are a lot of situations that can't be head on answered yes or no, and require a lot of examination to make a Biblically sound verdict. Yes, I believe that Christians can doubt some points of the Scriptures and still be saved, but there are consequences for their unbelief. " But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth [in other translations, doubts] is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." (James 1:6-8, note mine). Really, your question comes down to assurance, and has to be applied from case to case scenario, not just given a blanket "yes" or "no". If the Christian is doubting something, I'd say they need to spend a lot of time in prayer and study of the Scriptures. That's the only place where there are real answers to any question. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:15-16) Tell me, Don, since you reject so much of the Bible, what parts of it do you believe and what foundation do you have for *those* parts being true? Or do you deny the Bible entirely? Iona "There is no higher pleasure for a redeemed soul--than contemplating the glories of Jesus! There is no surer evidence of a gracious state--than a thirsting after deeper knowledge of Jesus, and a more thorough conformity to His likeness!" -William Bacon Stevens |
|
29 Feb 12 - 03:43 AM (#3314947) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona These ideas [of 'thou shalt not kill' and 'love thy neighbor as thyself'] predate Christia-insanity. Most of the tenets of the bible were borrowed from other cultures and religious ideas much earlier. And the reason that these doctrines were already existent when the Bible was because they were instituted in the first chapters of Genesis (e.g. during Adam's lifetime and shortly thereafter). Biblical principles were instituted in the consciences of men before God inspired the first words of the Bible, and that solves the supposed 'problem' of pre-canon (that is, when the Bible was compiled) ethics. God instilled right and wrong in the hearts of men from the beginning. Some men suppress the truth to a degree where they no longer are sensitive to right and wrong, but God does instill it. Iona "Let God be true, though every man a liar" (Romans 3:4) |
|
29 Feb 12 - 03:45 AM (#3314949) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona Here's something else to worry about - that the ancient Earth was at least once almost covered by ice. There's a biblical explanation for that--Shortly after the earth was covered with the worldwide flood, there was an ice age. There is plenty of Biblical and scientific evidence for it. The book of Job was written shortly after the flood, and often talks about cold from the North, ice and snow, etc. The Ice Age, as it's called, is not in contradiction to either the Bible or science. I'm willing to elaborate if required. But at the moment I'm working on literally a dozen or so posts that are half done.... Iona |
|
29 Feb 12 - 04:25 AM (#3314955) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stu "The Ice Age, as it's called, is not in contradiction to either the Bible or science. I'm willing to elaborate if required." It's required. With references please. No hearsay and pseudo-scientific twaddle. |
|
29 Feb 12 - 05:20 AM (#3314970) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. The particular glaciation to which I referred was not the one resulting in moraines etc in North America, which in the UK saw ice down as far as the Thames. This one left traces almost* to the Equator. There would have been no possibility for any large fauna - and we are large fauna - to survive. The Wikipedia article mentions only aquatic life. It also refers to more than one Snowball Earth episode. There would have been no opportunity for any observer to record it. Jewish sources debate whether Job was written in the fifth century BCE, or by Moses. Others also debate its age. As they do its historicity. It cannot be placed sensibly closer to recent glaciations**, and certainly not to the Snowball earth events. *almost - because I don't have a map in front of me. I have seen reconstructions covering everything, but this is still under discussion. Temperatures at the equator would be like those in the Antarctic. ** It takes a very long time to grind down an overdeepened glacial valley and advance an ice sheet over the land to leave behind great depths of boulder clay and push up huge blocks of sedimentary rock into it. (See Norfolk coast Chalk in glacial till) It takes a very long time to melt again. YEC timescales do not allow for this to follow the Noahchian flood. Penny |
|
29 Feb 12 - 07:07 AM (#3315003) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: beardedbruce Iona, The Bible does have the answers: Matt 24: 23Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 25Behold, I have told you before. 26Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. You have been deceived by the MEN who wrote the Bible you are using. I have given examples earlier of the mistranslations: Those who established the present Christian faith had a vested interest in that deceit. Why do you think that THEY were inspired by God, and the present day evolutionists are not???? IF you say that "The Bible tells you so.", lease do the following: Take a piece of paper and write on one side "What is written on this paper is true:" On the other side, write "The statement on the other side of this paper is a lie." Now, think about it, and when you understand, reply. |
|
29 Feb 12 - 10:49 AM (#3315099) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Ah yes, Xeno's Paradox, or one of its variants. Nice one Bruce. Don T. |
|
29 Feb 12 - 12:32 PM (#3315139) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Iona says: "If the Christian is doubting something, I'd say they need to spend a lot of time in prayer and study of the Scriptures. That's the only place where there are real answers to any question." This is the bedrock problem with debating it with her. If questions about the status of the bible are to be answered only by reading the bible, it is a classic case of circular reasoning and assuming the answer. A few years ago, 2 Jehovah's Witnesses came to my door, and we 'discussed' issues for awhile. They read bible verses to show me what they wished to impart. I finally explained that I really did not accept the Bible as 'ultimate authority', as there were too many problems (as have been noted in this thread). So...frustrated, they went away, but CAME BACK a few days later with a 'more experienced' member to clarify things. How did he do it? He read me different Bible verses! Like Iona, they simply did not 'get it' that using the Bible to defend the status of the bible broke all sorts of rules of logic. I have a copy of the Book of Oahspe, which is claimed to be a "new Bible", dictated by Heavenly Messengers. If I showed it to Iona...or Pete... and read them parts of it, they would see immediately why they should not accept it because someone simply stated that it "was inspired from Above". "Oh, but WE have the real, original **truth** and those other attempts must be tricks of Satan"... or something... You cannot win when someone is internally committed to ONE answer, no matter what contrary evidence is offered. |
|
29 Feb 12 - 12:59 PM (#3315154) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Suibhne Astray, this is one of my recent problems. It's in the psychology of Christians to equate such behaviour with LOVE; they both LOVE and FEAR The Lord, because of whatever darkness they cultivate in their rotten hearts. I don't think it is in all Christians by any means, as I've got all the way through to retirement age withut noticing it much. But recently, it has led to my leaving another site. There was a book in our local Oxfam, on fearing God, which I glanced at, and decided it wasn't for me. But it niggled at me over the weeks, and I looked at it more, and decided it wsn't for anyone. So I bought it. Since I have done so, I've looked at the internet on the subject, and found how much there is on this theme, though nothing as disturbing as that particular book. All of them seem to have missed the sort of teaching found in Bunyan or Charles Wesley, where once one has accepted Christ, burdens are gone, chains have fallen off - and fear has to be one of those negative things. This particular book, as well as being very much about how powerful the author was - there was a lot of "I" in the writing - had a piece about not "disrespecting" God. It was like reading about a Mafia boss. I went for advice on what to do with it to the other site. After all, censorship is ungood, and destroying books is doubleplus ungood. And I was met with some very nasty, hurtful, personal abuse from a couple of self identified Christians. Which fits your interpretation, but took me by surprise. Some people there had liked some of my posts. Not really relevant to the YEC issue, but one of the two was of that persuasion. Penny |
|
29 Feb 12 - 01:19 PM (#3315169) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona I've told you before, the Bible is the ultimate authority. If I didn't appeal to it to prove itself, then it wouldn't be. Thus, it is not circular reasoning. I'd like to hear what y'alls ultimate authority is. Iona "Let God be true, though every man a liar" (Romans 3:4) |
|
29 Feb 12 - 02:42 PM (#3315207) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke Round and round and round, the old cracked record goes on. The Bible is false*; therefore it can't be the ultimate authority for anything. Indeed, it is certainly not even the ultimate authority for itself; there are many competing versions of it. This idiotic line of thought reminds me of those fanatics who burned the Great Library of Alexandria, arguing that so many books were unnecessary; if they contradicted Holy Writ they were blasphemous, if they agreed with it they were superfluous. *falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (if you look pneumatically enhanced in a Fiat, you'll still look like a bimbo on a Number 57). |
|
29 Feb 12 - 03:03 PM (#3315221) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Why does there have to be an ultimate authority? |
|
29 Feb 12 - 03:39 PM (#3315239) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: beardedbruce Iona, The Bible 1. has contradictory sections. 2. TELLS us NOT to believe people who tell us where God is. So, if the Bible is true, 1. We have to believe parts are both True AND False ( see my earlier post) 2. We should NEVER listen to you OR ANYONE who is talking about God. So, your insistence on telling us what God said is in direct opposition to the Bible |
|
29 Feb 12 - 05:25 PM (#3315274) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link well tia-who made this rule that you are referring to? and how do you think newton or the numerous other scientists who were christians and creationists would answer your challenge? did they not hold unswervingly to the teaching that you deem unscientific?it was under such that science made such great advances and it can be argued that this was a result of their bible based faith not despite it. it is quite apparent to me that this is about a philosophical allegience as much, if not more than scientific discussion.i am very limited academically but i know enough to know that the very beginning of evolutionism is an impossibility.abiogenesis is a philosophical necessity for atheists never-the-less. |
|
29 Feb 12 - 05:28 PM (#3315277) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D "I've told you before, the Bible is the ultimate authority. If I didn't appeal to it to prove itself, then it wouldn't be. Thus, it is not circular reasoning." That is amazing.... it is a true classic! I would LOVE to present that at a convention of Logicians and Philosophers... just to watch their jaws drop in awe! It is like a 3-layer, Mobius strip of logic... swallowing its own tail and burning its candle at both ends & in the middle..... and maybe 3-4 other strained metaphors! The closest thing to it I ever heard was when a woman I knew eloped ...and they bought a ring with this label inside: "Genuine Imitation Lucite" Thank you, Iona... you scare me, but you made my day! |
|
29 Feb 12 - 05:57 PM (#3315291) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Iona, take a look at the THIS ENTRY. There are over one hundred and fifty different Christian denominations and sects. Each one of these groups differs with the others over matters of belief—and each one claims a Biblical basis for their differences with all the others! In fact, Iona, many of these different groups have felt free to violate the Sixth Commandment and murder large groups of those other Christians who did not believe quite as they did! And felt smugly justified in doing so! There are at least ten major holy books, including the Bible, The Torah, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, the sayings of the Buddha, Confucianism, the Vedas, the Tao Te Ching—each one delineating a particular mythology and belief system. And NONE of them has any OBJECTIVE prominence over the others. All they have to support them are the beliefs of the followers of these religions. They all claim Ultimate Authority. But NONE can PROVE it. So— Other than your FAITH, Iona, what do you have to support your beliefs? And why should I—or anyone—believe as you do? (Here come the threats, folks! If you don't believe, you will suffer the Torments of Hell through all Eternity!) #### Do I believe there is a God? I don't know. And neither do you! You have faith that there is a God, but faith is not knowledge. If there was, or is, a Supreme Intelligence that created the Cosmos, then that Entity is so far beyond our comprehension that anyone who claims that he or she "knows the mind of God" or what God wants of us is either delusional or a con-merchant. Do I believe that the heavens and the earth were created in 4004 BC? No. The "heavens" came into being some 12.5 billion years ago in a process called the "Big Bang." But there is some debate about the actual nature of this. The matter (in the manner of rational science) is still open to question and further research. [See the writings of Michio Kaku about the possibility (probability) of multiple universes and multiple dimensions and how they come into existence, and his support for these ideas.] The earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Life began on the planet almost from the beginning (once volcanic activity had abated sufficiently and water began to precipitate out of the newly formed atmosphere) in the form of one-celled entities that began to reproduce themselves and evolve into more complex, multicellular forms, first through mutation, and then through interbreeding. The environment weeded out the less successful "experiments" as new varieties evolved. The evidence for this is overwhelming. And the process is still going on. Do I believe in the Virgin Birth, the Divinity, and the Resurrection of Jesus? First, I believe it quite likely that there was a historical Jesus because there are sources other than the Bible for his existence. The writings of Flavius Josephus, for example. And somebody started the whole Christian movement. I don't really believe that it was just a fraternity house prank that got out of hand (although…..). The Virgin Birth. First, in the mythology of most of the religions of the world, all major religious figures entered and left the world in some miraculous manner. Second, early on, the word "virgin" was synonymous with "young unmarried woman" (in both Aramaic and early Greek, as I've been told). Further, when Christians tried to pre-empt the followers of some pagan beliefs, they wooed the Virgin cults with the idea that Mary was a virgin. So—tough to seriously believe. God Incarnate? In the same way that ALL humans are God Incarnate. Kinda depends on how you look at it. Resurrection in the body? Also fits standard religious mythology. The miraculous reappearance of Jesus after the Crucifixion fits the standard narrative for major religious figures. As I recall, Buddha was supposed to have "beamed up" also. Mohammed? Yeah, I think so. The best belief I can adhere to is that Jesus was a teacher who had some very good things to say about how people should treat each other. Well worth heeding. I attend a Christian church. Why? Fair question. First, socially. A very neat bunch of people attend this church and we enjoy each others' company and sometimes "party down" outside of church activities. None of them is a hard-charging, breast-beating evangelist. Second, the pastors have all been intelligent and open for all kinds of discussions, religious and otherwise. And their sermons, believe it or not, tend to be pretty interesting and deal with the here-and-now rather than a lot of random speculation about the hereafter. And third and probably foremost, the social programs that the church is engaged in allows me to multiply my own efforts. It is one of five churches in the area that offer meals to the poor and homeless, and who actively search for low cost or no cost housing for the homeless. The church is also the national headquarters of the Lutheran Peace Fellowship, that works actively for Peace and Justice issues. It is also deeply involved in doing "Alternatives to Violence" workshops in the state's reformatories and prisons. I have been particularly active in these last two activities. One does not have to buy the whole ideology in order to strive to make the world a better place. Other than proselytizing, Iona, what have YOU been doing to improve the world lately? Don Firth P. S. If there, indeed, IS an anthropomorphic God, and if He is a just and loving God, I believe that He will be far more interested in what I DO than what I believe. P. P. S. Worthy of serious thought. |
|
29 Feb 12 - 06:12 PM (#3315294) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona "Has it every occured to you that you might be wrong?" Yep. That's why I rely on the Bible, because it's perfect! I wish I had all day to answer all of you. I'm working on some posts, but that takes time, and I haven't got tons of it! 'the world didn't have huge mountains like we have today' "Iona, If you believe that AND you believe Genesis 8:4, then there's another contradiction - could you explain please?" I said that before the flood the world didn't have huge mountains like we have today. Many of the mountains and mountain ranges we have now were formed during the flood by volcanic activity, sedimentary rock, the earth's plates being thrust upwards, etc. So it's not a contradiction, it's how you are reading what I wrote! :) [if that response is a duplicate, sorry] |
|
29 Feb 12 - 06:19 PM (#3315297) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth By the way— "how do you think newton or the numerous other scientists who were christians and creationists would answer your challenge? did they not hold unswervingly to the teaching that you deem unscientific?it was under such that science made such great advances and it can be argued that this was a result of their bible based faith not despite it" Sorry, pete, but you come up empty on this one. Many scientists such as Galileo, Newton, and numerous others went into science partially in order to reinforce belief in God by learning how He did it. What they found, however, established that these things could not have happened the way the Bible or the Church said they did. Nor was the Cosmos the way they claimed it was. And since this unsettling revelation, scientists have stopped looking to the Bible or the Church for answers to questions about the nature of Nature. Don Firth |
|
01 Mar 12 - 12:53 AM (#3315410) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth ". . . perfect." Well, I guess that depends on what your standards of perfection are. Don Firth |
|
01 Mar 12 - 01:14 AM (#3315416) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA Pete It is not my rule! It is how science works. You have ducked again. If you wish to have a scientific discussion, you really must answer the question: "What evidence (specifically) would be required for you to abandon your belief in YEC?" Ask me the converse "What evidence (specifically) would be required for you to abandon your belief in evolution", and I will give you a clear, simple answer. Why can't you do the same? Actually I know why. Because your position is not base on science. So answer the question explicity, or admit that your position is not scientific, but faith-base (which is fine, believe me!) But before you (or Iona who is carefully avoiding this question) can claim any scientific basis for your views, you must answer this question clearly and succinctly and unequivocally...and you are assiduously avoiding doing so! |
|
01 Mar 12 - 02:00 AM (#3315422) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Paul Burke and how do you think newton or the numerous other scientists who were christians and creationists would answer your challenge? There were, and are, many Christian scientists. But they are honest; when the evidence contradicts the Bible, they accept the evidence. Because the Bible is not 100% literally accurate, they accept that parts are metaphorical, parts are mistranslated, and parts are simply state propaganda from two and a half thousand years ago. That doesn't make them any less Christian than you. Or perhaps, to you, it does. |
|
01 Mar 12 - 02:44 AM (#3315430) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST "Noah's flood would have created the force needed to quickly and effectively 'buckle' the gelogic plates and create mountains and valleys, etc." No it wouldn't! That's the most ridiculous claim you've made yet, Iona! You can't brush off my argument like that, just saying "'TISN'T!" and considering it rebuffed. What evidence do you have that a worldwide, catastrophic flood couldn't create drastic changes in the earth? How do you know that? Iona [again, I hope I haven't posted this before. It's been in my drafts a while and sometimes I forget to delete after I post them] |
|
01 Mar 12 - 02:48 AM (#3315431) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST What evidence would be required for me to abandon my belief that God created the earth as He says He did? Prove to me that God doesn't exist and I'll recant everything I've said. It's an impossible task. You can't disapprove the very Being who created you! Iona "Let God be true, though every man a liar!" (Romans 3:4) |
|
01 Mar 12 - 02:59 AM (#3315433) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Joe Offer Well, Iona, that's a different tack - asking people to prove that there's NOT a God. I guess that's akin to asking people to prove that there's not a color called qltza. I think you're going up the wrong tree, getting into the "proof" business. If you believe in God and that belief makes your life richer, then that's a wonderful thing - my belief in God certainly does that for me. But when people force me into a combative mode and demand that I defend my belief in God, I get into territory that is not where I want to be. My faith does me good when it is a positive, uplifting thing - but not when it gets into combat. I see a God who is "slow to anger, rich in loving kindness, abounding in love." That God fills my life and keeps me going. That God leads me to love others and to love the world that God created (however that creation came to be). But my faith doesn't drive me to fighting about the specifics of the origin of the world - it's an interesting thing to study, but not anything to fight about. -Joe- |
|
01 Mar 12 - 04:17 AM (#3315452) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy Don Firth 'The best belief I can adhere to is that Jesus was a teacher who had some very good things to say about how people should treat each other. Well worth heeding.' Don, Thanks for that statement. I also believe[but not in any 'faith' or religious sense] that Jesus was a real person in history, with attributes as you've described. Iona, Without providing any source material for your assertions, you really can't be taken seriously |
|
01 Mar 12 - 04:39 AM (#3315462) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod "I've told you before, the Bible is the ultimate authority. If I didn't appeal to it to prove itself, then it wouldn't be. Thus, it is not circular reasoning. I'd like to hear what y'alls ultimate authority is." A completely delusional statement, if I ever read one! Iona, there IS NO ultimate authority - live with it!! |
|
01 Mar 12 - 06:54 AM (#3315510) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. The lithosphere, that part of the rocky layers of the Earth which moves around, is about 100 km thick - 100,000 m, with a volume of 5.054 X 10 to the power of 19 cubic cm. It has an average density of 2.7 grams per cubic cm, and an overall mass of 1.365 X 10 to the power of 23 kg. It is very massive. The hydrosphere, if spread over a featureless Earth, would be about 2440 m deep. Its mass is about 1.314 X 10 to the power of 21 kg. The pressure at the surface would be about 244 kg per square cm. (Sorry I can't properly notate the numbers.) Prove to us that that amount of water could exert a force on that amount of rock to move it. You might need to go into newtons, The newton is the SI unit for force; it is equal to the amount of net force required to accelerate a mass of one kilogram at a rate of one metre per second squared. And the force due to gravity. Roughly speaking, you could imagine a metre cube of lithosphere rock, with a layer of 24.4 cm of water on top of it. Could the water move the rock? Penny |
|
01 Mar 12 - 07:12 AM (#3315515) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: beardedbruce Don Firth, Excellent post of 29 Feb 12 - 05:57 PM . Iona, IF you were following Biblical direction, YOU WOULD NOT TELL OTHERS TO BELIEVE the Bible. You have not answered any of my statements about the KNOWN MISTRANSLATIONS of the KJ Bible. Are YOU saying that the men who translated from the Hebrew KNEW BETTER THAN GOD what GOD wanted to say????? |
|
01 Mar 12 - 11:53 AM (#3315637) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stu As a scientist, you have to be open to the fact there might be a God, or Gods. However, what is required by science is observable, reproducible evidence that could be used to test the hypothesis that God exists. At present, that evidence simply doesn't exist. Iona hasn't presented a single drop of evidence, and as Joe points out her attempt to turn the tables by asking people to prove that God doesn't exist is rather wide of the mark. This raises some interesting questions. What if there were beings alive in the universe that were so powerful we could only understand them as divine entities? Perhaps the intuition of so many of my fellow humans that some divine being exists is simply them recognising we're being observed by one of these beings? To an ant crawling over the surface of its anthill, the huge being that appears without warning in the sky above the anthill, blocking out the sun with its immense bulk and that can, with a simple exhale of breath scatter its fellow ants hither and thither, or with a swipe of his hand smite the anthill and destroy the labours of many over long years in a second, may appear divine in nature, but in fact is the scientifically explicable David Attenborough making a programme on ants. They could not comprehend the vast power at his disposal, the ability to travel distances incomprehensible to an ant. His ability to communicate with words and pictures to millions in the same instant. However, he's not a God, he's a chap and he's part of the universe, using technology discovered by the scientists so derided by fanatics. Pure speculation of course, but it's fun. I loved Carl Sagan's idea in Contact that there were beings capable of manipulating the very fundamental nature of the universe itself, and leaving a message in pi to indicate their existence. |
|
01 Mar 12 - 12:15 PM (#3315650) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D I think I will follow DMcG into the shadows and not bang my head on this wall any more. I may read it at times...but I can't spare the time for details. (take care, Pete... sing the good ones.) |
|
01 Mar 12 - 12:26 PM (#3315657) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=1bSZslEDUl0 |
|
01 Mar 12 - 12:29 PM (#3315659) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jeri I don't get frustrated over this. Trying to convince people who refuse to see is as nuts as the people you're trying to convince. Science and religion are completely different and people who think science is just another belief system are idiots. Science involves theories that are tested to develop conclusions. Religion involves believing what you've been told. Science involves re-evaluation and accepting new conclusions when the observed warrants. Religion involves not testing what's 'known' and ignoring anything which warrants rethinking. Science tries to fit the theory to the evidence. Religion tries to fit the evidence into the belief. |
|
01 Mar 12 - 01:52 PM (#3315720) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke I would be perfectly happy to see these superstitious bigots go unchallenged, if they were not trying to force everybody to follow their idiocy. Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.- Christians tortured a young boy to death believing him to be a witch. They want to own our relationships. An MP wants to prevent lovers from marrying. They want their superstition taught in schools Even though our bot has proclaimed that it has no scientific evidence for its beliefs, it wants them included in school curricula. A whole raft of proposals to cripple science teaching in American schools. This list is almost a year old- there have been several more since. Fundamentalists infiltrate the US military. This report is 4 years old. It has got worse since. Posing as faithful and charitable followers of religion, this extreme rightwing political movement threatens the civil liberties of everybody. |
|
01 Mar 12 - 02:06 PM (#3315724) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Iona has no response to the things I said in my post of 29 Feb 12 - 05:57 p.m., except to try to twist the punch line in the Peanuts strip that I linked to. Iona, you have no response to any of the things I said, other than a flippant remark? Your faith may be regarded as admirable in some circles, but in the REAL world (a world which MAY have been created billions of years ago by a Supreme Entity of such magnitude that the human mind is incapable of comprehending It, even in mythological terms), that kind of blind faith is tragic. Again, Iona, what do you do in the REAL WORLD to benefit your fellow humans? Feed the hungry? Clothe the naked? Comfort the sick, lonely, poor in spirit? Visit those in prison? I have referred to Matthew 25:35-40 a couple of times in this thread. I suggest that you go on to read further in Matthew 25. Verses 42 through 46. According to the Bible, there are many acts that are sinful. But also according to the Bible, there are sins of omission as well. Don Firth |
|
01 Mar 12 - 02:17 PM (#3315733) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""well tia-who made this rule that you are referring to? and how do you think newton or the numerous other scientists who were christians and creationists would answer your challenge?"" Why don't you ask yourself if Galileo would consider that he established the Heliocentric FACT of the solar system's physical nature because of Christian Creationist support, or in spite of its opposition? He was forced to recant or DIE!! Don T. |
|
01 Mar 12 - 06:20 PM (#3315814) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Sugarfoot Jack, I just reread your post at 01 Mar 12 - 11:53 a.m. Excellent!! This was a point that I kept trying to put across, but you said it much more eloquently than I. Thanks! Don Firth |
|
01 Mar 12 - 07:57 PM (#3315855) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw I also enjoyed Jack's post, though I wouldn't dignify the notion of God's existence by calling it a "hypothesis!" It fails the definition because it is not a proposed explanation based on observation (it's actually a giant non-sequitur), and because it cannot be tested. In fact, religion deliberately places God beyond testing. To suggest that God is the explanation for all the beauty and complexity of the universe also fails miserably because the proposed "explanation" is infinitely harder to explain (and infinitely more complex, to boot) than the stuff it is supposedly there to explain! |
|
01 Mar 12 - 08:25 PM (#3315878) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth I don't believe that the universe needs an explanation for its existence. Nor a hypothetical "Creator." It just IS. Don Firth |
|
01 Mar 12 - 08:34 PM (#3315886) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Well there will be an explanation for its existence, and it's fun seeking out that explanation, as long as we stick to evidence and reason. I suspect that the explanation will be a lot simpler than we might suppose (just look at how Darwin's explanation for all the beauty and complexity of life on Earth can be summed up in a single sentence, innocent of technical words), but I'm sure that the laws of physics will take care of it to the full. No need for inexplicable "explanations" for which there is no evidence and never will be. |
|
01 Mar 12 - 08:43 PM (#3315893) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Agreed! Don Firth |
|
02 Mar 12 - 01:15 AM (#3315966) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA Anyone willing to book a flight on YEC airlines? Really? Oh C'mon! It is the TRUTH! Iona and pete are typing on specially created keyboards. And when I lay my blessed hankie on the 'puter, I can *feel* the power. Yup it is sarcasm. No loss because we are speaking entirely different languages, and using entirely different thought (so-called) processes. I bet I would like pete and Iona on a hike or in a mixer, but they just ain't speakin the same language. Fun, but tiring. I'm done. |
|
02 Mar 12 - 04:34 AM (#3316002) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray I don't think it is in all Christians by any means, as I've got all the way through to retirement age withut noticing it much. But recently, it has led to my leaving another site. Just spotted this, Penny! I think such general santimoniousness goes hand in hand with the sort of mentality we see here regarding YEC. Of course not all Christians are into YEC, but once we start believing in a GOD then it raises all sorts of other issues too. What is God? Why happens to those who don't believe? etc. etc. My main issue here is that otherwise reasonable & rational human beings are prepared to carry around such medieval notions as Heaven and Hell. Indeed, such beliefs are the very core of the Christian faith; the idea of Salvation, and Sin, and a wrathful God who would create us with free will within a universe of infinite wonder only to punish us for all eternity for finding something better to do with our lives than being religious. Soon as I meet a Christian - any Christian - I know that in their hearts I am headed to Hell, there to suffer an eternity of hellish damnation along with the rest of humanity for simply being human. As I said earlier I can't see how anyone can believe in any stripe of Christianity and not hold with YEC - because one is as rediculous as the other. This is why I'm an atheist - that and the reason that no concept of any God I've ever read about has ever measured up to the divinity and spirituality of John Coltrane, whose Prophetic Creations are truly filled with wonder and spiritual beauty. |
|
02 Mar 12 - 05:01 AM (#3316008) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Hey, I'm pretty sure I'm Christian, and I don't go round assuming others are on their way to Hell, and I know a good few others who don't even accept that there is such a place, or if there is, that it is occupied (I think that is the Jesuit position). Even despite feeling strongly that some of those who rejoice in its existence ought to taste some of their own favoured punishment, and the neighbour who made my last home hellish ought to find out what it is like being their neighbour, I wouldn't go so far as eternity for the lesson. (And yes, Iona and pete, I know Jesus talked about the place, and I'm being picky about texts. But I have company in it.) (And I'm being prayerful about this posting, and I'm not being told to stop.) (On the other hand, the computer might chew it up, which sometimes happens with stuff I'm doubtful about, and I take as an indication that I shouldn't do it.) Penny |
|
02 Mar 12 - 05:25 AM (#3316014) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod I note that Iona and pete, with their usual selectivity, have not answered any of my points about Christianity (with it's assumptions of human superiority and human 'dominion' over the rest of 'creation') being at the root of our present horrendous environmental and ecological problems. I don't count pete's lame and unconvincing "stewardship" cliche. |
|
02 Mar 12 - 07:00 AM (#3316039) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray I'm Christian, and I don't go round assuming others are on their way to Hell Does Christianity work without Hell, I wonder? What is the point of the death of Christ if not to redeem humanity for its sinfulness acquired at The Fall? If you take away Hell from Christianity, then the root is lost entirely and Christ's sacrifice is meaningless. Of course all this is richly symbolic of human nature and the struggles we have between Nurture and Nature / Good and Evil / Reason and Impulse on a day to day level. Like me - ha! - going on wheat / carb & fat free Spring Diet because I know it's good for my health, but I still wake up craving crumpets and toast, and find myself drooling over pies & cake in the bakers window. Mind you, I did manage to quit smoking 13 years ago which gave me hope that Reason can triumph over Impulse, and, indeed, addiction; I also quit Christianity for much the same reasons, and whilst I still see the appeal of Secular Jesuist Humanism, I still have more sympathy for smokers than I do for Christians. After all, Smoking really does bring one closer to one's maker... As one who spends a lot of time researching Medieval religious sculpture and poetry, I find the underlying psychological themes fascinating too - and alarmingly 'modern' too. The Abrahamic Tradition is well ingained in western thought; its basic dualities and paternalistic oppositions underwrite pretty much everything from Marxism to Right Wing Functionalism with it prerequisites of poverty & suffering, and where, most paradoxically, Christianity finds its natural home! Even the 'saintly' Mother Theresa stood testimony to that much. human superiority and human 'dominion' over the rest of 'creation' I think those ideas are ingrained pretty deep, Shimrod. It's right there in the paternalistic sactimoniousness of the Abrahamic Tradition which feels any form of dominion is God-given - be it the desecration of nature, or the wholesale oppression of humanity by church and government alike. Both Tony Blair and David Cameron seem to be good Christian chaps who, no doubt, have no trouble getting to sleep at night, knowing that God is on their side. But wholesale massacre and the active propagation of misery apart, for me it comes down to something so simple as seeing an elderly homeless chap quite forcibly evicted from Manchester Cathedral one freezing January day for having nodded off in the warm. Were the ushers wearing WWJD bracelets - or was that just my imagination? Either way, on especially cold days, when I'm at my most cynical, and when people are literally freezing to death on the streets, I might find myself looking up into the vast emptiness of cathedrals - wherein the hot-air rises - and thinking what a fine way to waste our precious resources just keeping warm an empty space where no one will ever go... |
|
02 Mar 12 - 12:12 PM (#3316151) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Interesting point - but maybe it wasn't the point at the beginning, before it was codified. I'm putting the rest of my answer in the Freethinking thread. Penny |
|
02 Mar 12 - 12:28 PM (#3316163) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Wait for it... |
|
02 Mar 12 - 12:28 PM (#3316164) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket 1000 |
|
02 Mar 12 - 02:17 PM (#3316223) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Astray, it depends on whether one buys all the supernatural stuff, which (and the evangelical and fundamentalist Christians will never agree with this, but they're not the be-all and end-all of Christianity) is NOT essential to being a Christian. Heaven and Hell are not geographical locations and Adam and Eve were not actual historical people. Metaphor. NOT literal. From a sermon given by an intelligent, thinking pastor: Doubting is a sign of caring. If I don't care, you can tell me men from the moon visited you last night during your prayers and I will say, "that's nice." But if I care, if I care passionately, I will perhaps ask, "Really? What did they look like? Did you really see men from the moon? I can't believe it!" Which translates into, I want to believe it. I would like to believe that wanting to have faith is a form of faith.There is a well-known quote that goes "There is more faith shown by honest doubt than in all the creeds of the world." Who said it is not certain, but it has been attributed to both Alexander Pope and William Blake. What makes a Christian a Christian is how seriously they take the ethical teachings of Jesus, NOT whether they actually believe that Noah parted the Red Sea by waving a stick. Also, a pastor I know commented that there are self-style Christians who are "so hell-bent on getting to heaven, that they are of no earthly use to anyone!" Don Firth |
|
02 Mar 12 - 06:36 PM (#3316325) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link don-NOAH ! parting the red sea?sounds a very amusing preacher. penny-that seemed a bit of a mocking posting unchacteristic of your usual more reasoned arguments and comments. going back to your earlier postings;you were talking about chalk and hardgrounds.did you see the tv programme last night about the south downs chalk.i caught some of it before an open mic outing.interesting stuff though of course i dont accept the inevitable deep time assertions.i was reading andrew snelling on CMI site tonight giving [IMO ]a good discussion of uiformitarian and diluvial geology re chalk.it certainly aided my understanding of the subject and the arguments as to the formation of the dover etc cliffs, though without my being equal to a worthy recounting. another argument ,sort of related ,was an article called "disappearing coastlines" which as well as being interesting in the accounts of having to move lighthouses, posed the problem for uniformitarian geology of the rate of erosion being immense distances if really over millenia of deep time. just as creationist scientists counter evolutionary aguments;it occurred evolutionists probably offer an explanation for this one. as you are the geologist on mudcat i thought you would be equiped to supply such-if its not too technical for me! best wishes as always pete |
|
02 Mar 12 - 07:12 PM (#3316348) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Just checking to see if you were awake, pete. That was Moses, of course. Noah just drifted around on it. Or near it. Maybe. You'd be amazed at the number of evangelists who don't catch that. But whoever it was, we can be certain that he was played by Charleton Heston. ==== As to matters of erosion, I think you'll find that this falls more under the heading of geology than evolution. Don Firth |
|
02 Mar 12 - 07:36 PM (#3316361) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Metaphor. NOT literal. The Abrahamic Tradition, Christ included, seems to take such things pretty literally, with the whole thing geared up to an after-life of paradise or purgatory*. So, what gives here? * Yes, I know purgatory isn't Hell as such, but for sake of the alliteration, and the very literal theology of the RCC... |
|
03 Mar 12 - 03:44 AM (#3316525) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Pete, that was a response to being told what I believe by someone who doesn't believe any of it. It got my dander up a bit. I'll gve a glance to that chalk piece - missed the TV, though. Penny |
|
03 Mar 12 - 04:16 AM (#3316530) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. I've had a look at the Snelling piece, which includes some good descriptive stuff, but misses some vital information out. There are some answers to him here. Answers in Creation (That looks like a site you should find interesting. It's a group who still regard the Bible as inerrant.) The points that occurred to me are that he bases his arguments to start with on deposition to the deep ocean floor - chalk forms on shallow shelves, which is were the blooms he describes occur. The flood is described in many places as turbulent. Chalk requires tranquil conditions. He does not address hard grounds when the chalk ooze floor was occupied by various living things which have left their fossils. He supposes that the growth of carbonate shells depends solely on the availability of CO2, whereas calcium ions are also needed, and this needs the dissolving of exposed rocks by acid rains (all rain is slightly acid, which is why the supply of calcium is slow.) he does not address this point. He does mention the increase of nutrients by the stirring up of soils etc, but this is not going to happen in clean water. He mentions abundant vulcanism as a source for C02 and nutrients. We know that volcanoes erupted during the formation of the chalk, as there are traces of the ash. Traces which look for all the world like fossilised cigarette smoke, and only occur in a few layers, widely separated. Not a vast amount of vulcanism, then. Again, what he describes is not clean water. He looks impressive, but he leaves out the material which doesn't suit him. I couldn't find the erosion piece - though did spot him challenging the absence of historic erosion surface by looking at the Grand Canyon, and not well known unconformities. The main experts on the Chalk are Rory Mortimore and Andrew Gale, and you could do worse than look them up. Penny PS Thanks for the compliment on other posts PS |
|
03 Mar 12 - 04:40 AM (#3316533) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Still not *really* joing in the thread, but it is worth thinking about David Attenborough's recent quotation about a film involving polar bears: "How far do you take this? 'This is a penguin but actually it's a different penguin colony than we did for that one' - come on. We're making movies." And that's right. TV programmes, whatever their other merits, have 'being a successful programme' rather higher in the stakes than accuracy or completeness. A detailed explanation of what is needed to allow chalk deposits would, quite literally, have been 'a turn off'. Showing less famous sites is less entertaining than the Grand Canyon, which looks spectacular even if no-one is actually listening. There was an interesting lecture by Brian Cox (I assume US readers know who that is as well) in which he concentrated on this tension and the sheer effort it took to try and present something that might be quite complicated in a way a novice can understand without damaging the scientific accuracy too much. It is visible here. I apologise that that's on one of Dawkin's sites, but that doesn't affect the content, which was for one of the better lecture series in the UK. So in short: TV currently, and certainly for most channels, puts the Reithian goal to 'entertain' higher than the one for 'educate'. They can be, and are, good sources to inspire thought, but its best to look elsewhere for hard facts. |
|
03 Mar 12 - 04:43 AM (#3316535) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Aggh! Having found the lecture I didn't actually play it, and now I find YouTube have taken it down. I'll see if I can find it elsewhere. Sorry! |
|
03 Mar 12 - 04:48 AM (#3316536) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray David Attenborough's recent quotation about a film involving polar bears: "How far do you take this? 'This is a penguin but actually it's a different penguin colony than we did for that one' - come on. We're making movies." Polar Bears and Penguins? Polar opposites! |
|
03 Mar 12 - 04:54 AM (#3316537) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG I couldn't find the whole programma by Cox, but there are some clips here Polar Bears and Penguins? Polar opposites! Brilliant! I laughed at that one, SA. But it's not entirely stupidity on my part - for a change! The row was raised about filming polar bears and penguins came up during the discussion. |
|
03 Mar 12 - 12:00 PM (#3316660) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Greg F. Another "true believer': March 3, 2012 Albuquerque man finds 'Jesus' on a tortilla Associated Press ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — An Albuquerque man says he has found Jesus on a tortilla. KOAT-TV reports that David Sandoval said he saw the image of the Lord on the tortilla while preparing to eat on Ash Wednesday last week. He said he couldn't believe what he was seeing and passed the tortilla bearing the face of Jesus to his mother, who also expressed surprised. After seeing the image, Sandoval opted not to eat it. Instead, he said posted a photo of the tortilla on Facebook and his family is looking for ways to preserve it. Sandoval said he felt it was a sign since it appeared on the first day of Lent--the Catholic period of fasting and prayer before Easter. He said those who see the tortilla have called it a miracle. |
|
03 Mar 12 - 01:52 PM (#3316723) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: frogprince Greg F, this one's for you. |
|
03 Mar 12 - 03:55 PM (#3316786) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth There has to be something in the minds of people who have this kind of experience that divorces them from reality. I believe that's called "psychosis." I can't recall where it was, but a few years ago someone "saw" an image of the Virgin Mary on the side of a tall building. He noised it around, and people started gathering at this new, miraculous "shrine," praying and waiting for miracles of healing and such. The image was without detail. Nothing more than a silhouette. If you squinted a bit and used your imagination a lot, you could make it look like the shape of someone with a shawl over his/her head. There was no way, beyond a leap of the imagination, to identify it as a human shape, and certainly no way of differentiating gender. In fact the image appeared after a particularly heavy rain. Less imaginative people with a certain knowledge of construction said that it was a water stain in the building's concrete façade. This accounted for the fact that it appeared after rain and disappeared after a couple of dry, sunny days. Yet, dozens of people were absolutely convinced that this was a miraculous image of the Virgin Mary. Keep in mind that we have no idea of what Mary looked like other than artists' conceptions, mostly depictions in Renaissance paintings. CLICKY. If one took an objective look at the water stain, it could just as easily have been Sugarloaf Mountain hovering over Rio de Janeiro: CLICKY. Some folks see, not what is there, but what they want to see. (Perhaps they should be careful, lest what is actually there might be THIS sinister fellow). Don Firth |
|
03 Mar 12 - 04:45 PM (#3316803) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D "...he felt it was a sign since it appeared on the first day of Lent" wow...what if it had appeared on Mohammed's birthday! |
|
03 Mar 12 - 05:09 PM (#3316811) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Greg F. Thanks, frogprince- I'd thought that the Vatican had busted Saint Brace Beemer the same time they chucked out Saint Christopher. Good to know he still shows up from time to time. |
|
03 Mar 12 - 05:16 PM (#3316815) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Brace Beemer. Now, THERE was a VOICE! Don Firth |
|
03 Mar 12 - 09:19 PM (#3316906) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Greg F. You bet! & don't forget Saint Fred Foy - tho I don't think he's shown up on any tortillas- at least, not recently. |
|
04 Mar 12 - 02:47 AM (#3316976) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona I haven't had time to write much on my responses lately, but I thought I'd drop this pretty little bomb of a quote to give y'all something to beat me up over while I'm away. :) I think it pretty well addresses the fact that some of you seem to expect God to lower himself to a level where He can be judged on the same plain as mortals--which He's nowhere near doing, and we're awfully arrogant to demand Him to do. _______________________________________________________ "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law." Deuteronomy 29:28 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts--neither are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. "As the heavens are higher than the earth--so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts!" Isaiah 55:8-9 The difficulties and mysteries of Scripture, necessarily result from the relations between God and man: God the infinite--man the finite; God the holy--man the sinner; God a Spirit--man a creature of flesh and blood; God in Heaven--man on earth; God inhabiting eternity--and man the creature of a day; God the Sovereign of the universe--and man the tiny, puny rebel to His throne. Mark these contrasts--measure their diversity. The very statement of them shows how impossible it is for man to be able to fully comprehend God or His dealings. The question was asked of old, "Who, by searching, can find out God? Who can find out the Almighty?" And Solomon, the wisest of men, declared, "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter." For if man knew as much as God--he must have the mind of God and the wisdom of God! For eighteen hundred years the mind of man, with its measuring lines--has been endeavoring to fully understand God and His ways, and compute the measurements of His great truths--and yet they are no nearer the solution now, than when first revealed. There they stand in the firmament of theology, the great unresolvable nebulae of revelation; and no magnifying power of man's optics, and no space-penetrating power of man's devising--can unfold those mysteries, which at once challenge and test, the faith of man. There can be no revelation of God which is free from mysteries--because human language cannot embody celestial thoughts and modes of divine existence. And the human mind could not comprehend terms and phrases which would truly reflect the person, glory, and work of the Almighty. Divine thoughts, before they can be taken into our minds, have to be diluted into human words. Divine things have to be symbolized to us, by human or earthly types. And divine beings have to be described to us, by terms borrowed from human existences and of purely earthly signification. Hence, in the process of translation, dilution, and illustration--no one attribute of God, no one truth of God--can be fully revealed and understood. We can only see the earthly side and the earthly terminus--the heavenly side and the heavenly starting-point, are all beyond our reach--far away out of sight! And there we must be content to let it be, ever standing with our eyes upturned to Jesus, holding in one hand the great doctrines of revealed truth, and in the other the precious assurances: "What I am doing, you do not understand now; but you shall know hereafter." John 13:7 "Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." 1 Corinthians 13:12 (William Bacon Stevens, "Follow Me!") |
|
04 Mar 12 - 03:54 AM (#3316994) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Divine things have to be symbolized to us, by human or earthly types. And divine beings have to be described to us, by terms borrowed from human existences and of purely earthly signification. Hence, in the process of translation, dilution, and illustration--no one attribute of God, no one truth of God--can be fully revealed and understood.. Iona: reflect on those words. Read them at least four or five times and spend perhaps 20 minutes thinking about them. What do they imply about the Bible as revealing the mind of God? I suspect William Bacon Stevens didn't really think about them either ... |
|
04 Mar 12 - 04:41 AM (#3317005) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. I think it pretty well addresses the fact that some of you seem to expect God to lower himself to a level where He can be judged on the same plain as mortals--which He's nowhere near doing, and we're awfully arrogant to demand Him to do. Dear Iona, what do you think the incarnation was about? Penny |
|
04 Mar 12 - 05:22 AM (#3317015) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod The Rich are the infinite--the poor are the finite; The Rich are holy--the poor are sinners; The Rich are Spirits--the poor are creatures of flesh and blood; The Rich are in Heaven--the poor are on earth; The Rich inhabit eternity--and the poor the creatures of a day; The Rich are the Sovereigns of the universe--and the poor are the tiny, puny rebels to Their throne. Mark these contrasts--measure their diversity. The very statement of them shows how impossible it is for the poor to be able to fully comprehend the Rich or Their dealings. Religion: an instrument of social control. |
|
04 Mar 12 - 09:30 AM (#3317082) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Greg F. And, in Iona's case, evidently an instrument of mind control. |
|
04 Mar 12 - 12:10 PM (#3317142) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie This thread has been going longer than the earth has, if fairy stories are to be believed. And we have now reached the stage where we re not allowed to know the mind of god and wouldn't understand anyway. If god wants to raise himself to my level, I'm all ears. Pity he can't then. I reckon we slightly misheard when he said he was omnipotent. My mate reckons Viagra works wonders in such matters. Mind you, worrying all about the world, even the bits no bugger had heard of when they wrote the bible (s). No wonder he is omnipotent, must be the worrying about us and not capable of telling us where we went wrong. I can tell him though, it's when people started relying on him to cure the world's ills. Poor old sod, almost feel sorry for him. |
|
04 Mar 12 - 03:18 PM (#3317209) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link dmcg-not away long but nice to see you back anyway. i see what you are getting at, but in christian teaching the idea that the essence and ways of God can not be explained to man with his limitations is balanced by what he has revealed.as penny rightly implies;the incarnation was/is a revelation of God. and for christians the bible has historically been regarded as Gods revelation .while most here do not accept it could have come from God even if they have some semblance of a faith,i say if God is ,why should he not give us his word.of course,not all the bible is perfectly clear but there is more than enough to get on with while still having much to exercise the minds of the theologically inclined. as quoted earlier- the secret things belong to the Lord our God BUT the things that ARE revealed belong unto us .... |
|
04 Mar 12 - 03:29 PM (#3317211) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth ". . . some of you seem to expect God to lower himself to a level where He can be judged on the same plain as mortals--which He's nowhere near doing, and we're awfully arrogant to demand Him to do." Iona, your understanding of Christian doctrine is way deficient. What do you think God's Incarnation in the form of Jesus the Christ was all about? By the way, since you don't answer my questions—quite simple questions, really—the only conclusion I can come to is that you don't care to answer. When your time comes, will you be judged as a sheep or a goat (see Matthew 25, verses previously cited)? You don't need to answer me, but I think that, for the good of your soul, you should give it some serious thought. Don Firth |
|
04 Mar 12 - 03:29 PM (#3317212) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Oh, I'm not staying long! I said I'd comment on things I found irresistable, but I won't be getting into any detailed discussion. In this case, when Iona called in evidence something that contradicts her case, well, what is one to do? |
|
04 Mar 12 - 03:40 PM (#3317219) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Pete, it is possible to regard the Bible as a revelation without regarding it as historical or scientific fact. I was going to post just the refrain of this hymn (look guys, music stuff), but I thought the verses were relevant too. We limit not the truth of God To our poor reach of mind, By notions of our day and sect, Crude, partial, and confined. No, let a new and better hope Within our hearts be stirred: Refrain The Lord hath yet more light and truth To break forth from His Word. Darkling our great forefathers went The first steps of the way; 'Twas but the dawning yet to grow Into the perfect day. And grow it shall, our glorious sun More fervid rays afford: Refrain The valleys passed, ascending still, Our souls would higher climb, And look down from supernal heights On all the bygone time. Upward we press, the air is clear, And the sphere-music heard: Refrain O Father, Son, and Spirit, send Us increase from above; Enlarge, expand all Christian souls To comprehend Thy love, And make us to go on, to know With nobler powers conferred: Refrain It can still be profitable to teach about God. (Though I must admit, some parts of the OT - the story of Dinah springs to mind, as does Jephthah's daughter - are a bit difficult to find light in.) Penny |
|
04 Mar 12 - 04:38 PM (#3317238) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray in christian teaching the idea that the essence and ways of God can not be explained to man with his limitations is balanced by what he has revealed A very human thing to say really. I think the essence of God is easily explained & understood. 1) We create God to 'explain' the things we can't explain. 2) We hang on to the concept as a means of social control. Simple! |
|
04 Mar 12 - 04:39 PM (#3317239) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke A step further along understanding how insects remodel their bodies - we all know thw wonder of the caterpiller/chrysalis/butterfly. The trite response of "creation" won't do for the enquiring mind. We still don't know. But we know a little bit more. It amazes me that some people are impervious to the wonder of life. |
|
04 Mar 12 - 06:56 PM (#3317315) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D *sneaking back for a moment* pete remarked on: "the idea that the essence and ways of God can not be explained to man with his limitations" Right... like one survivor of a plane crash crawling out and intoning.."God was with me!".... we just can't understand why all those others were not worth God's time & concern. It's just.....a mystery. Very convenient.... |
|
05 Mar 12 - 04:59 AM (#3317451) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Yes, Bill. A bit like prayer, too, when you're asking for something. If I pray for Liverpool to beat Arsenal, I'm also asking that Arsenal get beaten. If I ask God to help someone to recover from illness, I'm asking him to exacerbate the world overcrowding problem and put an even greater burden on the young having to look after the old. And so on. Good stuff, this Christianity lark. Sometimes it just isn't very, er, Christian. |
|
05 Mar 12 - 05:08 AM (#3317455) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. There are two things that get me about prayer - one that Steve has put. The other being that if God is omniscient and all-good, why do we have to ask? There are complex answers to this about what prayer is really about, and praying for things isn't really the heart of it, but intercession is most people's most common understanding. That and the growing belief in a prosperity gospel. A bit like the Lottery. Winning means that you have in your bank account millions of stakes paid in by people who couldn't really afford it, and might well have needed to win more than you. Penny |
|
05 Mar 12 - 05:15 AM (#3317458) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray The rich man at his castle, The poor man at his gate, God made them high and lowly, And ordered their estate... All together now: All things bright and beautiful... |
|
05 Mar 12 - 05:23 AM (#3317466) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. My grandmother was taught that stuff. She was supposed to bob a curtsey to carriage folk, because the fact that they had a carriage was a sign that God thought they were better than her. Guess what? She didn't. (It was that story which made her a real person to me.) I hope this isn't a repeat post. Penny |
|
05 Mar 12 - 05:44 AM (#3317482) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod "I think the essence of God is easily explained & understood. 1) We create God to 'explain' the things we can't explain. 2) We hang on to the concept as a means of social control." It's number 2) which fascinates me: For centuries the Romans persecuted Christians - crucified them, turned them into 'living torches', fed them to lions etc. (I'll refrain from cheap cracks about, "come back Rome ..." etc.). But this harsh treatment only encouraged them - Christians actually wanted to die an agonising death like Jesus! In spite of the persecution the number of Christians within the Empire continued to grow exponentially (then, as now, there were lots of gullible idiots about). Then, in the 4th century, the Emperor Constantine had a brainwave: "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!" And not only join them but make Christianity the official religion of the Empire! It was a great wheeze, with lots going for it. After all Christians only worshipped one God (actually a God divided into 3 parts ... eeerrr? ... but we'll skip over that theological nicety). There are obvious analogies between an all-seeing, omnipotent, patriarchal God and a Roman Emperor (or, rather, a Roman Emperor aspired to a state of all-seeing, omnipotent patriarchy). And it's probably no coincidence that the Roman Empire was in the process of splitting in two at this stage in its history - something which, no doubt, would have irked a big shot like Constantine. But what was even better was that Christians tolerated the condition of poverty! The poor's reward for a life of toil and suffering is, of course, in Heaven. This meant that Constantine and his cronies could keep more of the Empire's wealth for themselves (relatively guilt-free) and there was less chance of social unrest or outright rebellion - perfect! It's probably no coincidence that the present day American Right supports Christianity (the more 'fundamental' the better). This allows corporate America to get richer and richer whilst discouraging the poor (kept in a state of ignorance by nonsense like YEC) from rebelling - again, perfect - if you're a hyper-rich American! |
|
05 Mar 12 - 05:48 AM (#3317485) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Funny the bits they don't see, isn't it? Needles. Eyes of. Matt 19:21 Luke 18:22 Mark 10:21 Penny |
|
05 Mar 12 - 06:11 AM (#3317498) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw We create God to 'explain' the things we can't explain. That's right, but the creation of God for this purpose is the ultimate illogicality. The things we can't explain are continually being closed in on by good science, yet somehow we still seem to need a being that explains them anyway (in the most intellectually dull manner possible) yet is completely inexplicable himself (and always will be). Who among us thinks that a satisfactory answer to a question is not actually an answer at all, but an infinitely more difficult question? |
|
05 Mar 12 - 08:09 AM (#3317566) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod "Funny the bits they don't see, isn't it? Needles. Eyes of." Yes, Penny, but that assumes that the rich really believe in the religion in the first place - perhaps many of them are ruthless, cynical psycopaths who, like Constantine, have worked out that, in many people, those religious 'buttons' are there to be pressed to their advantage. And if they really are sincere in their beliefs then they can always atone for their 'sinful state' by giving 'lots' (i.e. tiny fractions of their net wealth) to charity ("He's a lovely guy, that Atilla the Hun, he gives loads to 'charidy'!") |
|
05 Mar 12 - 08:35 AM (#3317580) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. I don't think I was assuming anything of the sort. The nearest I would come to being charitable to the poor little rich guys would be to say "there's none so blind as those that won't see," and suggest that their upbringing had fitted them with blinkers, so that, perhaps, they actually can't see, and don't know that they can't. But I'd have to be pretty sure I wasn't walking round with a dirty great plank in my eye first. Penny |
|
05 Mar 12 - 09:06 AM (#3317600) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Funny the bits they don't see, isn't it? Needles. Eyes of. I dare say there'll be someone alomg soon us to tell us about some imaginary narrow gateway in Jerusalem that was difficult to get camels along that was known in the vernacular as the Eye of the Needle. But no - it's a rather hyperbolic metaphor on the evils of material wealth the unambiguity of which makes Christians squirm to this day. In the context of the Biblical Bloodbath (basically everything from Genesis to Revelation) it seems weird that you have this amazing respite in the teachings of Jesus which shine forth as a humanist beacon & yet have little bearing (to say the least) on subsequent Christian theology which is more hung up on the mythical framework of his life (Virgin Birth, Death & Resurection) that what he actually said & did. So simple really. How do we get from that to the 2000-year inhuman Reich of the Holy Roman Church and the rabings of the ultra Right Wing American fundentalists? And just WWJD in the face of it? I would have thought it was pretty obvious really, just as I'm sure his take on such inane mumbo jumbo as YEC, Glossolalia and Transubstantiation would make for very interesting reading indeed. |
|
05 Mar 12 - 09:20 AM (#3317607) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Another piece of progressive Christianity revealed by a survey (see Grauniad website): faith schools, particularly C of E and Roman Catholic ones, are cherry-picking the best kids. Now who'd have thought it - so Christian of them... |
|
05 Mar 12 - 10:24 AM (#3317639) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""The very statement of them shows how impossible it is for man to be able to fully comprehend God or His dealings."" And yet you purport to understand well enough that you will not only recommend, but demand, that your interpretation be accepted over the weight of evidence of hundreds of years of human experimental evidence, and the inescapable conclusions drawn therefrom. Conclusions, moreover, which have been tested, reproduced and where necessary altered to accommodate new techniques and technologies. Against this the best you can offer is your opinion based on books of jumbled up history and mythology, re-written who knows how many times by MEN with many different agendas, but all wanting to control the lives of various populations. You give yourself airs lass, and you do your faith little credit. Don T. |
|
05 Mar 12 - 10:32 AM (#3317646) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Steve, they haven't just been cherry picking the best. For years, the school I taught at frequently took in children with behavioural problems who had previously been at the local RC primary, which had excluded them. Not just church schools though. One non-faith school nearby had, so I was told by a neighbour who was a parent there, no special needs children except G&T. They had identified her son as one. I'm not sure which criteria they used. I tutored him for the entrance to a local grammar school which had a maths test which went beyond the maths included in the primary curriculum. He wasn't interested in things. Penny |
|
05 Mar 12 - 10:46 AM (#3317653) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""of course,not all the bible is perfectly clear but there is more than enough to get on with while still having much to exercise the minds of the theologically inclined."" More than enough, as you say, to keep the minds of the population occupied to the exclusion of thoughts about the difference in lifestyles between them and the aristocracy upon whose patronage the clergy depended. ""as quoted earlier-the secret things belong to the Lord our God BUT the things that ARE revealed belong unto us ...."" This is the biggest joke of all. Do you not know that the bible and its "revelations" have been hidden from the eyes of the majority of Christians, and that those revelations were carefully doled out by Popes who included among their number, womanising murderers such as Pope Alexander VI (Roderigo Borgia), and Bishops and Cardinals who treated convents as personal harems. Seems to me a bit of a stretch that these types were diseminating the "Word of God", or that they cared much for the accuracy of their revelations. The ordinary citizen was not taught to read and write, and the few who were didn't even get to read the bible until the invention of the printing press. Don T. |
|
05 Mar 12 - 10:53 AM (#3317656) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. I have heard a story about a medieval bishop in France, who on coming across a text from the Bible in translation (probably the Magnificat or one of the texts above) asked who had written the appalling stuff, and then insisted that it be kept from the people. Penny |
|
05 Mar 12 - 11:38 AM (#3317687) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Penny, I taught in a Catholic secondary school in the East End in the 70s. Not a Muslim child in sight - in a secondary school in that area! |
|
06 Mar 12 - 09:40 AM (#3318168) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 "And not only join them but make Christianity the official religion of the Empire!" Things changed after the Battle of Malvian Bridge 312 (?) CE and they were reinforced at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. However, Constantine shaded his bets because coins of that era show both a cross and Ra (the sun god imported from Egypt) on coins of the day. Constantine himself didn't become a Christian until he was on his death bed. |
|
06 Mar 12 - 10:06 AM (#3318184) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy Can't wait for Iona's next thrilling instalment of this serial! |
|
06 Mar 12 - 11:43 AM (#3318239) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D I think Constantine used Pascal's Wager centuries before Pascal..... and in fact, Christian doctrine is configured that way... "not only is our way 'good', but that 'ol devil will getcha iffn you stray!" Tends to scare 'em into line.... a scraggly line, but then the idea of "death bed conversion and salvation" allows many to live like they want and still hedge their bets.... such a deal! |
|
06 Mar 12 - 01:21 PM (#3318282) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke It wasn't Ra, it was Solly Invictus. And only 20 years later the now- established Christians were having heretics executed. |
|
06 Mar 12 - 01:32 PM (#3318288) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 You're absolutely right about it being Sol Invictus. And SI's big day was, wait for it, December 25. BINGO. We have lift-off. |
|
06 Mar 12 - 02:46 PM (#3318338) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. And, I learned this year from the TV, Constantine had visionary form. On a previous occasion, before a previous battle, he is reported as having a vision supporting his subsequent victory, only it was, guess who, Apollo, identified with Sol Invictus. It's mentioned in the Wikipedia article. I love the Easter Hymn "Thine be the Glory", but I do feel the second line of the chorus is a teensy bit Constantinian - "Risen glorious Son..." Penny |
|
06 Mar 12 - 03:24 PM (#3318351) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod Somehow I had missed the fact that Constantine himself didn't convert to Christianity until he was on his death bed. So he foisted Christianity on to his subjects before he'd committed himself? Now there's an example of ruthless cynicism! Really, it just tends to strengthen my case that he saw an opportunity to use Christianity (single, jealous deity/self-sacrifice/sin and guilt/acceptance of poverty) as a superb tool for social control. Perhaps his 'conversion' on his death bed was just a PR stunt(?) |
|
06 Mar 12 - 03:45 PM (#3318357) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke Recommended reading: Pagans and Christians, by Robin Lane Fox. A lot about what spirituality meant in ancient Rome and Greece, plus much about Christian martyrs and their sometimes unhappy relationships with each other. And the origins of the Nicene Creed. |
|
06 Mar 12 - 05:34 PM (#3318404) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Perhaps the Emperor Constantine was in the same frame of mind as W. C. Fields, the great philosopher who warned us that "Sometimes you just have to take the bull by the tail and face the situation!" Fields was an alcoholic and spent his last few weeks in a hospital, where he died of a stomach hemorrhage brought on by his heavy drinking. A friend stopped by for a visit and found Fields leafing through a copy of the Bible. "Why, Bill, I'm a bit surprised," commented the friend. "I didn't know you were religious." Fields responded, "I'm looking for loopholes!" Don Firth |
|
06 Mar 12 - 05:54 PM (#3318407) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 There's a great movie about WC entitled 'WC Fields and Me.' If you ever get the chance to watch it, do. He'd once written off two cases of gin a month as a tax deduction. The IRS paid him a visit to question that. Fields said, "Uh, yeah, I'm a comedian and I'm not funny when I'm not drunk!" They also asked about a deduction he claimed for a gift of $5000 to a home for Bolivian bastards. Fields said, "Uh, yeah, yeah. I gave to the Peruvian bastards last year." Now, there's a man who should have had his own talk show. |
|
06 Mar 12 - 09:14 PM (#3318458) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Constantine 'tolerated' Christianity and gave it freedom to operate, even as he was careful about offending Mithra and others...he essentially allowed it to grow & prosper until it reached the religious version of critical mass. |
|
06 Mar 12 - 09:24 PM (#3318462) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 "the religious version of critical mass" Bill, that was good. |
|
07 Mar 12 - 06:11 PM (#3318896) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Constantine's deathbed conversion always reminds me of the old story of the dying Jew, who, having heard of the Catholic Church's capacity for last minute forgiveness, called for a priest to help him convert and to render absolution. The priest followed the set format, and when he reached the question "Do you, Isaac, renounce the Devil and all his works?", Isaac replied "Really, father, do you think this is the right time to be making enemies?" Don T. |
|
07 Mar 12 - 06:56 PM (#3318910) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Or the man in the hospital who knew that he would die within hours, so he called for both his doctor and his lawyer. As he felt himself slipping away, he asked the doctor to stand on one side of his bed and the lawyer on the other. When they asked him why, his weak response was that he wanted to die like Jesus. "Between two thieves." Don Firth |
|
10 Mar 12 - 02:27 PM (#3320999) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona "Good- Good is that which agrees and is in accordance with the person and character of God. Evil- Evil is that which is not in accordance with the person and character of God. Evil can also be synonymous with sin: sin is doing what God forbids." [quoting Iona] These arguments always bring forth a reference to God ordering the genocide of the Amalekites at some point. This appears to be the right one. So was murdering them all except the prepubertal girls good, or bad? In the words of John Bunyan, "Therefore thought I, what God says is best, is best, though all the men in the world are against it. Seeing then that God prefers his Religion; seeing God prefers a tender Conscience; seeing they that make themselves Fools for the Kingdom of Heaven are wisest; and that the poor man that loveth Christ is richer than the greatest man in the world that hates him; Shame depart, thou art an enemy to my Salvation: shall I entertain thee against my Sovereign Lord? How then shall I look him in the face at his coming? Should I now be ashamed of his ways and Servants, how can I expect the blessing?" (From Pilgrim's Progress, 1678) The deed of which you speak is righteous, because God commanded it. He gave way for mercy--if the besieged city will surrender, they are spared. But if they refuse to surrender, it proves them to be a people against the Lord and they will be extinguished justly as the Lord's punishment. Indeed, God's ways are higher than our ways. We may not understand fully how they are good. But we know that they are good, because a good God has commanded it. If God says that something is good, or if God commands something, it is good. For me to say otherwise, or to try to compromise and say 'well, that was for the Israelites' would be for me to be ashamed of the Bible. And if I were ashamed of the Bible, I would be ashamed of the God who created me. The God of the Old Testament is the same God as the God of the New Testament, and for a Christian to be ashamed of that fact is for a Christian to be ashamed of the gospel. Shame on them. If the God of the NT is different than He was in the NT, then that means that He changed, therefore He is a sinner because He had to repent. It's absurd. "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever" (Hebrews 13:6) "But the Lord shall endure for ever: He hath prepared His throne for judgment" (Psalm 9:7) "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." (Psalm 119:160) If God is perfect, as the Bible says He is, and if we are sinners who fall short of His glory, as the Bible says we do, it follows that if the NT God is good and the OT God is bad, then God is a sinner because he used to fall short of His own glory. It's absurd. God doesn't change. He is perfect, He is the very definition of goodness and love. "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." (James 1:17 emphasis added) "God is love" (1 John 14:16). The whole of the gospels depends on the old Testament. Without the OT the NT makes little sense. Some Christians want to avoid the hard questions and try to accept both the Bible and naturalism. But if evolution were true, then there would have been death long before Adam 'evolved' and sinned, and that makes null the worth of Christ's life and death. If death came before sin, then death is not a result of sin as the Bible says. "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Romans 5:12) If death is normal, and was happening millions of years before man even existed, then it is not a curse, nor an enemy (which the Bible also says). If this is true, then Jesus' torturous death on the cross meant nothing. The millions of years theory takes away the worth of Christ Jesus and his death on the cross for sinners! "Yet the children of thy people say, The way of the Lord is not equal [in some translations, 'fair'] : but as for them, their way is not equal. When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby. But if the wicked turn from his wickedness, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby. Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. O ye house of Israel, I will judge you every one after his ways." (Ezekiel 33:17-20) That verse says it right there. WE are the wicked ones, not God. WE deserve death for our sins, WE have sinned against the all-holy Lord God, and no matter how many good things we do we can't earn heaven. All of the goodness in the world couldn't get you to heaven because YOU have sinned, you deserve to die, and so do I. I say "YOU" because I don't believe that words can be minced in this issue. If you're heading for @#!*% , I'm not going to break it to you gently. "The cross does not give us a minor shift or two with regard to a few or our ethical and moral and religious values. The cross radically disrupts the very center and citadel of your life from self to Christ. And if the cross has not done that, you're not a Christian!" (Albert Martin) You're hopeless without Christ. Do you hear? Hopeless! Do you know why? It's because God is perfect. God is holy. And you're not. Know how I know that? Because I can guarantee that you haven't spent 100% of your life and breath loving God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. And that's what God requires. He requires perfection and nothing less than perfection, because He himself is perfect. We run from God, we hate Him because we love our sin. We love our lives and we refuse to submit to His laws and His word. We refuse to acknowledge Him as our authority, because if we did then we'd have to abide by His rules and we refuse to do that. We hate Jesus and we spit on his face and trample His blood underfoot by our wicked lifestyles. "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away" (Isaiah 64:6)Hopeless! Oh, there is no more damnable word than that. Hopeless. In @#!*% the damned shall be consumed with that thought. Hopeless, forever! NOW is the time for salvation, because if we surrender to Christ, He is ready and willing to save us. We can't save ourselves, no matter how much we cry or weep or do 'good' things. Christ alone can save because He alone lived a perfect life and then died in our place. If we surrender to Him, He WILL save you. He has put his own word at stake. You all accuse the Biblical God of being evil. According to whom is He evil? What standard are you using to judge Him? Your own personal opinion? What makes you feel good? What exactly is evil? You see, I have a standard of Good and Evil, and that's the Character of the God of heaven. But athiests don't. They can't account for morality, good and evil, laws of logic, mathematics, and science, except some weak explanation that man evolved it somehow. But I can. Because I start on the simple premises that God is who He says He is, and that simple presupposition enables me to work through any situation or problem logically and reasonably. Y'all can stick to your ad hominem attacks against Christianis, but that's just avoiding the question. It's not about whether the proponents of Christianity, those who call themselves Christians, actually adhere to the doctrines of that Book, the real issue is whether the actual philosophy of the Bible is true or not. Christians are still sinners, and those who call themselves by the name of Christ have done and still do some pretty bad things. The difference is that true Christians are people who belong to Christ. They are His children, and since He is the perfect Father, He can't let his children go astray for very long without punishing them and bringing them into repentance. Let's get back to the core issue. Atheists have no basis for judging God's word as good or evil, since according to you (or, according to many of you), laws are relative. Morality is relative. Therefore you can't judge my morality. If I believe that stoning adulterers is righteous and good, who are you to judge it? Obviously my ethics are different than yours. Are laws universal? By laws I mean, laws of logic, laws of mathematics, laws of morality. If you say no, you are undermining your own argument because here you are trying to impose on me your standards that the Bible is evil. But if you say yes, you have to give an account for why laws are universal, who defines them, and what they consist of. "It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything." G.K. Chesterton Iona "Let God be true, though every man a liar!" (Romans 3:4) |
|
10 Mar 12 - 02:48 PM (#3321007) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke If I believe that stoning adulterers is righteous and good, who are you to judge it? Need we say more about this "religion"? Yours is not even a morality at all because you take no responsibility for it, it's all god's idea. This voivce in your head tells you that it's ok to kill people. No it's not. You are a dangerous nutter, and society is quite justified in locking up insane people who threaten others with death. |
|
10 Mar 12 - 03:06 PM (#3321016) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Bloody HOPELESS!! Not to mention dangerous! Don Firth P. S. Anybody ever read Eric Hoffer's The True Believer? And how the "True Believer" gets that way? |
|
10 Mar 12 - 03:16 PM (#3321018) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D I read The True Believer many years ago, and refer to it at times here. |
|
10 Mar 12 - 04:18 PM (#3321033) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw "It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything." G.K. Chesterton Well, Chesterton was a nutter then. Of course it's unthinkable to propose a god who makes everything out of nothing. But "evolutionists" don't think that nothing turned into everything. Both you and Chesterton are/were short of a bit of education as to what evolution is all about. I doubt whether you could answer the first question about it if I asked you. There are none so blind as those who shut their eyes, cover their ears, clasp their hands together and turn their faces heavenwards... |
|
10 Mar 12 - 04:32 PM (#3321036) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod " ... the real issue is whether the actual philosophy of the Bible is true or not." Yep, Iona, that is the real issue! But you can rant and rave and thump the pulpit all you like but you haven't convinced me that, "the actual philosophy of the Bible is true" - all I've got is your word (or many, many words) for it. I think you should know that I'm immune to 'preachifying' (yawn!). " ... according to you (or, according to many of you), laws are relative. Morality is relative." To a certain extent morality is relative but within society certain types of behaviour are, by common agreement, proscribed or forbidden. Therefore, in the contemporary US or UK (as well as several other countries in the world), if you stoned your neighbour to death, for whatever reason, you would be apprehended, tried in a court of law and, if found guilty, be punished for your crime. Nothing to do with God or the Bible - just common agreement. "Are laws universal? By laws I mean, laws of logic, laws of mathematics, laws of morality." The laws of mathematics and logic are NOT the same as the laws of morality (and to suggest so is disingenuous). The laws of mathematics and logic have been discovered by generations of scholars who have studied the Universe; the laws of morality are arrived at by common consent within a particular culture. |
|
10 Mar 12 - 04:36 PM (#3321040) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth ". . . those who shut their eyes, cover their ears, clasp their hands together and turn their faces heavenwards. . . ." Lemme see, now: that's four hands altogether. GOTTA be a product of evolution. Or mutation (which is an integral part of evolution). Don Firth |
|
10 Mar 12 - 04:52 PM (#3321045) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Heheh. OK, Don, the ears are merely plugged with the earpieces of an iPod Shuffle that's been pre-loaded with the Protestant hymnal. The hands must be left free to pray (or, at least wring). |
|
10 Mar 12 - 05:31 PM (#3321054) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona So, Shimrod, if murder is moraly wrong because of common consensus (as you say it is), then why should I abide by it? Because other people don't like what I do? Why should I follow by the rules of society....since the rules are made by men, why should I respect their opinion when it comes in collision with my pleasure? The Marquis De Sade enjoyed torturing women. So why should he stop? Just because the women and other people in his society didn't like it? Why should he stop the act which gave him pleasure? How about Hitler and his Nazis? They were wrong, you say, because they lived in the Western culture that states that genocide is wrong. Why? Hitler said it was good to dispose of the Jews, the Gypsies, the mentally instable, and the aged. So why was he wrong? Because you find it personally repugnant? Why should Hitler go off of what other people think if it inhibits his own agenda or best interest or enjoyment? I'd like to make it clear that I do NOT believe that I can go around stoning people just because they break the Law of God. God has given the power of the sword to the civil magistrate. Even if I believe it's righteous to stone adulterers, and I do, doesn't give me the license to go over and stone my neighbor lady. God hasn't given me the jurisdiction to do that. Righteousness is defined by God, because God is the definition of goodness and righteousness. Therefore, stoning adulterers, homosexuals, et cetera, is not unrighteous because the righteous God has commanded it. And the fact that you all don't like that doesn't make it not so. "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." Romans 9:14-16 Iona "Let God be true, though every man a liar!" (Romans 3:4) |
|
10 Mar 12 - 05:58 PM (#3321063) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod "So, Shimrod, if murder is moraly wrong because of common consensus (as you say it is), then why should I abide by it?" Because you live in a society in which people have learned, through bitter experience, that if you allow murder then you put everyone's life at risk and you also risk the stability of the society. |
|
10 Mar 12 - 06:06 PM (#3321064) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke Even if I believe it's righteous to stone adulterers, and I do A person who can say this has NO morality- which is a means of telling whether their actions are right or wrong. In the real world, we have a concept of the rights of others. You might call it "do as you would be done by" put in posh terms. But the writer(s) of the egregious and blood- chilling statement above has not this concept. Their condition is known as psychopathy. |
|
11 Mar 12 - 12:53 AM (#3321162) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth There is the story of the woman taken in adultery. The scribes and Pharisees confront Jesus over whether a woman, caught in an act of adultery, ought to be stoned. It was the Law of Moses, written in the scrolls, scrolls which were later to become part of the Bible. Before He answered, Jesus knelt down and wrote something in the dust. But what He wrote is not revealed. A bishop of my acquaintance says that he thinks Jesus might have written, "Where is the MAN?" In any case, Jesus responds, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!" He thereby shames the scribes, the Pharisees, and the blood-thirsty crowd into dispersing, averting the prescribed execution by stoning: HERE. When the mob had all left and Jesus and the woman were alone, Jesus said, "Woman, where are your accusers? Are there any here who condemned you?" She said looked about and said, "No, my Lord." And Jesus said unto her, "Then, neither do I. Go. And sin no more." So, Iona, it looks like Jesus does not agree with you. Don Firth |
|
11 Mar 12 - 01:23 AM (#3321168) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth The kind of simplistic religion that Biblical literalists adhere to can be dangerous. When it comes down to it, I've never met a Bible-thumping fundamentalist who actually knew the Bible all that well. They tend to read verse-by-verse without getting the whole picture and they don't think. Subtleties (and there are a LOT in the Bible) slide right by them! Don Firth |
|
11 Mar 12 - 05:51 AM (#3321201) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod "Even if I believe it's righteous to stone adulterers, and I do, doesn't give me the license to go over and stone my neighbor lady. God hasn't given me the jurisdiction to do that." As I understand it, it was normally adultRESSES who were stoned to death (and are, I believe, still stoned to death in some parts of the world today). That was because their societies were based on patrilineal descent. Men passed their 'property' on to their sons (i.e. male, genetic offspring) after death so they needed to ensure that any male heirs were descended from themselves and they didn't leave all of their worldly goods to some 'bastard' resulting from the wife's indiscretion. So adultery was not originally a crime 'against God' but an economic one based on male dominance. |
|
11 Mar 12 - 07:59 AM (#3321235) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""The deed of which you speak is righteous, because God commanded it. He gave way for mercy--if the besieged city will surrender, they are spared. But if they refuse to surrender, it proves them to be a people against the Lord and they will be extinguished justly as the Lord's punishment. Indeed, God's ways are higher than our ways. We may not understand fully how they are good. But we know that they are good, because a good God has commanded it."" So making war on neighboring cities and exterminating the populace if they don't surrender immediately is an example of what you call a good God. And what if a larger city decides to lay siege, in the name of God, to the one where you live, will you consider that God's work?.....I suspect that is where your faith will reach its limits. If there is a God, I will stand before him at the appropriate time and say "You gave me free will and I used it to live my life according to what I understood Christ's message to be. I treated my fellow man as I would wish to be treated myself, harming none and helping, to the best of my ability, those who needed help. I did not spend my time in churches or temples listening to prattling fools who claimed to have unique knowledge of your purpose and intentions, being more concerned with actions than with empty words and promises of entry to some elite group who will alone warrant your forgiveness according to how loudly they advertised their worthiness on Sunday mornings. Judge me on that!" Don T. |
|
11 Mar 12 - 08:43 AM (#3321255) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stu Type 'stoning' into Google, click images and see what Iona condones. You might want to consider even dignifying this fanatical advocate of torture with more replies as she has no reason, a twisted and evil morality and from what I read, not a bone of humanity in her body. Arguably the worst thing I've ever read on Mudcat, and that's saying something, considering some of the nasties that have been on here over the decade I've been here. I'm pretty fucking upset by that. |
|
11 Mar 12 - 10:10 AM (#3321279) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. I have seen something like this somewhere else, and a very surprising somewhere else as well. While looking up something about Norse mythology, which I hold to be such, I fell into a website written by someone who adheres to the belief that it is not, and that peculiar pantheon are still in business. Now Odin, the chief of that lot, describes himself in literature by a number of names, such as Stirrer of Strife, and Deceitful. He is not notable in the original texts as being a very nice guy, even to his favourite followers. But this website tied itself into knots explaining that since he was a good god aiming for good ends, he was justified in his behaviour. I was somewhat surprised, and went on my way. To see the same arguments about the Father of Jesus is mind blowing. Iona, you have a lovely name with a wonderful heritage. It was Christians taught on Iona who spread the Word across Britain to the pagan English, and then, via their pupils, on to the Continent, when the faith had all but died out. From what I have read of them, and the changes in life of the men who had grown up with a life not far removed from that of the men of the Old Testament, they did not teach a faith like yours. (I did try to find something of what they did teach, but found this enlightening piece about the origins of the inerrant KJV instead. Wot, No Hell? . Somewhere I have some Anglo-Saxon texts with OT stories translated into Old English and then into modern, so I know they did know some of the content. I will check it out to see if it is useful.) I don't believe that those missionaries would have converted the people they did if they had heard a gospel like yours. Penny |
|
11 Mar 12 - 11:45 AM (#3321307) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jon Corelis An Ipsos poll in 2010 surveyed levels of belief in creationism among the general public in various countries (pdf on line here.) Selected results (% of people who are creationists): Belgium 8 France 9 Japan 10 China 11 Spain 11 Australia 15 Italy 21 Argentina 26 Mexico 32 India 33 United States 40 Sigh ... Jon Corelis Songs by William Blake |
|
11 Mar 12 - 12:09 PM (#3321316) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: frogprince A yes or no question for Iona: If you were living under civil law which allowed the stoning of adulterers or homosexuals, would you personally participate in stoning a person to death for committing adultery or for being homosexual? |
|
11 Mar 12 - 12:21 PM (#3321322) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 I think people who adulterate vodka or whiskey should be stoned. In fact, they likely are! |
|
11 Mar 12 - 12:28 PM (#3321326) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST Iona, This is the only possible position a follower of Jesus can have on stoning people for adultery. It is in his own (translated) words and could not be more clear. If you believe something else, you are following a belief system other than that of the Jesus of the New Testament. John 8:1-11 (New International Version) John 8:1-11 New International Version (NIV) John 8 1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?â€쳌 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."쳌 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"쳌 11 "No one, sir,"쳌 she said. "Then neither do I condemn you,"쳌 Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin." |
|
11 Mar 12 - 01:06 PM (#3321343) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Iona, NONE of those here who believe in God think he is evil. Nor do those who don't believe in God, since a non-existant God can't be good or evil. No, the evil is not in God but in those who abuse and distort holy texts to advance their own petty interests. For example when you claim some authority is given to the state you have literally no idea how that fits with states outside westernised countries, and probably not outside the US for that matter. But you don't think about it because its outside your limited personal interests. Nor are we fooled by your attempts to ignore the outstanding questions dumping a whole new set of assertions. |
|
11 Mar 12 - 02:04 PM (#3321366) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Iona, Jesus preached forgiveness for sins. From what you say you believe, I can only conclude that you are no Christian. Look at this: Stoning. You think THIS is God's Justice? If you are trying to evangelize, you are not doing a very good job of it. You'd better learn more about your own religion before you try to sell it to anyone else. Don Firth |
|
12 Mar 12 - 05:54 AM (#3321637) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket I assume that now we have unearthed this Iona person as being a danger to herself or others, we can stop humouring her by trying to reason with her? A psychopath, homeopath, personality disorder whatever, you ain't going to reason with someone who reads a book of tales and substitutes that for voices in her head. Paul Burke's recent offering has me thinking, and I reckon his short comment is very deep. He said that hers is not a morality because she takes no responsibility for it. Putting aside the population control benefits of having the masses believing in a religion, and just keeping it to the personal bits, you are left with assigning a third party, (a bible, Q'ran, voices in your head..) as an excuse for your own deep personality disorder. There's a hell of a lot of it about. ps. For those who have repeatedly dismissed me as someone with a hatred of religion, (not the case, but bear with me,) look at it this way. It will soon be Easter and time for those who see me in folk clubs to perform my impersonation of Jesus on a rubber cross. (Far more flexible and funny since my operation last year.) |
|
12 Mar 12 - 07:37 AM (#3321652) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod Adultery - a little word, loaded with judgement and bigotry, which must have condemned many people - mainly women - to a life of misery in the past. Here are a few (fictional) scenarios: 1. My neighbours are a couple in their early 30s. He's a bit of a letch, and is having it off with his secretary; she is a bit of a flirt and is receiving a regular 'seeing to' from her 'fitness instructor'. Anyway, those are the rumours which are circulating in the local area. What should I do in these circumstances? Nothing, except keep my mouth shut and don't circulate rumours - it's none of my damn business! 2. My neighbour is trapped in a loveless marriage to an uptight, 'Holy Joe' religious fundamentalist. She meets a nice, normal bloke in a local cafe and she leaves her husband to go and live with him. What should I do about it? Nothing, it's none of my damn business! 3. 'Holy Joe's' fundamentalist mates decide to seize the woman in 2. above and stone her for adultery. I find out about this vile plan. What should I do about it? Arm myself with a pickaxe handle and do whatever's necessary to defend this lady from these despicable, self-righteous nutters! That's what I should do! Are you listening, Iona? |
|
13 Mar 12 - 02:22 AM (#3322070) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Joe Offer Hey, Shim, thou shalt not take the name of Joe in vain.... ;-) Iona, I'm frightened about your approval of stoning. You don't really see justification in stoning, do you? Where does the Golden Rule fit in there? What do you have to say about what Jesus did to the woman accused of adultery? -Joe- |
|
13 Mar 12 - 05:04 AM (#3322103) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod Sorry, Joe! But you're not a fundamentalist - and, if your adjudications on here are anything to go by, a person with a strong moral code and a highly developed sense of right and wrong. If you say that your religious beliefs have informed that code and that sense, then that's fine by me. |
|
13 Mar 12 - 03:41 PM (#3322372) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth As far as Old Testament law is concerned, Rabbi Hillel, born in Babylon around 110 Before Christ was one of the most important figures in Jewish history and scholarship, and is associated with the development of the Talmud. Renowned as a sage and a scholar, he is popularly known for two very wise sayings. The first is a statement of the Golden Rule, put slightly differently, but the same thing nevertheless: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow man. That is the whole Torah. The rest is commentary. Go and learn." Jesus said basically the same thing, phrasing it slightly differently. A friend of mine, who is Jewish, has a small plaque on his wall written in Hebrew script. I asked him once what it meant. He said, "It's a quote of Rabbi Hillel. It says, 'If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when?'" There is a bundle of wisdom there. Don Firth |
|
14 Mar 12 - 01:30 AM (#3322569) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST You all accuse me of being a monster, but I didn't come up with those doctrines myself. God instigated them, and I have said again and again, Righteousness is defined by God, because God is the definition of goodness and righteousness. Therefore, stoning adulterers, homosexuals, et cetera, is not unrighteous because the righteous God has commanded it. Athiests have decided that general consesnsus makes morality. They use their own feelings and fallen judgement to try and judge the Biblical God (who they claim doesn't exist. Yet they are frantic to suppress what they know in their inner soul, that He does exist, and that's why they hate Him so) by their own thoughts and judgements. They can't account for morality, they can't account for laws of logic, they just give a vague argument that such things must be so or else there would be discomfort in the world. But isn't that survival of the fittest? If a man kills another man, it proves that the killer was the fittest, because he survived and the victim didn't. That ought to be viewed as progress for the evolutionist's worldview, but instead they (some of them) hypocritically say that it's WRONG (though they don't say why), and that we ought to help the weak instead of exterminate them. Just goes to show that there aren't any real atheists.... Iona "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20) |
|
14 Mar 12 - 02:28 AM (#3322573) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion "Righteousness is defined by God, because God is the definition of goodness and righteousness." Iona ~~~ .,,. If ever I wanted an example to offer of what is (in its true meaning, rather than the debased and misused popular one) of the concept of "begging the question" ['Ignoratio elenchi'], ie including what is supposed to be the topic of argument as purportedly part of the proof, I don't think I could ever find a better one than this. I honestly think we should all leave the poor woman alone to go on chasing her own tail! |
|
14 Mar 12 - 02:38 AM (#3322575) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Even the Devil quotes Scripture. I think I know who you really are, Iona! Don Firth |
|
14 Mar 12 - 03:06 AM (#3322580) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Paul Burke As well as stoning for adultery, these idiots MUST support: Mutilation of criminals. Not working for one year in seven. Eating old food for the year after the year of not working. Banning sales of land for periods greater than 7 years. Allowing Cohens to claim back houses they have sold you after at most 7 years. Not charge interest to Israelis. Slavery (but only of Canadians and Mexicans if you live in the USA). That's just one chapetr of their book. |
|
14 Mar 12 - 03:15 AM (#3322581) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona As I understand it, it was normally adultRESSES who were stoned to death (and are, I believe, still stoned to death in some parts of the world today). That was because their societies were based on patrilineal descent. Men passed their 'property' on to their sons (i.e. male, genetic offspring) after death so they needed to ensure that any male heirs were descended from themselves and they didn't leave all of their worldly goods to some ' @#!*% ' resulting from the wife's indiscretion. So adultery was not originally a crime 'against God' but an economic one based on male dominance. You haven't read the Bible then, because it is very clear on who is to be stoned, and it is certainly not just women. See Deuteronomy 22:22-24, which says: "If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you." Seems like God wasn't too worried about gender when he gave the death penalty for sins. And the fact that adultery is deserving of death shows that God thinks very highly of the marriage covenant. Marriage is the second most holy covenant ever, after God's covenant with a Christian. It's not broken lightly, and God will hold adulterers accountable for their actions (Matthew 5:28). Iona "Let God be true, and every man a liar!" (Romans 3:4) |
|
14 Mar 12 - 07:47 AM (#3322676) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod "You all accuse me of being a monster, but I didn't come up with those doctrines myself. God instigated them, and I have said again and again, ..." No, Iona, God didn't "instigate" those doctrines, human beings did. "If a man kills another man, it proves that the killer was the fittest, because he survived and the victim didn't. That ought to be viewed as progress for the evolutionist's worldview," If a man kills another man the vast majority of us agree that the killer has committed an act of murder and should be tried and punished accordingly. The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory and is morally neutral. |
|
14 Mar 12 - 08:32 AM (#3322692) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG So let's repeat the question I asked before and was one of those you ignored: if your government gave you the choice to vote for the reintroduction of stoning, would you vote in favour or against? From what you have said before, I assumed you would, but pete thought I was misjudging you. So now's a good chance to make your stance clear. And please don't try to avoid answering just because it's hypothetical - Pete was brave enough. |
|
14 Mar 12 - 08:48 AM (#3322699) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: beardedbruce Iona, I have stated several times, ( and you have not acknowledged,nor provided any statement to the contrary) that the KJV has several KNOW AND ACKNOWLEDGED errors in translation. YOU are basing life and death determinations on an inaccurate source. IF you were to kill a witch based on the incorrect translation, you would be guilty of MURDER, since the original DOES NOT STATE that God wants you to kill witches. UNLESS you have read the SOURCE documents IN THE ORIGINAL, and completely understand what that meant AT THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN, you had best not allow the actions that you have expressed approval for to occur. |
|
14 Mar 12 - 10:38 AM (#3322747) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion Oh, come now, Bruce. Everybody knows that, to the likes of Iona, the Bible was, as my first mo-in-law used always to say, "Bound in black and written in English". 〠☺〠~M~〠☺〠 |
|
14 Mar 12 - 11:23 AM (#3322774) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Let's solve this right now... It says clearly- right here- that ummmm...hold on a minute. |
|
14 Mar 12 - 11:28 AM (#3322778) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D No...wait... this just in! You see how clearly the 2nd example |
|
14 Mar 12 - 11:29 AM (#3322780) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D and how easy it is to get # 1100 |
|
14 Mar 12 - 05:21 PM (#3322919) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona Sure, Paul, The Bible says it, I believe it to be right and good. I think my next post will be on stoning, because you all seem to want an explanation on why I think it's righteous. |
|
14 Mar 12 - 08:34 PM (#3322975) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail Interesting that all talk of science seems to have disappeared from this discussion to be replaced by the pros and cons of adultery. I really wanted to stay clear of the religious arguments but this one intrigues me - If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. Doesn't that put Mary and her extra-marital dalliance in a difficult position? |
|
14 Mar 12 - 08:42 PM (#3322980) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Naaawww, Shimrod... in the Bible, if you seem to get a contradictory notion, you have simply mis-interpreted it! Nothing in the Bible is wrong or contradictory... you just need to pray to God for clarification...or visit various churches until someone gives you an answer that fits! |
|
15 Mar 12 - 04:51 AM (#3323079) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod Oh right, Bill, so that's how it works! So you mean I don't have to think for myself any more - if I have a problem I just open the Bible at random, pick out a passage which seems to fit my particular problem, and, hey presto, there's the answer ... once it's been 'adjusted' with a bit of praying etc. Thanks, Bill! That's great! I was never fond of that troublesome old thinking for myself anyway! |
|
15 Mar 12 - 06:04 AM (#3323104) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Doesn't that put Mary and her extra-marital dalliance in a difficult position? Splendid! As for stoning, Iona, I think Jesus had it covered in John 8:7 and Luke 6:31. |
|
15 Mar 12 - 06:20 AM (#3323108) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Iona is about to give her views on why stoning is a good thing. I'm all for free speech, but in this temporal world, where superstition is tolerated rather than believed, isn't advancing the cause for stoning conspiracy to murder? I've a track record in my past, having girlfriends before my divorce came through and if Iona wants me stoned, she can either buy me some dope or keep her silly thoughts out of my reality. If the bible is the word of god, it is because god is a word to describe the net output of the humans who wrote it. I don't have a hang up with that. I have a hang up with how it is used as a powerful mind altering tool to brain wash the weak, promise jam tomorrow and justify extreme bigotry. Oh and my dismissing of it is not because I fear it, although I fear the consequences of those influenced by it sometimes. And reading Iona's diatribe, I don't think I'm far wrong, which is a shame for those who are capable of using it as a metaphor, as it sounds as if I am dismissing some good people. Sorry. |
|
15 Mar 12 - 01:55 PM (#3323231) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Greg F. Naahh.ts just criminal stupidity. If we could get a criminal stupidity law on the books with appropriate penalties- institutionalization, assigning a minder, house arrest with tracking bracelet, would save a lot of trouble AND money. |
|
15 Mar 12 - 03:29 PM (#3323266) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Jesus repudiated the laws about stoning in John 8. And with good reason. A very good article about the history of the brutal practice of STONING. Anyone who considers himself or herself to be a Christian and STILL advocates this kind of barbaraism: CLICK, is NOT a Christian! If they persist in advocating this, then they are EVIL. Don Firth |
|
15 Mar 12 - 05:34 PM (#3323322) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D I just remembered....Shirley Jackson's short story- "The Lottery". I haven't read it for 40 years.... It's about 'stoning' as a remnant of old superstitions for ensuring harvest..etc. [from wikipedia] "Many readers demanded an explanation of the situation described in the story, and a month after the initial publication, Shirley Jackson responded in the San Francisco Chronicle (July 22, 1948): Explaining just what I had hoped the story to say is very difficult. I suppose, I hoped, by setting a particularly brutal ancient rite in the present and in my own village to shock the story's readers with a graphic dramatization of the pointless violence and general inhumanity in their own lives." |
|
15 Mar 12 - 07:41 PM (#3323350) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth In the 1952 Hollywood rendition of Sir Walter Scott's epic novel, Ivanhoe, early in the movie, Cedric the Saxon and members of his household are gathered in the dining hall. There are few others there, including two Norman knights who have requested hospitality for the night. The doorman announces that there is yet another who seeks sanctuary for the night: Isaac of York. The Norman nights raise objections to his being admitted, informing Cedric that "Isaac of York is not a Christian! He is a Jew!" Cedric waves away their objections, saying, "Any person who comes in peace and is in need of shelter shall be welcomed under this roof." Actually, being a Saxon, Cedric is not all that happy about the two Norman knights. He tells the doorman to usher Isaac into the dining hall. As the two Norman knights sit there muttering to themselves, Wamba, the Jester speaks up, his comments directed at them. "Sirs, for every Jew you show me who is not a Christian, I can show you a Christian who is not a Christian!" The two knights don't think Cedric's jester is all that funny. Terrific movie, by the way. Lots of pageantry, jousting, hackin' and hewin', general skullduggery, Robert Taylor handsome and heroic as Wilfred of Ivanhoe, Joan Fontaine as the lovely Rowena, George Sanders, suitably menacing as the Norman knight Sir Brian de Bois Guilbert, and an almost painfully beautiful Elizabeth Taylor, age 20 at the time the movie was being filmed, as Isaac of York's daughter, Rebecca. Sigh. Culminates in a Trial by Combat between Ivanhoe and Bois Guilbert to save Rebecca from being burned at the stake as a witch. Really white-knuckle!! But we don't do that—Trial by Combat in the belief that God will favor the Just Cause—anymore either. Bit by bit, we humans are striving to rid ourselves of our primitive barbarism. But it appears that there are those around who really don't want to see it go. Don Firth |
|
15 Mar 12 - 10:59 PM (#3323422) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: John P I just noticed that Iona, like pete, refers to people who "believe" in evolution as evolutionists. Just to make sure that I'm not here under false pretenses, I'd like to come out and say that I am also a gravitist. I think anyone who has two feet planted on the ground must agree with me that gravity is absolutely true. Those who doubt this are engaging in flights of fancy. I'm also an electricist, and I'm shocked at those who try to pretend that electricity isn't 100% the word of God. Well, OK, if I'm being honest, I'll go all the way and come right and say that I'm also a magnetist! Now there's a belief system that pulls people together! I confess that I'm a bit unsure about electro-magnetism, since most examples I've seen of it are man made. And last time I mentioned my credentials as a chemicalist, you should have seen the reactions I got! Just like pouring a little sulfuric acid into . . . well, I'm not really supposed to talk about that outside the inner lab, although I've heard that people can get on the internet these days and find all the formulas they want. Ooh, it's so great to get all this off my chest! I'M AN ASTRONIMIST! There, I've come right out and said it. I know that a lot of people think it's disgusting to talk about red dwarfs and black holes and coronas and stuff, but I have faith that one day they will join me in my starry-eyed beliefs. |
|
15 Mar 12 - 11:15 PM (#3323424) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth An electricist! I find that shocking, John! Don Firth |
|
16 Mar 12 - 02:56 AM (#3323464) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona On your terms, John..... I'm a Creationist I'm a Thiest, I'm a Six-Day Creationist. And now we're on the same plain we started on......... |
|
16 Mar 12 - 03:16 AM (#3323467) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Paul Burke The icy beauty of sterility. But having returned to the topic of the thread, I think Iona has done us a favour by ably presenting the evidence for young earth creationsim. There are teachers in some jurisdictions who find themselves mandated to "teach the controversy", and as an aid to them I will give the scientific evidence for the young- earth position in my next post. You may print and distribute it, royalty free, provided you do not change the content. |
|
16 Mar 12 - 03:16 AM (#3323468) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Paul Burke |
|
16 Mar 12 - 04:38 AM (#3323482) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod I know that 'wilfully ignorant' doesn't have an '-ist' on the end, Iona, but I think that you should add that to your 'l - ist'. |
|
16 Mar 12 - 05:21 AM (#3323499) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Dave Hanson We may all be on the same plain Iona, but not neccessarily the same planet. Dave H |
|
16 Mar 12 - 07:15 AM (#3323551) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: beardedbruce Iona, You continue to fail to address the know flaws of the KJV. Are you saying you don't care what God REALLY said? |
|
16 Mar 12 - 07:45 AM (#3323556) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket I'm a beerist, ex adulterist, footballist, gadgetist, windupist, Funnily enough, I don't consider myself an atheist though. Before pete and Iona slaughter a lamb for me, it's not because I am suddenly superstitious, it's because, (returning to labels) that the term atheist, same as evolutionist, is a term used by some to describe everybody who isn't them. Also, as Albert pointed out, atheism by definition means chaos, and as the laws of physics seem to be in place each and every morning you wake up, chaos certainly isn't the answer. (As opposed to chaos theory, before somebody starts us off on yet another tangent.) Now.. Are you SURE you don't want me to uTube my impersonation of Jesus on a rubber cross? That's the beauty of blasphemy, it's a victimless crime.... |
|
16 Mar 12 - 09:12 AM (#3323599) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Jesus on a Rubber Cross is one of my things too; I caused mortal offence once sequing into it from my impersonation of The Gateshead Angel at a gig down south once. Ever seen The Gateshead Angel? Looks like this - but in a strong wind it becomes... Believing in fictitious deities & demons in one thing; believing that people should be killed for fictitious crimes is quite another. I wonder though, I've always doubted their existence but could Iona be the Uber Troll of Mudcat folklore?? I shudder to think that such an individual could be sincere in what they have written here, much less that there are more of them out there. A pox on them and their rancid cause. To paraphrase Zappa: If Hell there is, it awaits THEM not US. Here's more: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/zappa.htm I especially love: My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy, mentally healthy child is: Keep him or her as far away from a church as you can. |
|
16 Mar 12 - 09:21 AM (#3323605) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: saulgoldie I guess I am a creationist. I believe that everything we experience was, in fact, created. Elstwise, we couldn't experience it. The *means* of its creation, however, that is another matter. Yes, s/he could might be a troll. Iona, get the an identity sose we can PM you! Saul |
|
16 Mar 12 - 09:31 AM (#3323613) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: John P Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die . . . Damn! No gates on my city! And there just isn't any money for large public works these days. I guess we'll have to put off the stoning until the economy is better and we can build walls around each city and put gates in them. Literally Iona -- You are not even the same race as me, much less on the same plane. Somehow, as a non-Christian, I seem to have love and forgiveness in my heart. Please don't compare yourself to me in any way. I'm a lot more like a Christian than you are, and I am able to think at the same time. |
|
16 Mar 12 - 01:11 PM (#3323733) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D No, Iona is not a troll. She has posted elsewhere..(both in Mudcat and other places) often enough to figure out that she is honest and sane. She likes Irish music and has 'other' interests... What is interesting to me is that she is still relatively young. I wonder if she'll feel the same about all of this in 20-30-40 years. (It can be fun and educational to sort out who people really are. It would be fairly easy for anyone who was interested to find ME...and drive right to my door.) |
|
16 Mar 12 - 02:21 PM (#3323770) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray If it walks like a troll & quacks like a troll & promotes ignorance and fear like a troll... This is master trolling in the WAV sense - & WAV is a real live living breathing human being with a genuine love of folk music too, but we haven't seen such endless threads as this since the glory days of the great walkabout... |
|
16 Mar 12 - 02:22 PM (#3323772) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Umm. . . . Some years ago I was listening to a radio interview with a nuclear physicist. He was advocating the building of more nuclear power plants as a means of solving all future energy problems (Yeah, explain that to the folks who live around Fukushima). But all through the interview, he pronounced nuclear "nookyahler." When the interview was over, a listener called in and commented, "I have a great deal of difficulty having any confidence in someone who doesn't even know the correct pronunciation for his own occupation." "I'm a Thiest. . . ." Iona, it's spelled "THEIST." Don Firth P. S. By the way, I heard a very good interview this morning with author Alain de Botton, discussing his new book, Religion for Atheists: a non-believer's guide to the uses of religion. He made a number of very good points, and I decided I would get the book and read it. I checked with the Seattle Public Library. They have it. Twelve copies. But by the time I got on their web site, there were already 131 holds, so I guess it will be awhile. Unless I decide to buy it. About $15.00 at Amazon. Among other things, he says that there are some very valuble things that non-believers can derived from religious practices without having to believe in all the goat-feathers. I think that's where I fit in. |
|
16 Mar 12 - 03:40 PM (#3323812) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Marriage is the second most holy covenant ever, after God's covenant with a Christian."" Tell us Iona. Who performed the marriage of Adam and Eve? Don T. |
|
16 Mar 12 - 03:58 PM (#3323818) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D "If it walks like a troll & quacks like a troll .."etc A troll is one who winds you up just to get responses. There is good reason to believe that Iona is totally serious. Most of us here have grave concerns about her logic and mindset, but we must always remember to debate the idea and not the person. I asked her awhile back if she cared to divulge her history and religious background...and she declined. Therefore, all I can do is examine the details of her posts and point out MY opinion of the theological points involved. I would think that if some new person stumbles into this discussion, there is quite enough opinion of both sides...from Pete, Iona....and all the rest of 'us'... to see what the various arguments are. It is VERY tempting to just yell "that's SO wrong!" ...especially in a text-based discussion... but it never convinces anyone. The evidence FOR evolution and against creationism is available...and clear... It is hard to say 'exactly' why some choose to ignore it. |
|
16 Mar 12 - 04:01 PM (#3323819) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Thinking of the going's ons in the Garden of Eden. . . . If God created everything, then He also created The Snake. Now, if He was All Benevolent--indeed, the Creator of Benevolence itself--then why would He do THAT!? Dirty work afoot somewhere! Don Firth P. S. Gee whiz! They didn't even have a wedding ceremony and there was no one else around to give them a toaster. |
|
16 Mar 12 - 04:46 PM (#3323832) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link bill-is not the assertion that there is overwhelming evidence for evolution[which i take to mean the whole process from abiogenesis ,macro change etc]not something like an argument from authority.may not be the exact category! either way ,though some points made i have conceded, and some beyond my abilities;that does not mean that any convincing evidence has been presented. i'm not likely to drive to your door unless you are uk resident but i expect it would be interesting to meet you. regards pete. |
|
16 Mar 12 - 05:34 PM (#3323852) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. In my case, pete, as in the case of most geologists I know, it is not argument from authority, but from evidence which is open to anyone to see and examine. Quarries and cliffs can be interpreted by anyone (with a hard hat - rocks tend to drop off vertical faces) (Oh, and you need permission from the owners with quarries.) prepared to look and think. That is actually how the argument began. If a student is presented with a face which is supposed to look as if it were formed in a particular way according to the tutor, and they can't see that it fits, they are entitled to ask why, and how, and even to reject the explanation if they really cannot get it. Though they are expected to come up with a reasonable alternative which fits all the evidence if they do. It isn't very easy to present rock faces, hand specimens, microscope slides and all the other plethora of evidence here, but I do feel you aren't convinced because you are not prepared to be convinced. A ditty - tune from Glenn Miller... I've found another quarry, let me give you a lift, Loads of chalk and flint with spoil on top we must shift, Then there's rusty sandstone to be ground and to sift, I'm hoping that you'll get the drift.* Sediments, so multifarious, Formed in situations various, Sub-aerially**, perhaps aquarious***, Show that time flows very slow not swift. *geological in joke. Drift is the loose stuff on top from the Ice Age. **on dry land, like deserts, or scree on mountains *** not a word, I made it up for watery environments Penny |
|
16 Mar 12 - 05:39 PM (#3323855) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D No Pete... "argument from authority" is the assertion that someone in authority should be believed because they have some 'status'. An example would be .."because I'm your mother, and I SAY so!"....or if someone tells you "the prime minister says "It is useful to fight in Afghanistan" Science tries to sort out facts...no matter who likes or dislikes them. "but i expect it would be interesting to meet you." Yes.. I think it would be interesting to chat awhile in the pub. I wish it were not so far away. |
|
16 Mar 12 - 07:09 PM (#3323890) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod " - is not the assertion that there is overwhelming evidence for evolution ... not something like an argument from authority." No, pete, it's not! It's time you stopped wilfully and deliberately confusing science/evidence and religion/faith. |
|
16 Mar 12 - 07:13 PM (#3323894) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mrrzy I put back up my Atheist Alliance sign that had fallen behind the couch and within less than 10 mn had an evangelical couple on my doorstep... we had a great talk, I had a great time, but the man was so upset with me he was positively vibrating, when I tried to explain that gravity was a theory - the LAW is that it is approx 10 meters per second per second. On this planet, now, at least. Well, *I* had a great time - I always tell them sure, you can try to convert me, and I'll try to convert you. If they stay, we talk. They don't usually stay long... and when it's the kind that comes around in pairs of men, one young and one older, if you flirt with the younger one they don't come back for YEARS. |
|
16 Mar 12 - 07:18 PM (#3323899) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Pete, the only genuine "argument from authority" on this thread is Iona's claim that the bible is true "because God says so!" Don T. |
|
16 Mar 12 - 07:47 PM (#3323906) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,BanjoRay There's real evidence about the age of the universe all around us. It's not difficult to determine the distances of other stars and galaxys from the Earth, and the speed of light is a well known and well proven constant. Most of the objects we can see in the night sky are glowing with light that originated very much further in the past than the Bishop Usher version of the biblical age of the universe, which must therefore be wrong. Simples Ray |
|
17 Mar 12 - 05:32 AM (#3324008) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Unfortunately, Ray, the sources that feed creationist ideas have a way round that, postulating, without any evidence, that the speed of light was different in the past. Or that the distances we see are built in as part of the necessary appearance of the universe in the same way as Adam's navel. Penny |
|
17 Mar 12 - 06:48 AM (#3324032) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod " ... postulating, without any evidence, that the speed of light was different in the past." I wonder what effect that had on the curvature of space-time and many other aspects of the theories of Special and General Relativity? By opening that particular 'can of worms' the creationists have more explaining to do than they probably bargained for! |
|
17 Mar 12 - 07:36 AM (#3324048) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T The point, Shimrod, is that they explain everything with the well worn catchphrase "God made it that way". This enables them to slide round the necessity to produce evidence or in fact even consider the evidence of their own eyes, while allowing them to avoid rational thinking. It enables them, for example, to insist that evolution is just another belief system. I sometimes wonder if we aren't perhaps seeing a previously unnoticed species of primate with a regressive gene. Don T. |
|
17 Mar 12 - 08:33 AM (#3324071) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy Would gravity have been different in the past as well? |
|
17 Mar 12 - 08:41 AM (#3324076) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. I don't think you have grasped the levity of the situation. Penny |
|
17 Mar 12 - 08:50 AM (#3324079) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG No need to make light of the situation, in either sense |
|
17 Mar 12 - 08:57 AM (#3324081) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy Methinks y'all need to lighten up! 8-) |
|
17 Mar 12 - 09:42 AM (#3324097) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket This is getting rather intriguing... Banjo Ray mentioned this thread in the pub the other night. We agreed that Iona was most likely a bloke from somewhere like Hartlepool having a laugh at our expense. Or at least, I said that and Ray nodded in order to humour me. In any event, this thread is about young earth creationism, not the mental health needs of some of those posting. However... It does indeed follow that one leads to another. Rational people may well wonder how the hell anybody can truthfully believe all the twaddle about the bible being fact, or that a big dude with a beard is more than just the metaphor brainwashing us as kids in order to control us as adults. (I note The Archbishop of Canterbury has said as part of his resignation that religion is facing fundamental issues if it is to remain relevant in this day and age.) Young earth creationism, same as miracles, prayers doing more than relieving the mind of the prayee, use of the word benevolent when obviously he / she / it doesn't stop wars or Sheffield United winning.... It all requires faith and true belief. Or in other words, a lack of rational approach. Fine, no issues, whatever floats your boat. My mate reckons we never went to the moon and that MI5 read every email you ever send. He gets on with his life and is rational about football. the difference is that he has his views but never tries to influence others. If Iona had her way, people would be stoned for shagging the neighbour's missus. I take it she means only Christians can be stoned then? How can something be a crime for them and not for me? If it became a crime for me, then as I said before.. So many Christians, never enough nails.. |
|
17 Mar 12 - 09:51 AM (#3324099) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Greg F. [Iona] ... is honest and sane. Honest, possibly, but not proven. Sane? Obviously and apparently not. |
|
17 Mar 12 - 11:09 AM (#3324136) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy I don't think she's honest, too many fabrications - the Noah thing to name just one! |
|
17 Mar 12 - 11:21 AM (#3324145) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke Speak for yourself Mr Happy, I think you wouldn't miss a stone or two yourself. |
|
17 Mar 12 - 12:26 PM (#3324171) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Alain de Botton - the author of Religion for Atheists. Has some interesting things to say. |
|
17 Mar 12 - 12:52 PM (#3324182) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy ??????? you mean I need to shed a few stone? |
|
17 Mar 12 - 01:11 PM (#3324188) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail gravity is absolutely true I tried to explain that gravity was a theory - the LAW is that it is approx 10 meters per second per second. Oh dear. But I can't say anything or I'll be accused of being a "trolling twat" again. |
|
17 Mar 12 - 01:28 PM (#3324195) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. New Scientist this week, "The God Issue", on the "science of religion". The God issue: New science of religion Can't live with him, can't live without him. In a special series of articles we lay out a new vision that resets the terms of the debate The God issue: We are all born believers Our minds solve fundamental problems in a way that leaves a god-shaped space just waiting to be filled by religion, explains Justin L. Barrett The God issue: Religion is the key to civilisation As early humans expanded beyond hunter-gatherer groups, religion was the glue that held societies full of strangers together, says Ara Norenzayan The God issue: Science won't loosen religion's grip Those who would dance on religion's grave are underestimating its staying power, says Robert N. McCauley The God issue: God is a testable hypothesis Whether an ultimate creator as envisaged by religion exists or not is a question that science can address, argues Victor J. Stenger The God issue: Alain de Botton's religion for atheists Religions are not literally true but neither are they total nonsense. Alain de Botton explains why atheists need to reclaim the useful bits Whether an ultimate creator as envisaged by religion exists or not is a question that science can address, argues Victor J. Stenger Haven't read it yet, but the editorial has the headline "Know your enemy". As to Iona's identity, this hypothetical Hartlepool bloke is a brilliant writer, not only able to talk the talk, but also able to imitate a rather female style - though I don't know what makes me recognise it. It obviously isn't my style. The excitability, perhaps. But it doesn't overdo it, like someone trying to fit a stereotype. And the early posts on other subjects don't look like a spoof. Penny |
|
17 Mar 12 - 04:19 PM (#3324265) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod You beat me to it, Penny! The conclusion to one of the articles, by Victor Stenger (a physicist and philosopher), entitled, 'The God Hypothesis', sums up this thread beautifully: "Finally, I would like to comment on the folly of faith. When faith rules over facts, magical thinking becomes deeply ingrained and warps all areas of life. It produces a frame of mind in which concepts are formulated with deep passion but without the slightest attention paid to evidence. Nowhere is this more evident than in the US today, where Christians who seek to convert the nation into a theocracy dominate the Republican party. Blind faith is no way to run a world." I'll drink to that! Indeed it isn't! |
|
17 Mar 12 - 04:21 PM (#3324267) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth The NPR interview with Alain de Botton that Jack the Sailor linked to at 17 Mar 12 - 12:26 p.m. is the one I heard yesterday morning. de Botton said some very good things. I decided to order the book. Amazon tells me it will be delivered on Tuesday. I've mentioned her before, but a former pastor of the church I attend, held up a copy of the Bible and said, "This is NOT the Boy Scout Manual. It is NOT a book of answers. It is a book of QUESTIONS. And that is what we are here to discuss." This is where Iona goes off the rails. The idea that this ancient, and often random, collection of scrolls and manuscripts, which has been translated and retranslated time and again, and has been cut, added to, and generally messed with by dozens of people, oftentimes for short-term political purposes, is the Inerrant Word of God, is asinine in the extreme. Parts of the Bible raise some good issues, but in most cases, it fails to provide answers that are acceptable to moral, thinking human beings. And these parts definitely make God look like an all-powerful, but feckless and egotistical thug. Not answers. Questions. Don Firth |
|
17 Mar 12 - 05:14 PM (#3324289) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link banjo ray-have you heard of the "horizon problem"no need to access a creation site as you can find it on wiki. it is not just creationists who have to address the light /speed travel problem.seems to me that the big bangers need to invoke a [naturalistic]miracle to account for it. why then should not creationists posit models also. |
|
17 Mar 12 - 05:27 PM (#3324295) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth "Black holes" are not a "naturalistic miracle," pete. They are the inevitable consequence of the interaction between gravity and the accumulation of mass. Awe inspiring in the forces involved, but hardly miraculous. You don't understand a whole lot about physics and astronomy, I take it. Don Firth |
|
17 Mar 12 - 05:34 PM (#3324300) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Gee Pete... they say that there are a couple explanations for that 'problem'...including "inflation". But that is not what the word 'problem' implies. It just means that many aspects of physics and understanding the Universe are still confusing. The stars and galaxies ARE still out there...and very far apart. *IF* we knew exactly how it all began, we could probably answer how all those distant parts are related. Perhaps someday we shall...but only by using facts, mathematics and observation of phenomena. We can't 'solve' it by declaring "God just put them there." Most humans are just too curious about the details & processes to be satisfied with a simple answer. Maybe God started the whole thing running... we shall likely never know that.... but we want to know "what happened after Creation, no matter how Creation happened?" We already know a lot more than we did 15-20-40-100...years ago, and there are always more questions! It makes it fun! |
|
17 Mar 12 - 07:59 PM (#3324371) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG why then should not creationists posit models also There's no problem at all with that. Of course, it must be a model that fits ALL the known measurements and be a testable model - i.e. it must be falsifiable. Abide by both of those requirements, and I'm quite happy for anyone to propose a model, creationist or not. In my opinion, though, in order to ensure that it fits all the known measurements, its predictions must also be expressible with acute precision, so I doubt any viable model is possible without a mathematical component at its heart. |
|
18 Mar 12 - 05:17 AM (#3324402) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod And this year's Nobel Prize for Physics goes to (drumroll) ... pete! For 'positing': "It was God wot done it - it's all in the Bible!" Brilliant! |
|
18 Mar 12 - 11:38 AM (#3324564) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D As a matter of fact, creationists CAN 'posit' theories also... the problem comes when they don't do as science does and test those theories in various ways. Something posited but not examined is merely a belief or slogan. However...in this case, Pete has referred to the only way 'positing' can be reasonably used in a religious way. Since it is very difficult to even think about what happened before the "big bang"...or why there was 'something' to GO bang... it doesn't bother me if religious folk want to say "I just choose to think that God gave the universe a push...which some of you call a 'bang'." At that point, I can just shrug. I only get upset when scientific attempts to explain the physical universe and the age of stars & the Earth and human evolution are dismissed. If they want to say that "God planned it this way"...fine... but please don't deny what "this way" actually is! Religion is one way of coping and expressing wonder and sharing comforting thoughts about life & death with others....and it is easy to see why humans developed religious feelings. It is hard, though, to see why they cling to demonstrably inaccurate ideas about science as we learn more. |
|
18 Mar 12 - 02:31 PM (#3324694) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Religion is one way of coping and expressing wonder and sharing comforting thoughts about life & death with others... Wrong. Religion is a power struggle of righteous evil vowing for political supremacy through the mechanics of violence and ignorance. It is the antithesis of wonder and any comfort comes at a very heavy price indeed. Life is too short & precious to waste time on something which promotes lies & misery. |
|
18 Mar 12 - 02:37 PM (#3324697) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Theories about before the Big Bang and about many aspects of string theory are on an equal footing with religion in terms of the ability to be tested or "proved." Because of that there is much controversy among scientists. It is the egocentric arguments of the Creationist that are suspect. If you ask a close, older relative of mind about creationism that person will say something like. "It MUST be true because I KNOW that I did not come from a monkey." |
|
18 Mar 12 - 04:06 PM (#3324748) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mrrzy Nothing is proven in science, but an awful lot has been disproven. Like all myths... |
|
18 Mar 12 - 04:15 PM (#3324753) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D "...a power struggle of righteous evil vowing for political supremacy through the mechanics of violence and ignorance." Ummm... kind of a narrow view there, Mr. Astray. We are all aware of such things, but that is NOT how it is viewed and practiced by a large portion of adherents. It is rather like a barrel of apples, some of which are rotten to the core....and some are quite pleasant...*IF* you like apples at all. If you don't like apples, the rotten ones are easy to notices and point at. I am NOT religious, and I see and hear of absurd, hateful, vicious things done 'in the name of' religion every day. If anyone asks me, I will explain that I do not see the need for metaphysical stories to explain our world or to justify our rules of behavior. .... but I also see & understand why 'faith' is such a strong magnet for those of various backgrounds & mindsets. I HOPE that, with educations and good examples, the human race gradually loses its dependence on religious systems, but in the meantime I will continue to combat bad logic, bad science and show tolerance for religion and religious people who practice decency and kindness according to the better traditions of their religious beliefs. I rather wonder if you are as harsh in your rhetoric with any religious people you happen to meet in person..... |
|
18 Mar 12 - 05:03 PM (#3324770) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Theories about before the Big Bang and about many aspects of string theory are on an equal footing with religion in terms of the ability to be tested or "proved." If you mean they are immature and so they cannot be properly tested yet I agree; on the other hand they do make predictions and some of those predictions are testable, so I don't think those models are on an equal footing with religion. For example, only some dimensionalities are feasible, precisely because the others do not fit with the known facts. |
|
18 Mar 12 - 05:04 PM (#3324771) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link nice to have some agreement with jack the sailor! dmcg-the book i read on the subject sure had a lot of mathematical calculations on the back pages but i,ve no idea what they mean-other than that the author is no idiot.pete |
|
18 Mar 12 - 05:15 PM (#3324779) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG dmcg-the book i read on the subject sure had a lot of mathematical calculations on the back pages but i,ve no idea what they mean-other than that the author is no idiot.pete Have you a title/reference? No promises, but if its available though the library I'll try and check it out. As for not being an idiot: mathematics is a language. A very formal one that can express many ideas precisely and is hopeless for others, but a language none the less. So it is as easy to be idiotic in maths as it is in English, French, German, Spanish ... Maybe even more so, because there are less 'fluent speakers' to pull you up and say 'Are you sure that's what you really meant?' |
|
18 Mar 12 - 08:17 PM (#3324859) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw So it is as easy to be idiotic in maths... There are three kinds of idiot - those who are idiotic in Maths and those who are not... |
|
18 Mar 12 - 11:25 PM (#3324917) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: frogprince About a year ago, we attended a birthday party for an older family friend. One young man was wearing a tee shirt with a math formula covering the entire front, line after line after line of numbers with every math symbol I've ever seen, maybe some I'd never seen. I asked what it was. The answer: "You'll be seeing a lot of it; it's the (......?) formula, which proves that climate change is totally determined by solar activity, not by human activity". Whatever he said the name of the formula was, I have yet to hear it mentioned again. But it's one impressive looking formula. |
|
19 Mar 12 - 12:03 AM (#3324924) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona http://www.stolaf.edu/people/hend/bobnelson.html Say, Don Firth, you're the seated one, aren't you? It's nice to have a face. Sorry I can't return the favor. :( But now I shall recognize you if I ever bump into you in town. Not likely, but there's always the possibility......... I shall return, Iona DollyMadisonEtsy {at] gmail {dot] com |
|
19 Mar 12 - 03:14 AM (#3324946) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Paul Burke We know who you are... we know where you live.... "She's" crazy and dangerous. I'd get the police on this. |
|
19 Mar 12 - 05:08 AM (#3324968) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray I rather wonder if you are as harsh in your rhetoric with any religious people you happen to meet in person..... Only the ones who come banging on my door trying to save my soul, Bill. And my views are hardly harsh, much less rhetorical, or yet even narrow; you can look at the religious impulse in humanity much as you can the propensity for ciminality and war - negative attributes, the fruits & movitation of which don't really bear close examination. I'm all for Wonder and Spirituality, but you won't find these things in religion - just as you won't find sexuality in pornography. These things (wonder, spirtuality & sexuality) belong to each and every one of us as intergral to our very humanity - they lose all substance when systematised and otherwise exploited, which is precisely what religion does. |
|
19 Mar 12 - 06:39 AM (#3325014) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail We know who you are... we know where you live.... But now she's given her email address she's easy to trace as well. Here she is. |
|
19 Mar 12 - 10:40 AM (#3325160) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Ummm.. not exactly THAT Dolly Madison, I'm afraid. *grin*. Etsy is an online crafts site where Iona seems to have a small business. Her remarks reflect the coincidence that she lives in the same general area as Don Firth. I'm sure she's NOT "dangerous", and that Don has no worries. "And my views are hardly harsh, much less rhetorical, or yet even narrow;..." scholars differ....I read your remarks as harsh."Religion is a power struggle of righteous evil vowing for political supremacy through the mechanics of violence and ignorance" I too, have door knockers...from both Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter Day Saints, as I live within walking distance of both denominations. I prefer to frustrate them with my explanation of religion in philosophical & logical terms, rather than confronting them as if they are evil. (I think I must be on "hopeless" lists now, as I haven't seen any in awhile) |
|
19 Mar 12 - 10:51 AM (#3325166) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod I discovered that if you accuse door knocking Jehova's Witnesses or Latter Day Saints of being 'cultists' it drives them wild! "We are not a cult!" one JW shouted at me, on my own doorstep, a couple of years ago. To which I replied, "if the cap fits, wear it." He stormed off in high dudgeon (I've always wanted to write that!). Please, no cheap jokes based on the word "cult". |
|
19 Mar 12 - 11:12 AM (#3325178) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D *I* discovered that if you mistake a Mormon for a Jehovah's Witness it drives THEM wild. *grin* I wonder what happens when they knock on each other's door! |
|
19 Mar 12 - 11:59 AM (#3325191) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor "they do make predictions and some of those predictions are testable" No. The fact is that they don't which was my point. Your faith in science is admirable. But on before the big bang and on most of string theory all it offers is speculation. |
|
19 Mar 12 - 12:36 PM (#3325211) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG "they do make predictions and some of those predictions are testable" No. The fact is that they don't which was my point. Your faith in science is admirable. But on before the big bang and on most of string theory all it offers is speculation Ok, we'll agree to differ on this one. I don't really know anything about the theories of before the big bang. I know a little more about string theory; I labelled them immature because of the limitations in predictions they can make and at the moment - as far as I am aware - they are limited to predicting the known, i.e. the mathematics predicts this, a 14-dimensional version predicts 'A' and a 19-dimensional predicts B; observation says B happens, so we can rule of the 14-dimensional version. It is a fine point whether that consequence-of-the-model can be labelled as a prediction; I'd consider it one but would understand if you did not. |
|
19 Mar 12 - 12:43 PM (#3325215) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG PS: The only really solid information I have on string theory is Chapter 31 of Roger Penrose's work "The Road to Reality". According to the cover, it was in The Sunday Time's Top Ten Bestseller list. If that's true, its also in the Sunday Times Top Ten 'How on earth do I read this' list. A brilliant work, but not exactly bedtime reading. |
|
19 Mar 12 - 01:52 PM (#3325250) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Regarding maths. Have you noticed how graffiti on toilet walls in universities always used to include calculations proving that 1 = 2? Until I wrote my PhD thesis, which although on vibration, did delve into the quantum world, I never realised I would need to prove that a metaphorical one could equal a metaphorical two. If I had read Pete's bible, I might have stood a chance. My uncle, who was a Jehova's Witness, always used to say the bible supplies all the answers. My Dad used to qualify that by saying all the answers you want... |
|
19 Mar 12 - 02:07 PM (#3325260) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke Don't forget that string theory is not at all accepted as the basis of physics- it is still only one of several avenues that are being explored. The crunch will come when testable predictions are made- and until they are made it is still metaphysics. Who was it described science as the slaying of beautiful theories by ugly facts? |
|
19 Mar 12 - 02:11 PM (#3325262) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Ian..if you are familiar with 'pataphysics, demonstrating that "a metaphorical one could equal a metaphorical two." might be an easy exercise. (I found that page by searching for the famous quote "God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.") I also loved the hypothetical question I found on a toilet wall at the Univ. of Kansas years ago... "Can a metaphysican be sued for malpractice?" |
|
19 Mar 12 - 02:39 PM (#3325277) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod We all need to keep in mind the fact that if string theory is proved to be wrong ... or right ... we will learn nothing about the existence, or non-existence, of God. |
|
19 Mar 12 - 02:49 PM (#3325284) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Yes, Iona, 'tis I. The earlier photo (1959) is of Bob and me singing at "The Place Next Door," an up-scale coffeehouse that was next door to the Guild 45th Theater (foreign and art films at the time) and owned by the same man, hence the name. I am seated for two reasons. First, I play classical guitar as well as using the guitar for song accompaniment, and hold the guitar in the secure classical position (HERE). Second, because, due to polio at an early age, I walked with a pair of aluminum forearm crutches, and if I were to try to play the guitar standing up, I would have to set the crutches aside, and there is a good chance I would land on my keister. In the second photo (2007), Bob and I have a bit more mileage on the clock. I am now using a wheelchair, and the lower bout of a full-size classic guitar and the right wheel of the chair interfere with each other, throwing the guitar out of position, hence the smaller "Go" travel guitar (looks like the love-child of an unnatural relationship between a guitar and a canoe paddle)—remarkable instrument made by Sam Radding of San Diego: a bit thin in the bass, perhaps, but in general sounds like a full-size classic guitar. Sam's a genius! Did you check the link at the bottom of the poster? Here it is again: loveiscentral. This will take you to the web site of Central Lutheran Church, where Bob and I sang in October of 2007. For more information about the NATURE of this particular church and why I am a member, this page HERE should give you an idea. The congregation of this church consists of a large number of well-educated people, some of whom are in the sciences—and find "Young Earth Creationism" totally unacceptable as truth. Along with many other things the Bible says that can't possibly be literally true. Mythological concepts, yes, but not historical fact. Yet, most of these people take the teachings of Jesus seriously and put them into practice, whereas the vast majority of those intense people I've run into in my life who have tried to "save my soul" don't practice what they preach! There are a lot of "Christians" like that. And they give the rest of us a bad name! Which is why I keep asking you what YOU are doing. And I note that you haven't yet answered. By the way, I can't think of anyone in Central's congregation who would not be absolutely appalled at your attitudes about stoning. Also, by the way, I've never been stoned. Not even in the Sixties. Don Firth |
|
19 Mar 12 - 05:54 PM (#3325381) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona We know who you are... we know where you live.... "She's" crazy and dangerous. I'd get the police on this. Are you okay, Paul? I only know this about Don because he's disclosed so much about *himself* (i.e. that he lives in the Seattle area, that he sings/sang at such-and-such a place, that he attends the Central Lutheran Church). I'm not stalking him, and I have no clue about where he lives. And really, I don't care. None of my business. Iona |
|
19 Mar 12 - 08:22 PM (#3325444) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Brian Greene is a string theorist at Columbia University. On his TV special, "The Elegant Universe" he had a virtual parade of working physicists say there was no way, currently to test string theory. He made a case that convinced me. Until I hear about the Nobel Prize winning experiment to come. I'm convinced. Elegant Universe is informative and I found it entertaining. See it if you get a chance. |
|
19 Mar 12 - 08:25 PM (#3325449) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: saulgoldie Iona, don't you ever get tired of yourself? Saul |
|
19 Mar 12 - 08:28 PM (#3325454) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Does anyone on this forum get tired of themselves? ;-) |
|
19 Mar 12 - 09:54 PM (#3325498) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth "Does anyone on this forum get tired of themselves?" Nah. Counterproductive. I'm stuck with me, so I gotta make it work! No, I'm not worried about Iona being a stalker. She doesn't strike me as the type. Besides, Yea, though I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Death,But if I see a woman coming toward me with a big bag of rocks, I'm probably going to put on a burst of speed.I will fear no evil,Cuz I'm the meanest son-of-a bitch in the Valley! Don Firth |
|
19 Mar 12 - 10:12 PM (#3325505) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona Don--I laughed out loud! No rocks here. :) Iona(who, in order to pacify anxious souls, is in the process of getting a membership) |
|
19 Mar 12 - 10:30 PM (#3325510) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Excellent! Welcome aboard! I'd be interested in knowing what you do musically. Assuming. . . . Don Firth |
|
19 Mar 12 - 10:33 PM (#3325512) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor I'll bet that he instrument is a trebuchet. |
|
19 Mar 12 - 10:40 PM (#3325515) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor her instrument |
|
20 Mar 12 - 12:19 AM (#3325535) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Rock and roll? Or, strictly speaking, roll and rock. You roll it into position and toss the rock. Don Firth |
|
20 Mar 12 - 12:52 AM (#3325540) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Iona *grin* I'm feeling very welcome, thank you. Still waiting for finalization on my membership. |
|
20 Mar 12 - 02:07 AM (#3325552) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Iona Hurrah for Joe Offer, I am now a member--so you all can rest easy that I'm not a computer program. :) Iona |
|
20 Mar 12 - 05:11 AM (#3325588) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket But preprogrammed all the same |
|
20 Mar 12 - 07:26 AM (#3325629) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray This is all getting very tearfully touching as the ever Saintly Don Firth takes the innocent but misguided young 'Iona' under his wing... Better than TV really. Myself, I reckon Iona is WAV in a different guise - though WAV would never advocate stoning people to death for simply being human, much less promote the sort of funless'mentalist claptrap we've seen here. So what are you Iona? Who are you? Are you real? Or just a virtual vessel of God's verdict for humanity? And what in Our Lady's Name has this got to do with Folk Music? I'm real, BTW, I even have a public profile on Facebook kindly provided for me by the Chinese Government, but it's pretty accurate all the same: http://www.facebook.com/comrade.o.piobaireachd |
|
20 Mar 12 - 08:58 AM (#3325660) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link dmcg-dont know if the library would stock/acess it as its creation book publishers. starlight,time and the new physics dr john hartnett ISBN:978-0-949906-68-7 2007 September regards pete. |
|
20 Mar 12 - 01:00 PM (#3325771) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod starlight,time and the new physics dr john hartnett Struggling for any credibility whatsoever the creationist, john hartnett, prefixes his name with a "dr". Remember, pete, that even if Admiral Prof. Sir John Hartnett PhD., MSc., DSc., MBE, Distinguished Flying Cross and Bar manages to present evidence which completely discredits modern physics and comology(which I seriously doubt - but then I haven't read the book) that still won't 'prove' that God created the universe and/or that the Bible is true. |
|
20 Mar 12 - 01:07 PM (#3325775) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail Always best to do a little research first, Shimrod. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hartnett_(physicist) |
|
20 Mar 12 - 01:29 PM (#3325790) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Iona I thought my profile would show the little 'about' that you're supposed to fill in when you submit your membership, but it doesn't. This is what I wrote: Artist in sculpture and pencil. Irish and traditional fiddler and classical violinist. Graphic design artist. Fan of the Sons of the Pioneers, (Hugh Farr, Ken Carson and Bob Nolan in particular) the Clancy Brothers and Tommy Makem; as well as various Western and Irish Folk artists. Collects songs (having over 300 in the repetoir so far and constantly adding more). Iona "One said to his minister, "My dear sir, surely you ought to adjust your beliefs to the progress of science." "Yes," said he, "but I have not had time to do it to-day, for I have not yet read the morning papers." " - C.H. Spurgeon |
|
20 Mar 12 - 04:51 PM (#3325871) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D *grin*... The morning papers don't study the situation on a daily basis. But these days, you can go to CNN or Google news online and updates on important advances in science. Theology doesn't seem to be updated quite as often. |
|
20 Mar 12 - 05:51 PM (#3325890) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Iona "But the word of the Lord endureth for ever." 1 Peter 1:25 The Bible doesn't need to be 'updated' because it is true. I know you don't accept that, but there you are! |
|
20 Mar 12 - 05:59 PM (#3325893) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Does it interest you, Iona, to wonder why I...or hundreds of millions more.. do not accept the Bible as literal truth? I assure you, I have no visits from Satan to lead me astray. We have already gone thru the discussion of why most of 'us' see your arguments as circular and fallacious.... I hardly know what more to say. |
|
20 Mar 12 - 07:54 PM (#3325966) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Iona I have heard plenty of times that my arguments are 'circular and fallacious', but I have yet for you to explain why you view them so. It's my argument that Without the Bible being true, you can't prove anything at all. As to why millions of people do not accept the Bible as true..... "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Matthew 7:14) " Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able." (Luke 13:23-24) Iona |
|
20 Mar 12 - 08:01 PM (#3325969) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Iona I promised a post on stoning. I haven't tons of time lately to work on all these posts, and I think we need to get back to the original topic, but the sufficiency of Scripture is an absolutely essential doctrine for a Christian. I don't think that stoning is so off the topic that it can't be discussed; since both it and the Creation Account are in the Bible. Stoning. As many of you have pointed out, it is a horrible way to die. It is painful, it is ugly. I am not unhuman--I shudder at the thought of it! But I still think it's righteous. And instead of doing a great long post on it, I'm just going to give you a link to an audio that I agree with, and if you take the time to listen to it, gives exactly why I believe in the absolute sufficiency of Scripture. There is a reason that God instituted such an awful method of capital punishment, and called it good. And this is why. WHY I BELIVE IN STONING.....CLICKY |
|
20 Mar 12 - 08:58 PM (#3326005) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: John P . . . the sufficiency of Scripture is an absolutely essential doctrine for a Christian. I've known hundreds of Christians over the years, and had theological discussions with many of them. Since you are only the fourth person I've ever "talked" to who thinks this, what do you call the other 99.99% who call themselves Christians? "God exists because the Bible says so and the Bible is correct because it's the word of God" is circular reasoning. The premise and the conclusion depend on each other, leading you in a logical circle. The conclusion never comes out -- round and round it goes, chasing it's tail. "Everything the Bible says is true" is fallacious reasoning, in that it is both unproven and unprovable. Your interpretations of the Bible are fallacious in that the Bible is extremely self-contradictory, and there is no way to reconcile it to itself if you are going to take it literally. The message of Christ and the God of the Old Testament do not mix, and yet you say that it is all literally true and should be a guide for how to live our lives. Failure to believe in known facts about how our world works is also fallacious reasoning, in that your arguments are based on ignoring huge bodies of knowledge. Your conclusions have nothing to hang their hat on. |
|
20 Mar 12 - 09:20 PM (#3326025) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D John P saved me some typing. It's not whether you are right...or wrong.. but your reasoning IS circular & fallacious. Saying this about your reasons is like explaining that 2=2 does NOT = 5. Fallacies are fallacies...it is a statement about 'sense', not truth. IF your religious beliefs were in fact, true, your logic does not support them... You just cannot defend something by declaring it IS true! It's like a mother saying, "I KNOW my son could not have done that!" "It's my argument that Without the Bible being true, you can't prove anything at all." *sigh* And the Koran? and the Bhagavad Gita? And a dozen other "holy" texts from other cultures? You know about the "Tower of Babel". The many religions of the world are a similar situation... |
|
20 Mar 12 - 10:02 PM (#3326056) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail Bill D You just cannot defend something by declaring it IS true! Steve Shaw Evolution is true. John P gravity is absolutely true Richard Dawkins I once wrote that anybody who didn't believe in evolution must be stupid, insane or ignorant "true"?! "believe"!? Science is not a belief system. Signed - The Trolling Twat |
|
20 Mar 12 - 10:09 PM (#3326061) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D "You just cannot defend something **simply** by declaring it IS true!" I never said or hinted that science is a belief system. Please do not confuse my point with those others. |
|
20 Mar 12 - 10:25 PM (#3326070) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail I was agreeing with you, Bill. You have got it right. I was putting the bizarre statements of the others in that context. |
|
20 Mar 12 - 10:27 PM (#3326072) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Iona All right then: Tell me how you can prove WITHOUT USING THE PAST inductive inference--that the future will be like the past. |
|
20 Mar 12 - 11:11 PM (#3326093) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: John P Uh, hate to tell you this, folks, but declaring well-known scientific facts to be true is not the same as declaring the Bible to be true (a bit of fallacious reasoning there?). I know, I know, no scientist would ever, blah, blah, blah, I'm not a scientist and don't pretend to talk like one. For me, saying that gravity and evolution exist is like saying the sky is blue. There's a big pile of evidence in favor and none opposed. Just imagine that I've put in all those qualifiers. While I am certainly aware of them, I see no need to use them in everyday conversation. Also, out-of-context snippets don't tell us much about what the person being quoted was saying. It's a waste of searching, cutting and pasting time. Many of us use a variety of conversational gambits to make our points; irony, humor, sarcasm, or just having fun with words could all produce snippets that could be made to seem to mean the opposite of what was being said if taken out of context. |
|
20 Mar 12 - 11:45 PM (#3326100) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: John P Why would anyone want to prove that tomorrow will be like today? There is no logical way to prove such a thing, and yet it is undoubtedly true that, in general, tomorrow will be like today. Again, a big pile of evidence in favor and none opposed. Most non-quibblers would call that proof enough. Common sense carries some weight. |
|
21 Mar 12 - 02:54 AM (#3326122) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Iona Just keep in mind that back in the day, John P, the sun revolving around the earth was a well-known scientific fact. However, the Bible has time and time again proved itself true against all the guns that can be brought against it. I have yet to hear anyone cite two Bible passages that come in conflict with each other...... |
|
21 Mar 12 - 03:05 AM (#3326125) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Paul Burke On that sort of childish scale, try proving anything. Try, for example, to prove that the bible exists. I suppose you could give links to references, but how do you know those links aren't artifacts created by Jorge Luis Borges, who probably wrote Iona. You could wave a book at me, but how do you prove that that boon is the bible and not some other book? You could open it at a particular page and say, Lo, here it saith stone thy neighbour, and open another page and say, here it saith many are cold but few are frozen, but how can you prove that all the other pages aren't the Mrs Hill NC telephone directory when you aren't looking at them? By faith saith the believer. But why should anyone have faith in that telephone directory rather than another competing one? |
|
21 Mar 12 - 04:34 AM (#3326137) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion "I have yet to hear anyone cite two Bible passages that come in conflict with each other......" .,,.,. There were Adam & Eve. They had 2 sons. They were the only people around. One son killed the other. Then he went to live in the Land of Nod, which was East of Eden. Which seemed to be a well-established settlement ~ where did it come from? ~ with a big population ~ who they? where they come from? And he married a wife from there. Who was she? If not 'in conflict with each other', what are all these statements & accounts? A bit confusing, however you try to slice it, to try and prove any authority for us all to live our lives by, 5772 years later [or however many it is], eh Iona? 〠☺〠~M~〠☺〠 |
|
21 Mar 12 - 04:51 AM (#3326144) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG I got this from a creationist site: It is often claimed by sceptics (and even some who claim to be Christians) that Genesis 1 and 2 contain "two different and ... conflicting stories of creation." This is false as Genesis 2 is not even a story of creation, in the general sense of Genesis 1, and it therefore presupposes and is intended to be complementary to, Genesis 1 ..... "Doesn't Genesis 2 present a different creation order than Genesis 1? Genesis 2 does not present a creation account at all but presupposes the completion of God's work of creation as set forth in chapter 1. Moreover, Genesis 2 is not intended to be chronological What I'd like to know is who decides that? Who has the authority to say how Genesis 2 is 'intended' to be read? Apparently, even those who believe the Bible is to be read 'literally' do not want to read Genesis 2 literally, but in some other way according to 'how it is intended to be read'. |
|
21 Mar 12 - 05:08 AM (#3326150) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion And then, how about incest being forbidden? ~~ see e.g. Lev 18 vi ff ~~ so what did Lot's naughty daughters think they were up to, getting their old man pissed & then getting him to shag them, eh? Or is the fact that that happened chronologically before the old boy gave Moses all those rules supposed to make a difference? I wouldn't have thought so ~ would you, Iona? |
|
21 Mar 12 - 05:27 AM (#3326157) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod Snail criticises me for being sarcastic about Dr John Hartnett's (the Physicist cited by pete) qualifications. Snail asserted that I should have done my research before posting (yes, Snail you're right). He then referenced a Wikipedia article on Dr JH - who does, it turns out, have a very impressive CV. But then hidden away among the references to the article I find a link to a trailer to a series of two programmes broadcast by something called, 'God TV' (God help us!). Dr JH was, apparently a contributor to these programmes. Let me give you a flavour of what was presented: "In two highly informative programmes, 'The Age of the Earth' and 'Rapid Rocks' geologist Tas Walker questions how long it takes for rock to form. This is a key issue to the debate, as some scientists believe it takes millions of years, while a literal reading of the Bible indicates that the earth is only 6,000 years old. Dr Carl Wieland presents 'Origins in the Modern World and Why it Matters'; and in 'Starlight, Time and the New Physics' Dr John Hartnett sets out to explain light-years in an earth that is not billions of years old, with some eye-opening explanations. Gary Bates claims UFO sightings are linked to a belief in Evolution and looks at the issue of life on other planets in 'Alien Abductions and UFOs'. Dr Jonathan Sarfati examines whether Evolution could be the worldview behind abortion and euthanasia and in 'Evolution and the Holocaust' asks if there could be a link between 'Natural Selection' and the extermination of six million people. From a Creationist perspective, Philip Bell discusses 'Apemen: Missing Links and the Bible'; Dr David Catchpoole focuses on 'Dinosaurs and the Bible'; Dr John Sanford asks 'Does Evolution hurt Science?' and in 'Journey Towards Creation' astronomer Dr Hugh Ross marvels at the intricate design of the heavens and the earth." Contributors to this thread will find most of the above to be very familiar (although I don't think we've touched on UFOs yet!). So is Dr JH a distinguished physicist or a silly, deluded ass ... or both(!) Discuss. |
|
21 Mar 12 - 05:32 AM (#3326162) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Joe Offer DMcG asks: Who has the authority to say how Genesis 2 is 'intended' to be read? Maybe that's the wrong question. Maybe it should not be a matter of "authority" at all. Maybe is should be a matter of "credibility." Modern biblical criticism is a fascinating field of study. It starts without assumptions, and leaves no question unasked. And the answers it comes up with, are quite credible. This is quite different from the fundamentalist approach, which considers the Bible as the ultimate authority. This forces the fundamentalists to do all sorts of fancy dance steps to prove the truth of their preconceptions. Genesis 1 and 2 are two wonderful presentations of creation myths. They are a very strong and valuable statements of the faith the Hebrew people had in their God and their relationship with that God. To try to make these creation stories into some sort of scientific treatise, is ludicrous. Dancing around to try to "prove" the Bible, makes a laughingstock of a sacred document of faith. I want to repeat what Bill D had to say about religious faith, because I think what he says has a lot of value: Religion is one way of coping and expressing wonder and sharing comforting thoughts about life & death with others....and it is easy to see why humans developed religious feelings. It is hard, though, to see why they cling to demonstrably inaccurate ideas about science as we learn more. I think there are two sorts of religious people. Bill's first sentence applies to one kind of religious people, and his second sentence applies to the other kind. I think a lot of people, perhaps particularly Americans, have a hard time with abstractions and uncertainties. For them, everything must be concrete and certain. They live their lives by rules and doctrines and obedience and authority, while other prefer to live by principles and questions and explorations and freedom and credibility. Those interested in credibility over authority, don't tend to try to find answers to scientific questions in religion. -Joe- |
|
21 Mar 12 - 05:35 AM (#3326165) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy Iona, 'I have yet to hear anyone cite two Bible passages that come in conflict with each other...... ' In both Exodus & Deuteronomy there's the 10 Commandments which include 'Thou shalt not kill' Please explain how this fits with your advocation of stoning to death which 'god' commands? There's just one conflict & after you've made up a story to address this issue, I'll be ready to provide more biblical contradictions. |
|
21 Mar 12 - 05:54 AM (#3326174) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Contradictory stuff. I've only included the first verse of each reference. They are the significant differences in accounts of the same event. 1 Chronicles 21 1 - 17 1And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. 2 Samuel 24 1 - 17 1And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. I was going to apply a self-denying ordinance aganst anything but geology here, but this one that I discovered is pretty amazing. It suggests some curious behaviour on God's part in the Samuel version. Penny |
|
21 Mar 12 - 07:14 AM (#3326200) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail Shimrod Snail criticises me for being sarcastic about Dr John Hartnett's (the Physicist cited by pete) qualifications. No I didn't. Snail asserted that I should have done my research before posting Yes I did. (yes, Snail you're right). Good. So is Dr JH a distinguished physicist or a silly, deluded ass ... or both(!) Discuss Yep. He seems to be both a distinguished, well respected scientist and a creationist. Score 1 to Pete. |
|
21 Mar 12 - 07:51 AM (#3326217) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod And score about 3 to Snail, who appears desperate to score points whatever the context. |
|
21 Mar 12 - 08:55 AM (#3326251) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail No Shimrod. What I am interested in is precision and clarity in scientific thinking and a proper presentation of how science works. That the theory of evolution is a better explanation of how life developed on Earth is a better one than creationism is less important than why that is so and how it was arrived at. Pete and Iona have been allowed to define the terms of the debate and as a result they are running rings round you. There is very little discussion of science going on. Theology seems to have taken over. Have a look at John P's post of 14 Feb 12 - 09:53 AM. About the most sensible thing said for a long time. |
|
21 Mar 12 - 10:10 AM (#3326308) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Iona said that God declared stoning to be good... On the assumption that he / she / it exists and therefore is capable of thought and deed, that alone makes God an evil bastard beneath contempt. Now.. as many good people, Joe Offer included, may well wince at such a statement, it just goes to prove that Iona's God is not the God everybody else is talking about. After all, the God many of my family and friends follow is not evil, is caring and seems to answer their prayers, (in conjunction with the council, the wages office where they work and everything else that gives us a good deal that some ascribe to God...) So, are we talking the God most Christians are familiar with and many of the rest of us having a passing acquaintance with, or the disgusting article Iona tells us likes to stone women? I reckon if The Pope and Archbishop of Canterbuty read this thread, they'd cut up their dog collars.... |
|
21 Mar 12 - 10:22 AM (#3326315) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: John P I don't care how "distinguished" a scientist is. If he publicly presents Creationism as a valid theory, he is not acting as a scientist, and opens himself up to all of his conclusions in any field being suspect. It just ain't science, folks. There is no debate. Anytime it runs counter to what we know, it not only isn't science, but it's an untruth. |
|
21 Mar 12 - 10:23 AM (#3326317) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: John P Sorry, Iona, but "people used to think the earth was flat" is more fallacious reasoning. You are trying to make a specific fact answer a general class of questions. That's a no-no. I'm sure there's some official logic-speak name for it, but I don't know what it is. It just doesn't work logically, though. |
|
21 Mar 12 - 10:26 AM (#3326321) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: John P Thank you Joe, for that last post. Very eloquently put, as usual. |
|
21 Mar 12 - 10:42 AM (#3326333) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D to add to what John P said about: "Just keep in mind that back in the day, John P, the sun revolving around the earth was a well-known scientific fact." No... it was a theory...they thought it was a fact. They had little means to test it except simple observation. If you wish to say that the opposite is thus "only a theory", fine... but it is a tested theory, and has pretty solid footing. The belief that the Bible is the 'inspired word of God' is also a theory, since it WAS put to parchment & paper by men! This theory is not really 'testable'... and we know that many, many things written by men are patently false and invented. There is a good reason why people say "I 'believe' in God".... belief MEANS it cannot be proved. |
|
21 Mar 12 - 10:44 AM (#3326335) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail John P Uh, hate to tell you this, folks, but declaring well-known scientific facts to be true is not the same as declaring the Bible to be true Maybe not but, to those who are not committed to either side of the argument, they sound pretty much the same. As you have said, there is no point in arguing with Pete and Iona. They aren't listening. The target audience is those who might be taken in by their nonsense. To do that you have to show WHY science gives better results. Setting "Evolution is true" against "The Bible is true" doesn't achieve that. Part of the problem is distinguishing between the thing itself and the theory. Mrrzy said "I tried to explain that gravity was a theory ". Er, no it isn't. The Theory of Gravity is a theory. Gravity, as you so eloquently described, is an aspect of reality that we can all observe. So are light, heat, the Moon.... Try "Light is absolutely true", "Heat is absolutely true", "The Moon is absolutely true". Sorry, doesn't work for me. Yes, they exist but that isn't the same thing as being true. My case is that the natural phenomenon itself is not capable of possessing the property "true" and that, as even Steve Shaw agrees, scientific theories should not be described as true. Throwing around words like True and Believe plays into the hands of the creationists who would like to establish an equivalence between Creationism and Evolutionism(sic). |
|
21 Mar 12 - 02:09 PM (#3326473) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Joe Offer I'm sorry, but from the perspective of those of us on earth, the sun does revolve around the earth. I love to study those models of a geocentric universe, with all those bands showing the movement of the celestial bodies. From an artistic point of view, a heliocentric solar system is plain-Jane boring. Give me a geocentric universe. The diagrams never cease to intrigue me. -Joe- |
|
21 Mar 12 - 02:26 PM (#3326486) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod "Maybe not but, to those who are not committed to either side of the argument, they sound pretty much the same." So who is sitting on the fence then, Snail? |
|
21 Mar 12 - 02:35 PM (#3326490) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Not to mention the mandala patterns you can plot by drawing the apparent paths of planets against the ecliptic. To the right is the one for Venus, with fivefold symmetry: Venus' path Venus repeats each loop after 8 years because of the resonance between Earth's and Venus's years. I couldn't find a diagram for Mercury, which has three loops in one Earth year, plus a bit extra. Mars is on this page. Plus Venus again. Pretty planet patterns Please do not consider the pages on which these pictures are found to be any sort of science. even though they may claim to be. These are the planetary version of those double pendulum gadgets which swing round to produce patterns on paper underneath. I have wondered if the epicycles the Greeks thought up to explain these patterns were actually descriptions of the machines they made to plot the planets, and they never actually belived it was really like it in space. Penny |
|
21 Mar 12 - 02:38 PM (#3326492) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke The geocentric diagrams usually don't include the epicycles that are necessary to make the movements of the planets fit observation. The planets move generally sunwise (comparing night-to-night observations), but sometimes they start moving back again for a while. The heliocentric model explains this easily and simply- we are moving faster on the inside track- but in a geocentric solar system, the planets have to describe circles around some virtual centre which orbits the Earth. The original heliocentric model didn't fit the observations any better than the geocentric one in terms of where the planets should be at any given time. But when the assumption of a circular orbit was replaced by the more accurate model of an ellipse, all fell into place beautifully. The geocentrists could only get this precision by adding extra epicycles- wheels within wheels. Which, as Fourier showed later, gets the right answer if you add enough epicycles in the right phases, but whereas the heliocentric model led directly to Newton's laws and modern science, the mediaeval model only obfuscated. The same is true of the creationist view of biology as against the model of common descent. Because it asks no questions, it never generates any answers. |
|
21 Mar 12 - 03:50 PM (#3326549) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth In Judaism, the first five books of the Bible are referred to as the Torah and generally translated as "the Law" in English translations of the Bible. Rabbinic Judaism asserts that the Laws of the Jewish Bible were presented to the Jewish people and converts to Judaism and do not apply to gentiles, including Christians. Although Christianity affirms that the Torah (or Pentateuch) is part of Scripture that is inspired of God, Christian tradition denies that all of the Old Covenant still applies directly to Christians, but different arguments are used to reach that conclusion and there are differences of opinion within Christianity as to which parts, if any, still apply. The predominant Christian view is that Jesus mediates a New Covenant relationship between God and his followers, according to the New Testament, which ended or set aside some or all of the Old Covenant. Christianity, almost without exception, teaches that this New Covenant is the instrument through which God offers mercy and atonement to mankind. There are differences of opinion as to how the New Covenant affects the validity of the Old Covenant, how many Old Covenant laws such as the Ten Commandments are continued or renewed in the New Covenant, and related issues. The differences are mainly as a result of attempts to harmonize biblical statements to the effect that the Old Covenant and its law is "everlasting," with New Testament statements to the effect that it does not apply anymore, or at least does not fully apply. One source I found states that the stoning laws—and the long list of presumed offenses (a woman who exposes herself to cattle; a disobedient child; an ox that gores someone; and a list that lapses into such trivial offenses that one truly wonders about the sanity of the list-makers!)—are the laws of the priests and religious zealots, NOT the Laws of God. As pointed out before, when Jesus was drawn into a dispute regarding the stoning of "a woman taken in adultery," He confronted the Pharisees, shamed the crowd into leaving, and sent the woman on her way with the admonition to "Go. And sin no more." THAT was Christ's definitive judgment regarding the practice of stoning. Iona, for you to continue to claim that stoning is "righteous" is to deny Jesus, and it verges on blasphemy. This, in addition to condoning something which is vicious, cruel, and brutal. It is definitely "cruel and unusual punishment," deliberately designed to prolong the pain and agony of the victim. In your defense, I can only assume that you haven't really thought this mattter through. I suggest that you get your face out of Leviticus and spend more time reading the Gospels. Read John 8 several times. Until you GET it. Don Firth |
|
21 Mar 12 - 06:21 PM (#3326616) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link dmcg-i agree that on an english reading of genesis that ch 1 and ch 2 do appear as variant accounts.however in my reading of the subject it seems that attention to detail and a reading of the text in hebrew resolves any difficulty.i am reliant on others for this as i have not studied hebrew.i know joe offer is theologically trained and perhaps if he has formed his opinion from the heb text and not from merely darwinist theory that he will inform us of such. if you want to mention particulars i will endeavour an answer but for any that want to look it up i recommend the usual site that some here insist is penned by deluded idiots! how scientific and intelligent that approach is ;i leave the reader to judge. penny-no doubt you are familiar with the story of job;how that satan could not go beyond what God allowed.in the OT all that happens whether good or evil is attributed to YHWH .this is not to ascribe him as the direct agent of evil but as sovereign over all of time and space and those within these realms. as to the other diferrences unspecified;they may be accounted for by the perpective of the authors but whether they are irreconcilable is open to opinion. mr happy-no contradiction.the heb for the word translated "kill" in the KJV means "murder" capital punishment was not included .in the OT at least this was commanded as the punishment for murder[and some other crimes could also carry the death penalty] the first part of don firths post very ably discussed the theology of the relationship of the NT to the OT IMO. |
|
21 Mar 12 - 06:46 PM (#3326641) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG however in my reading of the subject it seems that attention to detail and a reading of the text in hebrew resolves any difficulty.i am reliant on others for this as i have not studied hebrew. Maybe, but be clear: you are not following what the bible says, but what someone you trust claims the bible says. That's trusting people who may have any number of reasons to put a spin on it - its a very common human thing to do. For this at least - and actually the entire bible - your faith is with the translators at least as much as the text. And as I said, there is a real problem how the experts actually know what the original means. I came across a line from Shakespeare about a week ago, for example, which makes perfect sense now, but actually meant something quite different at the time. Meanings do change like that. |
|
21 Mar 12 - 07:04 PM (#3326650) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Lifelong professional Bible scholars constantly argue over the meaning of Bible texts, and this has been going on for centuries. The fact that there are over 150 different Christian denominations stems from the fact that the different factions cannot agree on what the Bible actually says. So--lotsa luck!! Don Firth |
|
22 Mar 12 - 12:50 AM (#3326814) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion Joe's rather charming gloss on the nice patterns the geocentric view of the universe made, in contradistinction to the iho boring heliocentric + out-from-there one, really sums up the gravamen of this thread ~~~ ~~~ are we to prefer the pretty and nice to the demonstrably true & demonstrably actual? ??? ~M~ |
|
22 Mar 12 - 01:34 AM (#3326816) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Uh . . . far be it from me to speak for Joe, but I don't really think that's what he meant. Don Firth |
|
22 Mar 12 - 02:07 AM (#3326820) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Joe Offer I'm largely serious in my defense of a geocentric universe, Michael - for two reasons: 1. We are on earth. Therefore, we view the universe from a geocentric perspective, whether we like it or not. We can extrapolate or use instruments to observe from other perspectives, but our basic view from earth is geocentric. It is my understanding that there were astronomers in the "olden days" who were able to collect very accurate data from a geocentric perspective - even though it was collected from what we consider to be a flawed perspective, the data was accurate and the predictions derived from that data were accurate. A heliocentric perspective is certainly more straightforward, but it is not the only perspective possible. My point: don't be too quick to condemn those who see things differently - they may just be looking from a different perspective. 2. Geocentric models of the universe do indeed have aesthetic value, and that value is not to be scoffed at. Geocentric models are intriguing and amazingly complex. They stimulate my imagination, and they lead me to dream about alternative possibilities. We live in a world that is obsessed with "truth," with finding the one right answer to every question. That sort of perspective doesn't leave much room for imagination, for dreaming, or for aesthetic values. I like my universe messy, not neat, tidy, and mathematical. I'm here to find the joy in life, not just the right answers. Geocentric models fascinate me, and that brings me joy. If there is no joy, what is there in life that has value? -Joe- |
|
22 Mar 12 - 02:14 AM (#3326821) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion I run my life on the watchword "Accuracy matters". It gets me called a 'legendary pedant'. But, while sharing your æsthetic delight in the geocentric perspective, I must reluctantly point out that it ain't so. And neither are so many attractive propositions so eloquently canvassed on this thread. Oh, if only ...! But ACCURACY MATTERS. ~M~ |
|
22 Mar 12 - 02:40 AM (#3326823) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Joe Offer ...And to counter that, Michael, might I opine that imagination may matter more than accuracy? Possession of the truth may be stifling - that may be what's wrong with fundamentalists of all flavors, that they think they possess the truth and that they have a duty to defend it. Imagination, on the other hand, is creative. I'll cast my vote in favor of whimsy and creativity - tempered by a reasonable dose of reason, of course... Widen your perspective, Michael. Drop your preconceived notions and listen carefully to what I have to say. We stand on earth, therefore we must view the universe from a geocentric perspective. To view from another perspective, we must extrapolate or use remote equipment. So, it seems to me that the geocentric perspective of the universe is the most common perspective - and whether we like it or not, it is a valid perspective. We're so used to looking at our universe from a heliocentric perspective, that we make adjustments almost unconsciously from our geocentric view to a heliocentric one. But for that matter, is a heliocentric model of the universe any more valid than a geocentric one? After all, you don't really have the hubris to claim that our sun is the center of the universe, do you? At least in some ways, the perspective depends on the location of the observer, or on whatever is selected as the center of the model that is chosen. And then, one could ask whether there actually is a center of our universe, or if the choice of a center point is mostly arbitrary. ...and thank you for admitting that you (at least partially) share my aesthetic delight in geocentric models. I was starting to worry about you. -Joe- |
|
22 Mar 12 - 02:57 AM (#3326824) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion "After all, you don't really have the hubris to claim that our sun is the center of the universe, do you?" No, Joe. I described it, note, in my penultimate post, as "heliocentric + out-from-there". I didn't speak of 'truth'. "Accuracy' was what I said matters. Sorry. I repeat ~~ I share your æsthetic delight. But it is not accurate. And, come now. Of course we can extrapolate beyond the evidence of our senses. We do it all the time in incalculable contexts. I have no direct evidence, other than extrapolation, that you are Joe Offer & are there reading this at this very moment that you are. I merely extrapolate it. You are rather near to a sort of solipsism, it seems to me, in your assertions. ~M~ |
|
22 Mar 12 - 03:22 AM (#3326828) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Joe Offer You are rather near to a sort of solipsism, it seems to me, in your assertions. Ah, yes....but I have always taken great pride in my solipsisity. ;-) But I can see I still haven't brought you to proper respect for a geocentric perspective. In many ways, it is the most unadulterated perspective that we have - it's what we see. That being said, I must also admit that a geocentric perspective is certainly a cockamamie way of looking at the universe. Still, ancient astronomers looked at the stars from that perspective and came up with predictions that were amazingly accurate. The lesson? - even though our perspective may be flawed or cockeyed, we can still make contributions of infinite value. -Joe- |
|
22 Mar 12 - 04:23 AM (#3326842) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. It is curious, however, that the scholars who produced their maps of the geocentric cosmos, did so from a variety of viewpoints outside that cosmos, whether vertically above, or from a position above but to the side. They didn't show what they saw, but what they considered to be the case. Pete, if God employs Satan to carry out his wishes, that raises far more questions than the apparent conflict between the texts about what is going on. If he wants to punish Israel, why does he need to tempt David into error in order to do it? And the text does not, as Job does, say that Satan was acting as God's agent in this case. In the one Satan is the only actor. In the other, God is the only actor. And why does God need to employ two sets of writers to produce two subtly different versions of the history? It's very interesting reading the two accounts and seeing what is included in both, and what appears only in one. But in an inerrant text, what is the need? In this instance, it allows for a confusion that should have been avoided. As for Genesis, by reading the work of various scholars, it appears that Ch 2 was written before Ch 1, and is it suggested that the reason for Ch 1 was to distance the creation from the relics of the surrounding mythologies found in Ch 2. And, whatever creationist sites say (and I have on occasion looked at them), the order of creation in Ch 2 is completely different from that in Ch 1, where the animals are created before humanity, instead of between the man and the woman. To explain those differences by suggesting that it makes the detail clear is asking for a major suspension of reading skills, and to raise questions about the literary ability of the author - which I assume you would not wish to do. Penny |
|
22 Mar 12 - 05:48 AM (#3326874) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy pete,[deliberate lower case] 'mr happy-no contradiction.the heb for the word translated "kill" in the KJV means "murder"' Noun murder (plural murders) 1.(countable) An act of deliberate killing of another human being. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/murder So,pete, murder means kill - explain your semantics please |
|
22 Mar 12 - 06:39 AM (#3326898) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail So who is sitting on the fence then, Snail? Perhaps you could try reading the whole paragraph, Shimrod. Better still read the whole post and make an effort to understand it instead of looking for imagined flaws. Who's point scoring now? |
|
22 Mar 12 - 07:09 AM (#3326921) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stu "We stand on earth, therefore we must view the universe from a geocentric perspective." I'm not so sure about this. Men have stood on the Moon, and now lived in low orbit for years now, and this perspective has been challenged. Although the vast majority of us are confined to the terrestrial biosphere those who have gone beyond can communicate their (often deeply profound) thoughts and observations and pass on this new outlook, the same way explorers have always done. Also, I think art and science are two sides of the same coin ( I would I suppose, being a graphic artist in the day and a paleontological researcher the rest of the time). Both are concerned with our place in the universe, understanding what it means to be the universe made conscious. Discovery is a serendipitous process sometimes, although there will be a rational process that encourages chance findings. A good scientist will have a very active imagination, they too will favour creativity and whimsy as tools for interpretation and speculation. Think Stephen Hawking, a man whose imagination is broad, deep and essential to his science. Think Galileo and Copernicus, scientists who understood our geocentric view of the world was an age-old misunderstanding by a parochial people. I see the geocentric view of the universe in the same way as I see the anthropocentric view of life on earth; an outdated concept that is part of our history but not part of our future. A distinction I would make however is that the sort of anthropocentric view of the world encouraged by the Bible is a dangerous idea and engenders the view we as a species were created above and separate to the rest of the world (or universe as is often the case these days); a concept that encourages the plunder of our natural resources and the ill-treatment of the beings we share our planet with. As for the aesthetic value, no disagreement there :-) |
|
22 Mar 12 - 07:59 AM (#3326940) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. I think the usual distinction made between "kill" and "murder" is derived from the idea that murder is unlawful, and killing can be not only allowed by law, but even dictated by it. The Old English word from which our word murder derives was rooted in the idea that it was a secret killing, and hence malign in a way that juridical killing, or killing in war was not. Sad, but there it is. The 10 commandments allow the state to dispose of those it doesn't want. Which is hardly surprising in view of the more particular orders to kill issued by the deity in the OT. Penny |
|
22 Mar 12 - 08:06 AM (#3326948) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy So the dictionary definition's wrong? |
|
22 Mar 12 - 08:08 AM (#3326949) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: beardedbruce pete, "no contradiction.the heb for the word translated "kill" in the KJV means "murder"" Well, I fail to see how you can make this statement. The HEBREW word in the discussion of Creation for "day" is NOT the same one as the 24 hour sunset to sunset day- it is a reference to long period of time, such as "the days of our fathers"- ie, an epoch or era. Thus if you accept the Hebrew rather than the KJV English as the literal word of God, Creation could well have taken 4.5 billion of our years, and the whole discussion falls apart. So which is it? ONLY one can be selected- Either the Hebrew meaning is the closer to the truth, or the English "inspired" word. |
|
22 Mar 12 - 09:24 AM (#3327006) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy Bruce, Thanks & also for introducing the concept of 'day' This cued me into thinking about the 'day god rested shall be called sabbath' From the old testament, the Jews have their sabbath on Saturdays, while from the new testament, Christians have theirs on Sunday. Now the deity is supposed to have made all kinds of everything in 6 days, working backwards, did the deity begin on Saturday minus 6 which gives Sunday which is the Christian sabbath on which no-one inc god should do any work? |
|
22 Mar 12 - 09:45 AM (#3327019) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor The thing that concerns me most about Iona' point of view, is that she calls herself a Christian, yet talks about "God's" word about stoning but conveniently ignores Jesus' lesson on stoning and sin which was very clear. If you take the Gospels literally, then the only stoning you can approve of must be done by people completely "without sin." But if you take the Gospels literally then you believe that NO ONE is without sin. Therefore, logically, there can be no stoning. |
|
22 Mar 12 - 10:27 AM (#3327047) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket I'm without sin. No, seriously. As theologically leaning people seem to feel sin is a word woven into religion, and as I am not a member of any religious club, I can't sin. A cat eating a bird is not sinning, because cats don't have religion. I don't either. I'm without sin because the gospels don't affect me, have nothing to do with me and I don't prescribe to them. So, to stoning, as I appear to be able to carry it out. I just find the idea of stoning wrong, and I don't need an imaginary friend to guide me on that, just a sense of altruism, same as any other pack animal. Let he who is stoned cast the first sin. |
|
22 Mar 12 - 10:53 AM (#3327061) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy ........or if the imaginary being started on a Tuesday, after 6 days creating it'd be Sundae again! No, that's no good it thought, let's try starting to make the world etc on a Monday, no good, finishes on Saturday again. If the pretend creator started on any remaining day, then that 7th day would be the sabbath?? |
|
22 Mar 12 - 12:20 PM (#3327107) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: beardedbruce He started Sunday Morning, and finished at sundown, Friday. But those were Looooooong days, equal to 750 million of our years EACH. |
|
22 Mar 12 - 12:51 PM (#3327119) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D "From false premises, anything follows." |
|
22 Mar 12 - 05:41 PM (#3327306) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link penny-i am quite confidant that in the context of the times there was no problem with the literary ability of the author[s]of genesis. the only specific you mention was of animals being created before man while apparently in ch 2 created between adam and eve. hebrew had no specific verb form for a pluperfect and a number of heb scholars have recognized that the context of the narrative suggests a reading of "had formed..." as in the NIV translation. i would not claim there are no questions,or that every question can be fully answered.there is enough ,clear enough, to lead us to repentance and salvation but plenty to occupy theological discussion. well bearded bruce.you have me at a disadvantage if you are a heb scholar and can confidantly assert that the word "yom"[day}means "eaons/ages".the [non creationist] heb prof john barr thinks it refers to normal 24 hr day.even in the english; the number of the day and the eve and morning parameters suggest likewise IMO. you may argue for darwinism but i contest the notion that scripture supports it. |
|
22 Mar 12 - 07:38 PM (#3327360) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Pete... scripture does not NEED to support it. It is worked out and supported and verified by other means. If you demand scriptural support for every scientific concept, you might as well be back in 1527. |
|
22 Mar 12 - 08:34 PM (#3327394) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. I can't find anythiing but my New English and Revised English versions at the moment, and have broken a filing cabinet beyond repair trying to find the Revised Standard (it was only chipboard.) So i have resorted to the internet, and am using the NIV, as pete does. Genesis 1, day 3: 11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day. Genesis 1, day 6 24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground." 27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. The word "then", used in all the texts, does imply that the one act follows the other, as does the word "so". Genesis 2, day unspecified: 5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Genesis 2, immediately after the above. 8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin[d] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.[e] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. 15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die." 18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." The plants clearly follow the creation of Adam, rather than preceding him by 3 days. Genesis 2, immediately after the above. 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. Here the NIV has, as Pete says, "had formed". The Revised English has "So from the earth he formed all the wild animals... KJV has 19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. The New English has "So God formed out of the ground..." Revised Standard - So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. New Revised Standard - 19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. So most of these scholarly researched versions have missed this verbal tense variation, and use the preposition "so" to imply a time sequence which is not there? So back to sources, and a recent translation of the Septuagint: And out of the Earth God furthermore formed all the animals of the field... Furthermore does not equate to "had formed". And from a translation from Hebrew: And out of the ground YHWH Elohim formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air.. No so, or furthermore, but also no "had", and I think in this case they should know what they are translating. There is a note by the verb which defines it as imperfect, or continuous past, as in "was forming", implying a making process like that by which the man was made, moulded out of soil. The structure of the narrative is that God creates a male human, and then brings the animals to find him a companion, and then, when that fails, resorts to making a woman. The story demands that the animals appear before the woman, or it doesn't work. It also demands that they appear after the man, and while this could be done by collecting previously made specimens to show him, that isn't what any of the texts support except the NIV. Penny |
|
22 Mar 12 - 09:01 PM (#3327412) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Rather than cranking out all that stuff on speculation, wouldn't it have been easier to let Adam just thumb through a catalog? Don Firth |
|
23 Mar 12 - 04:14 AM (#3327520) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. It does suggest a rather odd thought process. Genesis 2 does not say that man is in God's image, but if we are supposed to believe that 2 is an embellishment of 1, then God has made someone like himself, but that person is expected to be content with, for example, a tardigrade, a platypus, a scorpion, an eagle, a bluetit.... At least, according to NIV, which, alone of all the versions, including the Massoretic in translation, states wild animals. All the others write of the beasts of the field, which is presumably (and I have seen this in a commentary) describing things like cows, sheep, llamas, etc, which are used in agriculture. He might have thought a parrot would be a comfort, but it's possible that the passage does not include even such companions as cats or dogs. Until it arrives at "all living creatures", which is pretty inclusive. But God does not appear to think that a human being might require another being in the image of God to be a companion. Given the opinions of men since then, this idea seems to have appealed to a number of them as being His intention. Yes, you, Augustine, Peter Abelard, Thomas Aquinas, Gratian, and your fellow thinkers. This is peculiar, if Genesis 2 is an enlargement of Genesis 1. If, however, Genesis 1 was written later, it suggests a more logical understanding of human nature. Why would an omniscient being be so thoughtless as to suppose that while He wanted a creation who could respond to Him as a person in His image could, that person would be satisfied with anything less? Genesis 2 does indicate more primitive ideas in its authorship than 1, and is clearly contradictory of it. Or contradicted by it. An omniscient being, able to see all of time, would know how that rib story would be warped by readers, distorting the message of Genesis 1. The difference in order, which is clearly there, except in NIV, is crucial to the understanding of all of humanity as being in God's image, Does NIV have an agenda? KJV did. Penny |
|
23 Mar 12 - 05:22 AM (#3327539) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray a tardigrade, a platypus, Two of my favourite creatures, BTW. |
|
23 Mar 12 - 05:25 AM (#3327541) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Just out of interest, why would a superstitious set of blokes in The Middle East a couple of thousand years ago be the oracle on human understanding, any more than a trainee psychiatrist would now? Just a thought, before we get too bogged down in examining historical curiosities. The bible et al are wonderful books to gain an understanding of the history of human thought and endeavour but I remain bemused by the insistence that they could be more than what they are, the writings of ancestors. |
|
23 Mar 12 - 06:20 AM (#3327553) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Ah, but ancestors who could write such elaborate metaphors for the evolutionary sciences so beloved of future generations. Unless they really were spacemen - and God really was / is an astronaut, which makes more sense than the Idiot Ominpotent God so beloved of Christians creating Atheist Enlightenment just to damn us all into an eternity of hell & stoning for thinking it was better than the unenlightened theistic alternatives. If God there is, I'm sure nothing in the Bible comes close to telling us what class of being it might be. In any case, the biggest mystery in The Bible is a wee tale told in Luke 10:25-37 which has baffled humanity, and Christians, ever since. |
|
23 Mar 12 - 06:40 AM (#3327557) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Just had the JW's at my door. They are my neighbours. As is Pete. And Iona. And all the rest. Penny |
|
23 Mar 12 - 07:47 AM (#3327590) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray JWs don't count, do they? Although there are a lot of them about; I even had next-door JWs once & sent them a Christmas card (in all innocence) and caused mortal offence. Is it right they have issues with transubstantiation because it involves drinking blood? Still, it's always the kids I feel sorry for. Adults can choose to believe in this shit, but giving it to kids is criminal. |
|
23 Mar 12 - 09:52 AM (#3327638) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: John P in the context of the times there was no problem with the literary ability of the author[s]of genesis. So you read the Bible with an eye on the context of the times? I'm relieved. What's all your other blather about, then? |
|
23 Mar 12 - 10:32 AM (#3327658) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stu Are JWs allowed black pud? Life would be unthinkable without a nice bit of black pud. |
|
23 Mar 12 - 11:07 AM (#3327673) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray That reminds me of the joke about the priest who had a lot of wine over after Mass. 'So what do we no with it?' quoth the alter boy, hopefully. 'Drink it?' 'No. We make black-pudding.' |
|
23 Mar 12 - 01:09 PM (#3327738) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Aye, that's another thing... Transubstantiation. I know Christianity became popular because it, like the Roman culture it aped, wove other creeds, traditions and thoughts into its own creed, like virgin birth, stable etc. But I take it the body and blood of Christ does no more than show that at one time, human sacrifice was on the cards. The more you read, the more repugnant this religion lark is... |
|
23 Mar 12 - 01:34 PM (#3327754) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Ian I never liked that type of technicality being used to get around religious law. I think it is a cop out for a self described Orthodox Jew to hire a "Goy" to light the lamps on the Sabbath, likewise I would frown upon Iona getting you to stone people for her, where obviously, if she is a Christian in the real sense of the word she cannot do it herself. Me, I am a "render unto Caesar" kind of guy. Let the democratic process determine the law and let duly appointed agents of the State render punishment. |
|
23 Mar 12 - 01:37 PM (#3327758) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. I don't think the JWs have problems with transubstantiation, as they split off from more mainstream Protestants who just don't believe in it. Their chief problem is that all the other churches are Babylonian - proved by vestments, candles, festivals, altars, you name it. I didn't want to start an argument this morning, so I did not point out that Quakers don't have any of these things. We had a school caretaker in the organisation once, and he gave me a load of old magazines. I also had one of their Bibles, and a children's Bible story book from a charity shop, for forestalling anything difficult. Interesting reads. Jesus was killed on a stake, not a cross, which they link with that peculiar Exodus episode of a snake on a stick. Penny |
|
23 Mar 12 - 02:10 PM (#3327776) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Jesus was sneakier than a lot of modern Christians realize. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, most people Jesus was talking to regarded Samaritans with contempt. Samaritans were "Them!" Say, like someone who is black, Jewish, gay, left-handed, and from the North might be regarded in back-country Alabama. He was the one, not the others who simply couldn't be bothered and looked the other way, who rendered assistance. "THAT man is your neighbor!" was what Jesus was saying. Not just for his rendering aid, but for what he was as well. It's an important lesson the way most modern Christians understand it. But it was even punchier—a double lesson—to the people Jesus was talking to. Don Firth |
|
23 Mar 12 - 02:14 PM (#3327779) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke He was talking about the importance of being rich enough to pay for other people to stay in hotels. I know this on the authority of St Margaret Thatcher. |
|
23 Mar 12 - 04:35 PM (#3327863) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. He was also sneaky in the "unto Caesar" bit. They were in the Temple, where there should have been no coins but temple shekels (the money changers were there for that). The coins had the image of someone who claimed divinity on them, so were effectively doing what the Hellenistic rulers, and Roman Procurators had tried, intruding idols into the purity of the Temple. And those actions had led to rebellion and riot. They were a sign of Caesar arrogating to himself that which was God's. Jesus could not say anything against Rome, with the Antonia fortress looming over the place, and probably Roman spies in the court of the Gentiles. Those opposed to him could denounce him as a trouble maker to the Romans. But if he did not speak against Rome, they could identify him as a collaborator with the occupiers and denounce him to the temple authorities. So, by getting them to show the evidence of the wrongdoing of the Romans, and those who carried their coinage in the Temple, and by saying something that even to this day can be misconstrued, and is, he allowed all the good little Jewish scholars to understand what a good little Rabbi would teach, that nothing is Caesar's but all is God's. "All things come of thee, O LORD, and of thine own have we given thee" as it says in the Book of Common Prayer. Penny |
|
23 Mar 12 - 04:42 PM (#3327869) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Oh, and the priest and the Levite were not simply people who couldn't be bothered, they were people who were so concerned with their ritual cleanliness, who would have to go through a process of quarantine and bathing before resuming their duties in the Temple, that they had forgotten what the point of serving God is. If they had ever known, being hereditary post holders. And since Jesus' mother's cousin was married to a priest of a status allowed to enter the Holy of Holies, he probably knew quite a bit about priestly behaviour. Penny |
|
23 Mar 12 - 05:07 PM (#3327879) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link bill-i am fully aware you do not accept the bibles record of origins but bearded bruce appeared to believe the hebrew text supported aeons of time. penny-i believe i explained-albeit briefly-why "had" was seen as a valid translation.you have done your homework and cited others who translated otherwise.i have to confess to consulting less sources but the NJB and NKJV allow your view while ESV and new bible commentary do not.it seems that the heb constuction allows either but of course the choice of translation determines whether a contradiction is percieved or not as to the vegetation mentioned in ch 2;the context is of a garden planted and requiring tending-rather than the general creation of plant life on day 3 of ch 1. at least you ,don firth and i are agreed on "the good samaritan"! |
|
24 Mar 12 - 01:59 AM (#3328026) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Iona There were Adam & Eve. They had 2 sons. They were the only people around. One son killed the other. Then he went to live in the Land of Nod, which was East of Eden. Which seemed to be a well-established settlement ~ where did it come from? ~ with a big population ~ who they? where they come from? And he married a wife from there. Who was she? They had 2 sons. Correct. One son killed the other. Also correct. They had sisters. Cain married his sister. "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters" Adam and Eve didn't stop at two children. They had quite a number. And it wasn't against the law yet to marry one's sibling (God didn't forbid that until Moses came along). The gene pool was very strong, and would not have been harmed by intermarriage. The whole of the human population was and is descended from Adam and Eve. And then, how about incest being forbidden? ~~ see e.g. Lev 18 vi ff ~~ ......Or is the fact that that happened chronologically before [God] gave Moses all those rules supposed to make a difference? Does the Bible say that it was a good thing that Lot's daughters committed incest? No. And plenty of evil came from that act. I don't condone sin, and neither does God. (Exodus 20:5) In both Exodus & Deuteronomy there's the 10 Commandments which include 'Thou shalt not kill' Please explain how this fits with your advocation of stoning to death which 'god' commands? The Hebrew word in that verse is actually לא תרצח׃ ס, which literally translates as "Murder". Webster's 1828 Dictionary says this: "Murder: 1. The act of unlawfully killing a human being with premeditated malice, by a person of sound mind." Murder is wrong in the sight of God. But capital punishment is not murder. "But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die." (Exodus 21:14) By killing another man, the criminal has forfeited his own life because he has taken the life of another. He has squandered the gift of life. Just as a man who steals from another man, Biblically the method of punishment is restitution (plus interest, depending). "An eye for an eye" (Exodus 2:24) Is it more merciful to lock a murderer up in a cage for sixty years than to kill him as God commanded? No. Cages are for animals: NOT for humans created in the image of God. |
|
24 Mar 12 - 08:59 AM (#3328072) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket But Iona, God didn't command it because God doesn't exist. I can understand that if a murderer says "I believe in all that crap" then by the murderer's leave, punishing him or her by the bible would be ok for the murderer. But it wouldn't be ok for the rest of the human race, because we don't need imaginary friends or big book of fairy stories to tell us murdering others is not a nice thing to do so don't do it. Proof if ever you need it that evolution exists. In most western countries, we have evolved to the extent that a majority of people, enough to convince governments in fact, realise capital punishment is a grotesque crime in itself, whereas less advanced countries such as Iran, USA, China etc still have enough superstitious low IQ voters to drown out the rational good people who also live there. Nothing to do with religion. Religion is given as the excuse for human cruelty, not the reason, and for that, add hypocrisy to the list of why most people dismiss religion as irrelevant nonsense. |
|
24 Mar 12 - 11:14 AM (#3328139) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion Ian ~~ Congratulations on exceptionally striking use of Ignoratio Elenchi in your 3rd paragraph ~~ a real lulu. On your side on the general principles involved, mind! 〠☺〠~M~〠☺〠 |
|
24 Mar 12 - 01:03 PM (#3328195) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy I didn't know what above meant & guess I'm not alone, so here 'tis for all: Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion[1] or irrelevant thesis) is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question. "Ignoratio elenchi" can be roughly translated by ignorance of refutation, that is, ignorance of what a refutation could logically be; "elenchi" (genitive singular of the Latin elenchus) is from the Greek ἔëåã÷ïò, meaning an argument of disproof or refutation.[2] This is one of the fallacies identified by Aristotle in his Organon, and in a broader sense he asserted that all fallacies are a form of ignoratio elenchi.[3][4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_Elenchi |
|
24 Mar 12 - 05:27 PM (#3328304) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke Harry Stottle had phalluses in his organ? |
|
24 Mar 12 - 06:06 PM (#3328325) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link not sure i understand the explanation mr happy! it just seemed to me that the line of argument was weak in the extreme .then of course there was the usual argument from ridicule.and we,ve had all that religion and cruelty accusation before and has been countered by the far greater record of atheist regimes of modern times inflicting more suffering than over the whole history of christianity.i would suggest that this holds true even if you restrict the argument to capital punishment.at least the intention of capital punishment in the USA is punishment of criminals,even if there have been miscarraiges of justice.freedom of speech is a rare commodity in many atheist states even now and dissention is dangerous. |
|
24 Mar 12 - 06:23 PM (#3328331) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Where are some of these "atheistic states," pete? I can't think of a single state in which the majority of the populace does not belong to some well-known religion, and hence, subscribes to a belief in one or another of the many faces of God. Don Firth |
|
24 Mar 12 - 06:28 PM (#3328333) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""even if there have been miscarraiges of justice.freedom of speech is a rare commodity in many atheist states even now and dissention is dangerous."" Name three current "Atheist States"! There is a very big difference between a Secular government in which religion plays no active part, and an "Atheist State", an entity which IMO does not currently exist. I cannot think of a single regime which pursues an official policy of denying the existence of a deity. The truth is that most of the oppressive regimes in the world are in fact theocracies. Don T. |
|
24 Mar 12 - 06:30 PM (#3328335) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T PS. Even in Nazi Germany, soldiers wore belt buckles with the motto "Gott Mitt Uns" Don T. |
|
24 Mar 12 - 06:40 PM (#3328340) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion To clarify: I referred to that particular form of elenchi called [in the proper sense. 'begging the question' [which does not, as sometimes ignorantly used, mean 'raising' the question]: i.e the assumption of the truth of that which is being disputed as part of the argument. When Ian wrote 'capital punishment is a grotesque crime in itself, whereas less advanced countries such as Iran, USA, China etc still have enough superstitious low IQ voters to drown out the rational good people who also live there' he was assuming that capital punishment is self-evidently an evil, in accusing countries practising it [incl USA!] of being 'less advanced': whereas the desirability or otherwise of such punishment is precisely the question currently under discussion. By so doing, {altho one appreciates that he probably wrote somewhat tongue-in-cheek & ironically}, instead of scoring any palpable point against the egregious Iona, he merely went far towards undermining his own position. ~M~ |
|
24 Mar 12 - 10:29 PM (#3328436) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D About ignoratio elenchi and other fallacies: We all have had occasions when talking to someone, hearing them make some claim or argument that we KNOW just doesn't sound right. If someone tells you "yogurt is good for clearing the sinuses", you first say "Huh?"...then you say "where did you the THAT idea?" Now, suppose they say "my barber told me so!" You then probably ask, "where did HE get that idea?" Imagine your thoughts if they answer, "Oh, I've been going to that barber for years, and he talks to lots of people and hears lots of good information! And besides, he had 2 years of college!" About now you are pretty sure the yogurt claim is sounding silly...though you can't be 'sure'. All you know is that it's not the sort of claim you are willing to bet on. That one is easy, and you can easily tell them "Barbers hear a lot, but you don't know where he got it, or whether he heard it right; besides 2 years of college proves NOTHING about a barber's ability to judge health claims about yogurt!" ... but often, you know someone's argument just 'feels' wrong, though you have no easy way to categorize it. Well... philosophers and logicians HAVE worked out the categories and types of errors made in rhetoric. There are lists called "Informal fallacies" which go over almost every form of bad common reasoning you might encounter. Once you read a few of these, the light begins to dawn, and you think: "Hey...I hear politicians make THAT argument error all the time!" Now... sometimes you 'feel' like you have spotted one, but it is hard to decide just where the error lies...maybe because there can be 2-3 'fallacies' embedded in one claim. Fast talking politicians get pretty good at using words and references in ways that make it hard to diagram their stuff and pin down exactly what to flaws are. Sometimes they give you 4-5 half-truths that sound ok, mixed with a couple that, if analyzed, just don't fit. "My opponent can't be trusted...he refuses to kiss babies, he once got a traffic ticket while driving a Volvo, he was seen at a Beatles concert, he voted against Social Security, his father was a Communist...and he once strapped a dog to the roof of his car!" Sort all THAT out! Some of it may be quite true....some of it may not...what is relevant? Now... suppose you DO get it all sorted out and all the fallacious reasoning identified and properly labeled. It still MIGHT be true that the opponent is NOT trustworthy... but you can't be sure from that list! And just maybe, "trustworthy about WHAT?" has not been addressed. What is the point? It is that truth and fact are one thing... good arguments are another. Someone might have a powerful truth, but are lousy at stating or defending it. What is important is: *a lot of bad, fallacious arguments and reasoning might just mean that it is a good idea to suspect the facts being claimed.* If, over & over, someone uses fallacious reasoning to defend some assertions, claims and beliefs... then doubt about their assertions is warranted.This is what is going on here when many dispute various metaphysical/religious claims. Such claims are not "proven wrong"... but there is every reason to be aware they are not "proven right" by bad reasoning. It would do 'almost' everyone some good to at least read a bit about informal fallacies, even if you never try to refer to them in technical ways.... |
|
24 Mar 12 - 10:39 PM (#3328441) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D By the way... there are many, many sites that deal with informal fallacies. Look it up...one may be easier to understand than another. The site I quickly went to has a page of examples where he enlarges on my point about how tricky and complex it can be... the example are fun to read! |
|
25 Mar 12 - 12:06 AM (#3328471) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Joe Offer I had heard that Wehrmacht soldiers had "Gott mit uns" belt buckles during WWI and WWII, but I didn't think there was a Nazi connection. Sure enough, there's a photo on this page of a belt buckle with a swastika and a "Gott mit uns" slogan. -Joe- |
|
25 Mar 12 - 06:09 AM (#3328541) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Peter Laban I can't think of a single state in which the majority of the populace does not belong to some well-known religion, and hence, subscribes to a belief in one or another of the many faces of God. In places like the Netherlands the segment of non religious has been hovering around the 50 percent mark for a long time, I have some recollection there was a shift at some point where the non-religious did indeed become the majority, albeit by a small margin. I'd have to look recent statistics though to be certain. |
|
25 Mar 12 - 06:41 AM (#3328546) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Yeah M, of course I undermined my own argument. Mind you, by doing so I was being absurd. The things you have to do in order to fit in to a thread eh? Glad that pete saw the argument from ridicule though. Noticing is a first step to questioning which is a first step to .. oh never mind. Of course I am of the opinion that capital punishment is barbaric and a hangover from less evolved times. The human evolution is far more advanced in some areas than others. I did note USA, and not quite tongue in cheek as I find support for capital punishment to be abhorrent. Conversely, USA had digital watches before us, (I wonder how Douglas Adams would have joined in such debates?) But M, this debate is about how biblical nonsense can (if at all) fit in with reality, and evolution in particular. Thus (nice word that...) it can be and is often demonstrated that capital punishment is an excellent example of how humans evolve. A few hundred years ago, anything goes. Two hundred years ago, hung drawn & quartered was seen as barbaric, hundred and twenty years ago, public executions were beyond the pail. Public support for such crimes demonstrate how our moral compass evolves. Also shows that morals and altruism have bugger all to do with metaphysical nonsense. Most pack animals show traits such as looking after others. Underlying message? This is one hell of a long thread in which to debate reality versus mass deranged minds. I `m fascinated by it though, and only throw the odd "emperor has no clothes" in it in order to remind all that at the end of the day, Jack the Sailor started this thread with questioning allowing children to be brainwashed with utter bollocks in the name of fantasy. I call it child abuse. Which of course runs the risk of drifting into last year's hobby horse on Mudcat, and stain on hitherto respected religious clubs. |
|
25 Mar 12 - 07:10 AM (#3328554) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion The trouble is, Ian, that, as we all know, irony can be a dangerous, two-edged, own·petard kind of weapon in controversy. The conviction that all change is for the better, all 'progress' [a ?-begging term in itself!] beneficent, is of course disputable. It is arguable {I am not necessarily arguing it, merely stating it to be a possible postulation} that absolute abolition of any kind of capital punishment in any circumstances was a step too far along the 'progressive' road. Some think so here; and it is policy in states which it would be foolhardy to denounce as 'less advanced'! ~M~ |
|
25 Mar 12 - 07:42 AM (#3328565) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Change is not always for the better when looking at individual instances and examples. However, the larger the sample and the longer the time period, the more true the statement can be. Civilisation is a two edged running with fizzing petard word, as we all know. Just look at Monty Python's "What did the Romans ever do for us" scene, or when Time Team unearth evidence of advanced society prior to what we still call "the dark ages." The conquistadors calling advanced South American culture "savage" also indicates that civilisation can be subjective as words go... In any event, letting superstition and those who benefit by leading it interfere with society does have a track record and form when it comes to suppressing advancement. From Galileo all the way to stem cell research, via Darwin. Now... scientific discovery does sometimes need the brakes putting on, otherwise eugenics would have to be seen as respectable by dint of being scientific alone. Not sure that scripture alone is the basis of injecting moral consideration into society. We don't need the big book and those who profit from it in order to stop me raping pillaging or coveting my neighbour's ass. We just need hard wired altruism, which everybody from Darwin to Dawkins has pointed out is a trait of survival... |
|
25 Mar 12 - 06:25 PM (#3328825) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link don don i suspect that you are appealing to official policies as opposed to what actually happens.i was thinking of communist states that persecute christians and often other faiths also.i imagine political non conformity is not tolerated either.i was thinking of china[not hong konk],,N Korea and vietnam.i was also referring to the govt not the populace. maybe we are thinking along different lines;but the above is what i had in mind-but probably transgressing your criteria!. pete |
|
25 Mar 12 - 06:58 PM (#3328840) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T China: Shenist/Taoist and Buddhist. Government Atheist but does not specifically persecute religious people or temples. Korea: Christian (Catholics and a rapidly growing number of Protestants) and a dwindling Buddhist population. No government persecution mentioned. Vietnam: A non persecuted mix of Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism. Source Wikipedia. Two minutes homework Pete. No claims of religious persecution. Now, you were saying? Don T. |
|
25 Mar 12 - 09:27 PM (#3328898) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: John P Thanks, guys! 1300 posts of mostly trying to talk rationally to irrational people, and suddenly out bursts a fascinating little bit of debate and education about debate and clear communication. This is one of the reasons I love Mudcat! John |
|
26 Mar 12 - 04:19 AM (#3328973) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket What is the difference between a state that uses religion to oppress the masses and a state that calls its brand of religion secular? The reason why North Korea, the old Soviet Union etc suppressed religion was that religion encroached on what it saw as its bailiwick, feeding fodder to the masses in order to control them. When pete speaks of such states not tolerating political non conformity, he doesn't seem to acknowledge that to these people, there is no difference between religious and political non conformity. I suggest that he looks at where religions have a front seat in politics and ask himself where tolerance of others is a feature? |
|
26 Mar 12 - 07:30 AM (#3329043) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: beardedbruce "but bearded bruce appeared to believe the hebrew text supported aeons of time." I stated that the words used in the older version of the Bible refer to a period of time, not a period of 24 hours. Thus, the Bible is NOT in conflict with evolution, which does not address what part God may or may not have in natural selection. Only those that are unaware of the meaning of what is claimed ( not specifically by me) to be God's Word would use a false reading of the text to support a claim against evolution. And if they are unaware of this point, what else are they wrong about in their reading of the Bible? Are they more interested in supporting a viewpoint, or understanding what God had ( supposedly) stated? |
|
26 Mar 12 - 08:34 AM (#3329058) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Proof if ever you need it that evolution exists. In most western countries, we have evolved to the extent that a majority of people, enough to convince governments in fact, realise capital punishment is a grotesque crime in itself... I understand what you mean, but I think it unfortunate that you have used 'evolution' here for an easily reversed social change over a few hundred years whereas for all the rest of the thread we have used 'evolution' to refer to essentially irreversable biological changes of thousands of years. While I support biological Darwinism strongly, social Darwinism is different and has some deeply unpleasant things in its history |
|
26 Mar 12 - 09:33 AM (#3329082) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Evolution in the changing of physical matter, such as losing wings and gills may be the main interpretation of the word in this thread, but an idea can evolve over the time taken to down a pint. Social changes may appear more reversible, but we could evolve back to where we came from given both the time and circumstances. Nothing in biological Darwinism states that evolution is irreversible, so long as the conditions for reverse are apparent and suitable. It may be an unfortunate use of the word, but as the counter argument is a set of books written over only the last couple of thousand years or so, the social change you refer to could just as easily apply in the minds of those who wrote the bible in the first place. For instance, if the stage was set in a much colder climate than the Middle East, the bits about not eating pork or shellfish would not have been there, as people wouldn't have been dying from meat left in the warm. Ditto circumcism. The colder the extremities, the less fungal.. you get the picture. Scripture and adherence to them were in some cases excellent public health advice. Not needed now as we have "evolved" to use not only more sophisticated measures, but not so broad brushed either. Carved in stone stories may be a useful metaphor for those who need such a thing, but they are themselves a snapshot of social evolution. |
|
26 Mar 12 - 11:17 AM (#3329128) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Nothing in biological Darwinism states that evolution is irreversible Agreed. But entropy makes substantial biological reversals highly improbable, whereas most social changes are much easier to reverse, usually taking not much than a perceived threat to undue decades of liberal laws, for example. (I'm not just talking terrorism here - labour laws, immigration, .... there's lots of examples, both now and historically.) Anyone seen a pinhead around here? |
|
26 Mar 12 - 04:01 PM (#3329262) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke but I think it unfortunate that you have used 'evolution' here for an easily reversed social change over a few hundred years whereas for all the rest of the thread we have used 'evolution' to refer to essentially irreversable biological changes of thousands of years. There are a number of pitfalls (or pratfalls) to avoid in this kind of usage. First, be clear that evolution is not always (or even not often) "progress" from a human point of view. Deadly infections evolved from something less deadly to humans- perhaps because they "found" a way to spread more readily, like making humans sneeze. The fact that the toxins that cause the sneeze eventually kill the host is invisible to the virus. Second, be clear about what is evolving - in the case of ideas, it is the ideas themselves, and not necessarily the society in which they thrive. The fitness to survive (or "infectiousness") of an idea can be completely at odds with the wellbeing of the members of the society hosting that idea. Just read back down this thread to see a nasty infection taking hold of the USA, or over to France for a similarly nasty one in a different social group. Thirdly, don't fall into the trap of thinking of evolution as making entities that were the starting point for a development obsolete. The bacteria are ever with us. Never get fooled into thinking of evolution as a linear progress from primitive to modern- that cliche parade from crawling monkey, through shambling ape and stooped caveman, to upright, white, bearded, male modernity (all with the right leg forward to hide the naughty bits). And as you correctly pointed out, the probability of reverse evolution back to the starting point is near enough zero to make no difference. The reason being that the probability of evolution of any given organism is similarly really zero- the combinations are so myriad, and the environmental contingiencies (that include every other organism on the planet among a host of other factors) so unpredictable, that evolution can only ever be viewed in detail backwards. Of course, it's not a paradox at all- you can easily set up an equally improbable situation by tossing a coin a thousand times and recording the results. The probability of that sequence is one in two to the power of a thousand - some estimates of the number of atoms in the Universe are less than two to the one hundred. But the probability of SOME sequence was almost exactly one. And the probability of the next thousand tosses repeating that sequence in reverse is almost exactly zero. |
|
26 Mar 12 - 06:00 PM (#3329333) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link i think that if you had done a little more than 2 mins homework, don ,you would find that there are organizations that document persecution ,in these countries, of faith groups by the authorities;the worst of which being north korea. bearded bruce-sorry but i am not following your argument.which old text do you mean? and why would that take precedence over the meaning of the original text and the meaning of the hebrew words contained there-in. |
|
26 Mar 12 - 06:59 PM (#3329359) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Considerably more than 2 minutes homework, pete. I belong to a couple of organizations, one of which is the Fellowship of Reconciliation, that deal with things like this. Perhaos YOU need to do a bit of homework. Don Firth |
|
27 Mar 12 - 04:49 PM (#3329796) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link well don firth.i did look at the FOR site but i have not gone too far as there seemed no obvious link to the subject though im sure it must be included.is your criticism that i am wrong or that i am incomplete. maybe clarify,provide a specific link? are you denying that the authorities in these states are persecuting faith groups and other dissenters? best wishes pete. |
|
27 Mar 12 - 06:13 PM (#3329827) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""are you denying that the authorities in these states are persecuting faith groups and other dissenters?"" You just answered your own question without even knowing it. They are persecuting dissenters and if faith groups fall into that category they will obviously run into trouble. They are not being persecuted for their faith, but for expressing dissent. Almost any government which is not democratic will do this, but it doesn't mean that those governments are atheist. They are simply intolerant of opposition in any form. You are in the habit of drawing false conclusions which appear to confirm your hard wired bias. The don't stand up to logical examination. Don T. |
|
27 Mar 12 - 07:20 PM (#3329856) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: BanjoRay Interesting program on BBC2 Tuesday night - Horizon, about weather and climate etc. They pointed out that ice cores taken from the deepest ice packs plainly showed the seasonal weather patterns for a full 9000 recognisable years. Of course 3000 of those years must have been imaginary........ |
|
27 Mar 12 - 08:24 PM (#3329880) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Evolution does not have a "reverse." Evolution does not have goals and is not a linear process or a progression in any direction. A phenomenon that has produced all the diversity, complexity and beauty of life on Earth is a plethora of Pandora's boxes, hundreds of millions of genies out of hundreds of millions of lamps. The very idea of evolution "going into reverse" is utterly ludicrous. |
|
28 Mar 12 - 06:24 AM (#3330034) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Persecution e.g. China persecutes a group called Falan Gong (sp?) which is quasi-religious, and not approved by the government, as well as those Christian churches which are also not approved. Some are allowed. The Chinese government feels the need to control everything, and thus bans anything which has its own hierarchy. It allows a version of the Catholic church, but denies papal authority and appoints its own bishops. As stated above, it is dissent, or behaving outside the box it stamps on, not Christianity particularly. Penny |
|
28 Mar 12 - 07:26 AM (#3330052) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: beardedbruce "why would that take precedence over the meaning of the original text and the meaning of the hebrew words contained there-in." The point is that the original text DOES take precedence- NOT the KJV. If you look at the Hebrew, the exact word used in Gen. for "day" is NOT the same as the present 24 hour period is called, at least according to scholars. If you have divine enlightenment otherwise, then obviously I have to defer to the voices in your head. |
|
28 Mar 12 - 07:33 AM (#3330053) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: saulgoldie Not to be rude by returning to the theme of this thread, but... Colbert & Page on evolution Saul |
|
28 Mar 12 - 05:10 PM (#3330296) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link bearded bruce -i rather think that the scholars that interpret the heb "yom"as meaning long ages do so because they accept deep time not because they can justify that conclusion on the text of gen 1. a parallel use of the word occurs in numbers 7.here we have 12 days on which 12 princes of israel present gifts.if the word for "day""yom"means long ages those princes must have lived an awful long time. the heb scholars that confirm this reading include james barr oxford andrew steinman concordia uni illinois ting wing sanford uni if you can cite a heb scholar who takes your view on purely heb grammer considerations i am always interested to consider the merits or otherwise of an alternate view. thankyou don for supplying the rationale and apparent justification for persecuting christians in atheist states.if only christians would hide their faith in Christ or deny him when challenged they could avoid harrasment ,arrest and even death on occasion! pete. |
|
28 Mar 12 - 06:37 PM (#3330338) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""thankyou don for supplying the rationale and apparent justification for persecuting christians in atheist states.if only christians would hide their faith in Christ or deny him when challenged they could avoid harrasment ,arrest and even death on occasion!"" Hysterical crap. They are persecuted along with other groups (you said it yourself), and the reason is that they challenge the Communist governments, not that they practise their religion. You and Iona have been doing the same thing for twenty seven pages on this thread. You throw your religious beliefs in peoples' faces and demand they share those beliefs. and then get all hurt when they don't roll over and see things your way. Be a Fundamentalist Creationist fruit loop by all means, but don't presume to tell me and all the other non Fundamentalists and non Christians in the bloody world what we should believe. We have our own faiths, and the fact that you and your kind don't like it doesn't say one damn thing about the faiths and the people in question, but it says plenty about the arrogance of your position. Don T. |
|
28 Mar 12 - 07:13 PM (#3330364) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link ah don-you are greatly mistaken in thinking i "get all hurt"by opposing views. however i do find it sad that you feel the need to support your opinion by offerring insults. most of the religious threads [though not exclusively] are started by unbelievers apparently keen to spread their faith position and mock the fundamentalist position.i dont think most of them are surprised that bible believers respond. in fact i take it to be an invitation to participate. without any ill feeling-pete. |
|
29 Mar 12 - 05:48 AM (#3330518) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Steve Shaw said; "Evolution does not have a "reverse." Evolution does not have goals and is not a linear process or a progression in any direction. A phenomenon that has produced all the diversity, complexity and beauty of life on Earth is a plethora of Pandora's boxes, hundreds of millions of genies out of hundreds of millions of lamps. The very idea of evolution "going into reverse" is utterly ludicrous." Correct. Entropy dictates a slide in one direction, ending with a few slow burning stars getting dimmer and this God character saying "Bugger, that wasn't supposed to happen..." Reverse evolution may not be possible but if conditions dictate that the appropriate size, shape and mannerisms happen to be indistinguishable from a similar convenient form a few million years previously, it would have the appearance of reverse evolution. The myriad variables you refer to make the probability the same as for any other form. if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... |
|
29 Mar 12 - 01:14 PM (#3330692) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: frogprince Really serious question that just came to mind here: what does platypus sound like? |
|
29 Mar 12 - 01:28 PM (#3330703) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Elvis Presley? Don Firth |
|
29 Mar 12 - 01:30 PM (#3330706) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Greg F. More like Jimmy Durante, I would think, with the schnoz they have. |
|
29 Mar 12 - 01:34 PM (#3330708) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST It barks like an aardvaark and roars like an ant. Convergent evolution is well known- but isn't reverse evolution. It's guided evolution- not guided by a Designer, but by the laws of physics. If you live in water, and want to get around fast (like predators often do and their prey often need to do), hydrodynamics will favour the selection of those individuals which approximate better to a good hydrodynamic shape. If you need to grasp things, get a thumb- and if your thumb has already evolved into something else, evolve a wrist bone into something that works like a thumb. If you need to see the shape and colour of things around you, get an eye- optical laws dictate it will be one of a few available models. Of course, nearly all the examples we tend to quote are based on the same body plan, head in front, tail behind, a leg at each corner. It would be fascinating to see what could have evolved around a different basic template, but despite the huge blossoming of exoplanets (not long ago some astronomers argued that our Solar system could be unique) I can't imagine being able to peep in on one in my lifetime, or for several to come. Sad. But since the laws of physics are the same, we can expect convergence even there. |
|
29 Mar 12 - 01:50 PM (#3330719) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. It doesn't sound like a duck. Its proboscis is an electrodetector. It is soft and flexible, not hard keratin. The sound of the platypus is heard in the land - or the water. Penny |
|
29 Mar 12 - 02:29 PM (#3330731) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,999 'if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...' it's a genetically engineered water buffalo. |
|
29 Mar 12 - 05:33 PM (#3330790) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link banjo ray.i did,t see the programme but it would be interesting to know why the ice cores "plainly show" 9000 years.certainly an interpretation of the data based on assumptions about the evidence might suggest that.i do know that rocks are often dated variously and i have heard that rock formed in recent years by volcanic action has been dated as millenia old! i did read an interesting article on creation.com called "the lost sqaudron".planes that crash landed on greenland ice were eventually found and one painstakingly recovered and restored in the 1980s i think.what surprised the recovery team was that they were 250 ft under the ice and 3 mile removed from the crash.what i wonder is;if they done an ice bore there how many years would they calculate if they knew not that the planes were there?. pete |
|
29 Mar 12 - 05:54 PM (#3330801) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: frogprince "Yo, Pete? Have you, at any time, come across anything on Creation.com which raised a question in your mind because it sounded to you like questionable science, or questionable interpretation of data? |
|
29 Mar 12 - 06:31 PM (#3330820) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D It is well to remember that 'selective breeding'....of livestock, strains of rice...whatever... IS evolution. When we intentionally choose certain genetic attributes to cross, we are doing what it might take nature eons to do...and nature might never go the exact route we 'hurried along'. Pete... with life forms that breed rapidly, such as insects, we CAN get dramatic changes. Evolutionists do not claim, as you have suggested in the past, that insects will 'change' into birds or sheep into dogs, but that the immensely ancient ancestors of these forms were not exactly 'birds' or 'sheep'.. but something quite different. And those are what paleontologists dig up & study. |
|
29 Mar 12 - 06:46 PM (#3330828) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Pete notes that he read an article on the Creation web site about the lost squadron. Before I based any ideas on information presented on a web site like that, which has a self-evident bias, I would most certainly check that information with a number of less biased sources. Don Firth |
|
29 Mar 12 - 07:12 PM (#3330839) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: frogprince Don and Pete may both find this site interesting |
|
29 Mar 12 - 08:38 PM (#3330868) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,BanjoRay FrogPrince's link is interesting. In addition to the facts in it, heavy objects resting on ice do sink into it - the pressure causes thin layers of water to form which flow out from under. It's how ice skates work. Pete if you can get British TV on IPlayer, watch tonight's (Thursday)great program on BBC4 with David Attemborough which tells a very full story of Darwin's theory with superb illustrations. |
|
29 Mar 12 - 08:40 PM (#3330869) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,BanjoRay I seem to have caused Attenborough to have evolved into Attemborough. Sorry! |
|
29 Mar 12 - 08:47 PM (#3330872) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Interesting, Frogprince! It does miss one point about objects sinking through ice though. When pressure is applied to ice it raises the freezing point of the water, which melts at the points of contact, allowingt the object to sink quite rapidly into the ice, which then freezes over above the object as the pressure is no longer acting on it. This is how ice skates work. A skater moves on a film of liquid water thawed by the pressure of the blade on the ice. So the speed with which a heavy aircraft will sink is entirely independent of the age of the ice. Don T. |
|
29 Mar 12 - 08:52 PM (#3330874) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Bugger!! Beaten to it. Well done BanjoRay, we at least are capable of scientific reasoning. Don T. |
|
30 Mar 12 - 06:46 AM (#3331045) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. It is my understanding that the basis of ice core dating is the succession of layers showing the seasonal variation in snowfall, in the same way as tree-ring dating. There are additional factors which help to refine the annual layers, as shown in this paper: Ice core dating It is produced by the Thera Foundation, which studies the eruption which caused the formation of the caldera at Santorini and the end of the Minoan civilisation, and which collects evidence for dating it from various sources. It discusses the argument for a particular volcanic signature in the ice of Greenland, and looks at the possibilities for error, and comparisons with other dating techniques. (NB. delta18O levels refer to changes in oxygen isotope ratios during the year.) Because they are arguing about a particular date, they go into some detail about the precision of the technique - but note that they are writing about a difference of a few decades, not millenia. Penny |
|
30 Mar 12 - 08:47 AM (#3331083) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket pete from seven stars (hopefully all less than 6,000 light years away...) dismisses core drilling and ice data in its entirety as there have been occasions when it has not been all that accurate... Ok. I placed a rubber duck on a bench at the side of my garden pond earlier and prayed to God that when I come back from having a crap, it would have turned into a duck billed platypus. It didn't. So prayers don't work. Ditto God. Which is good news, because at a stroke, we can rely on cores demonstrating more than 6,000 years! Isn't that great? All of a sudden, science isn't reliant on the fantasy comfort blanket of others! Oh joy! I'd pray with gratitude but there's no bugger there to hear it.. You know what is sad though? This comfort blanket concept is so hard wired that my flippant comments, written in order to provoke, are seen as bad taste even by rational people. That's how far we have to go in order to stop people from wanting to control others. If I had a hammer... I'd hammer it in the wri... |
|
30 Mar 12 - 09:18 AM (#3331098) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw It is well to remember that 'selective breeding'....of livestock, strains of rice...whatever... IS evolution. When we intentionally choose certain genetic attributes to cross, we are doing what it might take nature eons to do...and nature might never go the exact route we 'hurried along' This isn't quite right. Selective breeding means our selecting traits that are already present which may or may not be advantageous in the wild. With selective breeding we are altering the balance in the gene pool from what "nature" might have determined, and we may well be maintaining traits that might otherwise die out, but we are not producing new genetic material. Left to their own devices, most of our "creations" would not compete very well in the wild. Selective breeding is also known as artificial selection and was used by Darwin to support his theory of natural selection. But selection is not evolution, though it is certainly a tool in its armoury. |
|
30 Mar 12 - 09:31 AM (#3331103) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket If evolution is independent of intervention, then there could be an argument to say that selective breeding is a situation that "nature" then has to deal with, so in the grand scheme of things, could be (and is argued for in many texts) a facet of evolution? That said, I hear where you are coming from Steve, and don't disagree as such, and I hear your acknowledgement that selection is a tool in evolution's armoury. There are many who don't like the idea that human intervention is just another aspect of entropy or even evolution. Such people would feel more comfortable ascribing the intervention elsewhere. Wonder where that could be? |
|
30 Mar 12 - 09:40 AM (#3331105) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Point taken. But, on its own, selection, whether natural or artificial, is not evolution. Darwin's theory is that of evolution by means of natural selection. Selection is the non-random action on heritable material which can miscopy. That does indeed lead to evolution, but, in itself, is not evolution. |
|
30 Mar 12 - 01:25 PM (#3331199) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke Natural selection is the action of the entire environment on any changes to the genome. In the case of selective breeding, humans are part of the selective pressure in an environment that is partly (sometimes almost wholly) controlled by humans. You can't think of us as something outside nature. Even in these cases, though, there are other environmental pressures. Even the cleanest farm is swarming with microorganisms, some of which may become pathogenic. Some organisms flourish in a constructed environment, when they would quickly die out in a different one, that lacked constant human intervention. That's not much different from organisms that require a particular diet, that die out when that diet ceases to be available. Or other organisms that flourished in the absence of predators, but quickly succumbed when they arrived. You might recognise giant pandas and dodos in there. |
|
30 Mar 12 - 02:04 PM (#3331222) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stringsinger What must be considered here is that indoctrination changes the brain chemistry. No argument will ever work against a fundamentalist. There is no logic to be incorporated into this discussion that will make any difference. People who have been disillusioned by religion come to their own conclusions through their personal experience and not because anyone has advocated that they do. |
|
30 Mar 12 - 02:22 PM (#3331229) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw That's right, Paul. What I was challenging slightly was the notion that selective breeding is evolution. Selection, whether natural or artificial, in itself does not amount to evolution. It is the mechanism for evolution - not the only one, actually. |
|
30 Mar 12 - 02:42 PM (#3331234) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke Steve: I'm not sure what you think IS evolution then. Natural selection is a universal- it works on everything, it's just a description of a process, not a "thing". Biological evolution (to me and I think most scientists) is the change of a population's genome as accumulated changes are acted on by the selection process. Note that there's no presumtion about the cause of those changes- random mutation is definitely the main source historically, but deliberate human intervention has become significant in the last 20000 years out of the three billion the process has been going on. Stringsinger: what makes you think evolution and multibillion year timescales are in any way inimical to religions? Many forms of Christianity are perfectly happy with it. Fundies on the other hand, well, you're right, no argument or demonstration will cure their sour guts. |
|
30 Mar 12 - 04:19 PM (#3331288) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link banjo ray -i did infact watch the programme and only see your recommendation today.it was certainly creatively done and a lot easier for a layman than wading through darwins origin and his favoured races.he did a good job IMO of making the impossible and unproven sound convincing-that is if you dont think-hang on a mo-wheres the evidence backing up this wondrous story.at the very start i noted the fluidity of the theory and was mildly amused that a schoolboys efforts changed the parameters of dating "early life" but i think the programme did aid the understanding of the theory. frogprince-i read the link you supplied.i did expect to read other suggestions and i wondered what they might be.i also read pennys link,though somewhat tec for me.it seemed to me that the ICR and CMI articles did discuss points raised by these and yourself.i am unsure of the ice skater comparison.surely not much impression would be made in the ice if skater merely stood still.more convincing was the suggestion that seasonal temp change contributed to planes sinking. for me verdict is open as far as the planes are concerned. i find the discussion about what constitutes evolution interesting . all the examples given were of natural selection within the limits of the kind in question.this was recognized and written of by creationists before darwin borrowed the idea and then extended it. needless to say none of this is enough to equate to particle to people evolution. pete. |
|
30 Mar 12 - 04:31 PM (#3331298) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke all the examples given were of natural selection within the limits of the kind in question.this was recognized and written of by creationists before darwin borrowed the idea and then extended it. Pete, you don't understand that you don't understand. You don't even understand that ther is anything to understand. Confucius he say: He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not: he is a fool. Shun him. He who knows not, and knows that he knows not: he is a sage. Revere him. He who knows, and knows not that he knows: he is an asset. Strip him. He who knows, and knows that he knows: he is an asshole. F*** him. |
|
31 Mar 12 - 06:41 AM (#3331500) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""i am unsure of the ice skater comparison.surely not much impression would be made in the ice if skater merely stood still."" Then once again some homework is indicated. Way back in the fifties at grammar school, we carried out the requisite experiment. We placed a large block of ice across two bricks in the school refrigerator and put a one Kg weight on top, After a weekend, we found the weight fully enclosed in the ice, with only a small dent on top to show how it got there. Repeated over a longer period, the weight finally dropped out of the bottom. Your ice skater doesn't remain long enough in one place, but if he did the result would be the same. It is the pressure which causes this and standing still won't prevent it, but accelerate it. To understand the reason why it works for fast moving skaters, you have to look at the surface area of a skate blade, and calculate the tons per square inch generated by the weight of a human being acting through that minute area. There are others here who are mathematicians and could supply figures for this better than I. Don T. |
|
31 Mar 12 - 08:03 AM (#3331520) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG ""i am unsure of the ice skater comparison.surely not much impression would be made in the ice if skater merely stood still."" Then once again some homework is indicated. Way back in the fifties at grammar school, we carried out the requisite experiment. We placed a large block of ice across two bricks in the school refrigerator and put a one Kg weight on top, After a weekend, we found the weight fully enclosed in the ice, with only a small dent on top to show how it got there. Repeated over a longer period, the weight finally dropped out of the bottom. I would be unsure what would happen as well - which is the exact point of doing the experiment. In fact, its the point of doing the experiement even if you are 'sure' but haven't actually tried it or seen the results. |
|
31 Mar 12 - 08:27 AM (#3331524) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG doing the experiment... Of course, you also have to be sure the experiment is showing what you think it does. As Don said, the pressure per square metre for a skater is very large, but for a kilogram wieght with a base of, say 10cm diameter, the additional pressure is quite small. That's why a person can lie on a bed of nails quite comfortably - the weight is spread of a substantially larger are than it would be for a single nail. But back to the kilogram weight. I think more trials are called for. I bet the weight came from a set of weights and measures, so was metal: that introduces possibilities of the weight acting rather like a radiator, for example, because it is a good conductor with a large surface area. So I would want to try other objects - a bag of sugar sealed in plastic, for example, preferably with the same sized base as the weight. Again, that's the scientific approach. What was the prediction? What happened? What alternative explanations for the observations could there be? How can we test which of the alternative explanations might be right and which are definitely wrong? You need to be looking at all of those, and several other things, all the time. That's method, not belief, and it applies to everything in science. Hence, for example, it was possible for the Einsteinian model of the universe to supercede the Newtonian. Of course, scientists are only human too, so no-one says it is automatic, as lots of people have careers, research grants and what-not to complicate things ... |
|
31 Mar 12 - 04:02 PM (#3331710) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link despite it seeming to be against my expectations' the planes being metal made would appear to sink as in dons schooldays experiment.however CMI had done similar experiments with guitar string under a weight but using a freezer and finding a non sink overnight. i confess to not knowing if greenland temp is that low especially if summer gets significantly warmer. there was also the suggestion that the planes did not sink toward the nose as "maybe"might be expected. as i said i,m still open on this one. |
|
31 Mar 12 - 05:10 PM (#3331733) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""there was also the suggestion that the planes did not sink toward the nose as "maybe"might be expected."" That one is easy. Planes are not, (as you might intuitively expect, heavy at the nose because of the engine. Aircraft centre of gravity is very much in the centre of the craft, or it would be hopelessly nose heavy and impossible to control in the air. Also you would see lots of planes parked nose down. They will always tend to sink level, unless some other object intervenes. Don T. |
|
01 Apr 12 - 09:15 AM (#3331991) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket pete from starry wherever said; banjo ray -i did infact watch the programme and only see your recommendation today.it was certainly creatively done and a lot easier for a layman than wading through darwins origin and his favoured races.he did a good job IMO of making the impossible and unproven sound convincing-that is if you dont think-hang on a mo-wheres the evidence backing up this wondrous story.at the very start i noted the fluidity of the theory and was mildly amused that a schoolboys efforts changed the parameters of dating "early life" but i think the programme did aid the understanding of the theory." Not wanting to sound thick here.. (though I am sure some reckon I will) but all this about making the impossible and unproven sound convincing, err.. Ray was talking about a science program. Making the impossible and unproven sound convincing is what religious people do isn't it? Except not very well, obviously, as nobody seems taken in by it. I reckon pete has been quoting from his "How to indoctrinate vulnerable people" handbook rather than critique a telly program on fact. On that note, have you noticed that The Archbishop of Canterbury said today that less children know The Lords Prayer? I thought he had noticed how society was progressing till I noticed the bugger wants it to be taught in all schools. Hasn't anybody told him less than 1% of the country are practicing christians? That over 80% of people who practice any religion don't practice Christianity? No wonder he wants to go back to academia and wander lost in his books. Pity in some ways, a clever fellow, but realised his failures too late. Sorry Rowan, you don't get anywhere appeasing bigots, even if you most certainly aren't one yourself. Lost cause this religion lark after all. |
|
01 Apr 12 - 09:33 AM (#3331997) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: BanjoRay Pete said making the impossible and unproven sound convincing-that is if you dont think-hang on a mo-wheres the evidence backing up this wondrous story. Pete the whole program was full of evidence - it was what it was all about! How come you missed it all? Ray |
|
01 Apr 12 - 11:19 AM (#3332038) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Like I said Ray, I thought he was talking about the bible when he posted that... (Might see you a week on Wednesday, but I fly out to South Africa the next day for a few weeks, so might be packing instead, see how I go.) |
|
01 Apr 12 - 05:17 PM (#3332198) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link operational science is observable,testable,repeatable.evolutionism is not.the only way that the the claim to being otherwise can be posited is to appeal to natural selection which is observable only within the limits of its kind. this was one of the "evidences"presented on the tv show.was it mendel and rice development?so natural selection works on rice[or whatever the details were] and new varieties developed.it was still rice at the end of it. that is no evidence for microbes to mudcatters evolution. i seem to remember the presenter suggesting apes were our nearest kin based on "similar" body shape.all this is interpretation of the data and IMO a weak argument . but the story line from first life to higher lifeforms was presented without any evidence-just the confident account of how it was supposed to have happened. darwin expressed confidence that the fossil record would produce transitional chains but after all these years and probably tons of fossils there aint much to validate that hope but a few debatable items. if there were any "evidences" i missed please post and we can discuss them and apologies if my memory failed on any details. pete |
|
01 Apr 12 - 05:54 PM (#3332218) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke Just give up Pete. You haven't got the mental capacity to be anything but religious. |
|
01 Apr 12 - 06:13 PM (#3332226) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Opium of the masses Paul! It's better than having them think for themselves, so naturally they lack the capacity, not only to assess evidence, but to recognise that it is evidence. Don T. |
|
01 Apr 12 - 08:17 PM (#3332262) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: BanjoRay So the Archeopteryx, the platypus, the DNA relationships between similar species prove less than a few paragraphs in a very dubious old book? No fossil evidence? every fossil found is an intermediate species between something and something else. |
|
02 Apr 12 - 01:53 AM (#3332354) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke You misunderstand, Ray. Here is a gap in the fossil record. Now a palaeontologist discovers a new, intermediate fossil. Proof positive? Not at all. Now there are TWO gaps in the fossil record. |
|
02 Apr 12 - 04:27 AM (#3332379) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. For some reason I am reminded of the story of the man in the flood who prays for God to help him, but rejects the man in the truck, the man in the boat, and the man in the helicopter, only to accuse God of not helping him when he arrives, inevitably, before Him. "But," says God, "I sent you a truck, a boat and a helicopter." So stratigraphy, ice cores, dendrochronology, isotopic dating, fossil sequences, DNA similarities et al, are not evidence, as the men in the story were not help. Penny |
|
02 Apr 12 - 04:31 AM (#3332382) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod pete, if, as you maintain, the science is all wrong it still doesn't 'prove' that Genesis is right! |
|
02 Apr 12 - 05:44 AM (#3332408) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stu The science isn't wrong, pete simply doesn't understand it nor has he made any effort too. His statements on evolution are deeply ignorant and not really worth discussing. If he'd looked into the science and understood it he's come up with something more original than the tired old creationist tropes he does. I'm sure he's a nice chap in real life, but he knows sod all about the subject he's preaching about and that's disrespectful to those of us that spend our time studying these things. |
|
02 Apr 12 - 07:51 AM (#3332441) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket I'm not convinced it is pete's best interest that some of us engage with him. I for one am not qualified... With all the quotes people through the ages slipped into the bible for their own ends during myriad "translations" you'd think there must have been a few doubting Thomas's around to put a line to say this is example and metaphor, the conjuring tricks are to pad the book out and keep it on the best seller lists, but no. The bit about proof and faith being interlinked, that's the fodder for the masses stuff. You know, if the likes of pete and Iona were put forward as being representative of religion, I doubt there would be a progressive western democracy that would entertain them. So why the Hell do we allow them to influence our upper chamber? Could it be that their own Bishops are more rational than those who they have to lead? Could it be that politicians know that once they take their pointy hats off, the Bishops see faith as a tool rather than a facet of their creed? Therefore.. is it that Christianity is in fact nothing to do with this young age creationism after all? |
|
02 Apr 12 - 11:41 AM (#3332554) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mrrzy The actual empirical evidence for evolution is incontrovertible. There is no empirical evidence for any superstition. Nuff said, but probably not 'nuff argued... Anybody familiar with Tim Minchin? |
|
02 Apr 12 - 12:10 PM (#3332563) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stu I know of at least two world-renowned palaeontologists who have a strong Christian faith. Neither of them are YEC. They've seen way beyond that. Now they would be interesting people to have in this discussion. |
|
02 Apr 12 - 01:22 PM (#3332603) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""I know of at least two world-renowned palaeontologists who have a strong Christian faith. Neither of them are YEC. They've seen way beyond that. Now they would be interesting people to have in this discussion."" You never will see them in this kind of argument. They are real Scientists and real Christians, and they have reached a conclusion, long ago, which we are only approaching. They have concluded that arguing with somebody who is deaf, dumb and blind is a futile pursuit. Don t. |
|
02 Apr 12 - 07:31 PM (#3332771) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail Steve Shaw But selection is not evolution, though it is certainly a tool in its armoury. WHAT?! Selection is the non-random action on heritable material which can miscopy. Er, no it isn't. That's Lamarckism. Paul Burke Steve: I'm not sure what you think IS evolution then. I've been having the same trouble for some time. Natural selection is a universal- it works on everything, it's just a description of a process, not a "thing". Biological evolution (to me and I think most scientists) is the change of a population's genome as accumulated changes are acted on by the selection process. Thank you, Paul. |
|
02 Apr 12 - 08:00 PM (#3332783) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Selection is a major mechanism in evolution but is not the only one. Therefore it can't be correct to say that selection is evolution. Apart from anything else, it's a fairly inane comment that explains nothing to anybody. Thank goodness no-one's saying it. Certainly Darwin didn't say it. Had he thought that selection was evolution he wouldn't have called his theory what he did. Selection is the non-random action on heritable material which can miscopy. Er, no it isn't. That's Lamarckism. You clearly haven't got the faintest idea what Lamarckism is. OK then. Natural selection (or any selection really) is a non-random process. The heritable material in question is genes (Darwin didn't know that, of course, but we do). When DNA replicates, genes, or sequences of genes can miscopy. We call it mutation. Selection acts in a non-random fashion, differentially if you like, on the different expressions of genes that are brought about by mutation. Tell me where Lamarck trumps Darwin in that lot. |
|
02 Apr 12 - 08:01 PM (#3332784) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Spot the left-out comma. |
|
03 Apr 12 - 05:44 AM (#3332900) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod Sugarfoot Jack, I think that you're missing the point of my last comment. It's unlikely that the science is 'wrong' - although, some details might be - but all scientific knowledge is provisional and could be revised at any time in the light of new evidence. Science is not a monolithic body of incontrovertible 'truth' like that which some religious zealots believe in. The real point of my comment is that Young Creationists, like pete, seem to think that if they keep picking holes in the 'monolith' that they imagine science to be then it will eventually crumble and 'Biblical truth' will be revealed in all it's glory. But that doesn't logically follow - if they succeed in discrediting science completely (which, of course, they won't - but let's just imagine)then anything could be behind the (imaginary) 'scientific monolith' - not just 'Biblical truth'! Why should anyone believe that 'Biblical truth' is the only alternative to science? |
|
03 Apr 12 - 05:50 AM (#3332901) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy I didn't know what Lamarckism was either, here 'tis to share: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism pete, What's happened to your fellow delusionist, Iona? |
|
03 Apr 12 - 06:21 AM (#3332916) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: saulgoldie Once again, science is a *process* of thoroughly testing and retesting hypotheses that yields reproducible results. It is fact-based. Religion is a *belief system* that cares not about facts or reason or reproducible results. It is based on faith. Since there is so much disagreement among the world's *many* religions who *all* think they have the *answers* based on faith at least *some* of them must be wrong. We cannot possibly know which ones they are because they are based on faith, and not fact. But certainly those that are *right* owe it to the world to *show the others the error of their ways* and are willing to do so with hostile rhetoric and weapons, we are guaranteed war until *all* people are converted to the *right* *belief system.* Saul |
|
03 Apr 12 - 07:26 AM (#3332944) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Try my belief system; Eat, drink, fart, laugh and shag. You can join my religion too, I'll get the power of attorney docs emailed to you by return. |
|
03 Apr 12 - 07:27 AM (#3332945) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: beardedbruce "We cannot possibly know which ones they are because they are based on faith, and not fact. But certainly those that are *right* owe it to the world to *show the others the error of their ways* and are willing to do so with hostile rhetoric and weapons, we are guaranteed war until *all* people are converted to the *right* *belief system.*" This applies to more than religion. Just look at ANY political thread here. |
|
03 Apr 12 - 07:34 AM (#3332949) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stu "Science is not a monolithic body of incontrovertible 'truth' like that which some religious zealots believe in." Sorry Shim, that was my inability to articulate my view ;-) I agree completely, and would go further. Science is driven by ignorance. As scientists we are looking to find answers to explain what we don't understand. Science is a process of constant revision, a creative process that (as far as I am concerned) has more in common with the arts than with religion. if a scientist doesn't feel stupid, then it's possibly time for them to hang up their microscope/CT scanner/Synchotron/LHC etc. Scientists want to learn, they welcome uncertainty and a good scientist will be comfortable with their ignorance . . . it's what drives them. |
|
03 Apr 12 - 12:12 PM (#3333115) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: BanjoRay Sugarfoot Jack - absolutely right. God botherers on the other hand are terrified of uncertainty and want answers to questions that don't actually have any, like why are we here? Who made the world? etc. Many people are prepared to provide answers to questions like that that on the basis of no evidence whatsoever - eg the authors of the bible. |
|
03 Apr 12 - 12:36 PM (#3333129) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA On the planes in Greenland - pete needs to do some research on "regelation". Quite well understood phenomenon both theoretically and experimentally. Explains the whole incident. In fact they knew exactly where to look for the planes based on an understanding of regelation and the movement of the Greenland ice sheets. |
|
03 Apr 12 - 01:17 PM (#3333142) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Why should anyone believe that 'Biblical truth' is the only alternative to science?"" Precisely. You would have a lot of trouble getting that one passed by a committee consisting of proportional numbers of the world's major religions, and atheists. The whole of Christianity only accounts for a 33.32% and falling minority worldwide:- Christian 33.32% Falling Muslim 21.01% Rising Hindu 13.26% Stable Buddhist 5.85% Other religions 12.48% No religion 14.09% Sources were Wikipedia and the Toronto Religious Tolerance website. Don T. |
|
03 Apr 12 - 01:26 PM (#3333149) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T What is really scary (from the same source material) is that in the USA, 78.4% of the population is Christian, no problem there, but between 45% and 50% is Young Earth Creationist Fundamentalist Christian. Given the situation vis-a-vis nuclear capability, what an opportunity for these religious nuts to remove all opposition. I want to buy a ticket on the next Mars flight. Don T. |
|
03 Apr 12 - 01:41 PM (#3333159) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail Steve, I agree with you that selection is not evolution. I'm not sure that anyone is arguing strongly that it is; just some slightly imprecise language. My "WHAT?!" was directed at your bizarre "though it is certainly a tool in its armoury.". Language like that can only serve to undermine the credibility of scientific argument. Natural selection (or any selection really) is a non-random process. The heritable material in question is genes (Darwin didn't know that, of course, but we do). When DNA replicates, genes, or sequences of genes can miscopy. We call it mutation. Selection acts in a non-random fashion, differentially if you like, on the different expressions of genes that are brought about by mutation. Near enough. I'm glad to see you've abandoned your previous statement that selection acts on heritable material. |
|
03 Apr 12 - 02:14 PM (#3333176) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke Scientists find that the Earth is younger that they thought!!! In fact, by a whole 700000 years. So far from being 4.5 billion years old, the Earth is only 4.4993 billion years old. Only another 4.499294 billion years of revision to find somewhere. |
|
03 Apr 12 - 03:24 PM (#3333207) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth My, how time flies!! Don Firth |
|
03 Apr 12 - 05:10 PM (#3333258) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Shimrod Don, frankly I find it a bit scary that I'm part of a minority of 14.09%! |
|
03 Apr 12 - 07:47 PM (#3333302) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Oh Gastropub, I haven't altered any ideas in my recent posts. Do try to find something to do. |
|
03 Apr 12 - 08:43 PM (#3333328) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: frogprince "I'm glad to see you've abandoned your previous statement that selection acts on heritable material." If this is a stupid question, so be it: how would selection work on non-heritable genetic material? Wouldn't the end result of non-heritable genetic material be one dead mutant, not evolutionary change?. |
|
04 Apr 12 - 01:56 AM (#3333407) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke Full title of Charles Darwin's greatest work: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life Note that "race" in this context would be called "variant" these days. |
|
04 Apr 12 - 05:09 AM (#3333456) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy BanjoRay, Best answer I heard to the question; 'Why are we all here?' was 'Because we're not all there!' Says it all really! 8-) |
|
04 Apr 12 - 05:32 AM (#3333467) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stu You're talking about natural selection as if it's a single process, and it's not. It's several process (this was the insight that confirms Darwin's genius): 1) Variation 2) Superfecundity 3) Inheritance I haven't time to go into detail (the day job getting in the way - bah!). |
|
04 Apr 12 - 05:35 AM (#3333470) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Is it me, or are some people taking this thread seriously? Why? You only encourage the buggers. |
|
04 Apr 12 - 06:45 AM (#3333508) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Don, frankly I find it a bit scary that I'm part of a minority of 14.09%!"" I wouldn't worry Shimrod, at least you haven't any evangelising fundamentalists in that group, which makes it probably the best place to be. I'm there too, though not an atheist. I follow no organised religion, but deal direct with the manufacturer, as it were. I never could see the need to listen to the personal interpretations offered by men in black frocks. Don T. |
|
04 Apr 12 - 11:53 AM (#3333631) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail frogprince how would selection work on non-heritable genetic material? Wouldn't the end result of non-heritable genetic material be one dead mutant, not evolutionary change?. First, contrary to what Steve says, selection does not work on genetic material at all. It works on organisms and populations of organisms. If a particular gene resulted in "one dead mutant", it would also result in evolutionary change since that gene would be eliminated from the population. Individual organisms don't evolve; populations do. It doesn't have to be as extreme as killing the individual, just making them less successful at breeding. |
|
04 Apr 12 - 12:53 PM (#3333658) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. I remember trying to work out scenarios in which the mitochondrial single female ancestor did not have to be the only human female alive at the time - she only needed to have female offspring slightly more fertile than others at the time in order for all modern females to have descended from her. Or slightly more attractive to mates. Or they needed to have more girl babies than boys, while others had more sons. The same applies to the ancestral Y-chromosome male, who does not even have to have been alive at the same time and in the same place as the mitochondrial ancestor. It gets a bit boring randomising generations by tossing coins and dice after a while, so I didn't carry on with the exercise, but it was quite clear that the offspring of any one individual could come to dominate the group. Anyone can try it, recording each generation. 1. Choose a number of females to be in the group. 2. For each female, toss a die to determine the number of offspring surviving to breed, replacing six with 0. (If you think that 5 isn't enough breeding offspring, use two dice, but I would think that infant and maternal mortality would tend to keep numbers low in a primitive society.) 3. For each child, toss a coin to determine gender. 4. Repeat the exercise from 2 with the next generation. You could do the same for males, but you'd need a much bigger difference in offspring numbers if you think that one male might be running a harem. A lot of zeroes, and one male with a huge number of offspring would reduce the number of generations to get down to one male ancestor of all males dramatically. Penny |
|
04 Apr 12 - 12:59 PM (#3333663) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor "Is it me, or are some people taking this thread seriously? Why? You only encourage the buggers." The thread was started light-heartedly but it is a serious topic with very serious economic and geopolitical consequence. As to "encourage the buggers." You imply that a creationist could be in any way influenced by any argument here. I suspect an indication that you have no understanding of their psychology. None at all. |
|
04 Apr 12 - 01:43 PM (#3333680) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail There is nothing special about Mitochondrial Eve other than the fact that she is our direct descendant through the female line. I'm not sure what the population was back then but we are just as descended from many thousands of women who were alive at the same time it's just that male ancestors will have intervened. There are a couple of ways of looking at this. On the small scale, we all have four great grandmothers. We have inherited all our mitochondrial DNA from our mother's mother's mother. That doesn't mean we are any less the descendants of our other three great grandmothers from whom we will have inherited more or less the same amount of nuclear DNA. Another way is to start from the time of Mitochondrial Eve. Of all the women in her generation, some will have only had boys and some will not have had children at all. Their mitochondrial DNA will go extinct. The same happens every generation until only the mitochondrial DNA of one of those women is left. There is nothing to say which of them it would be. |
|
04 Apr 12 - 02:02 PM (#3333690) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Jack, I choose not to understand their psychology. A few posts up, I said I was not qualified to engage with pete the star. It IS a serious topic and for governments looking to the future of society, a deep ernest topic. All the more reason not to give credence to stupidity and superstition. Whilst ever politicians pander to them to get votes, whilst ever old bigots with pointy hats are allowed to influence the UK House of Lords, whilst ever the old German who tried brushing kiddy fiddling under the carpet is met at the airports by heads of state... I find laughing at them and dismissing them as having a mental illness is far better than getting paranoid and confronting them. That's my choice. The choice of many is to say they don't represent the religion of said many, that's their choice. But every nice old lady who arranges the flowers in church gives respectability to medieval (and beyond) methods of controlling people, and that is why they need to be irrelevant. Leaders of religion encourage or fail to control fundamentalist idiots, so they are to blame also in my view. I take it your light hearted start to the thread was based on what society can do about people who believe nonsense, but it soon degenerated into a reality versus bollocks debate, and that in itself helps prove my point. Give them oxygen and they tend to breathe it... |
|
04 Apr 12 - 02:11 PM (#3333694) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA And the governor of Tennessee is preparing to sign a law protecting teachers who encourage students to question evolution and global warming. I just hope he signs it in Dayton, TN. |
|
04 Apr 12 - 02:29 PM (#3333702) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion "There is nothing special about Mitochondrial Eve other than the fact that she is our direct descendant through the female line." .,,.,. Eh? "Descendant?!" |
|
04 Apr 12 - 02:34 PM (#3333706) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D "All the more reason not to give credence to stupidity and superstition. " It is not a matter of 'giving credence' to it.... it is a matter of recognizing that certain metaphysical concepts will be with us...probably forever. If all mention of religion were removed from mention for a couple of generations, (I have no idea how that would be possible), I am willing to bet it would be re-invented with similar themes. It just appeals to some mindsets as "the answer" to questions that can't otherwise be answered. I could expand on this idea for several hours, but no one would care to read it all. What is crucial is that we not allow such thinking to control the framework of society as it did for several thousand years. *IF* schools begin to teach "how to think" (not 'what to think'), it would not be a serious issue. |
|
04 Apr 12 - 02:45 PM (#3333711) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail MtheGM Eh? "Descendant?!" Ooops! Sorrreeee. Direct ancestor of course. |
|
04 Apr 12 - 04:47 PM (#3333752) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. My point in mentioning the mitochondrial ancestress, whom I have no intention of naming after any assumed personage, was to enlarge the point that it wasn't necessary to assume those who did not pass on their genes were either absent, or died earlier than they should. Penny |
|
04 Apr 12 - 04:56 PM (#3333756) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: frogprince This has been one of those strange instances where a worthless thread has deteriorated into a discussion that some of us have learned some things from. : ) |
|
04 Apr 12 - 05:41 PM (#3333772) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail Penny S. My point in mentioning the mitochondrial ancestress, whom I have no intention of naming after any assumed personage, Sorry. It's how she has come to be known in the popular science press. In fact, since it works against my argument that she was really of no significance other than as a statistical oddity, I am happy to drop it. was to enlarge the point that it wasn't necessary to assume those who did not pass on their genes were either absent, or died earlier than they should. Hadn't realized that was an issue. |
|
04 Apr 12 - 06:19 PM (#3333787) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link so what great disaster do you think is going to swallow us all up if children are allowed to question darwinism? i could mention a few very nasty men who were devotees of darwin and and were responsible for more deaths than the whole history of the christian church. |
|
04 Apr 12 - 06:59 PM (#3333802) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor "i could mention a few very nasty men who were devotees of darwin" No you cannot. Unless you have your own personal definition of "devotee" which you have declined to share with us, you cannot cite any such devotees who had the ability to order murder on that scale. I would guess that it is just that kind of sloppy thinking, and the teaching of it, that worries the "Ian Mathers's" of this world. |
|
04 Apr 12 - 07:00 PM (#3333803) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth I think you need to substantiate that claim, pete. Don Firth |
|
04 Apr 12 - 10:45 PM (#3333859) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Joe Offer Yeah, OK, Pete, "Social Darwinism" and eugenics led to some pretty nasty stuff, to the point were Hitler has been called a social Darwinist - but I don't think Darwin would approve of that perversion of Darwinism any more than Jesus would have approved of the many perversions of Christianity that have done horrible things over the ages. I think it's wrong to blame an idealist for those who have perverted his/her ideas and used them for evil. Blame them for their evil, not the idealist whose ideas were twisted into the antithesis of their original intent. -Joe- |
|
04 Apr 12 - 10:53 PM (#3333862) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Joe has put it well. A devotee is a follower, a believer, not someone who cherry picks the writings for one's own ends. Wouldn't you agree pete? |
|
05 Apr 12 - 02:16 AM (#3333887) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke Except of course that Darwin was not an idealist. He was a scientist- a biologist. And science deals in what is, not what ought to be. Galton, Huxley and Chamberlain were social reformers, who dealt in what they thought ought to be (esprcially no Blacks, no Jews). What disaster would arise from the crippling of science teaching? Look up Lysenko. |
|
05 Apr 12 - 03:50 AM (#3333896) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Funnily enough, I often say that if we didn't have religion we'd have to invent it.. Religion based on a set of standards from which you can judge your own morality can be a good thing, and so can the social and fraternal aspects of belonging. The problem is when those who aren't interested in it find themselves subjected to it. My issue is when it creeps into secular activity. We may disagree with governments, (most threads in the BS section demonstrate this,) but at the end of the day, we can change them, change their outlook and change their policies. Governments too can change their own outlook and whilst ever they claim to represent us, we can claim to engage with them. I find it incredible that The Bishop of York, when talking over marriage, said governments don't have the power to change the law as the law comes from somewhere higher. I find it incredible that The Archbishop of Canterbury feels that all children should be taught the Lords Prayer. He bristled when a reporter said "Catch 'em young eh?" As if he was above being questioned. Which is sad, because I think he is an intelligent fellow, and only failed and announced his resignation because, as this thread is showing, you can't educate pork. Which is a bit of a bugger, because they and their acolytes must be an embarrassment to the many good people who feel there is a higher spirit and are content to express it through established religion, as a cultural as much as a faith instrument. |
|
05 Apr 12 - 10:26 AM (#3334018) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stringsinger Religion does harm people who don't believe it. It turns many practitioners into fanatics. Sanctorum for example. It has nothing to do with morality, though it can be used for immoral purposes. Saint Augustine perverted Christianity through his "just wars" doctrine. |
|
05 Apr 12 - 12:04 PM (#3334061) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Religion, axes, hammers, & H-Bombs All are man made things. None are inherently good or evil. The good and evil, if there is any, are in how they are wielded. |
|
05 Apr 12 - 12:25 PM (#3334068) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion Nice-sounding point, Jack; but no taxonomist would, on any tenable basis, put all four in the same category ~~ they would categorise axe & hammer together; religion & H-bomb in a separate category for each*. So that philosophically [taxonomically, indeed] your argument is - ah - shall we say? - a trifle suspect. ~M~ *& profound-sounding, superficially attractive, but irrational category-errors would go into yet another! |
|
05 Apr 12 - 05:00 PM (#3334193) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. I'm not sure if it is significant that the Aardman film "The Pirates: in an adventure with Scientists" (the chief scientist in question being Darwin) has been renamed for release in the States as "The Pirates: Band of Misfits". Apparently scientists don't sell. It will be interesting to see the reaction to Darwin as hero. Wikipedia has spoilers. Penny |
|
05 Apr 12 - 05:17 PM (#3334205) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor If I were speaking taxonomically then you would have some sort of point. I was attempting to make a more poetic, metaphorical point without repeating the cliche, "Guns (or in this case religion) don't kill people. People kill people." I feel flattered that I triggered in you some sort of rigid reflexive urge to needlessly categorize, but had you read more carefully, you would find that the ONLY similarity I pointed to among those four things is that they are man-made. I deliberately tried to make the three as different as possible, possibly triggering your vain attempt to pigeon hole them. I also wanted the items to be evocative of certain mental pictures and to have wildly varying degrees of usefulness and destructiveness to hopefully encompass the entire spectrum of the possibilities of the usefulness and destructiveness of religion. Rest assured that I was not trying to created a taxonomy quiz. Though that is not such a bad idea. But my sense of propriety would require it to be above the line and prefaced with that classic musical question from "Sesame Street" which begins, "One of these things is not like the others...." |
|
06 Apr 12 - 02:34 AM (#3334356) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG so what great disaster do you think is going to swallow us all up if children are allowed to question darwinism? Oh, pete, I was sure you would have it by now, but here it is one more time. Darwin must be questioned all the time, just like any other piece of science. But it must be based on evidence, not just opinion. Scientic advance depends upon questioning not only things you don't yet know, but also things that you think you do. However, there is a very serious point, which could prove to be 'a great disaster which could swallow us all up' and that is when children are not taught to distinguish between sound argument with use of evidence and mere opinion, whim and fashion. I think there is a very plausible argument that the financial disasters we are currently going through are largely due to people acting on fashion and opinion without trying to form a rational basis for what they are doing. |
|
06 Apr 12 - 04:00 AM (#3334372) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Debate theology on theology grounds. Debate science on science grounds. Simples (Evolution of meerkats in action) |
|
06 Apr 12 - 11:05 AM (#3334503) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Debate theology on theology grounds. Debate science on science grounds."" Exactly!!!.......And teach them in the same manner, (for Pete 7*'s benefit:- Teach religion in Religious instruction classes, and science in science classes). I have never seen any science teacher attempt to teach science in an RI class. As the good book says "Go thou and do likewise". Don T |
|
06 Apr 12 - 11:06 AM (#3334505) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stringsinger Guns don't shoot themselves. People use them. Why not investigate theology with science? Theologists investigate science with their agendas. Hence: Young Earth Creationism BS! |
|
06 Apr 12 - 12:30 PM (#3334561) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor "I think there is a very plausible argument that the financial disasters we are currently going through are largely due to people acting on fashion and opinion without trying to form a rational basis for what they are doing. " There is a certain logic to that. The people who LOST money in the housing market did so mostly because their faith in the often repeated mantra. "Housing prices in the US never go down." On the other hand, holding the "Masters of the Universe" in Wall Street and The City of London and the financial press to a couple of biblical truisms "Thou shalt not steal" & "Thou shalt not bear false witness" would have prevented even more losses. The regulators and government let us down in that case. The laws were in place. But then, the love of money is the root of all evil. |
|
06 Apr 12 - 02:53 PM (#3334648) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link |
|
06 Apr 12 - 03:27 PM (#3334667) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke Best post for a long time pete |
|
06 Apr 12 - 03:32 PM (#3334670) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Worst post in a while Paul. |
|
07 Apr 12 - 10:18 AM (#3334924) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stu "so what great disaster do you think is going to swallow us all up if children are allowed to question darwinism?" So what great disaster do you think is going to swallow us all up if children are allowed to question the existence of God? |
|
07 Apr 12 - 11:49 AM (#3334947) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Because when the big JC said suffer the children, his priests seem to have misinterpreted it... |
|
07 Apr 12 - 01:21 PM (#3334989) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stringsinger How about just teaching facts? Religion is a form of mythology and if you approach it that way, it can be interesting and maybe helpful in certain circumstances but I see nothing wrong with investigating it with scientific tools. Dawkins talks about the concept of NOMA, originated with Stephen J. Gould, meaning "no overlapping magisteria", science and religion can't be overlapped in the same conversation. NOMA makes no sense to me. Why shouldn't the notion of any god or religion be examined scientifically? It involves mental processes which emanate from the human brain. More is being learned about how we think and behave, adopting rationales for our behavior, accepting "memes", acceding to dogmatists in the education field who want to shut out examination of belief systems under the guise of learning. This "autocracy" has no place in a vital educational system. |
|
07 Apr 12 - 03:16 PM (#3335052) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link dunno what happened.type a post that did'nt materialize! i was broadly in agreement joe.i was responding to the scaremongering tactics of some catters. darwin would not have forseen the use the likes of hitler and stalin would make of his preservation of favoured races theory but i think they considered their actions consistent with darwinism.that is not to say they would not have been evil anyway but i'm not sure why their actions would be inconsistent with darwinism.
-Joe- |
|
07 Apr 12 - 05:55 PM (#3335130) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""but i'm not sure why their actions would be inconsistent with darwinism. "" Do you not see that it might be because Darwin's work dealt with natural selection, and there isn't much that is natural about genocide, or so-called doctors testing human beings to destruction in experiments which had no discernible purpose other than to cause death in the most painful way possible. Don T. |
|
07 Apr 12 - 06:07 PM (#3335135) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T BTW Pete, are you genuinely unaware (or are you simply being deliberately disingenuous), that Darwin's theory of evolution dealt with SPECIES, not RACE. In either case, please stop disseminating this specious argument. The Holocaust came about, not from any interpretation of Darwin's writings, but from Hitler's lifelong hatred of Jews, coupled with the need to give the German people a bogeyman to fear and thus persuade them to accept the methods used by the Nazis to gain control. Simples!! Don T. |
|
08 Apr 12 - 04:13 AM (#3335260) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Joe Offer Don, I think if you Google hitler and social darwinism together, you'll see that there is a tie - along with the "eugenics" movement of the 1920s and 1930s. There were many in North America and Europe who shared Hitler's racist thinking - and much of it is tied to a perversion of Darwin's thought called "Social Darwinism." I went to the Easter Vigil Mass this Saturday evening, and the first reading was the creation story from Genesis. It was beautiful, but the only part of it that I believed literally was, "And God saw that it was good." -Joe- |
|
08 Apr 12 - 04:44 AM (#3335267) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG I went to the Easter Vigil Mass this Saturday evening, and the first reading was the creation story from Genesis. It was beautiful Indeed, and so did I. I found myself wondering afterwards whether all the mentions of the heavens as a vault over the earth were also taken literally by creationists ... |
|
08 Apr 12 - 05:42 AM (#3335282) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""and much of it is tied to a perversion of Darwin's thought called "Social Darwinism.""" I have read a good deal about "Social Darwinism" Joe, and I came to the conclusion that none of it has the slightest connection with Darwin or his work. The fact that they stuck that tag on their dirty work to give it a false scientific cachet is neither proof of a connection nor evidence of scientific worth. You can call a mule a racehorse, but it ain't going to win the Grand National. Don T. |
|
08 Apr 12 - 05:43 AM (#3335283) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail his preservation of favoured races theory Darwin's theory of evolution dealt with SPECIES, not RACE. Darwin didn't have a favoured species theory either. Natural selection works on the individual within a species. The genes of "fitter" individuals become more widespread hence, over time, changing the characteristics of the species. Of course, "Survival of the fittest." is a circular definition since the only measure of fitness is survival. |
|
08 Apr 12 - 06:13 AM (#3335289) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Deliberately misconstruing the Victorian word race is no more than a sign of desperation pete, so not much use reading anything else you write. Talking of the separation of myth and science, my old man is ranting because he wanted to go clothes shopping for his forthcoming holiday but it seems the bible states that shops in The UK over 3,000 ft sq cant open on Easter Sunday to ensure we all Internet shop instead and thanks to the God botherers all will soon be out of a job. Must say, hope he doesn't post later cos he is seriously making promises about persecuting Christians, he seems to be in favour of it. I note The Archbishop of Beardy Canterbury is quoted on BBC website today that children should be indoctrinated into Christianity because once they believe it, they get to like it. No idea if choir boys get to like it, but the court cases seem to suggest otherwise. Just my cheap shot for Easter. My old man did his Jesus on a rubber cross in the pub on Good Friday. Got a laugh, I suppose. |
|
08 Apr 12 - 12:55 PM (#3335397) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor You ever notice that when you buy a new car, you notice hundred of cars like it on the road that you never noticed before. I think that quirk of human psychology explains Hitler's "Devotion" (as pete puts it) to Darwinism. Once he decided he wanted his "race" to be supreme. He say every thing he read as either supporting that and to be embraced or refuting it, to be dismissed. |
|
08 Apr 12 - 02:31 PM (#3335436) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""I think that quirk of human psychology explains Hitler's "Devotion" (as pete puts it) to Darwinism. Once he decided he wanted his "race" to be supreme. He say every thing he read as either supporting that and to be embraced or refuting it, to be dismissed."" I think you've nailed exactly what I was talking about, rather more succinctly. No connection but what his twisted mind sought to build! Don T. |
|
09 Apr 12 - 10:18 AM (#3335704) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stringsinger Darwin was misinterpreted in his own day as he is now. The racial component of difference between people has been shown to be insignificant as a scientific element. Genes play a much greater role. Remember that "the survival of the fittest" is not in Darwin's writing, certainly not in the Origin Of Species. This quote was articulated by the conservative philosopher Herbert Spencer who was indirectly responsible for the "social Darwinism" movement. Crapitalists picked up on this idea to enslave the working class by justifying their actions. Hitler was not a scientist but a polemicist and propagandist as was Stalin. Creationism is an attempt to preclude science with theology and plays into the role of subjugation echoing crapitalist so-called "values". Theology is being used to manipulate economic behavior by deliberately distorting what Darwin actually said. |
|
09 Apr 12 - 10:29 AM (#3335711) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Once he decided he wanted his "race" to be supreme, He saw every thing he read as either supporting that and to be embraced or refuting it, to be dismissed."" It just struck me, JTS, that substituting "religion" for "race" in the above sentence supplies an exact description of the way in which Creationists operate. Bad, bad company to be in. Don T. |
|
09 Apr 12 - 12:53 PM (#3335760) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Amen to that Don... However, how does one point and say creationist or point and say Christian? A fundamentalist would by their very nature say that to be a Christian is to believe it all, rather than embrace the metaphor. The Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday that the physically impossible bits about a sentient God, who had a son, and the son came down to earth from Heaven HAD to be literally true, otherwise the whole Christian ethos doesn't make sense. I would say the exact same thing. Not sure I would come to the same conclusion though.... |
|
09 Apr 12 - 01:53 PM (#3335793) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Have coffee with God |
|
09 Apr 12 - 02:58 PM (#3335849) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link lets clarify this shall we. i did not say darwin was a mass murderer,or that he would approve of what his more extreme admirers did.i understand in fact that darwin was anti slavery and that he became a lifelong supporter of the south american missionary society after being impressed by what they achieved among "native" peoples.evidently less extreme than some of you! i am quite aware that "races" in origins title is much broader than human life.however according to evolutionism we are animal life ;only more evolved.it seems to me then that "preservation of favoured races" would include man although darwin dealt directly with that in his later book "descent of man",the 2nd edition of which i understand included galtons ideas and spencers "survival of the fittest". i stand to be corrected by anyone doing so in a civil manner. not"desperate"pete. |
|
09 Apr 12 - 03:04 PM (#3335855) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Gee whiz Don. Its just human nature. Hitler and the Creationists are far from unique in this matter. I do it myself with my cars. We just have to be smart enough to recognize that trend in ourselves and to not let it cloud our thinking. That is a large part of the reason for "peer review" in science. |
|
09 Apr 12 - 03:44 PM (#3335886) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA What does "more evolved" mean? |
|
09 Apr 12 - 05:36 PM (#3335940) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Herbert Spencer's ideas about evolution are not simple to clarify....and were pretty widely dicounted in later years. More later |
|
09 Apr 12 - 07:43 PM (#3335990) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T "".it seems to me then that "preservation of favoured races" would include man "" There you go again, misinterpreting what Darwin actually said. Evolution, according to Darwin's Theory, is a matter of individuals (not species or races)displaying advantageous traits which increased their chances of survival. This might have been a colour variation making individuals less visible to predators, or a physical difference which allowed certain individuals to take advantage of a hitherto unfilled niche in the food chain. The point is that when these variations bred true in later generations, they led to species change. As an example, a white butterfly on a dark tree gets eaten, while a darker one lives to breed and eventually, if the variation breeds true, only dark butterflies of that species will exist in that area of dark coloured trees. In a different location where silver birch are in the majority, dark individuals get eaten and the result is that in time only white butterflies exist in that location. I cannot understand why you find that a difficult concept. Don T. |
|
09 Apr 12 - 07:51 PM (#3335994) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw The example you're apparently thinking of is moths, not butterflies. The original yarn is that both "dark" and "white" moths exist in both polluted and unpolluted areas, but in different ratios. This is not an example of evolution, not by a long chalk, and, in any case, the example in question is of very dubious quality. Homework required, Don. |
|
10 Apr 12 - 06:56 AM (#3336175) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T It's only an example of the individual changing leading to alteration or even extinction of a species. I'm not bloody Charles Darwin, but I am closer to the truth than Pete. Don T. |
|
10 Apr 12 - 01:38 PM (#3336334) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Don, is essentially correct. Darwin formulated these ideas while examining finches with specialized beaks in accord with the food sources on different islands. |
|
10 Apr 12 - 04:26 PM (#3336429) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Those moths - it is important to distinguish between the principle - in which Don is correct - and a specific widely reported study of dark and light moths, which was deeply flawed and probably did more to confuse and mislead than any recent experiment - in which case Steve Shaw is correct. |
|
10 Apr 12 - 06:16 PM (#3336485) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stringsinger The reason that religion might be inimical to science, whether Darwin or otherwise, is that historically religion has always, because of its authoritarian tendencies, held science back as it is doing today. Do we need evidence about the replay of the Scopes Trial? Religion doesn't explore science but makes pronouncements about it, that science is incapable of investigating religion, and that NOMA, no overlapping magisteria must prevail. This isn't true. If religious people really trust science, then they should have no objection to having their faiths and beliefs tested by it. |
|
11 Apr 12 - 05:19 AM (#3336628) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Obviously, you can't have faith and have it put to the test of reality... Faith implies just that. Faith. I don't blame pete from the stars for saying what he does. When reality blows your theory apart, you need faith, and you get that by reiterating tedious bollocks, or you lose it. hence when he asks that people are civil towards him, he doesn't realise that what he puts forward is dangerous, dangerous because there are people all over the world that wish our children to believe that you don't need an enquiring mind, just read and believe. And that is child abuse. |
|
11 Apr 12 - 06:40 PM (#3336956) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor I think someone who hates the concept of God as worshiped and even discussed by others is certainly a God Hater. |
|
11 Apr 12 - 06:51 PM (#3336968) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link thanks steve-i was just thinking of replying along similar lines when i was amazed to find you doing it so much better-nice to have agreement for a change!. but let us suppose the moth experiment had not been a sham.one colour of moth deminishes in number or even dies out.we then have moth of the other colour .we had moths-we still have moths.how is that evidence for muck to men evolution?. all it evidences is darwinist deception-equating natural selection with evolutionism. we could consider darwins finches.those with the most advantagious beak for the food source are most likely to survive and pass on that characteristic to progeny.we had finches-we still have finches. i really cant see how this is evidence for darwinism-other than his borrowing from earlier creationists writings. presumably bill,you will be providing a more intelligent response to my previous post than a couple just above. best wishes to all pete. |
|
11 Apr 12 - 07:02 PM (#3336977) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor "we could consider darwins finches.those with the most advantagious beak for the food source are most likely to survive and pass on that characteristic to progeny.we had finches-we still have finches. i really cant see how this is evidence for darwinism-other than his borrowing from earlier creationists writings." Have you heard or read anyone saying that the development of one species leads to the demise of another? I have not. The idea is that specific species of finches developed to meet local conditions. Obviously if the parent species of finch is thriving in another place then there is no environmental pressure on the species to evolve. In a place ideal for finches the most finch-like will tend to pass on their genes. |
|
11 Apr 12 - 07:50 PM (#3336998) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Oh, there's no agreement twixt you and me, pete, don't you worry. The peppered moth story is indeed one of natural selection in action, but a simplistic equation of observations over a short period in a limited geographical area with evolution is a little controversial to say the least. There are issues as to whether most moths actually do rest on tree bark, whether death of lichens due to air pollution makes any difference to the ability of light moths to be camouflaged on, for example, birch bark, how relevant the alleged observations of bird predation really are... There's good science in the story all right, but nothing is that simple however much we'd like it to be. The fact that teachers have selected a dodgy and incomplete example to illustrate evolution in action in no way means that evolution does not occur. It does, and it's a fact. Even in peppered moths. Sorry, old chap. |
|
12 Apr 12 - 04:43 AM (#3337099) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Good Melvyn Bragg "In our time" this morning, on the history of geology and the development of the understanding of deep time. Penny |
|
12 Apr 12 - 07:18 AM (#3337151) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Saw that Tony Robinson on the telly last night. He was in Ethiopia and holding the skull of a man 20,000 years old. Problem is, as he predates Adam and the other fictitious characters, what does that say for the "truth" bit? Moreover, dinosaurs are an abstract to most people, even though there is evidence of course they existed, but a man? Predating God's creation? At least some of the churches look nice, so religion does have a legacy of sorts, and we can brush the abuse and mind control under the carpet eventually eh? Let's face it, even the Spanish Inquisition and Crusades were really more to do with land and power than what your particular God looks like and did. zzzzzzzz |
|
12 Apr 12 - 11:46 AM (#3337256) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion In his famous autobiog Father & Son [1907], Edmund Gosse tells us that his father, faced with anti-creationist discoveries of such as Darwin & the geologists in the Victorian period, pronounced that, when God created the world in 4004 BC, he put the fossils in the rock to tempt such people to blasphemy - tho to what end & with what purpose I don't think was specified. I just wonder if pete [& Iona, for that matter, if still anywhere around - I wonder what happened to her?], would consider such a contingency a likelihood... ~M~ |
|
12 Apr 12 - 01:05 PM (#3337310) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Here is why Spencer is hard to interpret: (I have a copy of Spencer's original work in my basement ...that I found in an old bookstore 50 years ago...it is hard reading!) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spencer/ He USED the concepts of evolutionary theory to explain certain ideas about social theories..like justice. The problem was that many people...then, as now... grabbed onto the words and didn't take the trouble to sort out the actual thrust of his arguments. The major flaw in Spencer was that he took Lamarkan ideas seriously..(the idea of "the inheritance of acquired characteristics"). This has been overwhelmingly disproved in biology (as least as Lamarck understood it), but can be related to social, psychological...etc. theory...if done carefully. It would be better explained without Lamarck's name attached to confuse thing. Interesting: I just learned for the 1st time that Darwin and Galton were cousins, and that Galton was heavily influenced by his older cousin!. http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/Newsletters/GINL0003/francis_galton.htm Evolutionary theory is constantly being refined and the details debated... as science reqires....and while names such as Darwin, Spencer, Lamarck...and Galton... are necessary to study the HISTORY of the theory, it is entirely possible to explain, debate and verify the ideas with no reference to ANY of them. The science of sorting out the history of the Earth and our place in it requires only finding data and relating all the data to itself. What in going on in this thread is that religious "beliefs" are being alternately claimed and denied as relevant to the study of evolution as a science. I see why this happens, but it just cannot work that way. *IF* religion is correct as an explanation for "the beginning of everything", we cannot test the details beyond what science can say about specific assertions about dates. IF presumed Biblical dates don't match the science, the proper conclusion is that translations and interpretations of the Bible have been confused....because the data science uses remains there, unaltered...to study as best we can. Biblical 'data' changes and is interpreted (and interpreted in a different way than scientific data). If you read..when you can find it... the religious beliefs of various scientists...from Darwin on up.. it becomes evident just how easy it is to confuse different ideas about data itself and the proper place OF science & belief in understanding data..... gotta stop... too much 'life' going on right now |
|
12 Apr 12 - 03:23 PM (#3337384) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth In most copies of the Bible, the number "4004" is printed at the top of the first page of Genesis. But nowhere in the text of the Bible do I find the assertion that this was the year in which God created the heavens and the earth. So where did this idea—that the all of this was created 4,004 years before the birth of Christ come from? Especially since NOW we are informed that Jesus was born in the year 4 B.C. That would seem to throw the whole system off by four years. Since this date of 4004 cannot be found in the text of any of the books of the Bible, who came up with this figure? Is this some kind of Heavenly copyright date? Who put it there? And when was it put there? The whole Young Earth Creationist canon seems to be based on this number. I submit that the Cosmos is at least 13 billion years old, as the lasted scientific findings—backed by plenty of observable evidence—tells us. And the solar system, including the Earth, was created out of swirling eddies of cosmic dust—which, as we now know, is the way stars and their planetary systems are formed—some 4.5 billion years ago. Our sun is a second or third generation star, which means that the gas cloud from which it and the planets formed included a quantity of heavy atoms and molecules "cooked" in the cores of earlier stars that, by various means including going supernova, blew their material into space to reform into new stars. Given all these organic (carbon containing) molecules, a medium such as water, and an energy source such as the heat of the sun, they combine in various ways and form micro-organisms. And these micro-organisms in turn tend to combine in various ways and produce even more complex organisms. Simple but living creatures such as the amoeba and other one-celled animals. And algae, the beginnings of plant life. This is when the process of evolution begins. Those living creatures that can survive well in their medium proliferated, genes combine and recombine in various ways, and these living creatures grow even more complex and sophisticated. We are the result. And we reside in a Cosmos so awe-inspiringly immense that the mind boggles at trying to take it all in. Indeed, the human mind can't really grasp it. Assuming that the Cosmos was actually created by some intelligent entity, something or someone we call "God," He, She, or IT is so far beyond our comprehension that there is no way that anyone can grasp Its nature and intent, much less claim to understand "the Will of God." But some people, suffering from a form of conceptual agoraphobia (All that space! All that time!) become frightened at the true nature of the Cosmos. So they construct a much cozier concept of the world for themselves. Back to childhood. Their house and their neighborhood is all they know, having no real concept of the size of the town or city they live in, much less the size of the world they live on. They are taken care of by parents. A father who is kindly and benevolent because he provides (giving us this day our daily bread), but who can be a stern disciplinarian ("Thou shalt not—"), but who forgives us our trespasses. Warm and fuzzy. Comparing the god of the Young Earth Creationists with the (presumed) God who created the Cosmos as it IS, along with the Laws of Nature that resulted in the emergence of Life, which over eons of time and experiments of evolution eventually resulted in US, the god of the Young Earth Creationists is little more than some sort of "super-wizard." Gandalf on steroids. The god of the Young Earth Creationists is much too small. Don Firth |
|
12 Apr 12 - 03:35 PM (#3337394) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion Don ~~ Bishop James Ussher claimed some time during the 1650s to have calculated the date of the Creation as 23 [I think it was] October 4004 BC, working, so he said, from evidence provided by analysis of the tests of various books of the Pentateuch, & elsewhere in the Old Testament. ~M~ |
|
12 Apr 12 - 04:17 PM (#3337410) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Bishop Ussher The point is that he merely added up all the 'stated' ages of the various named persons from Adam on down...assuming that a 'year' was a solar year. Read the 'chronology' part of the article to see just how awkward it was...even with the care Ussher used. |
|
13 Apr 12 - 08:33 AM (#3337699) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Back on 23rd October, 1996, we held an office party to mark the Universe being 6000 years old! Of course, we know about the year zero problem, and that the various changes to the calendar make even this date a bit suspect, but as no-one took it as anything more than an excuse for a party with some specially composed dinosaur-related ditties, no-one was too bothered. |
|
13 Apr 12 - 10:19 AM (#3337735) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy A collation of conclusions extrapolated from the knowlegeable ones above; The deity from the work of fiction called 'The Bible' made a man & a woman. This couple mated & produced 2 sons, of which one was a murderer who killed his sibling. The murderer then mated with his mother or another female already existing who wasn't made by the deity. Some years later, there was localised flooding which extinguished all the humans & animals in that area except for a family on a boat called 'The Ark'& some livestock on board. After the waters subsided, the family left the boat & the owner's sons mated with some other females already existing & not specially created by the deity. Does this all make sense so far? I can't wait for the sequel!! |
|
13 Apr 12 - 02:20 PM (#3337841) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth ALIENS!! Recurring visits. That's who Adam and Eve's and Noah's offspring must have mated with. It's the only possible explanation. . . . Don Firth |
|
14 Apr 12 - 02:06 PM (#3338281) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stringsinger How can anyone hate anything that doesn't exist? You can't hate insanity. |
|
15 Apr 12 - 02:38 PM (#3338734) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link test post as last one failed |
|
15 Apr 12 - 02:56 PM (#3338739) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link bill-i thought wiki article on ussher was quite complimentary on his academic achievements and demonstrated that he was not the crank a lot of evolutionists portray him as.however i suspect most creationists would be less specific than he was. dmcg-no i dont believe the fossils were put there as a test.i believe mostly they were the result of catastrophic flood conditions. steve- the agreement betwit us was re the moth "experiment" no need to find out if moths settle on bark,light or dark;they just glued dead ones on the trees! |
|
15 Apr 12 - 03:28 PM (#3338752) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion pete ~~ I think you were responding to me there, 12 Apr 1146 AM, not Doug. ~M~ |
|
15 Apr 12 - 04:23 PM (#3338778) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG pete ~~ I think you were responding to me there, 12 Apr 1146 AM, not Doug. Indeed, and not to me either (Dave,* smiling*) |
|
15 Apr 12 - 04:34 PM (#3338785) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion Oops ~~ sorry Dave!! 〠☺〠~M~〠☺〠 |
|
15 Apr 12 - 05:16 PM (#3338795) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D pete... no one SHOULD claim that Ussher was a 'crank'. He was sincere, talented (for the 1600s)....but simply wrong in his premises about how things worked. In those days, belief in the literal truth of the Bible was pretty common, and Ussher's 'work' simply put numbers to common beliefs. But even then, he had to make many assumptions when scriptural details were lacking and had no idea to what extent translations and 'editions' of the Bible had affected what he had to do in calculations.... much less any idea how science would centuries later show that geology and chemistry and paleontology had to be given attention. The message in the Bible had to be considered apart from the historical disputes. |
|
15 Apr 12 - 06:33 PM (#3338815) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""no need to find out if moths settle on bark,light or dark;they just glued dead ones on the trees!"" No need either to libel respectable scientists who could, if they could be arsed, sue the pants off you for that statement. Their conclusions were drawn from far too small a sample over too short a time. Nevertheless, their conclusions were correct in principle, though not representing definitive proof. Don T. |
|
15 Apr 12 - 11:47 PM (#3338924) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor How can anyone hate anything that doesn't exist? You can't hate insanity. ------------------ One can hate a concept. One can hate an ideology. One can hate a belief. One can hate the believers and adherents. One can mock and insult believers and beliefs. The evidence of this is on is on nearly every religious discussion on this form, and also on a lot of discussion about folk music. |
|
16 Apr 12 - 04:22 AM (#3338949) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray The evidence of this is on is on nearly every religious discussion on this form, and also on a lot of discussion about folk music. But there is a lot of religiosity in folk music - faith, dogma, holy cows, sacred scriptures, rabid fundamentalism and unquestioning self-righteousness - and all over a thing that only exists in the eyes & ears of a small inner-sect of orthodox believers and initiates. |
|
16 Apr 12 - 05:16 AM (#3338960) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Ha ha, I like that! Well said. |
|
16 Apr 12 - 05:48 AM (#3338967) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Not forgetting the Creation Myths, Visionary Epiphanies, Holy Days, Old Testament Prophets, Latter Day Saints, Hell-Fire Preachers and general air of the Sanctimonious (especially among the newer converts). Of course, as with any other religion, there are enough Heretics, Random Visionaries and Cranky Wetherbeaten Ascetics to keep things interesting. The difference between Folkeanity and a Christianity seems to be one of Chronological Yearning: your average fundamentalist Christian would like things to be a lot Younger than they actually are, whereas the fundamentalist Folkean wishes them to be older... |
|
16 Apr 12 - 09:26 AM (#3339016) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Apparently, pete is right to suggest that some moths were glued to trees. This was, apparently, done to determine the effect the density of moths had on predation. See: Lots of moth discussion : which took me by surprise. And, also apparently, the original photographs of moths on bark were staged. BUT, the final development of Kettlewell's work on the moths (See Discussion of Kettlewell's work. ) used the capture, mark, recapture technique to estinmate populations, and did not depend on any observations, photographed or not, of glued moths. FURTHERMORE, the observation that with the drop in heavy industries, the light form of the moths showed a resurgence is independent of that work, and serves to confirm the effect of differential predation. The OU foundation science course included a module on this experiment - I didn't catch any peppered moths with the lamp they issued, so cannot comment directly (I lived in the wrong place). But if the many students involved had shown up any problems, I would think it would have been published by now. There's plenty of discussion about the mothy business by non-creationists out there. Penny |
|
16 Apr 12 - 12:37 PM (#3339100) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Suibhne Astray I think the common thread is that is that in any group, some people just like to hate. (or at least to complain bitterly about the opinions of others.) |
|
16 Apr 12 - 12:53 PM (#3339104) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D "in any group, some people just like to hate. (or at least to complain bitterly about the opinions of others.)" No! Really? Wow... what a revelation! (he said with tongue firmly buried in cheek..) |
|
16 Apr 12 - 12:54 PM (#3339105) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray The other way of looking at it is that religions form to give succour and identity to societal misfits in the face of a greater choas of general inglorious humanity. Christianity is founded on this sort of reactive moral superiority in which everyone but them is going to spend an eternity in hell, and The Folk Revival is too to a greater or lesser extent, with the notion that 'the sort music we like' is inherently different or else superior to others. I've been in some Folk Clubs where I expected glossolalia in the choruses - unless all those twanky-dillos and fol-de-rol de ridos is glossolalia. Gulp! Now there's a grim thought! |
|
16 Apr 12 - 01:25 PM (#3339117) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Dating back to the Tiff Paul had with Peter, the history of the Christian church has been a history of schisms. You can't have schisms if everyone agrees. |
|
16 Apr 12 - 02:06 PM (#3339128) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Tooraliooraliooralay |
|
16 Apr 12 - 02:47 PM (#3339150) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D "...religions form to give succour and identity to societal misfits in the face of a greater chaos of general inglorious humanity." Now there's a line to remember! Not necessarily to USE in the wrong delicate circumstances, but it certainly clarifies one viewpoint. |
|
16 Apr 12 - 04:11 PM (#3339192) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Thanks for correcting my spelling of Chaos anyway. Much appreciated! I really need to instal a spell-check on this thing... |
|
16 Apr 12 - 06:25 PM (#3339249) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D TinySpell if you're on a PC. Cleverest thing since sliced bread... you can choose UK spelling, and it follows your typing everywhere and warns you....and corrects with one click. |
|
16 Apr 12 - 08:06 PM (#3339303) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail A-wop-bop-a-loo-lop a-lop bam boo |
|
17 Apr 12 - 12:01 AM (#3339359) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA Once again...shuttin' up 'cause Penny S. has gots it in spades. |
|
17 Apr 12 - 06:46 AM (#3339453) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy Folkinanity? |
|
17 Apr 12 - 07:19 AM (#3339465) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stu Penny S: Kettlewell's experiment is still taught in the OU's Darwin and Evolution level 1 course. Kettlewell's experiment was actually looking at predation by birds on the moths. The increase of melanic moths in industrial areas was first noticed in 1848 and had been studied for around sixty years before Kettlewell was even born, and the hypothesis that the change in morphotypes in the peppered moth population was due to natural selection had been proposed during that time; Kettlewell set out to prove it was bird predation driving the process. Which he did. |
|
17 Apr 12 - 10:02 AM (#3339521) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Folkinanity? Folkinanity is for those who believe in Folkin' - they're the Folkineans, as oppose to the Folkeans who don't do a lot of active Folkin' as such, but do a lot of Folk - maybe too much, which can be bad for you: if the Folk's too pure it's difficult to handle, but you don't want the impure stuff either because no one knows what it's been cut with. Folkin' is a positive world view - it smiles and celebrates on a joyful, intuitive level; it welcomes and accommodates all comers and eschews celebrity squares and those who take things (& themselves) too seriously. I worry though. Earlier today I picked up my recently acquired 1986 reprint of the 1974 edition of The Faber Book of Popular Verse (I keep my 1971 first edition for Sunday best) and when I read New Year's Water on p.279 I immediately tried to find our copy of the Waterson : Carthy Holy Heathens CD because I recall a sleevenote with to the effect that the title of their song Residue was a mondegreen of something, but no one knew quite what. I failed to locate the CD, but looking on Mudcat I see that particular mystery's already been dealt with. Like it matters, eh? But, to the Folkean, of course, such things do matter - for they are, like me and countless others, helpless victims of a dark dependency on Folk that drives them to obsess over such irrelevant minutiae and, worse still, find considerable meaning therein. Rest assured, I am seeking a cure, and, when I do, I intend opening a clinic devoted to providing essential care for those poor souls similarly afflicted. Meanwhile - Keep on Folkin', Folks! |
|
17 Apr 12 - 05:34 PM (#3339714) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Still deliberately ignorant in Tenn, |
|
17 Apr 12 - 06:25 PM (#3339734) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D "Meanwhile - Keep on Folkin', Folks!" Oh, I do... in a traditional way. I'm a modal folker. |
|
18 Apr 12 - 06:11 PM (#3340108) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Science says:- "Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them?" Creationism says:- Here's the conclusion. What facts can we find to support it?" Don T. |
|
18 Apr 12 - 06:13 PM (#3340109) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Year nine Creation Science for schools:- "And on the eighth day God, giggling to himself, buried fossils all over the place". Don T. |
|
18 Apr 12 - 06:56 PM (#3340128) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Creationism says:- Here's the conclusion. What |
|
18 Apr 12 - 07:20 PM (#3340142) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: frogprince Although at times it's "What facts can we pull out of context to support it". |
|
19 Apr 12 - 01:30 PM (#3340471) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T No guys, they really do think in terms of facts......like:- The "fact that the World is 6000 years old! The "fact" that it was completed in seven days! The "fact that two people can produce a gene pool which is viable! The "fact" that the bible is the inerrant word of God! The proof of all this?......GOD said so! Don T. |
|
19 Apr 12 - 01:41 PM (#3340480) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Amos Subinhe, what the Folk are you smokean? :D A |
|
19 Apr 12 - 01:47 PM (#3340483) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Don, I think those are positions they create arguments to support. "Truth in Genesis" is a leader in assembling and disseminating these arguments. Here is and example. Bill D., with your respect for logic, I urge you to skip the rest of this post. http://www.truthingenesis.com/Star_Distance.html >>Astronomers have observed that about every 30 years a star dies and explodes into a supernova (ICR September, 1998). If the universe were billions of years old there should be several hundred million supernovas; however, astronomers have observed less than 300 supernovas in the universe. This limited number of supernovas shows that the universe is less than 10,000 years old, just like the bible says. << |
|
19 Apr 12 - 02:43 PM (#3340534) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Subinhe, what the Folk are you smokean? :D Too much Fortean Times I think. Hold on... isn't this...? Yes - I think it is. It's.... |
|
19 Apr 12 - 02:44 PM (#3340536) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray 1,500! |
|
19 Apr 12 - 03:53 PM (#3340564) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke I'd like to share this uplifting story with y'all to restore your faith in Hugh Mannity after all this godless communist propaganda. God bless Old Gory and the NRA! |
|
19 Apr 12 - 04:32 PM (#3340578) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Paul I've seen a slightly less on the nose version of that same thing. I wonder when Einstein did all that work in physics considering his more than impressive body of work in the field of Creationist polemics. |
|
19 Apr 12 - 05:05 PM (#3340589) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Brendan May I recommend ' Believing Bullshit' by Stephen Law. It is an easy to read exploration of some of the main arguments used by cults, YECs and others to defend what a rational mind finds indefensible |
|
19 Apr 12 - 05:18 PM (#3340595) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Law talks about the book |
|
19 Apr 12 - 10:40 PM (#3340670) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor I just finished watching the Law video. I cannot recommend it. Bill D. has made the same points more succinctly, many times. |
|
20 Apr 12 - 06:36 AM (#3340765) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Brendan Er.... I was not recommending the video, I was recommending the book. I agree that the video is not particularly satisfying but I found the book a stimulating read. I should point out that I have no connection with Dr Law who I first came upon at the Oxford Literary Festival in March this year but as a practising Christian I relish the constant challenge of reconciling my faith position with the significant advances of science. I dislike fundamentalism in all its forms and I recognise my own inability to satisfactorily explain my own beliefs - sometimes even to myself. |
|
20 Apr 12 - 11:09 AM (#3340872) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""I dislike fundamentalism in all its forms and I recognise my own inability to satisfactorily explain my own beliefs - sometimes even to myself."" That is exactly what Young Earth Creationists lack, Brendan, a satisfactory explanation. YECs need to explain their beliefs only because they are trying to make everybody else share them. If not for that, they would not have this crying need to debunk all science which undermines their efforts. The point is that you don't need to explain your beliefs. They are what they are, and there is nothing at all wrong with that. The bottom line is that you, and millions of Christians like you, are right and have no need to prove anything. As for YECs, until they can produce proper testable, reproducible and if necessary falsifiable evidence in support of their position, they will not achieve their goal. Don T. |
|
20 Apr 12 - 12:36 PM (#3340905) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Brendon, I found the man to be shallow and vapid. I found his arguments to be weak and incomplete. In fact I find the whole idea that ideas about what he calls "Bullshit" have to be logical and can be countered with logic to be naive and absurd. I couldn't read the book, not after I have heard the author. As I said, I can listen to the same counter arguments from Bill D for free. And then I don't have to pretend that meant to help cure the deluded. |
|
21 Apr 12 - 06:20 AM (#3341201) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Brendan It seems to me that the position all thinking atheists have to start from is one of reason and rationality; 'If you want me to believe then show me the evidence.' An unavoidable consequence of this is that when defending their views atheists must base their arguments on reason and logic, whether defending their own views or attacking the views of others. Perhaps that is why this thread will never result in a meeting of minds. Fundamentalist Christians reject, either implicitly or explicitly, the force of any any argument based solely on reason. This does not stop them from deploying apparently science-based arguments when to do so may appear to give them credibility - nor to employ apparently rational arguments which require close examination if their flaws are to be revealed. With regard to Jack's rejection of Law I would be interested to read any examples to back up his opinion - without these his opinion lacks any claim to justification. |
|
21 Apr 12 - 11:49 AM (#3341330) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D "...I can listen to the same counter arguments from Bill D for free." Thanks for the vote of confidence, Jack. It is gratifying to know that someone thinks I do a credible job of making certain points. That being said, it never hurts to hear the basic issue laid out....even if tediously... in a formal setting by a dapper gentleman with an educated English accent. ☺ People are impressed in different ways.....some require 'credentials' before they pay attention. I DID have 130 hours of college work in philosophy & logic, and many of my contributions here were merely pointing out flaws in common assertions. I carefully do NOT make any absolute claims about the nature of reality or the existence or non-existence of any metaphysical 'being(s)'...... though it is easy to guess which way I might bet... *grin*. I am pleased that 'pete from seven stars' trusts me to be a 'fair' opponent in our debates. I in turn find him to be an honest, dedicated man who simply begins with a basic assumption OF a certain theological position, and feels the need to interpret counter-claims in that light.... a very common attitude. Pete at least reads some of what his opponents post. The discussion is useful, even if NO ONE convinces anyone else. |
|
21 Apr 12 - 01:18 PM (#3341354) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Relax Brendon, I was just giving my opinion. Anyone who wants to read the book you recommend still can. Anyone who wants to watch the video, still can. All I am saying is that they can get the same information for free, on this forum. I think that anyone who is interested in buying his book is probably pretty immune from the arguments that the book is meant to protect you from. The rules of logic have been around since ancient Greece. They are readily available on the Internet. Learn those rules, be skeptical. Then you don't need to read the book. And to be well rounded and open to learning, Don't let Mr. Law or anyone else tell you what is "bullshit" think for yourself. |
|
21 Apr 12 - 03:20 PM (#3341391) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Brendan I think I quite like being described as dapper! I am happy to parade my credentials if required. Philosophy and logic formed a major part of my second degree. However, I am not convinced that such information should influence the way in which my views are perceived. Well, you swerved my challenge didn't you Jack? I'm disappointed. I had hoped to be shown something that I had failed to identify but you have not 'shown me the money'. I'll take myself off now - the faint odour of xenophobia suggests that I may be more welcome elsewhere. |
|
21 Apr 12 - 06:23 PM (#3341446) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor With your high opinion of Law's book, I don't think your University would want you to say that you studied philosophy and logic there. Certainly they would not want to hear that you learned something you didn't know already from him. I did one term of "Logic for Engineers" At my University and all of his stuff was covered, and then some, without the arrogance. Please note that I feel absolutely no necessity to answer your challenge. See the chapter of the book "Pressing your Buttons" for an explanation as to why. Again I repeat, this is just my opinion. Anyone is welcome to watch the video or read the book for themselves. In fact if they are vitally interested in the subject. I highly recommend that. I don't have the time or the inclination to comb through the speech to point out where it falls short. But I would certainly NOT recommend that an easily swayed person to debate a cult member or theologian armed only with the knowledge of imparted in this book. They are liable to end up believing that the world is flat, or maybe believing that a discussion of some pop culture philosophy with an unidentified and totally unknown person on an Internet forum is evidence of Xenophobia. Though I think that the latter was nothing more than a veiled ad hominem attack. The main objection I have with Law's book is the idea that something is to be gained, beside amusement and mental exercise, by arguing with people who firmly believe in anything. |
|
21 Apr 12 - 06:30 PM (#3341447) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link well thanks bill.i think that most people start from their own position presupposing certain things ,though there may be the truly undecided but they are not evident on this thread IMO. I suspect some may not be as sure as they claim to be' as they feel the need to ridicule-but i would not want to be dogmatic on that.like you i think discussion is useful though you probably appreciate that as a christian i believe there is a spiritual dimension-even if the points i raise are unacceptable and no one here believes.pete. |
|
21 Apr 12 - 08:57 PM (#3341485) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D "....i think that most people start from their own position presupposing certain things,..." pete..."their own" does not necessarily refer to a personal one. If one accepts and adopts a basic set of rules set out to describe a well organized system, it is not exactly ones "own". Belief in the Bible as literal truth is certainly one such system, as is 'scientific inquiry'. The basic difference is that the former is 'locked into' one basic set of assumptions and thus, a very limited set of conclusions; whereas the latter demands constant reassessment of both assumptions AND conclusions. IF science makes mistakes, its own rules provide for course correction. The theology which defines creationism as 'correct' from the beginning cannot really even look at other answers...except to think about ways to deny them. These are not just 2 different opinions, such as having favorite colors, but entirely different ways of thinking. I always claim that IF there is a God who gave us the ability to see different possibilities, he/it would expect us to 'think' rather than just nod in agreement to opinions handed down over the centuries by OTHER humans who were just as fallible as we are. |
|
21 Apr 12 - 09:52 PM (#3341489) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Bill, I have to say that I am with pete on this one. That is in spite of the fact that his lack of courtesy in spelling and punctuation irritates me tremendously. "....i think that most people start from their own position presupposing certain things,..." There are nearly infinite possibilities in one's starting position when using "scientific inquiry' on the other hand belief in the Bible as literal truth is much more complex than you have described. There are way too many contradictions for one to be simply 'locked into' one basic set of assumptions and thus, a very limited set of conclusions; One has to constantly reinforce that belief and to heed external sources of chose to place contradictions out of one's mind when reading the Bible oneself to hold and keep those opinions.... I think. |
|
22 Apr 12 - 09:06 AM (#3341631) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T In order to read the bible and believe in its utter truth and accuracy, you have to be able, whenever contradictions appear (and there are many) to suspend critical thinking, dispense with logic and decide that one side is correct and therefore the other doesn't mean what it says. This is a belief system. That requires too much suspension of disbelief for me, especially since the vast majority of Christians agree that it isn't necessary for the bible to be an accurate historical record since that is not its purpose. On the other hand, when I see a new scientific advance I know that it is based upon sound principles of empiricism, followed by experiment with reproducible results, and conclusions logically drawn from those results. I also know that if I, assuming I am capable, repeat those experiments for myself, I will achieve the same results and they will lead to the same conclusions. If however two people draw different conclusions, the whole will be re-examined and if necessary modified to take account of new knowledge gained. This is not a belief system. No amount of Creationist pseudo science can alter that. I know that Pete is sincere in his beliefs, but he is going to need to revise his way of expressing those beliefs, because the weight of scientific evidence against him. Don T. |
|
22 Apr 12 - 10:38 AM (#3341668) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Jack... I do see your point, but I don't think that minor variations in defining and phrasing basic assumptions constitute a significant 'difference'. When they are enough different, they usually are reflected in schicisms... and thus different religious churches, sects, etc. I suppose it just comes down to how you want to define categories... if you have only 2-3 basic ones you have one viewpoint, but if you have many sub-headings under each one the whole 'feel' of it all changes. I once knew a woman who called herself "Buddhist", but whose beliefs about karma and life forms was more like Jainism. She was an example of what we both may be referrring to, but are reaching different conclusions about. (I have no idea what she thought about 'creation'.) Don T has expressed the situation pretty well. |
|
22 Apr 12 - 11:08 AM (#3341681) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Thomas Paine quote |
|
22 Apr 12 - 12:48 PM (#3341733) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie Greetings from sunny Capetown. (Good gigs. Flying back to Blighty next Thursday.) Is this thread still going? Wow.. Must confess, I have enjoyed some of the eloquent ways people like Don wysiwyg explain the differences between believing and enquiring, but I still think that debating with fundamentalists just encourages the buggers. I was looking at paintings on rocks that predate the bible by a few thousand years last week. Today I was looking at petrified tree fossils millions of years old. I was listening to a person explaining cultures and belief systems that make Christianity look as modern as scientology. So, what was all this about the bible getting it right? If this pete bloke was genuine, he would be able to debate with me instead of stating that anybody who laughs at him is insincere or has a belief system themselves. If you believe it, have the courage to try and explain it to rational people. If you are having a laugh, may I point out that some genuine people are trying, wrongly in my opinion but hey, just an opinion, to reason with you. And that is about as impossible as any of the fairy stories in your bible. |
|
22 Apr 12 - 01:11 PM (#3341742) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Wow Ian you do have a belief system if you believe that your opinions are novel enough and well informed enough that is is worth pete's time to debate you. You are just looking for a chance to drop more jibes and little insults such as "fairy stories" what theory do you think you are proving other than "some atheists act like jerks." Seriously, for many atheists, Bill D for example, Atheism is not a religion. For you it clearly is and you are an evangelist modeled after St. Paul. |
|
22 Apr 12 - 03:04 PM (#3341780) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Exactly... atheism is simply not having religion. "If this pete bloke was genuine, he would be able to debate with me.." Pete is quite 'genuine'- but to critique the Thomas Paine quote a bit, Pete has not 'renounced' reason, he just uses it in a different manner (and of course, in my opinion, in a flawed manner by choosing premises in a flawed way.) This 'reason' thing is quite a complex concept...and is not quite the same thing as 'logic' (strictly, a mathematical term). Reason is what the mind does as it copes to organize the bits of experience it accumulates. When we had no telescopes and saw the stars & sun & moon 'move across the sky', it was reasonable (though incorrect) to deduce that we were at the center of things. Some very 'reasonable' men once threatened other reasonable men who dared to contradict the standard answers! Now - when part OF one's experience is being told by respected members of the family and community that certain answers to life's mysteries are answered in the pages of a special text, preserved for thousands of years and celebrated by wonderful art, architecture, songs, stories etc... and which provides comfort and hope in a world where comfort & hope are often scarce, it is hard to say "Oh, that stuff... I am a grown-up now; I don't need 'fairy tales'." So... a large part of the disagreements over whether to accept ANY theological/metaphysical concepts is based on sociology & psychology, not strictly 'reason'. I certainly hope that education & example can make reason come closer to logic, because WAY to much of the world is controlled by those who are still in the Dark Ages as respects rational thinking. The news every day is full of sad headlines about those who base their actions on 'sacred texts'... and different ones than OUR side uses..(note tongue firmly in cheek there.) All *I* really require is that-: whatever one chooses to believe about creation and 'souls' and prophets...etc... they are prevented.. as far as possible.. from controlling MY life and inserting bad reason into school curriculums. You just cannot change minds by shouting "you stupid fools...pay attention to reason!" |
|
23 Apr 12 - 11:15 AM (#3342097) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T There is a basic flaw too, in the reasoning process of fundamentalists, who make the entirely erroneous assumption that if you are not one of them, you are an atheist. This is demonstrably not the case. Most Christians do not believe in YEC, and a belief in YEC is neither necessary nor logical as a requirement for following Christ's teachings as they have been reported to us by generations of men with varying agendas. I believe in the basic tenets of that teaching, but not in the Christian Church, fundamental or moderate. I believe in a Deity, so I suppose I am a Deist or Theist, what you will! I have no need of organised religion of any stripe, it is simply irrelevant to my existence. The reason why I combat fundamentalism and particularly YEC, is the total denial of all logic in its expression, combined with a proselytising fervour in the disemination of its false reasoning to the most impressionable of humans, our children. Don T. |
|
24 Apr 12 - 05:46 PM (#3342794) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link bill-maybe i should have been more precise and said "affirm an adopted position"or some suchlike! seems to me that scientists when they affirm darwinism are doing the same as creationists. the details change.they have to as new evidence requires it continuously.the GTE remains immovable in the evolutionist philosophical position. i could quote those who admit as much but i,m not as adept on the keys as i assume you are and it would take too long. jack-i agree with your assesment of ians aims-though i tend to be more polite!BTW was i mistaken in spotting a grammatical irregularity in your post.i hope so-such a comfort if even the highly educated slip up! just a little fun!. don-perhaps you can tell me how you do experiments on the past.in origins research all you have is the result of what has already happened.this is interpreted according to the worldview of the researcher and is not the same IMO as the scientific method you describe.muddying the water may be a useful tactic for evolutionists but not for making things clear. science made great strides forward under scientists with creationist belief.much was achieved even in the so called "dark ages" i think that scientists with evolutionary belief have actually hindered science.eg-all those so called vestigual organs,and so called junk DNA are not that at all.they have had to revise their ideas. pete . |
|
24 Apr 12 - 07:33 PM (#3342826) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""don-perhaps you can tell me how you do experiments on the past.in origins research all you have is the result of what has already happened.this is interpreted according to the worldview of the researcher and is not the same IMO as the scientific method you describe.muddying the water may be a useful tactic for evolutionists but not for making things clear."" Just to give one simple answer, which you should, but probably won't be able or willing to understand, which is the bulk of the problem in dealing with your "scientific" claims. Radio Carbon dating is a tried and tested scientific method of determining the age of various rocks and fossils with impressive accuracy. All radioactive isotopes have what is known as a half life which can be used to determine the age of materials, working from the proportion of isotope as compared to the degradation product existing in those samples today, whatever that may be. It happens that radio carbon gives the best results in terms of experimental error, so that is the most useful method. Any chemist with a background in this discipline can carry out these tests and the results are always the same within the limits of experimental error, and reproducible. Please point me towards a Creation "scientist" who can produce similar, or indeed any, evidence for your viewpoint. There is NONE! Don T. |
|
24 Apr 12 - 08:05 PM (#3342833) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D "...seems to me that scientists when they affirm darwinism are doing the same as creationists. No, Pete... it really is NOT the same thing. "Darwinism" is not some simple set-in-stone, unwavering 'rule'. Most would not even use the term Darwinism, except as a historical reference. They call themselves 'scientists', and the basic principles of evolution are one outcome of allowing the discoveries OF science to guide their ever changing picture of the history of Earth... and the universe in general. Saying "I accept Darwinism..or'evolution'" is very different from saying "I accept the Bible as literal truth." They are two forms of 'accepting' that are totally different way of thinking!! Really! If science found data (like that Don T just noted) that showed only a few thousand years of change, they WOULD accept it and compare it with dates in the Bible and say..."hmmmmmm.."... but when creationists see scientific data, they say "Can't be...it disagrees with the Bible, and my preacher/father/family etc. TOLD me the the Bible is totally true!" Pete... ALL the information/stories/metaphysics in the Bible was put there by **men**, and translated and interpreted by men... for several thousand years. MEN told each other that God 'inspired' it...and those men 'mostly' believed it... but today you don't automatically believe everything or every story other **men** tell you. There 'may' have been a god who started all this complex universe... and I do not try to 'prove' otherwise.... but if such a god wants me - and others - to know certain details and behave in certain ways, he needs to come around more often and say so a bit more clearly...... |
|
24 Apr 12 - 08:28 PM (#3342837) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail I usually make a point of not commenting on anything creationists like Pete or Iona (I wonder what became of her) say but Pete has hit a point here - seems to me that scientists when they affirm darwinism are doing the same as creationists. Sadly some who consider themselves to be scientists do precisely that. That is why I have argued against the "Evolution is true." faction (and been roundly abused for my pains). Presenting science as having some sort of equivalence to religion does more harm than the creationists ever can. Such people do not represent scientific thought. N.B. Bill is not one of them. |
|
25 Apr 12 - 09:58 AM (#3343050) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D "Sadly some who consider themselves to be scientists do precisely that. " I suppose there are 'some' who do such.... but insofar as they act that way they are not 'good' scientists. They are a real minority, and are NOT a reason to relegate science itself to the position of "just another belief system". |
|
25 Apr 12 - 10:19 AM (#3343061) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA "seems to me that scientists when they affirm darwinism are doing the same as creationists" As I said back in February, here is the difference between scientists and creationists - falsifiability. I will state quite explicitly the evidence required to make me change my position RE creation vs. evolution: If current theories of evolution are incorrect, I need to see an exposure of a single sedimentary layer -- a single parting in one formation -- that exposes a trilobite, a dinosaur, and a human. If you can point me to this, I will completely change my view. (I would need only two out of three of the fossils to seriously question evolution). Now it is your turn. What evidence would falsify your belief in YEC? Please state with a specificity approximating mine above. If you cannot (or refuse to, or duck the question), then you have demonstrated the clear difference between science and creationism. |
|
25 Apr 12 - 11:02 AM (#3343089) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail I suppose there are 'some' who do such.... but insofar as they act that way they are not 'good' scientists. Unfortunately, some of them have been rather vocal on this thread. They are a real minority, and are NOT a reason to relegate science itself to the position of "just another belief system". Rather the point I was trying to make. I see little point in arguing with the creationists; they are not thinking rationally. The important thing is to get the science right so that those who are neither religious fundamentalists nor scientifically trained aren't misled into thinking it's just a choice of competing religions rather than competing ways of thinking. |
|
25 Apr 12 - 12:16 PM (#3343125) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie Hello sailor! If the word rational means having a belief system then I must have a belief system. I am not an atheist by the way. Einstein reckoned that meant chaos as a belief system and I see laws of physics working so that buggers that. In any event atheism is amongst other things a term of sneering used by superstitious people. Obviously I can't demand nor expect pete to debate. All I said was if he thinks it to be true, it should stand up to my silliness. Same as he expects debate based on his absurd position. |
|
25 Apr 12 - 12:20 PM (#3343128) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T For me Snail, it is infinitely more important to curb these peoples' attempts to inculcate their dangerous and erroneous rubbish into the minds of our children, disguised as science. That is why I shall continue to rebut (or refute, I'm never too sure which) their arguments, and never allow them to pass unchallenged wherever I come across them. Don T. |
|
25 Apr 12 - 12:51 PM (#3343145) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: saulgoldie Oncet again, ad nauseum... Science is a *process* of inquiry. This *process of inquiry* explains things in terms of currrently available data that can demonstrate *reproducible results.* If you do not *accept* science as such, then you are obliged to suggest another *process* that can can demonstrate *reproducible results.* Religions are *belief systems.* One must have *faith* and not be concerned about the internal logic or whether the *beliefs* can lead to *reproducible results.* Because they cannot; they do not. On *accepts* science; one *believes in* religion. It is a critical semantic distinction. It is definitional. It is not arguable. Saul |
|
25 Apr 12 - 02:29 PM (#3343189) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail Don(Wyziwyg)T For me Snail, it is infinitely more important to curb these peoples' attempts to inculcate their dangerous and erroneous rubbish into the minds of our children, disguised as science. Surely the best way to do that is to present the case FOR science rather than the case AGAINST creationism. You are letting them choose the battleground and define the rules of combat. They have won their first battle by establishing that there is something about creationism that is worth debating. You have given them credibility. |
|
25 Apr 12 - 03:28 PM (#3343215) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA I know what you are saying TheSnail, but sadly, dumbass politicians and their dumbass supporters have already given them sufficient credibility to make it into school curricula (or to at least supress/dilute the science in school curricula). We have to fight them on this battleground. Can't cede it to them. |
|
25 Apr 12 - 03:59 PM (#3343224) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail Sorry, but don't why that's an argument to not fight FOR science. |
|
25 Apr 12 - 04:48 PM (#3343243) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link tia-it just so happened that todays article on the CMI site did mention a triolobite and dinosaur track in the same layer at the paluxy[if i remember right]river.whether that got into any unbiased papers i dont know-so you might not have to renounce your evolutionism yet!i answered your challenge long time ago.it is just that creationists are upfront about interpreting science through biblical glasses. don-with respect to your chemist' and my lack of training i just ask you to clarify before i attempt an answer - are you really saying that carbon dating etc methods always give consistent results.does not the method require unproved assumptions and how much margin of error is acceptable? bill-it sounds very grand to say that darwinists call themselves "scientists".many are but i still posit that it is a philosophical position' rather than science that achieves anything other than positing a theory.IMO as i said earlier-more likely to be detrimental. was it kerkut who defined the GTE as biologial life from single cell that itself came from inorganic material-wish i'd written it down! i fail to see how that is science.you do at least concede the possibility of a beginner deity though i suspect reluctantly. but certainly not a militant atheist so we can at least talk together best wishes pete. |
|
25 Apr 12 - 05:52 PM (#3343262) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA "i answered your challenge long time ago" No you did not. You started *saying* you did a while ago. But you really never did. Please prove me wrong by referencing a previous post in this or any thread. If you cannot, or refuse to, or ignore this, you are again proving the fundamental difference between science and faith. Sorry. Not my rules. PS The Paluxy "dinosaur beside human tracks" were debunked years and years ago. Even most creationists now admit they are decidely not human (e.g. some have claw marks extending down and back from the "heel"...nobody I know has those). |
|
25 Apr 12 - 05:54 PM (#3343263) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA No, no. It is exactly an argument to fight FOR science and AGAINST non- and pseudo-science. They creep into schools if we do not fight back. |
|
25 Apr 12 - 06:11 PM (#3343268) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""don-with respect to your chemist' and my lack of training i just ask you to clarify before i attempt an answer - are you really saying that carbon dating etc methods always give consistent results.does not the method require unproved assumptions and how much margin of error is acceptable?"" The answers are readily available Pete, in scientific treatises which Young Earth Creationists studiously avoid acknowledging or even reading. Every radioactive isotope known has its own individual time in which half its radiocarbon atoms degrade. In all known cases that "half life" is constant, irrespective of the original number of atoms. For this reason, it is possible to determine, knowing the "half life", the current number of atoms of isotope and the mass of degradation product, it is possible to calculate the true age of the enclosing rock with more than reasonable accuracy. Dating samples of known age, including an Egyptian royal barge built in 1850 BC, Willard Libby demonstrated the accuracy of radiocarbon dating, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry. Radiocarbon dating is commonly used to establish the age of samples between 58,000 and 62,000 years old. By 1969, with enough radiocarbon dates of objects of known age, it became apparent that calibration of the 14C dating method was both possible, and required, to make radiocarbon dates useful for the determination of calendar dates. Indeed, it is often material from prior to 1969 that creationists use as ammunition against the 14C dating method. The first use of dendrochronology (counting tree rings) to calibrate 14C over a long period of time was made by Furgeson in 1970. 1970: Furgeson used dendrochronology of bristlcone pines to calibrate radiocarbon dating back to 7484- years b.p. (before the present). Through comparison with tree ring dates, the 14C method has been calibrated back to more than 13,000 years before the present, 1991: Becker, et al publish a stable dendrochronological calibration of 14C back to 13,000 years before the present. In addition, 14C dating has also been calibrated back to more than 30,000 years before the present using uranium-thorium (isochron) dating of corals [Bard, et al, 1990] and [Edwards, et al, 1993]. While it is unlikely that 14C will be useful for objects older than 50,000 years, owing to the problems of background contamination [Dickin, 1995] and [Lowe, 1991], there is a recent paper by [Kitagawa, H., and van der Plicht, J., 1998] discusses calibration of 14C dating back to 45,000 b.p. using U-Th dates of glacial lake varve sediments (periodic sedimentary layers). The bottom line is that 14C dating is quite a bit more advanced than creationist sources give it credit for being. |
|
25 Apr 12 - 06:22 PM (#3343272) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T As to degree of accuracy;.....based on dendrochronology:- C14 dates are always reported with a "±" margin of error. Typically, the margin of error reported is for one standard deviation from the norm. Therefore, a C14 date of 10,000 ± 200 BP on our branch sample means there is a 68% probability (a 2 in 3 chance) the branch died sometime between 9,800 and 10,200 years ago. This is an accuracy of plus or minus 2 percent, hardly unreasonable over a period 4000 years longer than you claim this world to be. Your sensible response to these facts is invited. Don T. |
|
25 Apr 12 - 06:26 PM (#3343274) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Every radioactive isotope known has its own individual time in which half its radiocarbon atoms degrade."" Apologies for error! This should read:- "Every radioactive isotope known has its own individual time in which half its radioactive atoms degrade" |
|
25 Apr 12 - 06:30 PM (#3343277) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Well now, Gastropodus adagioissimus, the point is this. Science is the art of dissing something until evidence can be presented that the "something" is worthy of un-dissing. That's how science, in order to be good science, has to operate. The un-dissing process is usually long and gradual as evidence accumulates. But there has to come a time when so much evidence has accumulated that one can say, with the utmost confidence, that the dissers are no longer credible. That the amount of evidence has reached a tipping point. That the notion, once upon a time dissed, can no longer be credibly dissed. That point was reached with the theory of evolution by natural selection a long time ago. It is no longer possible, with any credibility at all, for anyone to challenge the general thrust of the theory. I'm not saying that details can't be tweaked and that arguments within can't still rage, not a bit of it. But the thrust of evolution theory can no longer be credibly denied. So I have a bit more courage than you, apparently. I say that the theory, in its general thrust, is true. Now if you think that the theory, in its general thrust (not in every intimate detail, mind) is not true, then give us your evidence to that effect. Of course, you may wish to go all philosophical on me, abandon earth-boundness and debate the meaning of the word "truth". Well good for you. But I kind of like the word "truth" and I like to be able to employ it without some bloody pedant breathing down my neck implying that it's a word that can never be used in science. It can be, and I have done. And I'm still a scientist. |
|
25 Apr 12 - 07:25 PM (#3343300) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Pete... but i still posit that it is a philosophical position' rather than science that achieves anything other than positing a theory." I don't think I quite understand that point. Are you saying that science doesn't make progress? Are you claiming that **interpreting** science is somehow merely 'philosophical'? WHAT is "more likely to be detrimental."? I'm sorry, Pete, but your arguments and claims are still going in circles when you use the CRI website to justify positions while calling those who debunk "triolobite and dinosaur" tracks 'biased'. Do you not see that places like the CMI site are the ultimate form of bias? They do...as do you... begin with an unswerving adherence to Biblical interpretations as some sort of 'fact', while trying to twist tested and RE-tested scientific studies into some form of weak 'messing around' with faulty data. As to an original creator? I simply don't know. Thus, I can't 'deny' it like I can refute some obviously false statements. I DO see no real, serious, clear, specific evidence that ANY being or sentient 'power' organized, planned & 'created' the stuff we see. Sorry, but I just do not accept 'ancient manuscripts' **written by men** as proof of anything. You cannot say...(reasonably).. that God inspired them. One more time... IF there was a god who wanted us to really know his will and opinions, he would need to use that infinite power to make it so clear NO ONE... even "militant atheists"... could doubt. |
|
26 Apr 12 - 07:26 AM (#3343465) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail Steve Shaw I say that the theory, in its general thrust, is true. and from a previous thread - I didn't say the theory of evolution is true. I said evolution is true. Try listening. It might just stop you talking crap, as ever. It might help if you could be a little more consistent in your arguments. (It might also help if you could cut out the abuse.) But I kind of like the word "truth" I know you do Steve, but in using it, you reduce science to a belief system and entirely justify Pete in accusations like "seems to me that scientists when they affirm darwinism are doing the same as creationists.". |
|
26 Apr 12 - 09:40 AM (#3343503) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Evolution is true. Evolutionary theory, in its general thrust, is true. I don't care if you want to dedicate your life to digging up my out-of-context inconsistencies that appear to obsess you. It's very tiresome. It's a very big theory with lots of nooks and crannies. There will be stuff that we have incomplete knowledge of, stuff that is just beginning to emerge, stuff which leads to uncertainty. But no-one is ever, by evidence and reason, going to overturn the theory of evolution. Put it this way. We can, if we want, change its name to the fact of evolution. We don't, because we don't want to stop looking. Religion stops looking even before a shred of evidence has turned up, so reason can't be applied. Science is not a system and it does not rely on belief. It relies on evidence and reason. Its process is to deny everything unless there is evidence to the contrary, the very opposite of religious belief systems. Now I'm sure that you'll find something else to carp about given a couple of spare hours. Good luck to ye! Actually, I'm fed up of typing the words "belief system." It's a bloody stupid expression anyway. Grrr. |
|
26 Apr 12 - 11:33 AM (#3343563) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail Turns out I didn't need to go to another thread. Earlier on this one - Evolution is true. Indeed it is. I didn't say the contradictory "the theory of evolution is true." It is no longer possible to deny that evolution occurs. Unless you're barking, of course. Hello, Snail, by the way,. Here we go again, eh, with your contrarian stance on everything I say. Get a life, why don't you. Or evolve into something more intelligent than a gastropod. What do you reckon, TIA? Is Steve a good advocate FOR science? |
|
26 Apr 12 - 01:02 PM (#3343604) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray If it wasn't for Humanity there'd be no religion - there'd be no science either of course - but at least the Laws of Physics would still be there, our understanding of which has been achieved through long years of struggle and Objective Peer-Reviewed hard work. Organisms would still be evolving, and maybe some of them would achieve higher forms of sentience, cognition, culture and technology. If so, they'd discover the same stuff we did - evolutionary and physical science being an objective universal constant - though when it came to Culturally Subjective Religion, they'd be telling different stories, assuming they bothered with it, because Religion, for better or for worse (in this case worse), is a uniquely human thing, the utter subjectivity of which comes down to one universal constant: They Can't All be Right, But They Can All be Wrong. |
|
26 Apr 12 - 01:43 PM (#3343621) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Hey, Snail, a word in your shell-like. Do try to find something else to nitpick about. Do you think that evolution happens? Yes? Fine so far. Do you think that we now have enough evidence to make the theory - in its general thrust - incontrovertible? Yes? Are we on the same page when it comes to understanding the theory and the evidence that supports it? You think so? Excellent! Do we need to believe in the theory? No? Me neither! Do we, instead, approach it as containing a body of evidence that can be interpreted using reason? Yes? Brilliant! Bye! |
|
26 Apr 12 - 02:02 PM (#3343633) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail And with a final fanfare of self-contradiction he was gone. |
|
26 Apr 12 - 02:54 PM (#3343658) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: frogprince I offer unto you something of a parable. There are theologians who insist that Jesus was not able to sin. There are other theologians who insist that Jesus was able to not sin. Some of them, at least, actually believe that they are disagreeing with each other in a meaningful way. |
|
26 Apr 12 - 04:54 PM (#3343705) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Ahhh... so the problem is men misinterpreting OTHER men! Or do I have it backwards? |
|
26 Apr 12 - 05:58 PM (#3343731) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link tia-methinks you misread my last post.i said -trilobite and dino-not human and dino .i am quite aware human tracks were not found; as the article i referred to made clear. don-thankyou for comprehensive history of c14.do i take it you have read creationist material on c14 as you charge them with out of date info.as it happens todays article on CMI site is dealing briefly with the very same;not that you are likely to read it. certainly the method dates further back than 6000 yrs but that hardly helps your millions of yrs position since the decay rate has vanished in only thousands. and yet carbon has been identified in material claimed by evolutionists as being formed millenia past-including diamonds,which would be extremely safe from contaminated results. bill-quite right in that i put it badly. science[ie operational,observable,reprodusable science] is beneficial. it has always progressed and operated without any need of evolutionism. as i mentioned earlier ;science has found purposes for what evolutionists at one time labelled vestigual and junk.there are other instances i could cite that are not to hand at present. as you'll like to pursue a point or two;i shall do likewise. you believe in the GTE despite it being not only unproven but proven impossible in its very beginning. abiogenesis is the supreme example of a faith position IMO. pete. |
|
26 Apr 12 - 08:23 PM (#3343798) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw and yet carbon has been identified in material claimed by evolutionists as being formed millenia past-including diamonds,which would be extremely safe from contaminated results. This is egregiously clueless. The man is not worth talking to. C'mon, Snailie, get your claws into him for change. Oops... |
|
26 Apr 12 - 08:27 PM (#3343801) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw There are theologians who insist that Jesus was not able to sin. There are other theologians who insist that Jesus was able to not sin. They're both wrong. I know. I got it from Mary Magdalene. |
|
26 Apr 12 - 08:28 PM (#3343802) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Or do I have it backwards? You should be so lucky. |
|
26 Apr 12 - 08:51 PM (#3343808) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail Steve Shaw C'mon, Snailie, get your claws into him for change. Pete openly and honestly presents himself as a creationist and a believer in the truth of the bible and as someone who has a limited understanding of science. Anyone can judge what he has to say with that understanding. You, on the other hand, present yourself as a scientist. People without a scientific education might be misled into believing that you know what you are talking about when, to anyone who does have a background in science, you clearly do not. Bad science is more damaging than creationism because it gives creationism credibility. |
|
26 Apr 12 - 08:53 PM (#3343811) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: frogprince Actually I was thinking of Steve and the gastropod, primarily the gastropod, when I posted the little theological thingy; For the life o' me I can't see why Snail insists that there is any real-life difference in what they are saying. The theological "distinction" wasn't made up. I knew of individuals who argued over it for decades, wasting time they could have put to better use lighting farts instead. |
|
26 Apr 12 - 09:09 PM (#3343816) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw I know you were, frogprince. He does it because he seems to have this thing about me. It's very odd. I can't seem to shake him off. He agrees with me deep down. |
|
26 Apr 12 - 10:44 PM (#3343840) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA pete, You have once again ducked the challenge and reinforced the difference between science and faith. No worries. It is clear to anyone paying attention. One more time (because it is THE point) - what evidence would you require to make you re-think your belief in YEC? |
|
27 Apr 12 - 07:39 AM (#3343945) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. pete, Carbon-12 is the most abundant isotope of carbon, having six protons and six neutrons in its nucleus, and is stable. It has existed for billions of years, hence the existence of diamonds, graphite and other forms. Carbon-14 is also natural, with an extra 2 neutrons, but is formed by the effect of cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere, and is not stable. It is constantly replenished. It decays into nitrogen again, with half the carbon doing so in 5700 years. It behaves chemically in the same way as carbon-12, having the same number of electrons, and is absorbed by living things, but this absorption stops at death, hence its use in dating. It is irrelevant in non-living things such as naturally occurring diamond, and in very old things because of its relatively short half life. Do you read non-creationist sites about these things? I read up about the trilobite, which has apparently not been seen independently in situ, and was reported by someone with a similar reputation in some circles to that of Charles Dawson, whose efforts you cite in opposition to evolution. Penny |
|
27 Apr 12 - 09:44 AM (#3343995) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail frogprince For the life o' me I can't see why Snail insists that there is any real-life difference in what they are saying. Oh dear, that is worrying. You could have asked rather than resorting to obscure theological parallels. Perhaps if I quote what a few other people have said it might make things a little clearer. Shimrod "Science is not a dogmatic assertion of faith and 'absolute truth'" "Science is not a monolithic body of incontrovertible 'truth'" "all scientific knowledge is provisional and could be revised at any time in the light of new evidence." On the Got Science? thread that I linked to a while ago - TIA Science is a method...a process. The product of science is information. But the information is *not* science. The information is always provisional. The information is open to question and testing. The information is not sacrosanct. In fact, the information is a challenge to other scientists. It begs them to "prove me wrong". And many times it is proven wrong. The process of science is specifically and consciously self-correcting. "Scientfic Dogma" is the most ridiculous oxymoron of all! and, most bizarre, Steve Shaw himself - Science requires observation, hypothesis set up deliberately to be vulnerable to shooting-down, experiment with controls, processing of data, construction of theories (not truths), communication of information and peer review, all of which serve to inform the next steps. Religious faith requires...well, faith. It requires a suspension of awkward questioning, exactly the opposite of what the process of science demands. It requires a cosily-ringfenced theology (my, how that "-ology" legitimises myth!) based on a single wrong premise that must not be questioned lest the whole house of cards collapses. In this instance I totally agree with Steve. Unfortunately, it seems he doesn't agree with himself. Shortly afterwards we get - Read my lips, Pete old chap. Evolution is true. When I challenged him on that, he tried to wriggle out with - I didn't say the theory of evolution is true. I said evolution is true. Try listening. It might just stop you talking crap, as ever. (Note the early resort to personal abuse as a debating technique.) Despite that he regularly used "evolution" and "the theory of evolution" interchangeably from then on including the wonderful "the searing truth of evolutionary theory" and , to Iona, "You insult thousands of hard-working scientists constantly with your blindfolded attempts to refute the truth of evolution. Makes him sound like a ranting preacher hurling fire and brimstone from his pulpit, and that is the problem. By using the same sort of arguments as the creationists, what Pete called "argument from authority", he blurs the distinction between science and religion and allows Pete to make accusations like "seems to me that scientists when they affirm darwinism are doing the same as creationists". |
|
27 Apr 12 - 10:19 AM (#3344005) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stu "it has always progressed and operated without any need of evolutionism." Oh Pete. By denying evolution you are denying not just the sciences popularly associated with the theory such as zoology, palaeontology, geology, biology etc, but also you're denying the relevance of disciplines including chemistry, physics, particle physics, maths, cosmology, astrophysics and many more besides. You're denying the work of the people whose research led to the development of the computer you're typing on, the internet and world wide web you're communicating to us with. You're consigning work such as embryology, molecular science as well as those previously mentioned to the dustbin because you mistakenly think all these workers are deluded or blinded by denial of creationism. Many workers in these fields believe in God or other supernatural beings, just not the fallacy of YEC, which they would believe in were there any evidence. |
|
27 Apr 12 - 03:01 PM (#3344097) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Well, sigh, I see I'm still being stalked by The Slimy One. It's rather odd, Snail, that you seem to spend around ten times longer quoting other people's opinions than you do offering your own. In fact, I'm having trouble recalling much of a structured argument from you on any topic (and I said that on purpose to give him another hour's homework trying to prove me wrong). So let me provoke you. Tell me what, in its general thrust, is untrue about evolution. Tell me what burgeoning body of evidence is going to overturn the theory. Tell me how I'm demeaning the generality of science by saying that evolution is true. I only said evolution is true, not any other theory. I just happen to know enough about evolution to know that it can longer be denied by evidence and reason. Not in every detail, as I keep on saying, but in its general thrust. If you don't agree with that, let's have it, please. You really are being a bit of a silly billy about this, aren't you? It's true. It just is. Only a bloody creationist twerp would deny evolution. |
|
27 Apr 12 - 03:50 PM (#3344115) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke Despite that he regularly used "evolution" and "the theory of evolution" interchangeably from then on including the wonderful "the searing truth of evolutionary theory" There's some subtlety I can't get here. "Evolution" obviously isn't identical with any "theory of evolution"- the one is an attempt to explain the other- but in the context of opposing someone who is refusing to accept the obvious existence of either, it's a peccadillo if an offence at all. I'm sure you wouldn't complain about someone who talked about "the searing truth of gravitational theory" to a nutcase who was trying to persuade you to jump from the 16th floor. |
|
27 Apr 12 - 04:02 PM (#3344117) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: frogprince Just for the halibut, let's try it this way: It is the position of most scientists at this time that combined evidence from all disciplines of science appears to indicate that evolution has occured and continues to occur. Snail, question 1: do you find that statement acceptable, and appropriate to the nature of science? Question 2: do you think that propagating that statement would help substantially to combat the propagation of YEC ? |
|
28 Apr 12 - 06:29 AM (#3344339) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail Steve Shaw Well, sigh, I see I'm still being stalked by The Slimy One. It's rather odd, Snail, that you seem to spend around ten times longer quoting other people's opinions than you do offering your own. In fact, I'm having trouble recalling much of a structured argument from you on any topic (and I said that on purpose to give him another hour's homework trying to prove me wrong). Note the subtlety of Steve's debating technique. I responded to a post by frogprince. I am sorry if you consider that to be stalking. Those opinions that I quoted represent my position pretty well and demonstrate that I am not alone in that position.. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I think this covers my point of view pretty well - Science requires observation, hypothesis set up deliberately to be vulnerable to shooting-down, experiment with controls, processing of data, construction of theories (not truths), communication of information and peer review, all of which serve to inform the next steps. Are you OK with that? So let me provoke you. Tell me what, in its general thrust, is untrue about evolution. Tell me what burgeoning body of evidence is going to overturn the theory. Tell me how I'm demeaning the generality of science by saying that evolution is true. I only said evolution is true, not any other theory. I just happen to know enough about evolution to know that it can longer be denied by evidence and reason. Not in every detail, as I keep on saying, but in its general thrust. If you don't agree with that, let's have it, please. Yet again, riddled with ambiguity. When you say "evolution" do you mean the process* or the theory? (There are, of course, a number of theories but let's not get too bogged down.) You accused me of talking crap for not getting the distinction right before. I will attempt to answer the question I think you are asking. I have no reason to believe that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is untrue and have never, for one moment, suggested anything of the sort. I have already said this several times. As a bit of an aside, did Darwin actually use the term evolution? Can't find my copy at the moment but the title of his book is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection". He is actually talking about speciation rather than evolution. You really are being a bit of a silly billy about this, aren't you? It's true. It just is. Only a bloody creationist twerp would deny evolution. I think I am being remarkably sensible and patient in the face of someone whose primary method of debate is personal abuse and stonewalling bluster. I am not really talking about evolution, I am talking about science and the scientific method. About how it works and why it works and what, for me and I suspect for you, makes it better than religion. Science is not about declaring inviolable truths, it is about asking questions. As TIA said "Scientific Dogma" is the most ridiculous oxymoron of all! ". Are you saying he is wrong? "Evolution is true." is dogma. * According to one of my old university text books "Biological evolution means change in the characteristics of descendant populations of organisms." |
|
28 Apr 12 - 07:30 AM (#3344355) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail Paul, my point in quoting Steve's "the searing truth of evolutionary theory" was to point out his ambiguity about whether he is talking about "evolution" or "The Theory of Evolution" and, while I was at it, to illustrate his somewhat evangelical style. Since you have given a clear description of the distinction between "evolution" and "the theory of evolution", I'm not sure why you describe it as a subtlety that you can't get. They are different things. If I were to jump from the 16th floor, I would be propelled to the ground by gravity. Somebody with less urgent matters on their mind might be able to use the theory of gravity to calculate how long before I splatted on the pavement but it wouldn't be the theory that killed me. Are you suggesting that before 1687 I could have jumped with impunity because there was no theory to tell me I would fall? If you think it's a peccadillo, tell Steve. He was the one who accused me of talking crap for not realising which he was talking about. (As I say above, I'm still not sure which he is talking about and I'm not sure that he is either.) However, since you mention the Theory of Gravity it gives me a useful opportunity. For a kick off, try "Gravity is true!". Er? What? OK, let's try "the Theory of Gravity is true!". Two problems there 1) the scientific method does not allow you to describe a scientific theory as true which is the point I've been trying to get over for some time and something which Steve himself has stated a couple of times. 2) Newton's Theory of Gravity isn't true. It was superceded in 1916 by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Unless you happen to be passing near a massive body or travelling at near light speeds they produce indistinguishable results so for all practical purposes Newton's Theory is perfectly usable but it is not TRUE as such. It could be that in the nearly 250 years that it stood unchallenged (rather longer than the Theory of Evolution so far) some enthusiast might have declared "It's true. It just is. Only a bloody creationist twerp would deny gravity." but if they had they would have been speaking no more scientifically than the twerps they were condemning. |
|
28 Apr 12 - 08:21 AM (#3344380) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail I used to know a chap called Ali Butt. frogprince It is the position of most scientists at this time that combined evidence from all disciplines of science appears to indicate that evolution has occured and continues to occur. "most scientists", "at this time", "appears to indicate". Not exactly a hugely confident statement is it? I think as you wrote you probably began to realise that things weren't quite that simple. I think I've made most of my points above but this is getting interesting. In a way, the comparison Gravity/Theory of Gravity with Evolution/Theory of Evolution doesn't really work. Gravity is part of our everyday experience. Things fall on is, we fall off things we stay here on or near the surface of the Earth. There is no such direct observation of Evolution. What we observe are organisms. We can observe the similarities and differences between those alive today by looking at their physical structures and sequencing their DNA. We can look at the fossil record and see the changes over time. Evolution is more a human concept to explain how those changes and differences came about than an actual observable phenomenon of nature. As such it is, perhaps, more a part of the theory of evolution. Discuss. 1: do you find that statement acceptable, and appropriate to the nature of science? It's OK in its general intention but rather vague and simplistic and, as I said, rather lacking in confidence. 2: do you think that propagating that statement would help substantially to combat the propagation of YEC ? No. For the creationists themselves it would simply bounce off their armour. They are not susceptible to reason. For anyone else it is what Pete calls "argument from authority". Scientists say this so don't argue. I think any intelligent human being would rather be given some reasoned arguments and solid evidence. Right. I really have got to get in some practice for this evening and tackle bucket loads of folk club admin. |
|
28 Apr 12 - 08:27 AM (#3344383) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Just want to cut and paste Sailor Jack's wonderful comment to me a few posts up; "Wow Ian you do have a belief system if you believe that your opinions are novel enough and well informed enough that is is worth pete's time to debate you. You are just looking for a chance to drop more jibes and little insults such as "fairy stories" what theory do you think you are proving other than "some atheists act like jerks." Seriously, for many atheists, Bill D for example, Atheism is not a religion. For you it clearly is and you are an evangelist modeled after St. Paul." No reason, just want to read it again. I thought it was wonderful. sniff.. Never been told I had an opinion before. Or at least, I never realised denying fiction as fact was to have an opinion. I thought an opinion was either to believe, deny, agree or refute. You can have such thoughts on the quality of fiction I suppose, but to say that my use of words such as fairy stories is to have an opinion on them? I thought Sailor Jack started this thread by asking if creationism taught as fact holds kids back, and then reckons I am insulting creationists by pointing out I reckon that they are! I wonder if pete is slowly getting a convert to his delusions here? After all, he told Jack he agrees with his assessment of me. Me? I just want to be loved really. All this pointing out that reality may have a place in this debate is just a sounding board for me to use words like superstition, fairy story (ok, phrases too) and rational. In case anybody hasn't noticed, although enough people have pointed it out; It is absurd to debate science and superstition as equal sides of an argument. If you refute evidence, you have to provide evidence or contrary indications that could lead to evidence. With regard to evolution, the big book of fairy stories as our nautical friend seems to to have an issue with, is not evidence. Fiction is not evidence. Superstition is not evidence. Mind you, without a comfort blanket, things can get kind of lonely I suppose. So THAT's why I want to be loved! Keep banging the rocks together guys... |
|
28 Apr 12 - 09:08 AM (#3344393) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke I love you Ian. But no wet ones. But you are all spending too much time with boneheaded pete- set out the evidence, and time after time he just replies that he doesn't believe it, and quotes some crazed antiscience fundamentalist website that he doesn't understand either. Given the quality of thought that has clearly gone into his belief system, it's tripe and he may as well be left to it. Just slap his mates down when they try to take over the schools and poison the kids. Like Breitvik's nutty belief system, it's also dangerous. This isn't totally anti- religion - I know some first rate believers- but as someone pointed out ages back, there are two kinds of believers- those whose scripture is a book of answers, and those who have a book of questions. And I'd add that the first lot see their answers as laws to be imposed on others, while the other type see the questions as problems that they have to wrestle with themselves. As for "evolution" vs "theory of evolution" I still say that in the context of trying to persuade someone not to think they can fly, it's nitpicking. Especially as there isn't a single thing called "The Theory Of Evolution"- theories have been, well, evolving since before Erasmus Darwin (the grandpa) was dissuaded from publishing his theory in the 18th century. And that was because he realised that an outraged Church would have destroyed his doctor's practice. Some things don't change. |
|
28 Apr 12 - 09:30 AM (#3344397) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail If you were thirsty, Paul, which would you rather be given, a glass of water or a description of a glass of water? Either way, take it up with Steve. He's the one who said "I didn't say the theory of evolution is true. I said evolution is true. Try listening. It might just stop you talking crap, as ever. It doesn't make a lot of difference to me. As far as I am concerned both "Evolution is true." and "The theory of evolution is true." (both of which Steve has said) are invalid, non-scientific statements. |
|
28 Apr 12 - 09:53 AM (#3344400) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""And I'd add that the first lot see their answers as laws to be imposed on others, while the other type see the questions as problems that they have to wrestle with themselves."" And that statement, Paul, should be carved onto stone tablets and mounted in a prominent position in every church and every religious education class. I'm sure J.C. would approve, and most likely his spiritual father too. Don T. |
|
28 Apr 12 - 10:23 AM (#3344417) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Do you know what, Snail? You're boring. Bloody boring. You're not a bloody snail after all, are you? You're a limpet. Just to show how daft this is getting, just consider this statement of yours. No, really consider it: I have no reason to believe that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is untrue... Good! You are therefore accepting that we can actually use words like "true" and "untrue" in this context. So tell me this. If you see no reason to "believe" (very scientific, by the way!)that the theory is untrue, then you have reason to believe it's true. Yeah? Now one more thing. If I say evolution is true (which it is), I am not stating dogma. I am stating an overall conclusion derived from masses of evidence that long ago propelled evolution, in its general thrust, beyond any doubt that could arise via evidence and reason. There will be tweaking to be done for ever more, of course. Darwin didn't get everything right and neither have many of the subsequent workers in the field. If I say that gravity is true (which it is), that is not dogma either. It is a conclusion based on overwhelming evidence and reason. Gravity cannot be denied. Newton may not have got it quite right, Einstein may not have got it quite right, tweaking may be required but gravity is undeniable and it's perfectly OK for anyone, scientist or no, to say so. There is a big geranium in a pot on my windowsill. It is not dogma to say that. It is true. I'm looking at it right now. I won't bore you with the evidence that it's there and the reasoning I used to conclude that there's a big potted geranium on my windowsill. It's absolutely OK to say what's true if it happens to be true without pedants snapping at your heels, accusing you of being dogmatic. If I told you that Liverpool FC were the greatest team of all time (which they are ;-)), and refused to listen to the abundant(though not necessarily conclusive) evidence to the contrary, then you could justifiably accuse me of being dogmatic. Part of the reasoning I should have applied to all the available evidence is missing. That's why religious zealots are dogmatic. They are failing to apply the whole (or any) of their skills of reasoning. Go and find yourself a nice rock somewhere in the intertidal zone, why don't you. As for debating, you don't debate. You quote other people and you react. You work on the backs of other posters, so kindly save us from your criticism on that score. |
|
28 Apr 12 - 10:33 AM (#3344422) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D I think I've lost track of who is for or against what. I do hope we don't begin debating 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin'. |
|
28 Apr 12 - 10:35 AM (#3344423) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Very true, Bill, very true. Am I allowed to say that? |
|
28 Apr 12 - 10:46 AM (#3344429) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,SFJNo Er, limpets are snails. |
|
28 Apr 12 - 12:18 PM (#3344460) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke I'm against it, if that's any help Bill. And 42 angels, but not morris dancing or salsa. |
|
28 Apr 12 - 02:03 PM (#3344511) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Er, limpets are snails. Ish. |
|
29 Apr 12 - 08:45 AM (#3344731) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Limpets were always temperature sensors mounted on armoured conveyers when I bothered to work for a living... Seriously, I never saw the word in any other context till I had been fixing the buggers for a few years. Sheltered upbringing I suppose. (I recall wondering if limpet mines were temperature sensitive...) Now, snails and things similar to snails I can contribute to the debate with. Slugs are like snails and spend time selling Big Issue to more affluent snails. Ok Bill. You win. I've lost track too. I'm happy to say pete is right, the combined cerebral content of everybody else is wrong, and Iona can return to the debate in triumph. Whatever.... We have evolved. We seem to be evolving into a theocracy, but I recall someone (Steve?) saying we cannot evolve to a previous state. Try saying that to the God Botherers.. They are worse than their superstitious ancestors. (With apologies to all sailors and their friends.) |
|
29 Apr 12 - 09:10 AM (#3344745) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail Steve, if you don't want me to respond, don't ask me questions. You are therefore accepting that we can actually use words like "true" and "untrue" in this context. So tell me this. If you see no reason to "believe" (very scientific, by the way!)that the theory is untrue, then you have reason to believe it's true. Yeah? No. I am amazed to discover that someone who I had presumed to have a thorough scientific education has absolutely no grasp of elementary science theory. It IS possible to consider the possibility of a theory being untrue in fact it is necessary. Have you never heard of falsifiability? It is NOT possible to say a theory is true. You have said as much yourself. For instance you said "Science requires observation, hypothesis set up deliberately to be vulnerable to shooting-down, experiment with controls, processing of data, construction of theories (not truths), ". Why have you gone back on that? Of course, if you do say a theory is untrue and you have good evidence to back up that claim, it ceases to be a theory. Let's try an analogy. You want to employ someone in a job with security aspects so you run a criminal records check on them. 1) They come out clean. Does that mean they are not a criminal? You don't know. It may just be that they never got caught. 2) They come out with a criminal record. Does that mean they are a criminal? Yes, unequivocally. The same applies to scientific theories; you may be able to prove them false but you can never prove them true. This is the basis of TIA's debate with Pete. From TIA on 25th April - As I said back in February, here is the difference between scientists and creationists - falsifiability. I will state quite explicitly the evidence required to make me change my position RE creation vs. evolution: If current theories of evolution are incorrect, I need to see an exposure of a single sedimentary layer -- a single parting in one formation -- that exposes a trilobite, a dinosaur, and a human. If you can point me to this, I will completely change my view. (I would need only two out of three of the fossils to seriously question evolution). Now it is your turn. What evidence would falsify your belief in YEC? TIA has provided his criteria for falsifiablity. He is able to do this because the theory of evolution is a scientific theory. Pete has not provided his criteria for two reasons. 1) Creationism is not a scientific theory. 2) He doesn't understand the question. Neither, it would appear, do you. By stating "Evolution is true", something sacrosanct, not to be challenged, you have set it on an equal footing to creationism which is precisely what the creationists want. |
|
29 Apr 12 - 09:28 AM (#3344752) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail You are mistaken Ian. Given the wear and tear on a gastropds under surface, especially as they get more portly with age, what they are shouting is Bigger Shoes. |
|
29 Apr 12 - 02:52 PM (#3344870) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Snail: Of course, if you do say a theory is untrue and you have good evidence to back up that claim, it ceases to be a theory. But Steve says: Of course, if you do say a theory is true and you have good evidence to back up that claim, it ceases to be a theory. But we scientific types are loath to make the transition from theory to truth. It goes against our instincts. But I repeat. Evolution occurs and that is incontrovertible. The accumulated evidence long ago went past the tipping point. These are the facts of the matter, however much you like to play with words instead of thinking. As long as I've taken all the evidence into account and used my reason to its maximum extent to interpret that evidence and reach an honest conclusion, I am not being dogmatic. Wrong word, wrong context. Now I'm fed up of this. No matter what I say you'll nitpick. Arguing with you is like pissing into a strong wind. |
|
29 Apr 12 - 04:23 PM (#3344912) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link penny-i dont know who dawson is.dr clifford wilson got his info from jeannie mack who claimed to have unearthed the triolobite in the same limestone strata as dino prints.i agree that no "independant" documentation seems to exist.i cannot tell if this lady is a liar or not and dr wilson is now dead.hence the comment that tia need not renounce his evolutionism yet. i am uncertain of what you are saying re carbon.that is my limitations'not your post doubtless.are you saying that carbon testing on once living things can only register in thousands of years but when found in diamonds is limitless? it has been mildly amusing reading the evolutionists arguing with each other and as i think was noted by one side,giving credance to my contention that it is a belief system ;not scientific fact ,while others repetively continue their argument from authority without presenting evidence. "evolution a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true,but because the only alternative,special creation,is clearly incredible" prof dms watson. i think someone above made a comparison between creation/bible and the manifesto of the norway killer-own goal;that manifesto was largely based on darwinian doctrines.yet another example of the danger of teaching error to impressionable minds! |
|
29 Apr 12 - 04:26 PM (#3344915) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke pete: You are clearly not clever enough to understand it, and too stupid to see that the conversation isn't about your "beliefs". |
|
29 Apr 12 - 04:29 PM (#3344918) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Well, pete, the way things are going (he said with exasperation), one does have to wonder whether Snail is an "evolutionist" at all! You do not understand what was said about C14 dating. No-one actually said you can "date" diamonds, etc., that are millions of years old using carbon dating. Go back and carefully study the posts that have caused you to come to this conclusion. |
|
29 Apr 12 - 05:40 PM (#3344947) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""certainly the method dates further back than 6000 yrs but that hardly helps your millions of yrs position since the decay rate has vanished in only thousands."" -snip- Dating samples of known age, including an Egyptian royal barge built in 1850 BC, Willard Libby demonstrated the accuracy of radiocarbon dating, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry. Radiocarbon dating is commonly used to establish the age of samples between 58,000 and 62,000 years old.-snip- -snip-While it is unlikely that 14C will be useful for objects older than 50,000 years, owing to the problems of background contamination [Dickin, 1995] and [Lowe, 1991], there is a recent paper by [Kitagawa, H., and van der Plicht, J., 1998] discusses calibration of 14C dating back to 45,000 b.p. using U-Th dates of glacial lake varve sediments (periodic sedimentary layers).-snip- You would certainly be more knowledgeable Pete, if you took the trouble to READ what is posted, rather than assuming what others will say "because they're stupid evolutionists". Please feel free to point out exactly where you found the word "millions" in my post, and while you are at it please remember that the whole was not my invention, but the accumulated work of some very accomplished scientific minds backed by reproducible evidence. 58000 - 62000 years is more than enough to blow Young Earth Creation out of the water for most people with a few working brain cells. I'm sorry if this comes over as disrespectful, but your post has the same effect for me, since you do not show me the respect of responding to what I actually say. You asked for a run down on C14 accuracy, and then twisted the answer. Don T. |
|
29 Apr 12 - 06:18 PM (#3344961) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. The reference I found to a Paluxy River dinosaur indicated a finder called Carl Baugh, who published about this discovery, and others, in 1987 This is a non-creationist discussion of the site. Paluxy Baugh has a very dubious reputation, even, apparently, among creationists. I've seen references to the people you cite as well, now. I suppose it could be a different trilobite, but it was not seen in situ. Given the way trilobites are usually found, there should have been others still there to be seen with the dinosaur fossils. If you are going to sing about Piltdown, you need to read up about Dawson. He and Baugh had much in common. Carbon dating only works, as I stated, on things which have been alive. Not diamonds. Other radio-isotopes are available for older non-living things, with longer half-lives. I see there are claims about dating being applied to diamonds and C-14 being found in them. I have read an examination of this claim, which points out that with variation of current in the measuring device, the quantities of each isotope should change together, but in the creationist experiments, C-14 changed more, which implied contamination. (Not deliberate.) There is also the possibility of nitrogen included in the crystal matrix (I saw about this on a quite separate TV program) being subsequently changed by radiation.) Penny |
|
30 Apr 12 - 03:22 AM (#3345077) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. And Breivik used what he wanted to build his document, including Christianity. People like him will always bend anything to their world view. Rather like the crusaders Breivik emulated - I recall that de Montfort, in his enthusiasm to kill Cathars, said that it didn't matter if his men slaughtered faithful Christians as well, because God would know his own, and wiped out a whole town. Cheap point, pete. Not your best. Penny |
|
30 Apr 12 - 03:46 AM (#3345085) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket What is an evolutionist? Is it a branch of a belief system? Perhaps pete can tell everybody where to find information on these people, and perhaps see if anybody on Mudcat is a member of their sect? The he / she and pete can have a nice debate on equal terms... I know that stamp collecting exists, that there is evidence that it exists. But it would be bad grammar to say I believe in stamp collecting. (IF I did go that far, I would be an unbeliever anyway, but digressing seems popular on this thread...) |
|
30 Apr 12 - 06:44 AM (#3345135) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST Ian Mather What is an evolutionist? Is it a branch of a belief system? Sounds about right. I would say it is someone who has let evolution take the place of a religion in their life. Steve Shaw says - one does have to wonder whether Snail is an "evolutionist" at all! Let me assure him that I most certainly am not. But Steve says: Of course, if you do say a theory is true and you have good evidence to back up that claim, it ceases to be a theory. I had to read that several times to work out if Steve had made an editing mistake or something but, no, I think he really means it. It seems that he no longer considers evolution (or the theory of evolution or Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, it becomes steadily less clear which he is speaking about.) to be a theory and, therefore, not part of science. So what does he think it is? |
|
30 Apr 12 - 06:55 AM (#3345139) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: saulgoldie Once again...process...reproducible results. If you don't "believe in" science, then you are obliged to refrain from using any device or participation in any activity that has "evolved" through the use of the scientific *process* of investigation. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Saul |
|
30 Apr 12 - 09:02 AM (#3345173) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Well, Snail-guest, there was no editing mistake, I assure you. I put my version alongside yours as it represents the natural, logical converse of what you yourself said. Now let's take a look at this little gem: It seems that he no longer considers evolution...to be a theory and, therefore, not part of science. "Therefore"? Dearie me. So science is all theories and nothing else. Well that isn't very brave, is it. Science is about seeking the truth. If we can never be brave enough to say that we've found some truth, then what's the point of doing science at all? There is a lot more science to be done in the field of evolution. We don't know all there is to know about it and almost certainly never will. But there is a nugget of truth in there. The evidence we have that points to evolution taking place is massive and is incontrovertible. Evolution definitely takes place. Only religious nutters with their eyes, ears and brains tight shut deny it. The precise mechanisms and what drives them are still being studied and always will be. But the nugget of truth is that evolution happens. That much is true. The theory of evolution by natural selection takes in far more than this nugget, which is why I can only say that (the theory of) evolution is true in its general thrust. I think I must have typed that phrase, which you conveniently ignore and which thoroughly immunises me against accusations of dogma, about a dozen times. If you don't agree that (the theory of) evolution is true, in its general thrust, let's hear your evidence. If you think that science isn't about looking for truth, let's have that as well. There is in my garden a fig tree. I can provide incontrovertible evidence for it. I can give you the grid ref., take photos of it, get you round to see it if you doubt me, get independent experts in to confirm its presence, show you the deeds to prove that it's my garden and not someone else's, get its DNA sampled to confirm that it is a fig tree and not something else... After all that, I say that it's true that there's a fig tree in my garden. Anyone who thinks it's not true will have an uphill struggle to counteract all my evidence (in fact, it would be an impossibility). I'm happy to use the word "true", by the way, in the way I'm accustomed to using it even if there are philosophical pedants who think I'm misusing the word (poor things). When I'm down the pub telling you that I have a fig tree, I'm not being dogmatic. I might have trouble persuading you that I'm not being dogmatic, but I have the evidence to show that I'm not. The tree is really there. That's where we are with evolution. Exactly that. Now the evidence for the tree's presence is incontrovertible, but if you were to ask me how it got there, how long the seed took to germinate, how the soil in my garden affects its growth, how the cold snap last winter affected it, how long it will live, whether it will produce seed true to type...well I can't answer those questions now, but they are all vulnerable to further research. I would be overreaching myself if I told you that I understood all there is to know about my tree, but I do know that it's true that it's there in my garden. I got to that point not by being dogmatic but by evidence and reason. That's where we are with evolution. If you don't agree that evolution, in its general thrust, is true, let's have it. Otherwise Mr Thicky here (aka me) doesn't really get what you're supposed to be arguing about. |
|
30 Apr 12 - 08:29 PM (#3345470) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T """Therefore"? Dearie me. So science is all theories and nothing else. Well that isn't very brave, is it. Science is about seeking the truth."" It really isn't a question of bravery Steve. Since today's scientific knowledge is no more than a consensus of opinion, open to modification based on further evidence, it is nothing less than foolhardy to claim that it represents "truth" in any form whatsoever. The demise of the "Phlogiston Theory" is a very good case in point. Scientists of the day believed that burning removed something which they named "Phlogiston" which had a negative mass, thereby increasing the mass of the resultant product. Then came the discovery of oxygen, which is credited to Joseph Priestley, though Scheele and Lavoisier also had some input, and the theory was turned on its head with a new understanding of oxidation. The point is that NO scientific knowledge is ever fixed and immutable, so to claim that it is will at best be suspect, and at worst totally erroneous. Don T. |
|
30 Apr 12 - 08:48 PM (#3345481) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw I am not claiming that scientific knowledge is fixed and immutable. There is nothing fixed and immutable about evolutionary theory and that is well worth celebrating. But trying to compare what I'm saying with phlogiston theory is plain daft. The scientists of the day were guessing. They had no body of evidence for the existence of a substance called phlogiston. Speculation is not evidence and their reasoning went way beyond what was justified by their observations. In the case of evolution there is an overwhelmingly-huge body of good, solid, reproducible evidence that it occurs. It is not going beyond the bounds to say that the fact of evolution is incontrovertible. Not the details or the mechanisms or even some of the evidence, but the notion, the idea, the concept in its general thrust. You are never going to see that overturned. That evolution happens is not "a consensus of opinion." Like my fig tree, it's true. It's there. Like my fig tree, there's still plenty to work on. But....evolution, in its general thrust, is true! |
|
01 May 12 - 04:13 AM (#3345536) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stu "it is nothing less than foolhardy to claim that it represents "truth" in any form whatsoever" Not true. Science doesn't claim to represent absolute truth, although that is it's ultimate aim, because that truth helps us to understand the universe we live in, but it does claim to represent the truth as we understand it at present. In this claim to truth it's correct. |
|
01 May 12 - 05:25 AM (#3345562) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T The problem there is inherent in the terminology Jack. It begs the question "whose truth"?....Once you slide off unambiguous terms such as "theory", "evidence", reproducible experiment", "knowledge" and "proof", into subjective realms such as "belief", "truth" etc., you open the door for YECs like Pete to say "My truth is truer than yours". To cite scientific evidence, you need to do so scientifically, and although I deplore Snail's campaign of dislike and disdain toward Steve, I do feel that on this one point he is essentially correct. Don T. |
|
01 May 12 - 05:26 AM (#3345564) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw That's right. And as science becomes, er, more scientific (quite a leap from those phlogiston days to today, eh?), scientists become ever less dogmatic. The null hypothesis rules! Assuming that something must be false unless there is evidence. This principled approach (and I know I'm being a bit of idealist) has the virtue of allowing science to claim genuine truth when it finds it. Why not? That is, after all, what science is searching for. Only an idiot would claim that the whole of evolutionary theory is true, done and dusted, book closed, end of. But the gist of it, the thrust (shoot this man, somebody), is no longer vulnerable. So much of the detail is still very vulnerable, but no-one is ever going to come along, using evidence and reason, and be able to say that evolution does not occur. |
|
01 May 12 - 05:27 AM (#3345565) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw I was responding to Jack there. |
|
01 May 12 - 05:31 AM (#3345566) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Is truth always subjective then? "Belief" is another matter. That word somehow implies acceptance beyond what reason can deduce. The phlogiston guys poisoned their theory with too much of it. On the one hand, we're not all Mr Spocks. On the other, the more we rely exclusively on evidence and reason, the more sound science becomes. |
|
01 May 12 - 05:52 AM (#3345572) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stu The truth we're talking about here is empirical truth, as observed by scientific process. Hypotheses, theories, reproducible experiments and the many other methodologies are what science uses to discover the truth, not truths in themselves. There are no other truths, apart from those we can observe. What we deduce from these observable truths is a different matter altogether, but science uses methods that have been developed over centuries and are constantly reviewed and updated. So I can't see a problem with the terminology. If YEC's have a problem with it, it's because they don't understand it, and as can be seen from this thread there is a whole lot of fundamental misunderstanding about science. As for evolution being a belief system, there's another misunderstanding of how science works. |
|
01 May 12 - 06:08 AM (#3345579) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""So I can't see a problem with the terminology. If YEC's have a problem with it, it's because they don't understand it, and as can be seen from this thread there is a whole lot of fundamental misunderstanding about science. As for evolution being a belief system, there's another misunderstanding of how science works."" Which is the problem with the terminology Jack, and beautifully expressed. Pete's truth is "the bible is true and everything was created in seven days 6000 years ago!" Why use a word which puts your argument on the same level, when you have myriad other words to describe scientific progress? Don T. |
|
01 May 12 - 10:51 AM (#3345687) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: saulgoldie See YEC contd. This thread is BIG and takes a while to load. Saul |
|
01 May 12 - 11:44 AM (#3345700) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stringsinger Scientific knowledge is a consensus of opinion by scientists, not theologians or anyone who doesn't have the scientific discipline and information. Any other "truth" is silly and hypothetical because there is no physical evidence to support it. Without this evidence, there is no approximation of truth. Truth is a relative idea, there can be no absolute truth despite the propaganda offered by religious advocates. That "truth" is unsupportable by physical reality. What scientists know about evolution is evolving itself. The study of the human brain helps to clarify the role of evolution in influencing how we think about such matters as religion, politics, or evolution. Behavioral studies show how the conditioning we have in our lives influences how we think about topics such as evolution. Because of the brain-changing doubling down of certain behavioral patterns which are based on a rigid authoritarian view of life, there can be no rational discussion about these issues until mankind evolves beyond this limitation. The discussion becomes not a vehicle for sharing information but a "King of the Mountain" approach that dismisses any idea not held by the arguing party. |
|
01 May 12 - 03:54 PM (#3345802) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link don please be aware that my last post re carbon was in response to penny. as to c14 dating too far back to support YEC;IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT the method utilizes assumptions unproven .the point of the argument is that you have no doubts about its reliability.if as evolutionists teach diamonds are millenia old;why can carbon be found. penny.carbon comments noted but not really understood.any thoughts on how a formed hard diamond gets contaminated-in laymans terms if possible?. i read most of the paluxy article.i thought it seemed fair ,mostly. just to clarify that i made no claim re man tracks. cheap shot! it might be if it were not a response.is it a cheap shot only if a YEC uses it. pete |
|
01 May 12 - 04:07 PM (#3345808) Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Can we all post to the "YEC Eureka--Contd." thread, please! |
