Creation or Evolustionists theory [Archive] - Page 2

Phreaker47

11-17-2009, 12:33 AM

I watched video's and still hear assumption and conjecture the mouse was still a mouse and I have yet to see a transition from a lizard to a bird. When you again have proof yell a little louder. And no I didn't have to print whole article because he said what he said "YOU COULD BE WRONG" I never said I was right you make that claim. As usual you make unfounded claims with conjecture and assumption but if you read the articles the 1 outright lie is still in school books then again how many lies does it take to be a liar 1. And yeas I believe any evolutionist is a liar and I believe they are not scientist in definition of a scientist it is 2 different entities. Something else for you to deny. http://www.icr.org/article/455/

Oh boy, ICR! My faaaaaaaaaaaavorite! I've read more than a few interesting things about them. Some fun facts about their "degree programs":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research#School_and_accreditation
In 1988 the ICR sought reapproval, resulting in a visit by a five-man committee that found that its graduate school faculty comprised only five full-time staff, made partial reliance on videotaped courses for instruction, had inadequate laboratory instruction and facilities and that the school's doctrinal tenets* limited academic freedom. In spite of this, the committee initially voted 3-2 in favour of reapproval, only to reverse itself when a member changed his vote.[4] This resulted in California's Office of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction barring the institute from granting master's degrees in science, threatening their existing graduate degree programs in the teaching of biology, geology, astrogeophysics and science.[23] ICR filed a lawsuit against California's state superintendent, Bill Honig, and was awarded a settlement of $225,000 and given permission to continue its program until 1995 so long as it continued to teach evolution alongside creationism.[24] The original agreement expired in 1995, and California Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education granted the ICR religious exemption from postsecondary school requirements in California.[25]

* Interesting to note: those doctrinal tenets involve, upon enrolling, a pledge that you accept the bible as a 100% historically factual document. It really puts any rational person at a loss of words to then explain how "science" can be going on at that place. Generally, their approach is a literal backwards approach: First, we have all the answers already. Now, we'll only seek out evidence that supports bible facts. Then, we'll formulate questions that lead us to those answers. Of course, this is a series of crude square pegs crammed into round holes at every turn... however, they go on undeterred. They've got God on their side.

All I see is a fossil of an extinct animal and 1 at that. Again what did it look like is it from the bat/mouse family again not proof of anything 3 strikes your out. And yes I knew about that whatever it is and could have won a bet you'd bring it up. I guess will never know because nobody lived that long ago to document it. I think it's a flying horse prove me wrong:lol:.

Sir, have you been drinking tonight?

martib

11-17-2009, 04:51 AM

People I love when you assume to know where I get my information from again you are wrong. I quoted where exactly where I acquired my information but you missed that. You ask a question and I gave you direct quotes. If I put the sun out would there still be light by faith yes by your religion evolution no but neither of us can prove that. Your religion you have to believe what some men think is but again thats faith so you are guilty of what you accuse me of.:shake:

vivahate

11-17-2009, 05:02 AM

Your religion you have to believe what some men think is but again thats faith so you are guilty of what you accuse me of.:shake:

How many times do people say this nonsense?

People *accept* evolution based on quantifiable evidence.

If there were any quantifiable evidence for religion, it would no longer be called faith

talgot

11-17-2009, 05:39 AM

Why would God use the natural process of fusion to give light and warmth to our solar system? Revelation says that in heaven there will be no sun for the Glory of God will illuminate everything. Using your logic, he "should" have done that in the first place.

In the very begining , Genesis seems to infer that he was the light for the world until the sun and moon were created. It is actually quite a wonderful and prophetic revelation.He was the light of the world in the begining...God will be the light in the end. God uses natural means throughout the bible as to leave evidence of his work. If all he did was miracles faith would not be necessary. Using natural phenomenons, to show his work in the world, in most cases is his MO.

Libertarian

11-17-2009, 07:02 AM

God uses natural means throughout the bible as to leave evidence of his work.

Uh no...The bible is not full of "natural" descriptions of God's interventions.. It is loaded with the supernatural..with miracles that violate the known laws of nature..tales of burning (and talking) bushes, women being turned into salt, oceans splitting in half, water turning into wine, graves opening up so the dead can walk among the living, wizards, witchcraft, demons, exorcism, etc. It is not full of stories about DNA, gravity, photosynthesis, or other natural processes.

If all he did was miracles faith would not be necessary. Using natural phenomenons, to show his work in the world, in most cases is his MO.

How convenient. :lol:

superdan54

11-17-2009, 07:04 AM

In the very begining , Genesis seems to infer that he was the light for the world until the sun and moon were created. It is actually quite a wonderful and prophetic revelation.He was the light of the world in the begining...God will be the light in the end. God uses natural means throughout the bible as to leave evidence of his work. If all he did was miracles faith would not be necessary. Using natural phenomenons, to show his work in the world, in most cases is his MO.

I agree 100%, which is why I see no problem claiming God used a natural phenomenon to speciate and populate the entire world. Everything else in God's creation we have no problem attesting to natural processes, and even see it necessary to God's requirement of faith, but this one thing of creation we somehow think is simply an outright miracle.

talgot

11-17-2009, 07:58 AM

I agree 100%, which is why I see no problem claiming God used a natural phenomenon to speciate and populate the entire world. Everything else in God's creation we have no problem attesting to natural processes, and even see it necessary to God's requirement of faith, but this one thing of creation we somehow think is simply an outright miracle.

I agree God used natural phenomenons to speciate and populate the world. Where we now seem to differ is you now think it was done through millions of years of evolution. That is just not compatible with the bible Dan. If your faith is based on the scriptures and that it is the word of God than you are in a pickle.

1 Corinthians 15:45 It is even so written, "The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life giving spirit. (The "last Adam" was Jesus) . You can I suppose believe in a God and believe in evolution. But I don't see how you can believe in evolution and the God of the bible. Which is why so many here try to destroy the bible mostly on that truth. Jesus knew of Adam. If you believe in Jesus, and not that Adam was the first of us, than one is out of sync.

martib

11-17-2009, 08:16 AM

This confirms why I reject evolution

Acts 5:29
Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

God confirming His existence and the Only God

Isaiah 44:6-8 (King James Version) 6Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. 7And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them. 8Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

For those who think they do good for mankind

Mark 10:18 (King James Version) 18And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God
.
This is for those Christians that claim the evolution faith

Romans 12:1-3 (King James Version) 1I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. 2And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. 3For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.
James 4:4 (King James Version) 4Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God
1 John 2:15 (King James Version) 15Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

My God is the only God that makes this CLAIM

Isaiah 44:6-8 (King James Version) 6Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. 7And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them. 8Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.
Isaiah 45:5 (King James Version) 5I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

This is the reason I won�t be pull into your arguments:

Proverbs 9:8 (King James Version) 8Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.
Proverbs 23:9 9Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
Proverbs 29:9 9If a wise man contendeth with a foolish man, whether he rage or laugh, there is no rest.

This is why I and others believe as we do, not because we have to give an oath it is required by God himself

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (King James Version) 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Libertarian

11-17-2009, 09:04 AM

I agree God used natural phenomenons to speciate and populate the world. Where we now seem to differ is you now think it was done through millions of years of evolution. That is just not compatible with the bible Dan.

Dan is an example of speciation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation) in progress. It's a beautiful thing. ;) His willingness to open his mind..to accept reality, gain new knowledge, and to grow as a living being (his ability to *EVOLVE* in other words) will ensure that his genes are passed far down the evolutionary tree into the future..long after the remnants of today's religious dogmatists go the way of the dodo bird.

talgot

11-17-2009, 09:35 AM

martib

11-17-2009, 10:21 AM

redmaxx

11-17-2009, 10:23 AM

martib

11-17-2009, 10:33 AM

libertarian,

You are correct one day people such as you will rule the world and again you are correct we Christians will be gone. Read the book Revelations

Libertarian

11-17-2009, 10:56 AM

You are correct one day people such as you will rule the world and again you are correct we Christians will be gone. Read the book Revelations

http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh253/Lenka_falconer/2ba100.jpg

P.S. People like me don't want to rule anything.

talgot

11-17-2009, 11:06 AM

Again you put limits on God. You're saying that because a Christian did not discover the idea, God couldn't have used evolution as a tool?

No he is saying there is no evidence biblically for you to believe God used macro evolution as a tool. God said Let us create man in our Image. Unless you believe the image of God means a no spirit, single celled life?

redmaxx

11-17-2009, 12:01 PM

No he is saying there is no evidence biblically for you to believe God used macro evolution as a tool.

No, he's saying that God couldn't have used evolution.

God said Let us create man in our Image. Unless you believe the image of God means a no spirit, single celled life?

If you're a painter and you're painting a picture of a real event, does that picture appear in it's entirety with one brush stroke?

Now, I'm not saying that it has to be one way or another (although I personally believe evolution was the tool God used) but I think it's definitely wrong to say God couldn't have used one particular tool, especially given the mountain of evidence available to us.

superdan54

11-17-2009, 12:24 PM

Dan is an example of speciation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation) in progress. It's a beautiful thing. ;) His willingness to open his mind..to accept reality, gain new knowledge, and to grow as a living being (his ability to *EVOLVE* in other words) will ensure that his genes are passed far down the evolutionary tree into the future..long after the remnants of today's religious dogmatists go the way of the dodo bird.

Well I don't want to give the impression that we're completely on the same page ;).

I may invest my life into truly seeking and accepting reality, but reality is in the eye of the beholder, and from my vantage point (experiential & evidential), there is just as much evidence for the atoning death & resurrection of Christ as there is for the natural processes that govern the universe.

So in the end, while we can still occasionally fist-bump, I'm going to ultimately cast my lot with my brethren.

superdan54

11-17-2009, 12:51 PM

I agree God used natural phenomenons to speciate and populate the world. Where we now seem to differ is you now think it was done through millions of years of evolution. That is just not compatible with the bible Dan. If your faith is based on the scriptures and that it is the word of God than you are in a pickle.

I understand your reservations, I really do. They are certainly not things to hand wave away, and I have considered them for many years. My desire is not that you come to believe in evolution, I would far rather you have a fulfilling life in Christ. I simply can't help but see reality for what it is, even if it contradicts a literal reading of Scripture. And I desire that unbelievers who also see this reality not be turned away from the light of the Gospel because of what they perceive as ignorance. This is by no means the most virtuous or righteous means of evangelism, rather I find it often self-reliant and scatterbrained. But regardless I feel it is my calling.

1 Corinthians 15:45 It is even so written, "The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life giving spirit. (The "last Adam" was Jesus) . You can I suppose believe in a God and believe in evolution. But I don't see how you can believe in evolution and the God of the bible. Which is why so many here try to destroy the bible mostly on that truth. Jesus knew of Adam. If you believe in Jesus, and not that Adam was the first of us, than one is out of sync.

I don't want you to think I'm ignoring this or avoiding it, however I don't feel led to really dive into how I approach these texts right now.

talgot

11-17-2009, 12:54 PM

No, he's saying that God couldn't have used evolution. I am saying that too. You have no basis for believing the bible is the word of God and drawing evolution from it. If you believe the bible is the word of God, you are deceived that he used evolution as a tool when you have no basis for it in scripture. Especially when scripture says the opposite. You can't have your cake and eat it too unfortunately, my friend.

If you're a painter and you're painting a picture of a real event, does that picture appear in it's entirety with one brush stroke?

No, but your analogy is flawed. God is not bound to natural law. But let's say we take your analogy for a moment, Did God paint a star first? did he paint space?Did he paint all of non life and life in a tiny dot and then let it expode into what we have now? When did he inject spirits? What poor ape/ human missed the cut-off into getting a spirit and soul? Or did the first cell have a soul? You can see where I am going with this.

To have evolution occur as you and Dan and others here say you have to make some big leaps and pretty much conclude, as some here try, that God doesn't exist and that a position that you and Dan take now make it unfeasable for AGod to have dominion and his rightful place in our lives. For the text we all believe on are false and we are not his special creation.. we are no better than a rock or a single cell.

Now, I'm not saying that it has to be one way or another (although I personally believe evolution was the tool God used) but I think it's definitely wrong to say God couldn't have used one particular tool, especially given the mountain of evidence available to us.Of course God "could" use any tool he wishes. But you have zero evidence that God used it. God in any of his text surely hasn't alluded to it.

superdan54

11-17-2009, 01:00 PM

To the "christian evolutionists"the father of evolution was an atheist and most of the predominate ones are now lets see what Gods word says about that-

2 Corinthians 6:14 (King James Version)
14Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

If you claim to be a saved Bible believing Christian how do you resolve this because many of you "christians" bought into this and if you read prior staunch "scientific evolutionists" they don't believe in the Christian God. Go ahead and throw that one out there ask how many believe in the God of the Bible.:wave:

I'm not "yoked" to any agnostic/athiest under the grounds of Darwin's evolutionary theory any more than I am "yoked" to an agnostic/athiest American who's very foundation of freedom came from a document written by a staunch deist (Jefferson).

That said, it may be a valid point to some small degree, however both sides are guilty of it. Do you accuse Dembski and others in the Intelligent Design camp of yoking with unbelievers such as David Berlinski? Or even YEC organizations such as Answers In Genesis, which openly promote Non-Christian authored books, so long as the content supports their own ideals? (One example would be their consistent use and promotion of Dr. Lee Spetner's book Not by Chance.)

btw - in answer to your question of how many scientists believe in God....well the answer hasn't changed much this past century, and it's a lot higher than you are probably thinking ;).

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n22_v91/ai_19332942/

darkfrog

11-17-2009, 01:34 PM

I simply can't help but see reality for what it is, even if it contradicts a literal reading of Scripture. And I desire that unbelievers who also see this reality not be turned away from the light of the Gospel because of what they perceive as ignorance.I believe this to be a very profound insight. I have heard recently that church attendance has been on a steady decline for some time. I'm not exactly sure how true this is but my own experience with people I know makes me think it is.
Could some of this be a backlash to what is perceived as a highly untenable position for most thinking people? Most Christians don't seem to have a problem accepting the heliocentric model of our solar system, an idea that was heretical at one point. Why is this so different?

Phreaker47

11-17-2009, 01:47 PM

I believe this to be a very profound insight. I have heard recently that church attendance has been on a steady decline for some time. I'm not exactly sure how true this is but my own experience with people I know makes me think it is.
Could some of this be a backlash to what is perceived as a highly untenable position for most thinking people? Most Christians don't seem to have a problem accepting the heliocentric model of our solar system, an idea that was heretical at one point. Why is this so different?

I suppose it's more digestible to accept the Earth revolving around the sun, with the evidence being more simple and observable... such as witnessing a season pass and understanding it's a simple matter of a few coordinates. Natural selection is just as readily apparent to anyone that cares to honestly investigate a little, but not so easily observed at a casual level.

martib

11-17-2009, 02:10 PM

darkfrog

11-17-2009, 02:44 PM

My statement on yoking was directed at a Christian not at others who you think are wrong. Why do you always fall back on blaming somebody else for not doing something you perceive as wrong The Bible is directed at the person reading it! You are responsible for obeying Gods Word don't worry what the other person is doing if you are guilty too.Obviously your yoked to atheism through evolution because atheists support there is no God. And nowhere in the Bible is evolution supported it is a man made belief.
Can you tell me where atomic theory is mentioned in the bible. How about the reality of spacetime warping or the mention of the nuclear energy that powers the stars? Are you seriously claiming that anything man discovers, that if it's not in the bible it cannot be true? Maybe your god wants you to be a thoughtless automaton, blindly ignoring evidence that tells you the literal creation story is a myth. Accept that the bible itself is a product of man as most modern theologians will agree and BTW, teach in seminary. Labeling everyone that disagrees with you as wrong, unrighteous, or led by Beelzebub is only going to confirm you are delusional.
BTW, some punctuation and grammar would go a long way in getting your message across.

superdan54

11-17-2009, 03:30 PM

Most Christians don't seem to have a problem accepting the heliocentric model of our solar system, an idea that was heretical at one point. Why is this so different?

Your right in that the situation is not that much different. At the heart of the matter is really man's importance in Creation. The heliocentric model blew apart man's idea that he was the center of the universe. Evolution dismantles the idea that man is a physically & morphologically special part of Creation. Both positions are upheld by literal readings of scripture, and subsequently worked around using alternate interpretations/contexts.

My statement on yoking was directed at a Christian not at others who you think are wrong. Why do you always fall back on blaming somebody else for not doing something you perceive as wrong The Bible is directed at the person reading it! You are responsible for obeying Gods Word don't worry what the other person is doing if you are guilty too.Obviously your yoked to atheism through evolution because atheists support there is no God. And nowhere in the Bible is evolution supported it is a man made belief.

I'm honestly not sure who and what you are referring to here. It would also help if you use the quote block feature so we know which specific post/argument you are responding to.

darkfrog

11-17-2009, 03:48 PM

Your right in that the situation is not that much different. At the heart of the matter is really man's importance in Creation. The heliocentric model blew apart man's idea that he was the center of the universe. Evolution dismantles the idea that man is a physically & morphologically special part of Creation. Both positions are upheld by literal readings of scripture, and subsequently worked around using alternate interpretations/contexts.
I disagree with those that think that way. When I think about creation, I think about how every glass of water I drink has hydrogen atoms that were created at the beginning of time, how every other atom in my body was forged in the center of stars, along with those of everyone else, I feel a profound, if not poetic connection to creation, just not the one in the bible. However, if there is a god that started this wondrous process, I can't see how reality diminishes him.

martib

11-17-2009, 04:28 PM

martib

11-17-2009, 04:36 PM

Dan,

It was directed at you and others. God doesn't need any tools to do his will for you to understand.

Isaiah 55:8-9 (English Standard Version)

8For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.
9(A) For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

darkfrog

11-17-2009, 05:17 PM

darkfrog,

Your not a Christian so of coarse you disagree with everything I say. Your position is moot to me as mine is to you. I really don't care if you like my grammar or not it's just your way of causing a distraction from the truth of evolution being in fact a religion. I never said all science is invalid just evolution and evolution alone. So please stop accusing me of your false statements and if you can't remember what I said in a prior statement don't expect me to remind you with silly prompts. Pay attention to the subject and maybe you'll get your facts correct a stop accusing me of what I think or don't think. The burden is on you I've claimed faith from the beginning you claim erroneous science"evolution" and can not admit its all faith on your part too.
You appear to think you have a monopoly on truth. You accuse me of putting words into your mouth but I am merely going by what you say. If you need, look back at what I quoted, it is clear you implied that if it isn't supported in the bible and man-made then it is invalid. Do you see those little curling things at the end of sentences? Those are question marks. It means I'm not accusing you but asking you how your statements are compatible with acceptance of other science. As already explained, evolution is not a single science as you seem to think but it takes evidence from many areas, and therefore logically, you would have to disregard those other sciences as you do evolution. It's not a matter of what I am claiming about you but it is your very words that put you in this position.
You refuse to even answer any questions and continually use ad hominem attacks against me and others. If you are going to be so unresponsive, why even bother coming here to debate at all?

martib

11-17-2009, 05:43 PM

darkfrog

11-17-2009, 06:09 PM

I ask questions and you spout your religion "evolution" I don't believe in your religion and you don't believe in mine. I've from the beginning claimed faith only but you make up theorys as you go.Evolution has nothing to do with true science because nobody was back "millions" of years to document and say the fossils are "millions" of years old. All dating tests are flawed because you don't have no items that you know that are 1 million,10 million or a billion years old to calibrate the equipment with. So tell me how old are fossils? Now I use test equipment all the time and it has to be calibrated and they use known repeatable settings that they can acquire and test. Now tell me how you no how old fossils are?

I have answered every question you have asked on good faith. I have yet to see you answer many questions here, including Dan who asked, "Do you apply the same fatalistic approach to Biblical archaeology? I'm interested to know what you think is valid in any study of prehistory."
Here's an answer to your question about dating - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html

Do you really think physicists are so dense that they don't calibrate their machines?
PS What I said was man-made was "evolutionist religion" nothing more get your facts right.Oh stop. That's not even the whole quote and you know it. Of course evolutionary theory is man-devised, that doesn't make it wrong but you CLEARLY claimed it was because it wasn't in the bible! That's what I said you claimed and I am right, don't deny it. I extended your rant and ASKED you about other sciences that were also not validated in the bible, that's all. If you can't summarize MY argument accurately, don't bitch and moan about others doing that to you.

martib

11-17-2009, 06:33 PM

darkfrog

11-17-2009, 06:46 PM

Ok I'll have a go at it 1st Radio carbon dating is inaccurate-http://www.essortment.com/hobbies/carbondatingac_szhq.htm. 2nd explain Ayers rock it is side ways notice the strata-http://www.crystalinks.com/ayersrock.html. And nowhere in the world can the strata be found in the order proclaimed. Take a look at something the happened in our lifetime Mount St. Helen's the strata was laid in less than three days. Now if this wasn't recorded what would be the outcome if we checked this known strata to a not witnessed strata. So now how do we known this hasn't happened again and again. We have a known strata that we know is wrong but we ASSUME unknown strata is correct. Circular theory isn't it. See I can answer questions.

First off, at least read my links. It never mentions radiocarbon dating as a primary means of dating rock. There are many different radiometric dating methods, and it is not unusual to perform many different tests on the same specimen. Isn't it interesting when they corroborate each other? You can claim a watch is broken but if it shows the same time as 3 or 4 other watches, it becomes quite probable they are all correct. But of course these physicists are dumb because they are evil-utionists, right? Funny how you claim it's only evolution you think is invalid but here you attack nuclear physics. This is what I mean when I tell you that you cannot separate evolution from other science.

Your second link gave a 404 error. Here's what I found about Ayers, something you could have found with a quick google search if you were so inclined.

Ayers Rock, or Uluru, in central Australia, is the second largest monolith in the world, second only to Mt Augustus, in Western Australia. Explorer William Gosse, of the South Australian Survey Department, became the first European explorer to visit Ayers Rock, which he sighted on 18 July 1873.

Geological studies estimate that Ayers Rock was created anywhere between five thousand and 500 million years ago, when central Australia was inundated by a sea. Sand built up over time on the seabed, adhering over time just like sandstone is formed. Ayers Rock and the nearby Olgas (also known as Kata Tjuta) are part of the same sandstone slab beneath the Earth's surface. The oceans receded due to movement of the continents, and huge forces within the Earth's crust caused parts of the sandstone slab to lift and fold. Parts of this sandstone slab tilted 90 degrees, which is why the sandstone layers of Ayers Rock actually run almost vertically, rather than horizontally. Over time, wind and rain gradually eroded away the softer parts of the rock. It is estimated that only one-eighth of Ayers Rock is actually visible above the surface - the rest of it is underground, continuing for 5-6 kilometres.
I guess now geology is an evil religion too, huh?

martib

11-17-2009, 06:51 PM

Missed the strata part huh? And you have nothing thats known to be "millions" of years old to confirm accuracy?

darkfrog

11-17-2009, 07:01 PM

Missed the strata part huh?I'm not sure what you are talking about. Most volcanic activity is short term, how does that invalidate anything? The KT boundary appears to have been deposited in a very short time period and it's the high levels of iridium, along with a dating of 65mya that gives support to the claim of an asteroid impact wiping out the dinosaurs. It wasn't witnessed by anyone either but the evidence is solid that there was an impact, less so that it was the sole event that caused the extinction.

darkfrog

11-17-2009, 07:07 PM

Missed the strata part huh? And you have nothing thats known to be "millions" of years old to confirm accuracy?
I just told you, different methods are used to confirm. If they all come up with the same date but using different timepieces, it becomes very improbable that it is wrong.
Read this article (http://books.google.com/books?id=QQEAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=confimation+of+radiometric+dating&source=bl&ots=M9wfcHFLLn&sig=2UH3gNYZj_Pxv45_pjs051_un8s&hl=en&ei=LWUDS5rXMsaAnQfSmJhi&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=&f=false)

martib

11-17-2009, 07:20 PM

Could it have been a giant rock blasted out of a volcano and hit making the crater I'm just asking because I wasn't there. Lets use your watch theory I have 4 watches that read 4 o'clock but the atomic clock reads 3 o'clock it's 4 to 1.

martib

11-17-2009, 07:31 PM

superdan54

11-17-2009, 07:49 PM

darkfrog

11-17-2009, 07:55 PM

I'll pick this conversation tomorrow but I'll leave this question for you and think carefully before you answer because I already know the out come. How are dinosaurs or anything made into fossils? There is only 1 answer to this question and it's a short one.
What, are you google deficient or something? http://www.fossilmuseum.net/fossilrecord/fossilization/fossilization.htm

Phreaker47

11-17-2009, 10:29 PM

Take a look at something the happened in our lifetime Mount St. Helen's the strata was laid in less than three days. Now if this wasn't recorded what would be the outcome if we checked this known strata to a not witnessed strata. So now how do we known this hasn't happened again and again. We have a known strata that we know is wrong but we ASSUME unknown strata is correct. Circular theory isn't it. See I can answer questions.

Missed the strata part huh? And you have nothing thats known to be "millions" of years old to confirm accuracy?

This is something Dr. Steve Austin (apparent #1 hero of Young Earth Creationist geology) harps on. An excerpt from a skeptic's visit to ICR: (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-visit/bartelt1.html)

An Introductory Lecture

Geologist Dr. Steve Austin began his lecture by showing us a video which he said was also shown at the Mt. St. Helens visitor center. The Mt. St. Helens eruption was described in accurate detail, and there was a great emphasis on the velocities of the mudflows, and the amounts of material that were removed and deposited elsewhere.

It was Austin's intention to use the St. Helen's eruption to convince us that catastrophes can cause rapid, large-scale changes on the earth's surface. Austin said that he had once been an evolutionist, but that his observations of the Mt. St. Helens eruption had converted him to catastrophism and creationism. (More about that later). He set up a "straw man", implying that his "catastrophist" view of geology was something new and revolutionary in the geologic world, and that the "uniformitarian" (ie, mainstream) geologists totally ignore the role of volcanoes and other catastrophic events in the shaping the earth. One of our group leaders, a Ph.D. paleontologist, took Austin to task for having such a simplistic view.

Austin continued his presentation by showing us some of his slides of the Mt. St. Helens area. One slide was simply described as showing "strata 25 feet high deposited by Mt. St. Helens". He referred to this stratified volcanic ash only as "sedimentary rock", and observed that it took only a few hours to be deposited in layers. What was implied here, of course, was that large-scale sedimentary strata, such as the limestones and sandstones of Illinois, could be deposited in a similar, rapid manner. I asked Austin whether he had any evidence that any of the more typical sedimentary rock - limestone, sandstone, or shale, had ever been deposited rapidly, but he provided no such example. Our group's level of geologic expertise was above average, but I wonder how many less-skeptical people have left such presentations thinking that all sedimentary rocks show evidence of rapid deposition.

The last bolded part is key. Austin implies that any kind of sedimentary rock could stratify just as quickly as the volcanic ash from Mt. St. Helen. And as you can see, when questioned for evidence for any of these other types of examples, he had none. Common sense would tell most anyone that something like limestone isn't just going to pile up and layer as quickly as ash from a giant eruption would.

Anonymouse

11-18-2009, 03:23 AM

Kramer lives in Wisconsin.
If I EVER run across him, I am going to definitely go out to my car and grab the tire iron and whack him one time on the foot for creating this zombie thread.

Hollywood has nothing on Kramer. This thread has seen more lives & more revivals than Freddie Kruger, Jason Voorhees, Michael Myers, Night of the Living Dead, James Bond, Charlie Chan, Sherlock Holmes, Godzilla, American Pie, Dirty Harry, Airplane, Police Academy, Batman, Superman, Terminator, Highlander, The Mummy, Dracula, Ernest, Jackie Chan, Jet Li, Hannibal Lector, Lethal Weapon, Austin Powers, X-Men, Rocky, Indiana Jones, National Lampoon, and the Alien beast combined.

martib

11-18-2009, 04:46 AM

Dan,

It is directed at you and others that believe that God needed tools "evolution" in His creation.
God doesn't need us to understand how He did things> God Spoke and it is.

martib

11-18-2009, 05:07 AM

Libertarian

11-18-2009, 05:20 AM

I ask questions and you spout your religion "evolution" I don't believe in your religion and you don't believe in mine. I've from the beginning claimed faith only but you make up theorys as you go.Evolution has nothing to do with true science
Dan,
It is directed at you and others that believe that God needed tools "evolution" in His creation.
God doesn't need us to understand how He did things> God Spoke and it is.
If you believe the bible is the word of God, you are deceived that he used evolution as a tool when you have no basis for it in scripture. Especially when scripture says the opposite.
Of course God "could" use any tool he wishes. But you have zero evidence that God used it. God in any of his text surely hasn't alluded to it.

If you guys want Dan to remain on your side, you really should stop posting. I have a feeling the more he sees of this rigid-minded nonsense, the less he will want to consider himself one of your "brethren".

talgot

11-18-2009, 05:29 AM

If you guys want Dan to remain on your side, you really should stop posting. I have a feeling the more he sees of this rigid-minded nonsense, the less he will want to consider himself one of your "brethren".
And your mocking tone of his faith doesn't?? Laughable. He is not holden to me or anyone else.

Libertarian

11-18-2009, 05:42 AM

And your mocking tone of his faith doesn't?? Laughable. He is not holden to me or anyone else.

I am not mocking his faith. I made a post (http://slickdeals.net/forums/showpost.php?p=24692508&postcount=250) a few pages back praising him for taking such a sensible view on things. He is at least attempting to reconcile his faith with reality..rather than denying the facts of reality to cling to biblical literalism.

superdan54

11-18-2009, 07:08 AM

Dan,

It is directed at you and others that believe that God needed tools "evolution" in His creation.
God doesn't need us to understand how He did things> God Spoke and it is.

Isaiah 55 has nothing to do with creation but salvation. It's a beautiful section, one that decries the angry God stereotype of the OT.

I don't believe God "needed" tools such as evolution more than I believe he "needs" gravity to hold everything on our planet in place. Ancient man was superstitious and greatly ignorant in most areas of science. The passage could just as easily be applied to that idea. God's ways & thoughts are higher than man's simple reasonings.

If you guys want Dan to remain on your side, you really should stop posting. I have a feeling the more he sees of this rigid-minded nonsense, the less he will want to consider himself one of your "brethren".

I know it's understandably hard for you to grasp, but I really do sympathize with their position. After all, even the Bible tells of a man who followed the same path I traverse...

Ecclesiates 1:17-18
17 And I set my mind to know wisdom and to know madness and folly; I realized that this also is striving after wind.
18 Because in much wisdom there is much grief, and increasing knowledge results in increasing pain.

vangolu

11-18-2009, 08:16 AM

martib, are you trying to argue that if God wanted to use evolution, it couldnt do so?

martib

11-18-2009, 08:32 AM

I'm not arguing nothing "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" in 6 literal 24 hour days. Evolution did not exist so where do you see an argument?

martib

11-18-2009, 08:36 AM

Dan,

Ecclesiates 1:17-18

This is talking about Solomon being out of the will of God and despairing over it.

Epiphyte

11-18-2009, 08:39 AM

I'm not arguing nothing "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" in 6 literal 24 hour days. Evolution did not exist so where do you see an argument?

The "six literal 24 hour days" part is your own interpretation. It's perfectly reasonable for other Christians to interpret that differently. For those Christians, God may have used evolution as a means of creation.

talgot

11-18-2009, 09:22 AM

The "six literal 24 hour days" part is your own interpretation. It's perfectly reasonable for other Christians to interpret that differently. For those Christians, God may have used evolution as a means of creation.

First you need to show scripturely how one gets that from the text. Sure anyone can interpret what they want. What basis for that is the question. I would urge you to show how one can "interpret" scripture to get to a non literal 6 days. Your only option is to ignore Genisis as literal in itself or just ignore all other scripture that clearly shows the bible refers to creation as 6 literal days.

superdan54

11-18-2009, 09:27 AM

Dan,

Ecclesiates 1:17-18

This is talking about Solomon being out of the will of God and despairing over it.

I'm not going to turn this into an exegetical debate unless you bring something other than speculation. Yes, he was outside of God's will, but certainly not for seeking wisdom. Remember that was something divinely granted to him in the first place. Regardless, it doesn't discount the point I was making, and I'm not sure what you're trying to imply...unless you're saying I'm outside the will of God for seeking wisdom & knowledge.

vangolu

11-18-2009, 09:37 AM

I'm not arguing nothing "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" in 6 literal 24 hour days. Evolution did not exist so where do you see an argument?

Yes you are arguing that God couldnt use Evolution if it wanted to. How do you know Evolution did not exist. Who are you to decide what God can and will use for whatever purpose. Just because God didnt say it directly, you conclude that it doesnt. You cannot speak for God, you are not God's PR rep. God doesnt have to explain every decision it makes to you or to anyone else. It gave mankind a mind to use and understand the world around so we can understand its actions to the best of our abilities. It gave the holy books to guide us during the mankinds infancy and had to explain the world to the men in a way it can relate to.

Epiphyte

11-18-2009, 10:18 AM

First you need to show scripturely how one gets that from the text. Sure anyone can interpret what they want. What basis for that is the question. I would urge you to show how one can "interpret" scripture to get to a non literal 6 days. Your only option is to ignore Genisis as literal in itself or just ignore all other scripture that clearly shows the bible refers to creation as 6 literal days.

I'm not here to convince you that your view of the bible is wrong. I'm saying that other people have different interpretations, and for them evolution might be a tool God uses. There's no point in explaining someone else's interpretation of the bible if you have a clearly different interpretation. You're going to disagree, regardless. And really, you should if you're very confident in your own faith.

martib

11-18-2009, 10:53 AM

Epiphyte

11-18-2009, 10:56 AM

A day is a day: Genius 5: And the EVENING and MORNING were the 1st DAY,Gen 8-2nd day, Gen 13-3dr day, Gen 19 4th day, Gen 23 5th day, Gen 31 6th day:wave: Now I haven;t interpreted anything Gen:14 says for days and years. Man was created on the 6th day therefore he was created sometime on the 6th day in a 24 hour period. And please don't use "With God One Day is a Thousand Years�http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3414 it just don't hold water. Again evolution is moot here.

For your interpretation. Yes. But, other people have different interpretations of the bible that allow God to use evolution as a tool in creation. Do you disagree with those interpretations? Yes, of course you do, or they would be your own.

martib

11-18-2009, 11:08 AM

martib

11-18-2009, 11:12 AM

Go here and see how your" interpretations' have dishonored God's WORD http://www.av1611.org/ on the left hand column you'll see most so called newer ,better interpretations.

talgot

11-18-2009, 11:36 AM

Go here and see how your" interpretations' have dishonored God's WORD http://www.av1611.org/ on the left hand column you'll see most so called newer ,better interpretations.

If you are replying to a specific post .. use the reply button in that post so it shows the post in quotes you are talking to. It gets confusing who you are talking to if you don't.

vivahate

11-18-2009, 11:45 AM

Go here and see how your" interpretations' have dishonored God's WORD http://www.av1611.org/ on the left hand column you'll see most so called newer ,better interpretations.

that site is comedy gold. Especially the 666 section.

vangolu

11-18-2009, 12:03 PM

vangolu,

You have no idea what your talking about. Your inserting something into God's word"adding to"that is not necessary. I will never do that because God's warns of that and it ain't a good outcome. The Jews of the old testament knew nothing of evolution or they would have written it down. They were in direct communication with God through Moses,Aaron and then the Prophets. All the apostles had direct communication with Jesus and no "evolution" spoke of. So why do you think all of the sudden your privy to revelation from God when it ended with the closing of the NEW TESTAMENT. You are indeed adding your " mans opinion" to Gods Word.

martib,

You have no clue what you are talking about.

You still have not answered the simple question of "Could God have used evolution as a way"? You are taking a literal interpretation of events who had to be dumbed down so early humans can understand.

So now answer the simple question of should OT be taken as literally or not? If its NOT then your God could not have used evolution argument holds no water, if it IS to be held as literally, well then I am sure others will have some more questions about your habits which are permitable in the OT and if you follow them.

God gave mankind a mind so it can have "an opinion" and understand God better. Even as a child we start with small colorfull books and as we understand and expand our knowledge move on to more complex books or can see the hidden meanings within the books.

Because I am sure you know that Animal Farm/Alice in Wonderland is more then a childrens book, right..

Remember that it is many "men opinions" that now enables you to reply to this message

Phreaker47

11-18-2009, 12:18 PM

darkfrog,

It may have been a meteor hit but causing the extinction of the dinosaurs is a far stretch, again is a theory because it's not documented. Please stop using the IRC because you think thats where you assume I obtained my information. I can read and have many sources. This is an example of you assuming what I said and think again. And it doesn't matter if Austin has other examples fact is there are active volcano's today and are spewing out rock, dirt and lava. And what about all the flooding that is going on today how many tons of sediment are being tumbled as we speak and all this has been going on for years. So now tell me how accurate the strata is and how you KNOW the bottom layer is older than the top layer. Please don't tell there are places it hasn't happened because there is no record of that. By the way this is all logic don't need references it is observable today all over the world. See now we're back to circular theory. Yes I can google petrification I just need you to tell me what you know about it and how you extrapolated it so we can continue your time testing theory and

You addressed darkfrog but you seem to be answering my post. Again it would be helpful if you used the "quote" feature. By IRC I guess you meant ICR? Anyway, *you* posted an ICR link as one of your arguments. Then you mentioned the Mt. St. Helen example, which happens to be something they like to talk about over at ICR. So nothing about my response "assumed" what you thought, it was pretty clear what particular YEC pseudo-science you were deriving your statements from. It is the clumsy and well-debunked "Catastrophism" argument used by people like Austin to attempt to crowbar in "evidence" that the Earth is only six to ten thousand years old. I suppose you'd also argue that the Grand Canyon was carved out in only a few days as well? That's another one of Austin's babies. Some kind of claim that the Great Flood did it. They even have their own bus tour out there with a whole brainwashing presentation for you, so you can actually witness one of the Seven Wonders in person while you are being fed ridiculous misinformation about it. I'm sure you'd enjoy it.

By the way, actually yes it does indeed matter very much that Austin had no explanations to offer about how other sedimentary rock could layer as quickly as ashes. It proves that what he's claiming is half-assed and weak. In honest science, crap like this wouldn't make it past the early stages of hypothesis, much less make it as a theory.

superdan54

11-18-2009, 12:35 PM

Go here and see how your" interpretations' have dishonored God's WORD http://www.av1611.org/ on the left hand column you'll see most so called newer ,better interpretations.

Well I should have guessed you were a King-James only advocate. You must think then that my interpretation of "unicorn" in passages such as Number 23:22 as actually referring to a wild ox (auroch) is also dishonoring God's word. We really have nothing more to discuss.

Phreaker47

11-18-2009, 12:37 PM

Well I should have guessed you were a King-James only advocate. You must think then that my interpretation of "unicorn" in passages such as Number 23:22 as actually referring to a wild ox (auroch) is also dishonoring God's word. We really have nothing more to discuss.

You know what Dan, guys like that make me appreciate guys like you a lot more. :woot:

martib

11-18-2009, 12:54 PM

For your interpretation. Yes. But, other people have different interpretations of the bible that allow God to use evolution as a tool in creation. Do you disagree with those interpretations? Yes, of course you do, or they would be your own.

Go here and see how your" interpretations' have dishonored God's WORD http://www.av1611.org/ on the left hand column you'll see most so called newer ,better interpretations.

martib

11-18-2009, 12:56 PM

martib,

You have no clue what you are talking about.

You still have not answered the simple question of "Could God have used evolution as a way"? You are taking a literal interpretation of events who had to be dumbed down so early humans can understand.

So now answer the simple question of should OT be taken as literally or not? If its NOT then your God could not have used evolution argument holds no water, if it IS to be held as literally, well then I am sure others will have some more questions about your habits which are permitable in the OT and if you follow them.

God gave mankind a mind so it can have "an opinion" and understand God better. Even as a child we start with small colorfull books and as we understand and expand our knowledge move on to more complex books or can see the hidden meanings within the books.

Because I am sure you know that Animal Farm/Alice in Wonderland is more then a childrens book, right..

Remember that it is many "men opinions" that now enables you to reply to this message

New Testament supersedes Old testament

martib

11-18-2009, 01:00 PM

You addressed darkfrog but you seem to be answering my post. Again it would be helpful if you used the "quote" feature. By IRC I guess you meant ICR? Anyway, *you* posted an ICR link as one of your arguments. Then you mentioned the Mt. St. Helen example, which happens to be something they like to talk about over at ICR. So nothing about my response "assumed" what you thought, it was pretty clear what particular YEC pseudo-science you were deriving your statements from. It is the clumsy and well-debunked "Catastrophism" argument used by people like Austin to attempt to crowbar in "evidence" that the Earth is only six to ten thousand years old. I suppose you'd also argue that the Grand Canyon was carved out in only a few days as well? That's another one of Austin's babies. Some kind of claim that the Great Flood did it. They even have their own bus tour out there with a whole brainwashing presentation for you, so you can actually witness one of the Seven Wonders in person while you are being fed ridiculous misinformation about it. I'm sure you'd enjoy it.

By the way, actually yes it does indeed matter very much that Austin had no explanations to offer about how other sedimentary rock could layer as quickly as ashes. It proves that what he's claiming is half-assed and weak. In honest science, crap like this wouldn't make it past the early stages of hypothesis, much less make it as a theory.

I used a specific example on ICR not all they have printed. I don't agree with everything they have there. That why I said Please stop referring back to them.

Well I should have guessed you were a King-James only advocate. You must think then that my interpretation of "unicorn" in passages such as Number 23:22 as actually referring to a wild ox (auroch) is also dishonoring God's word. We really have nothing more to discuss.

Your absolutely correct we have nothing in common.

martib

11-18-2009, 01:04 PM

You know what Dan, guys like that make me appreciate guys like you a lot more. :woot:

I couldn't agree more you both have everything in common.

martib

11-18-2009, 01:07 PM

Well I should have guessed you were a King-James only advocate. You must think then that my interpretation of "unicorn" in passages such as Number 23:22 as actually referring to a wild ox (auroch) is also dishonoring God's word. We really have nothing more to discuss.

I glad you know what I think a unicorn is because your wrong AGAIN.

redmaxx

11-18-2009, 01:10 PM

I glad you know what I think a unicorn is because your wrong AGAIN.

Could you stop? I think you're giving everyone here a headache.

martib

11-18-2009, 01:57 PM

Could you stop? I think you're giving everyone here a headache.

I will same the same thing about you. Just because you don't like my answers or except your religion it's my fault. Gee from the beginning I said I believe by faith and you said your faith is factual and have yet to prove it. Nobody was there a million years to validate your facts. So I guess you win because you have a headache. Ok sorry for disputing your facts.

Phreaker47

11-18-2009, 01:59 PM

bonkman

11-18-2009, 02:42 PM

New Testament supersedes Old testament
As a Jew, let me say a hearty Eff You.

And the official stance of Catholicism is that they are two separate texts. No part of the OT refers to the NT, nor does NT make OT obsolete.

bonkman

11-18-2009, 02:44 PM

I will same the same thing about you. Just because you don't like my answers or except your religion it's my fault. Gee from the beginning I said I believe by faith and you said your faith is factual and have yet to prove it. Nobody was there a million years to validate your facts. So I guess you win because you have a headache. Ok sorry for disputing your facts.
Nobody can see atoms bound together, but yet we still understand that they do. In fact, there's very little of reality that we can actually see, and, once you understand the visual system, you will realize that even if we can "see" something it has very little bearing on reality.

Libertarian

11-18-2009, 02:49 PM

Nobody can see atoms bound together.

Actually, we can. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1209726/Single-molecule-million-times-smaller-grain-sand-pictured-time.html)
(thanks to science, of course);)

Textbook examples of how we've represented the Penacene molecule for DECADES..

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff105/sanjaykram/Organic_Large/Pentacene_png.png

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/08/28/article-1209726-063792AB000005DC-428_468x286.jpg

and the first picture of the actual molecule taken last year, showing the symmetric atomic bonds that have always been theorized..but never observed (until now)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f0/IBM_Zurich_Press_Release_AFM_Image_Penacene_Aug_2009.jpg/800px-IBM_Zurich_Press_Release_AFM_Image_Penacene_Aug_2009.jpg

and next we got images of a single atom, showing the electron "cloud" that has been predicted by quantum mechanics for over 100 years: http://wavefunction.fieldofscience.com/2009/09/first-pentacene-now-this.html

http://i49.tinypic.com/4kbu2u.jpg

Quantum mechanics states that an electron doesn't exist as a single point, but spreads around the nucleus in a cloud known as an orbital. The soft blue spheres and split clouds seen in the images show two arrangements of the electrons in their orbitals in a carbon atom. The structures verify illustrations seen in thousands of chemistry books because they match established quantum mechanical predictions.

Isn't it amazing that mankind has probed this far on both large and small scales? The quote in Dan's sig couldn't be more appropriate. It's a shame so many Christians prefer to reject it.

superdan54

11-18-2009, 02:54 PM

As a Jew, let me say a hearty Eff You.

And the official stance of Catholicism is that they are two separate texts. No part of the OT refers to the NT, nor does NT make OT obsolete.

:wave: Hey bonk! Haven't seen you around in a while!

:secret: Just a hunch, but I'd wager he probably doesn't think any Catholics are Christian.

redmaxx

11-18-2009, 03:20 PM

I will same the same thing about you.

I doubt you'd find consensus with that opinion (OK, well, maybe except for darkfrog... ;))

Just because you don't like my answers or except your religion it's my fault.

It's not that I don't like your answers, it's that you've come on here all high and mighty like you know everything there is to know and that you're the only one that knows exactly how to read the Bible.

Maybe you've heard the saying, "pride goes before the fall"?

You're not God Himself.

Gee from the beginning I said I believe by faith and you said your faith is factual and have yet to prove it.

I did? Where?

Nobody was there a million years to validate your facts.

That's only one way of validating the length something has been around.

martib

11-18-2009, 04:25 PM

As a Jew, let me say a hearty Eff You.

And the official stance of Catholicism is that they are two separate texts. No part of the OT refers to the NT, nor does NT make OT obsolete.

I'm not catholic I'm a Biblical Christian and to you a Jew the NT does not exist. I do believe the Jews are God's chosen people. I never said the OT was obsolete and yes they do refer to one another.

Phreaker47

11-18-2009, 04:32 PM

I used a specific example on ICR not all they have printed. I don't agree with everything they have there. That why I said Please stop referring back to them.

What difference does it make what I'm referencing when it's entirely relevant to your claims? I could pull info about Austin (or his ilk) from many different sources, but it doesn't change the fact that you are referencing the exact same drivel he's going around espousing. You have this hangup about people underestimating the breadth of your resources, but it's irrelevant and just comes off like a smokescreen.

A question just occurred to me. Are you possibly not even aware that these "Young Earth" and "Creation Science" claims actually all originate from a surprisingly small but very vocal group, where you'll find the same small handful of names coming up again and again? Maybe the reason you resent continued references to certain sources is because you actually believe this is a larger movement than it really is? Put it this way: if you were to create a list of, say, the top dozen people in this movement and take them out of the picture, basically there wouldn't be a "creation science" or YEC movement.

martib

11-18-2009, 04:34 PM

I doubt you'd find consensus with that opinion (OK, well, maybe except for darkfrog... ;))

It's not that I don't like your answers, it's that you've come on here all high and mighty like you know everything there is to know and that you're the only one that knows exactly how to read the Bible.

Maybe you've heard the saying, "pride goes before the fall"?

You're not God Himself.

I did? Where?

That's only one way of validating the length something has been around.

If you can show me my claim to knowing everything why isn't it posted here? Didn't you get "By faith I believe". It seems you claim revelation from God that He used "evolution" and when I challenged that you fell back on "interpretation" the I gave you a site I got your a KJV only so now what your running out of excuses.

martib

11-18-2009, 04:39 PM

Nobody can see atoms bound together, but yet we still understand that they do. In fact, there's very little of reality that we can actually see, and, once you understand the visual system, you will realize that even if we can "see" something it has very little bearing on reality.

I was thinking about posting this too but I know it would be in vain. But it goes with light.gravity and vacuum.

redmaxx

11-18-2009, 04:43 PM

If you can show me my claim to knowing everything why isn't it posted here?

:jawdrop: Did you just forget your claims the other day that the way you read the Bible is correct and anyone that suggests differently is absolutely wrong?

Didn't you get "By faith I believe".

You had to read and interpret just like me.

martib

11-18-2009, 04:49 PM

A question just occurred to me. Are you possibly not even aware that these "Young Earth" and "Creation Science" claims actually all originate from a surprisingly small but very vocal group, where you'll find the same small handful of names coming up again and again? Maybe the reason you resent continued references to certain sources is because you actually believe this is a larger movement than it really is? Put it this way: if you were to create a list of, say, the top dozen people in this movement and take them out of the picture, basically there wouldn't be a "creation science" or YEC movement.

Now look who thinks they all the answers and doesn't like competition.

:jawdrop: Did you just forget your claims the other day that the way you read the Bible is correct and anyone that suggests differently is absolutely wrong?

You had to read and interpret just like me.

Show me that quote.

redmaxx

11-18-2009, 04:58 PM

Show me that quote.

Here's you presuming to know what God can and can't use: "God doesn't need us to understand how He did things> God Spoke and it is. "

And here's where you say your reading and interpretation is definitive and authoritative: "Christian and evolution =oxymoron. In the beginning God created in 6 literal days because He can."

martib

11-18-2009, 05:03 PM

Here's you presuming to know what God can and can't use: "God doesn't need us to understand how He did things> God Spoke and it is. "

And here's where you say your reading and interpretation is definitive and authoritative: "Christian and evolution =oxymoron. In the beginning God created in 6 literal days because He can."

I gave you the Quote from Isaiah which plainly states this and you didn't like it John 1:1-5

redmaxx

11-18-2009, 05:09 PM

I gave you the Quote from Isaiah which plainly states this and you didn't like it John 1:1-5

Stop deflecting and own up to your mistakes.

martib

11-18-2009, 05:32 PM

How did I deflect Again I answered you didn't like my answer again. Here's another article I found.

http://www.christian-faith.com/forjesus/darwinism-debunked-evolution-exposed

martib

11-18-2009, 05:38 PM

Stop deflecting and own up to your mistakes.

Come on man up your questions were answered and admit you just don't agree I can agree to disagree which is fine too.

redmaxx

11-18-2009, 05:49 PM

Come on man up your questions were answered and admit you just don't agree I can agree to disagree which is fine too.

Every time someone tries to call you on a mistake you've made, you jump to something else.

martib

11-18-2009, 06:00 PM

Every time someone tries to call you on a mistake you've made, you jump to something else.

Look if your going to play games because your cornered this will end here. I haven't change the subject I answered your question 2x . If you don't understand say so but don't accuse me of evading a question. You've put words in my mouth several times and now you grasping a straws. Balls in your court move on to the next question.

redmaxx

11-18-2009, 06:05 PM

Look if your going to play games because your cornered

I'm not cornered, you're the one that has yourself elevated to God's level.

this will end here.

:woot:

You've put words in my mouth several times and now you grasping a straws.

Link?

Epiphyte

11-18-2009, 06:06 PM

Look if your going to play games because your cornered this will end here. I haven't change the subject I answered your question 2x . If you don't understand say so but don't accuse me of evading a question. You've put words in my mouth several times and now you grasping a straws. Balls in your court move on to the next question.

I think the problem is that you don't recognize that there can be different interpretations of the bible and different sects of Christianity that do so differently. Your interpretation does not negate all other versions. No link you can provide will make your version of Christianity the official one.

martib

11-18-2009, 06:17 PM

I'm not cornered, you're the one that has yourself elevated to God's level.

:woot:

Link?

I'm done with you because you put these blasphemous words in my mouth for the last time. I NEVER CLAIMED TO BE EQUAL YO GOD IN ANY WAY. And by this comment you most certainly are cornered so with that enjoy your 'Worldly Faith" Good night it's been nice to have the opportunity to challenge you..............................

redmaxx

11-18-2009, 06:21 PM

I'm done with you because you put these blasphemous words in my mouth for the last time. I NEVER CLAIMED TO BE EQUAL YO GOD IN ANY WAY. And by this comment you most certainly cornered so with that enjoy you 'Worldly Faith" Good night it's been nice to have the opportunity to challenge you..............................

Maybe your problem is the English language. Every single post you've made is riddled with grammatical and structural errors.

martib

11-18-2009, 06:23 PM

Maybe your problem is the English language. Every single post you've made is riddled with grammatical and structural errors.

Still cornered is this the best you can do grammatical errors?

redmaxx

11-18-2009, 06:38 PM

Still cornered is this the best you can do grammatical errors?

You clearly do not understand what I'm saying since you keep attacking with the same non-sense over and over again.

vangolu

11-18-2009, 06:53 PM

New Testament supersedes Old testament

Well there is your flaw, you are picking and choosing which word of God to follow and which to not follow. You are in serious violation of God's Law if you want to keep up the literal charade.

Now supersede, that is funny as it is awfully close to evolve :wave: :D

Phreaker47

11-18-2009, 06:54 PM

Now look who thinks they all the answers and doesn't like competition.

Is that really the depth of your debating skill, to say "you think you know everything" back at people? You angrily sputter out a few odds and ends, provide little to no expounding on them to demonstrate you've put any of your own critical thought into them, then have no tolerance for anyone who wants to focus on any one of the points and have a real discussion. You're even pissing off the other Christians around here who are normally more than happy at other times to be sympathetic and even fiercely defensive of biblical views. Congratulations.

Phreaker47

11-18-2009, 06:59 PM

Well there is your flaw, you are picking and choosing which word of God to follow and which to not follow. You are in serious violation of God's Law if you want to keep up the literal charade.

Now supersede, that is funny as it is awfully close to evolve :wave: :D

I'm sure he'd be more than happy to also tell you in the same breath that the entire bible is the infallible word of God and insist that there is no contradiction between the statements. :nod:

bonkman

11-18-2009, 07:04 PM

Actually, we can. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1209726/Single-molecule-million-times-smaller-grain-sand-pictured-time.html)
(thanks to science, of course);)

Textbook examples of how we've represented the Penacene molecule for DECADES..

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff105/sanjaykram/Organic_Large/Pentacene_png.png

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/08/28/article-1209726-063792AB000005DC-428_468x286.jpg

and the first picture of the actual molecule taken last year, showing the symmetric atomic bonds that have always been theorized..but never observed (until now)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f0/IBM_Zurich_Press_Release_AFM_Image_Penacene_Aug_2009.jpg/800px-IBM_Zurich_Press_Release_AFM_Image_Penacene_Aug_2009.jpg

and next we got images of a single atom, showing the electron "cloud" that has been predicted by quantum mechanics for over 100 years: http://wavefunction.fieldofscience.com/2009/09/first-pentacene-now-this.html

http://i49.tinypic.com/4kbu2u.jpg

Isn't it amazing that mankind has probed this far on both large and small scales? The quote in Dan's sig couldn't be more appropriate. It's a shame so many Christians prefer to reject it.
What you're seeing isn't exactly the atoms bound together, but it's ok ;) We knew they were there long before August 2009. :) And those are very cool pics -- thanks for posting them.

I'm not catholic I'm a Biblical Christian and to you a Jew the NT does not exist. I do believe the Jews are God's chosen people. I never said the OT was obsolete and yes they do refer to one another.
Saying the NT doesn't exist is like saying the sun doesn't exist. You'd be an idiot to claim that.

Phreaker47

11-18-2009, 07:38 PM

Saying the NT doesn't exist is like saying the sun doesn't exist. You'd be an idiot to claim that.

Some other books that definitely exist:

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q2/carlacarlacarlacarla/mds/Goldilocks.jpg
http://www.cubanfoodmarket.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/CD-HANSEL-GRETEL.jpg

dublbagn

11-18-2009, 09:29 PM

I just jumped into this...but evolution is my vote......there is no chance in hell (just a phrase, I dont actually believe in hell) that everything around us has evolved for thousands of years, yet we remained the same. We have evolved from something else, its kind of the way things work if you have not noticed...

vangolu

11-18-2009, 11:03 PM

Retracted due to incorrect information (This is how scientific process works)

darkfrog

11-18-2009, 11:18 PM

I see I didn't miss much today, just more insane rantings.:insane:

I often wonder what people are like IRL, this time I got a little scared.

:turtle:

Phreaker47

11-19-2009, 12:58 AM

I see I didn't miss much today, just more insane rantings.:insane:

I often wonder what people are like IRL, this time I got a little scared.

:turtle:

Nope, nothing missed. You might as well be the nun taking bong rips at this point.

As for these people in IRL, I've encountered many. I live in San Diego county not far from Camp Pendleton so it's a fairly conservative area. During the last elections, the "YES ON 8" stuff was going on really heavy around here. And on more than one occasion, I saw people actually camped on corners of intersections making sure they yelled at everyone they could about the "homosexual agenda". They'd probably be right at home with our new friend here. Also, my parents who also live in the area used to attend a "Calvary Chapel" church for a while, which as you might know is a very fundamentalist sect. Fortunately they moved on to something more mainstream. But during that time, I occasionally met some of their lovely friends. Nice and polite enough in person during my limited exposure to them, but easy to tell what was brewing inside.

talgot

11-19-2009, 05:35 AM

Well lets see how we look like in the beginning (and this one is provable by eye sight)

http://home.honolulu.hawaii.edu/~pine/book1qts/embryo-compare.jpg

Hmm, seems awfully close. Without labels I dont think anyone could tell without medical knowledge

Shouldnt we be looking like humans in our development (again evolvement in case you havent noticed) if we never evolved?
Umm... Very tragic and sad you would use a known fraud such as heckels embryo chart. What is even sadder is you got this from a page in a university textbook! Not to mention those here that claim to be for truth in evolution have not said a peep. It is very telling that the preservation of evolution seems to be higher than weeding out the lies as so many try falsely to claim.

http://www.evolutiontale.com/6.html

Here is an excerpt:

The concept conveyed in the slogan "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" quickly became known as the "recapitulation theory," and in a very short time this myth became one of the most important proofs for evolution. Throughout the 20th century, countless students saw the chart of the human embryo's imaginary progress from fish, through salamander, chicken and rabbit; and the myth that the human embryo had gills for a while became an accepted fact. Even today, many supporters of the theory of evolution, if asked, would cite this as one of its proofs.

However, this is pure fabrication. In fact, the embryos of various creatures did not at all resemble one another. Haeckel's drawings made all sorts of misrepresentations. To some embryos, he added imaginary organs, removed organs from others, and showed larger and smaller embryos as all the same size.

In the human embryo, the slits that Haeckel represented as gills were really the beginning of the middle ear canal, the parathyroid, and the thymus glands. Haeckel's other comparisons are also now known to be deceptions; what he made look like a "yolk sac" in the embryo is actually a sac that produces blood for the baby. The structure that Haeckel and his followers called the "tail" was actually the human spine, which resembled a tail only because it formed before the legs did.

At the beginning of the 20th century, it came to light that Haeckel had falsified his drawings and he openly confessed to this, saying:

After this compromising confession of "forgery" I should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoner's dock hundreds of fellow-culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of "forgery," for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematized and constructed.57

But despite his avowal, Darwinists liked his propaganda material and refused to give up using it. They ignored the fact that the drawings were false and for decades, textbooks and much evolutionist literature presented them as authentic.

Haeckel's fraud under the magnifying glass: Photographs of embryos taken by the British embryologist Richardson in 1999 showed that Haeckel's drawings were totally unrelated to reality. Above can be seen Haeckel's fictitious drawings, with authentic photographs below.

The fact that Haeckel's drawings were falsifications was loudly expressed only in the second half of the 1990s. The September 5, 1997 edition of the Science magazine published "Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered," an article by Elizabeth Pennisi explaining that his drawings were fabrications. As she wrote:

The impression they [Haeckel's drawings] give, that the embryos are exactly alike, is wrong, says Michael Richardson, an embryologist at St. George's Hospital Medical School in London. . . So he and his colleagues did their own comparative study, reexamining and photographing embryos roughly matched by species and age with those Haeckel drew. Lo and behold, the embryos "often looked surprisingly different," Richardson reports in the August issue of Anatomy and Embryology. 58

Science reported that, in order to show the similarity among the embryos, Haeckel deliberately removed some organs from the drawings or added imaginary ones. The article continues:

Not only did Haeckel add or omit features, Richardson and his colleagues report, but he also fudged the scale to exaggerate similarities among species, even when there were 10-fold differences in size. Haeckel further blurred differences by neglecting to name the species in most cases, as if one representative was accurate for an entire group of animals. In reality, Richardson and his colleagues note, even closely related embryos such as those of fish vary quite a bit in their appearance and developmental pathway. "It looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology," Richardson concludes. 59

Libertarian

11-19-2009, 06:01 AM

Umm... Very tragic and sad you would use a known fraud such as heckels embryo chart. What is even sadder is you got this from a page in a university textbook! Not to mention those here that claim to be for truth in evolution have not said a peep. It is very telling that the preservation of evolution seems to be higher than weeding out the lies as so many try falsely to claim.

I noticed it was the "fake" drawing the moment he posted but didn't have time to point it out.. To be fair though talgot, it isn't THAT far off from the real thing. ;) There are subtle differences, but the fact is many species look quite similar in the early embryonic stages. At any rate, it doesn't matter much because evolution does not rest on embryology alone.. There are MANY areas of science with overlapping evidence that all reinforce the theory of evolution. You could throw out the subject of embryology entirely, along with EVERY FOSSIL EVER COLLECTED by mankind..and the evidence would still be overwhelming.

talgot

11-19-2009, 06:11 AM

I noticed it was the "fake" drawing the moment he posted but didn't have time to point it out.. To be fair though talgot, it isn't THAT far off from the real thing. ;) There are subtle differences, but the fact is many species look quite similar in the early stages of being an embryo. At any rate, it doesn't matter much because evolution does not rest on embryology alone.. There are MANY areas of science with overlapping evidence that all reinforce the theory. You could throw out the subject of embryology entirely, along with EVERY FOSSIL EVER COLLECTED by mankind..and the evidence for evolution would still be overwhelming.
THere are many differences actually, heck some fish look different from each other at certain stages. The main point is that this is being used in a current university textbook! This fake is still being perpetuated with God only knows what else.And all it receives is a basic waving of the hands by you and others as not a big deal. Well it is a big deal. You want to know why there is much distrust of soem science?? It is exactly this that makes people more skeptical. If this lie is perpetuated, what else is?? THis is exactly what happens when the theory is more important than truth. You get lies in textbooks and handwaving ideologs supporting it. There isn't this great checks and balances that you and others claim. The only time your hair raises up and get up in arms is when it goes against your belief.

Unfortunately, this kind of response was expected.:(

vivahate

11-19-2009, 06:17 AM

The main point is that this is being used in a current university textbook!

how can you know it's from a current university textbook? The image is linked from the author's personal home page as far as I can tell.

Libertarian

11-19-2009, 06:25 AM

Here are some actual embryo photographs..

fish:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/fish-embryo.jpeg
chicken:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/chick-embryo.jpeg
pig:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/pig-embryo.jpeg
human:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/human-embryo.jpeg

Apart from the fish (which genetics/DNA tells us is a much more distant relative to humans than the other two), the similarities are undeniable.

Shellac

11-19-2009, 06:38 AM

. So another mans thoughts on whether my God exists does not matter because he can neither prove or disprove my God exists..

Likewise you can't disprove the existence of Zeus, Isis, Huitzilopochtli, etc. Every culture has their man made gods just like the one you worship. Your mythology is one of many.

I know one thing about your religion, your writing skills(or lack thereof) make the baby Jesus cry.

talgot

11-19-2009, 07:39 AM

how can you know it's from a current university textbook? The image is linked from the author's personal home page as far as I can tell.

http://home.honolulu.hawaii.edu/~pine/book1qts/embryo-compare.jpg is the link to his posted photo. The main part of the link is a university. The middle designates a book quote.

martib

11-19-2009, 07:48 AM

Hey it's great to see all you guys patting yourselves on the back. What a surprise?

martib

11-19-2009, 07:52 AM

Epiphyte

11-19-2009, 07:52 AM

Hey it's great to see all you guys patting yourselves on the back. What a surprise?

You keep avoiding our critiques of your argument.

As I said earlier:

I think the problem is that you don't recognize that there can be different interpretations of the bible and different sects of Christianity that do so differently. Your interpretation does not negate all other versions. No link you can provide will make your version of Christianity the official one.

Shellac

11-19-2009, 07:56 AM

What would know on what would make the baby jesus cry considering Jesus is an a full grown adult.:wave:

I don't, it's a joke. Just like you don't know whether the gods I mentioned exist or not anymore than you know whether the particular god you've chosen to worship exists or not.

vangolu

11-19-2009, 09:26 AM

vangolu

11-19-2009, 09:29 AM

THere are many differences actually, heck some fish look different from each other at certain stages. The main point is that this is being used in a current university textbook! This fake is still being perpetuated with God only knows what else.And all it receives is a basic waving of the hands by you and others as not a big deal. Well it is a big deal. You want to know why there is much distrust of soem science?? It is exactly this that makes people more skeptical. If this lie is perpetuated, what else is?? THis is exactly what happens when the theory is more important than truth. You get lies in textbooks and handwaving ideologs supporting it. There isn't this great checks and balances that you and others claim. The only time your hair raises up and get up in arms is when it goes against your belief.

Unfortunately, this kind of response was expected.:(

I am sorry that for you tragic carries a whole different meaning. I do apoligize, it was late at night and I will be taking the pic down as Liberterian has posted a much better. None the less, the evidence is in front of your eyes yet you fail to see it.

That is sad...

Why do you think Mice is being used for testing? (http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/faq/compgen.shtml#whymice)

How closely related are mice and humans? How many genes are the same?
Answer provided by Lisa Stubbs of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California.
Mice and humans (indeed, most or all mammals including dogs, cats, rabbits, monkeys, and apes) have roughly the same number of nucleotides in their genomes -- about 3 billion base pairs. This comparable DNA content implies that all mammals contain more or less the same number of genes, and indeed our work and the work of many others have provided evidence to confirm that notion.

talgot

11-19-2009, 09:41 AM

I am sorry that for you tragic carries a whole different meaning. I do apoligize, it was late at night and I will be taking the pic down as Liberterian has posted a much better. None the less, the evidence is in front of your eyes yet you fail to see it.

That is sad...
It was not so much a personal slam on you as to the fact it is frauds like you posted as evidence, is still currently referenced in academic books and hand waved by so many that support evolution.

As to the update pics... how is that evidence in front of my eyes? At best all you have shown is at the earliest stages a relatively small amount of cells that are begining to form look alittle simular? it doesn't take long and there are very little simularities between fetus's. But that ignores all the things not seen that makes them very different. This is hardly evidence for evolution. It is like saying a car and a plane had a common vehicle in common because they both have metal and have engines. The uses are very different plus the technology that moves them are as well. At best you might have evidence for common usage of design by a designer. ;)

talgot

11-19-2009, 09:47 AM

Why do you think Mice is being used for testing? (http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/faq/compgen.shtml#whymice)

Not sure what this has to do with the embryo discussion? Why is it so hard to understand that animals and man may have simularities if you pick and choose, but that doesn't mean they are not very different.. if we were not so compatible and simular in some ways we could not eat each other ( animals by man and vice versa) It is precisely the genetic simularities that allow that to occur.A less than 1% difference in dna will change alot in what developes.

Libertarian

11-19-2009, 09:54 AM

darkfrog

11-19-2009, 10:02 AM

THere are many differences actually, heck some fish look different from each other at certain stages. The main point is that this is being used in a current university textbook! This fake is still being perpetuated with God only knows what else.And all it receives is a basic waving of the hands by you and others as not a big deal. Well it is a big deal. You want to know why there is much distrust of soem science?? It is exactly this that makes people more skeptical. If this lie is perpetuated, what else is?? THis is exactly what happens when the theory is more important than truth. You get lies in textbooks and handwaving ideologs supporting it. There isn't this great checks and balances that you and others claim. The only time your hair raises up and get up in arms is when it goes against your belief.

Unfortunately, this kind of response was expected.:(

Modern biology rejects the literal and universal form of Haeckel's theory.[6] Although humans share ancestors with other taxa, stages of human embryonic development are not functionally equivalent to the adults of these shared common ancestors. In other words, no cleanly defined and functional "fish", "reptile" and "mammal" stages of human embryonal development can be discerned. Moreover, development is nonlinear. For example, during kidney development, at one given time, the anterior region of the kidney is less developed (nephridium) than the posterior region (nephron).

However, there are numerous connections between ontogeny and phylogeny, which can be explained using evolutionary theory without recourse to Haeckel's specific views.

Recapitualation has been discredited by science, not by creationists. That said, there is still evidence for evolution embyologically and that is what biologists teach nowadays. Features develop in embyos in the same chronology that they evolve with vestigial ones disappearing such as the pelvis and legs in whales.

martib

11-19-2009, 10:20 AM

Likewise you can't disprove the existence of Zeus, Isis, Huitzilopochtli, etc. Every culture has their man made gods just like the one you worship. Your mythology is one of many.

I know one thing about your religion, your writing skills(or lack thereof) make the baby Jesus cry.

There you go again making assumptions which in fact your very good at. I don't have to prove my God exists because I claimed by FAITH ONLY DO I BELIEVE nothing more. My grammar and sentence structure may be in question but at least I can read how about you.:wave: How many times do I have to repeat myself by FAITH I BELIEVE. The burden of proof is on you. I'm sorry you didn't like my answer and OH did I change the subject again. Another point I haven't shown disdain or disrespect for you so why do you and others think this is OK. Is it because of the survival of the fittest or is it just plain hatefulness because I won't believe your religion?

vivahate

11-19-2009, 10:43 AM

http://home.honolulu.hawaii.edu/~pine/book1qts/embryo-compare.jpg is the link to his posted photo. The main part of the link is a university. The middle designates a book quote.

yeah, the main part is a university, but the ~pine indicates it's the owners personal web space - their "home" directory if you like. If you drop the jpg you see the index listing. I clicked on chapter1qts.htm and it's a document/text/book by Ronald C. Pine. No doubt the same "Pine" of the ~pine part of the URL.

There's nothing to suggest this is part of the official curriculum. How do you know he doesn't use it as an example of the theory evolving for example? Maybe he just keeps it there for nostalgic reasons.

vangolu

11-19-2009, 10:47 AM

It was not so much a personal slam on you as to the fact it is frauds like you posted as evidence, is still currently referenced in academic books and hand waved by so many that support evolution.

You are right, it was incorrect information and as pointed out, I retracted the information. Because that is how scientific process works, I could have easily said No I wont retract it because it writes here in this book which is infallible, but then which camp would I be at?

As to the update pics... how is that evidence in front of my eyes?
At best all you have shown is at the earliest stages a relatively small amount of cells that are begining to form look alittle simular? it doesn't take long and there are very little simularities between fetus's. But that ignores all the things not seen that makes them very different. This is hardly evidence for evolution.

Because it points to a common ancestor ;)

It is like saying a car and a plane had a common vehicle in common because they both have metal and have engines. The uses are very different plus the technology that moves them are as well.

Sorry but duh, of course they have a common ancestor that they evolved from. They both came after the invention of combustion engine to drive energy from a source small enough.
Do you really want me to point out examples of this?

At best you might have evidence for common usage of design by a designer. ;)

Wait are you saying that God cannot create more then 1 design ;)

Why pray tell would God do something like that other then the obvious fact that it used evolution?

yeah, the main part is a university, but the ~pine indicates it's the owners personal web space - their "home" directory if you like. If you drop the jpg you see the index listing. I clicked on chapter1qts.htm and it's a document/text/book by Ronald C. Pine. No doubt the same "Pine" of the ~pine part of the URL.

There's nothing to suggest this is part of the official curriculum. How do you know he doesn't use it as an example of the theory evolving for example? Maybe he just keeps it there for nostalgic reasons.

To clarify, I picked it up from google image search so did not check the article. Was just looking for something close to Liberterian..

vivahate

11-19-2009, 10:51 AM

I won't believe your religion?

you keep saying this and you keep being totally wrong.

Let's say another theory came along that showed conclusively that evolution was wrong. Do you honestly think any scientists would still cling to evolution and insist that the word of Darwin was infallible?

You've repeatedly said that you believe on faith alone. By very definition, that is something not based on proof. I highly recommend a book called "The Mind of the Bible Believer" by Edmund Cohen

bonkman

11-19-2009, 11:54 AM

Do some research on evolutionary genetics talgot.. It's not as complicated as it sounds. You can literally trace the evolution of EVERY LIVING creature using their genetic code.. When you look at the genomes of different species, a clear picture of a genetic "tree" emerges, showing how various forms of life have branched off at different points over millions of years forming their own distinct lines..but all having the same "backbone" (tree root) at the bottom. DNA evidence offers rock-solid proof that every creature on earth is related to all of the others..some more closely (chimps in our case), some more distant..(birds, reptiles, etc). Genetic evidence is "hard" evidence. It is not a guess or assumption, but a hard set of data that can be measured and quantified..showing precisely where we branched off from the other primates and where other modern species branched off from their common ancestors. It is so exact that it makes all other forms of evidence for evolution (such as fossils) quite unnecessary.
Actually, once you read a lot about evolutionary genetics, it starts to get complicated again. Organizing fragments of DNA into a genome is done by algorithms which aren't perfect. (and even if they were, the fragments themselves aren't perfect ;) ). The algorithms that search those genomes and try to find segments that evolved from each other or correspond to each other aren't perfect either.

This can easily be mistaken by someone who doesn't know much to mean that all of evolutionary science is based upon bubkus, which is far from the case. Genomic assemblies are invaluable tools. Just like most things, though, when you get down to the details, things start to get a bit more complex.

Phreaker47

11-19-2009, 01:58 PM

There you go again making assumptions which in fact your very good at. I don't have to prove my God exists because I claimed by FAITH ONLY DO I BELIEVE nothing more. My grammar and sentence structure may be in question but at least I can read how about you.:wave: How many times do I have to repeat myself by FAITH I BELIEVE. The burden of proof is on you. I'm sorry you didn't like my answer and OH did I change the subject again. Another point I haven't shown disdain or disrespect for you so why do you and others think this is OK. Is it because of the survival of the fittest or is it just plain hatefulness because I won't believe your religion?

You're great at talking at people. Ever consider talking with them?

martib

11-19-2009, 02:03 PM

you keep saying this and you keep being totally wrong.

Let's say another theory came along that showed conclusively that evolution was wrong. Do you honestly think any scientists would still cling to evolution and insist that the word of Darwin was infallible?

You've repeatedly said that you believe on faith alone. By very definition, that is something not based on proof. I highly recommend a book called "The Mind of the Bible Believer" by Edmund Cohen

Not all scientist cling to evolution as you seem to claim.

martib

11-19-2009, 02:12 PM

You're great at talking at people. Ever consider talking with them?

Did I strike a nerve it seems like you've been ridiculing me all along. I give an answer you don't like and then you accuse me of changing the subject. And then after all of that you go a little lower and ridicule my grammar and sentence structure. So what happens is I treat you as you treat me and you don't like it. So tell me how you want to resolve this matter.

vangolu

11-19-2009, 02:48 PM

martib

11-19-2009, 03:21 PM

News flash, you have not provided one concrete answer and you are picking and choosing which God Laws to follow and which to "not follow".

You are only fooling yourself with this and really nobody else. And if one day "science" proves you right that Earth was formed and populated in 6 days and is only about 4000 years old, well you can tell us I told you so.

Until that time have fun imaging how cool it would have been to ride the dinasours as the cave men did, right? :P

Haven't seen any cave men evidence other then men lived in caves ie Indian drawings in caves. And yes I do believe dinosaurs did exist.

superdan54

11-19-2009, 03:26 PM

Haven't seen any cave men evidence other then men lived in caves ie Indian drawings in caves. And yes I do believe dinosaurs did exist.

This is one image progression of fossils that drastically altered my view on human evolution....

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2_big.jpg

martib

11-19-2009, 04:02 PM

This is one image progression of fossils that drastically altered my view on human evolution....

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2_big.jpg

Why is this not still occurring? There are still apes in existence shouldn't they still be evolving into humans?

redmaxx

11-19-2009, 04:05 PM

Why is this not still occurring? There are still apes in existence shouldn't they still be evolving into humans?

http://koltchak91120.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/double-facepalm.jpg

Libertarian

11-19-2009, 05:24 PM

Why is this not still occurring? There are still apes in existence shouldn't they still be evolving into humans?

Humans did not evolve from modern apes or chimpanzees. That is not what the theory of evolution says. Please do your research before you continue to share your opinions on the subject.

martib

11-19-2009, 05:48 PM

bonkman

11-19-2009, 07:18 PM

That's rich I can't believe your answer evolution just stopped?
Well I just learned a lot by your answer you only confirmed my suspicion. Thank you very very much for the education.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UL7F1K7fng
Why isn't my grass growing? It magically gets longer every two weeks, but when I look at it, it stays still! It's a miracle!!!!11!~!one

Evolution hasn't stopped. It just takes mad skillz to see it.

vangolu

11-19-2009, 07:25 PM

http://koltchak91120.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/double-facepalm.jpg

Thats just hilarious :crylol:

Copperblade

11-19-2009, 10:10 PM

Wow, this discussion is still going on? How many archives has this thread gone through already now? I wonder if there's a way to go back and read the whole thing all the way through. It would be really funny if someone was doing a research paper on the subject from a sociological or political standpoint and had to read through the whole thing.

By the way, I might have posted this playlist before but...

http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa#p/c/126AFB53A6F002CC/0/KnJX68ELbAY

Libertarian

11-20-2009, 01:08 AM

By the way, I might have posted this playlist before but...

http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa#p/c/126AFB53A6F002CC/0/KnJX68ELbAY

wow, I can't believe I missed this...good stuff.

I'm on the second video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFrkjEgUDZA&fmt=18) now and it only took him 2 minutes 8 seconds to completely dismantle the credibility of every religion. :thumbup:

vivahate

11-20-2009, 05:44 AM

Not all scientist cling to evolution as you seem to claim.

Let me rephrase it as you missed the point. Lets say that a new theory emerges that *conclusively* disproves evolution. Do you think Richard Dawkins will still insist that Darwin was inspired and couldn't possibly be wrong, despite the new *conclusive* evidence?

The sane answer is "no" - and thats one of the reasons why evolution is not a religion.

The long answer is that you're trying to equate creationism with evolution to give the impression that they're competing theories when they're nothing of the sort.

talgot

11-20-2009, 09:13 AM

Let me rephrase it as you missed the point. Lets say that a new theory emerges that *conclusively* disproves evolution. Do you think Richard Dawkins will still insist that Darwin was inspired and couldn't possibly be wrong, despite the new *conclusive* evidence?

The sane answer is "no" - and thats one of the reasons why evolution is not a religion.

The long answer is that you're trying to equate creationism with evolution to give the impression that they're competing theories when they're nothing of the sort.

You don't need to prove another theory to junk an already flawed and bad theory.

darkfrog

11-20-2009, 09:25 AM

You don't need to prove another theory to junk an already flawed and bad theory.
If a theory has flaws or holes, you look to see if anything can explain them in the context of the theory. Otherwise, you won't be discarding a whole theory UNLESS something better is found to replace it. That it already has the status of scientific theory means that it IS a good explanation for the observations and facts, therefore it cannot be considered a bad theory if there is no better competing explanation.
Of course evolution by means of natural selection and common ancestry is not bad nor flawed and is a very good and robust theory, so your comment is merely a red herring anyway.

fyu

11-20-2009, 09:38 AM

Phreaker47

11-20-2009, 02:22 PM

Did I strike a nerve it seems like you've been ridiculing me all along. I give an answer you don't like and then you accuse me of changing the subject. And then after all of that you go a little lower and ridicule my grammar and sentence structure. So what happens is I treat you as you treat me and you don't like it. So tell me how you want to resolve this matter.

Well yes, you might have noticed that you struck a nerve with everyone. But before you give yourself too much credit, understand there's a difference between achieving that through effective debate versus throwing out inane, immature, and off-target one-liners.

Let's go ahead and revist the "answer" you gave that I "didn't like":

- You argued against the dating of findings in strata by mentioning how the Mt St. Helen eruption created a large amount of strata in just a few days, insinuating that there's no discernable difference between those piles of ashes and any other sedimentary rock

- Being familiar with this particular YEC argument (catastrophism), I said this:
By IRC I guess you meant ICR? Anyway, *you* posted an ICR link as one of your arguments. Then you mentioned the Mt. St. Helen example, which happens to be something they like to talk about over at ICR. So nothing about my response "assumed" what you thought, it was pretty clear what particular YEC pseudo-science you were deriving your statements from. It is the clumsy and well-debunked "Catastrophism" argument used by people like Austin to attempt to crowbar in "evidence" that the Earth is only six to ten thousand years old. I suppose you'd also argue that the Grand Canyon was carved out in only a few days as well? That's another one of Austin's babies. Some kind of claim that the Great Flood did it. They even have their own bus tour out there with a whole brainwashing presentation for you, so you can actually witness one of the Seven Wonders in person while you are being fed ridiculous misinformation about it. I'm sure you'd enjoy it.

By the way, actually yes it does indeed matter very much that Austin had no explanations to offer about how other sedimentary rock could layer as quickly as ashes. It proves that what he's claiming is half-assed and weak. In honest science, crap like this wouldn't make it past the early stages of hypothesis, much less make it as a theory.

(Edit: as for the last bolded part, you had previously claimed that it "didn't matter" that Austin didn't have an answer and provided no logical explanation to back it up. You simply said volcanoes erupt all the time and there are often floods. But the key is that neither you nor Austin himself offer any explanation as to why we can't clearly differentiate between those phenomenons and other collections of sediment. Hint: we absolutely can.)

- Your "answer":
I used a specific example on ICR not all they have printed. I don't agree with everything they have there. That why I said Please stop referring back to them.

So yeah, I guess I didn't like that you ignored the actual meat of the discussion. After your non-chalant "It doesn't matter", all you cared to address was who was referencing ICR and how it was offensive to you that we're making assumptions about where you get your information. I actually in fact did no such thing; I merely mentioned a resource that involved the identical claim. Where or when you actually heard it doesn't matter.

But meanwhile, the Mt. St. Helen argument that *you* initially brought up has been blown to bits and you offer no rebuttal. I don't see your answer to that. It's simply on to the next thing; the next one-liner, the next head fake, the next diversion. By the way, you've already used the "grammar defense" thing at least twice. Time to find some other way to be evasive.

scp443

11-20-2009, 02:40 PM

<-- still cannot believe creation got 400 votes... :crazy:

redmaxx

11-20-2009, 02:51 PM

<-- still cannot believe creation got 400 votes... :crazy:

I wonder what it would look like if it was re-posted.

Copperblade

11-20-2009, 03:03 PM

I wonder what it would look like if it was re-posted.

Actually, I think the number is a bit low statistically if you consider it to reflect the American population.

Epiphyte

11-20-2009, 03:04 PM

<-- still cannot believe creation got 400 votes... :crazy:

Yeah, that's why I don't get too put off by people who claim global warming is a hoax. We've got a significant population that also thinks that of evolution, one of the oldest and most well-supported scientific theories. I bet those groups overlap to a very large degree.

Luckily, scientists haven't stalled in researching climate change because of that scientifically illiterate group. Just like they haven't ignored constantly evolving pathogens that kill millions.

Whether you believe in evolution or not, you're benefiting greatly from scientist's understanding of it because it is central to modern medicine.

Phreaker47

11-20-2009, 03:41 PM

<-- still cannot believe creation got 400 votes... :crazy:

Actually, I think the number is a bit low statistically if you consider it to reflect the American population.

I thought of that too... but then, consider the other significant variable: by simply voting in the poll, you have to be able to read, type, and use a web browser ;)

martib

11-20-2009, 07:21 PM

Well yes, you might have noticed that you struck a nerve with everyone. But before you give yourself too much credit, understand there's a difference between achieving that through effective debate versus throwing out inane, immature, and off-target one-liners.

Let's go ahead and revist the "answer" you gave that I "didn't like":

- You argued against the dating of findings in strata by mentioning how the Mt St. Helen eruption created a large amount of strata in just a few days, insinuating that there's no discernable difference between those piles of ashes and any other sedimentary rock

- Being familiar with this particular YEC argument (catastrophism), I said this:

(Edit: as for the last bolded part, you had previously claimed that it "didn't matter" that Austin didn't have an answer and provided no logical explanation to back it up. You simply said volcanoes erupt all the time and there are often floods. But the key is that neither you nor Austin himself offer any explanation as to why we can't clearly differentiate between those phenomenons and other collections of sediment. Hint: we absolutely can.)

- Your "answer":

So yeah, I guess I didn't like that you ignored the actual meat of the discussion. After your non-chalant "It doesn't matter", all you cared to address was who was referencing ICR and how it was offensive to you that we're making assumptions about where you get your information. I actually in fact did no such thing; I merely mentioned a resource that involved the identical claim. Where or when you actually heard it doesn't matter.

But meanwhile, the Mt. St. Helen argument that *you* initially brought up has been blown to bits and you offer no rebuttal. I don't see your answer to that. It's simply on to the next thing; the next one-liner, the next head fake, the next diversion. By the way, you've already used the "grammar defense" thing at least twice. Time to find some other way to be evasive.

Pleeeeeeease stop my sides are still hurting from the evolution stopped one. I haven't had such a long good laugh in a long time thank you. Earthquakes. volcano's and floods don't need rebuttal they are a common occurrence. You just like to argue until you win
Soooooooooooo you win.

riptide_slick

11-20-2009, 07:55 PM

Humans did not evolve from modern apes or chimpanzees. That is not what the theory of evolution says. Please do your research before you continue to share your opinions on the subject.

That's rich I can't believe your answer evolution just stopped?
Well I just learned a lot by your answer you only confirmed my suspicion. Thank you very very much for the education.Are you reading a different version of the forum than everyone else?

Literally the only thing in the answer you fabricated for Libertarian that was in the original post was the word "evolution." The words "just" and "stopped" aren't there.

I did see a polite request to research and maybe understand a little more about the position you're arguing against, however, but I see little of that in your posts. It's almost as if you're not really interested in having a conversation and instead would just like to spout your beliefs without being willing to continue the dicussion when they are challenged. Not exactly the emblematic of the type of discourse that makes this place great.

Maybe taking the other advice about talking with people instead of talking at them would be a better strategy for you.

nobama

11-20-2009, 07:59 PM

Welcome back, Rip!

:cheers:

Phreaker47

11-20-2009, 08:26 PM

Pleeeeeeease stop my sides are still hurting from the evolution stopped one. I haven't had such a long good laugh in a long time thank you.

So you're proud of yourself with that "evolution stopped" comment, even though others already pointed out what a fundamental and ignorant misunderstanding of Common Descent it represented? I could be the one laughing right now but really, it's much more sad than funny... considering this kind of knee-jerk, dismissive, anti-intellectual folklore runs all too rampant in this part of the world.

Earthquakes. volcano's and floods don't need rebuttal they are a common occurrence. You just like to argue until you win
Soooooooooooo you win.

*Sigh*... It's one thing when people just disagree, but you seem to have an issue with even the most basic of reading comprehension. WHERE did I or anyone claim that volcano eruptions and floods don't happen? Would you like to attempt a real answer, such as explaining exactly why science can't reliably differentiate between sediment layers produced quickly by volcanic eruptions and floods versus others that develop over much longer periods? Why am I still typing... you probably stopped reading already.

martib

11-21-2009, 07:19 AM

Well the way I see either the ape we evolved from is extinct which means it doesn't exist so it can't continue or it is continuing but how? We're not related to the modern ape so how again? And on another thread the scientist were caught read handed on the biggest lie yet "Global Warming". I don't believe all scientist are wrong just the ones that say the other is wrong without the opposing view not being present. It's easy to make a statement when you have no rebuttal witness. How long did the theory of "Capitulation" get pushed as being a fact but it had always been a "Theory" thats why they finally admitted it was wrong. Your "Scientists" have been caught in a few MAJOR lies regardless if they admitted to them or not. Sooooooooooooooooo you win again. And I did read t your whole post phreaker47. What I meant by the common disasters is you don't know if it happened where you are getting you samples from or not but I'm sure there's a test for that as in everything you claim. But this claim I make I wasn't there so I'm not 100% sure of accuracy.

vivahate

11-21-2009, 07:29 AM

Well the way I see...

and that is your problem. Your view of evolution is not close to being accurate. Whoever gave you this info was *clearly* not a scientist and was either ignorant of the facts or deliberately being misleading.

Doctor_Wu

11-21-2009, 09:12 AM

:nod: Christians are atheists on all sorts of other Gods, including Thor. Here is a nice little article about that phenomenon..

See, we're all atheists now! And if we are, then the word no longer has any meaning.

I believe this is simply Dawkins' effort (along with many others) to make atheism "safe". B/c if we're all unknowing atheists then it's not really so bad to be an atheist, see?

On the PR front I sympathize with their effort to make the word less scary, but cannot agree with it from the standpoint of precision in language and the importance of words and their attendant meanings.

Atheism means non-belief in the particular cult that happens to pervade the society under discussion.

Is that what atheism means now?

B/c if it is, it doesn't appear to mean "non-belief in the possibility of a divine being". So atheists are apparently waiting for a coming revelation from beyond? Probably not.

How can atheism only mean this? Do atheists only reject the christian god, but admit the possibility of an all powerful being that exists outside the universe or do they deny that possibility? I think they reject the possibility of a god, that is why they are atheists in the first place.

It is interesting when a definition contains more than one definition, let's state it again...

"Atheism means non-belief in the particular cult that happens to pervade the society under discussion."

So atheism does have more than just this meaning... b/c it is prepared to call all religions 'cults', and in turn we can infer that it also believes that all gods are false. Despite Dawkins' attempted redefinition, atheism does have a transcendent meaning that is outside of "the particular"... it has a general meaning which is revealed in its use of the word "cult". It presumes that the matter of god is disproved to the point that revelation is not possible. Atheism holds that revelation is not possible, b/c there is no god.

Is this not the true meaning of atheism...? The rejection of the possibility of a divine being?

Doctor_Wu

11-21-2009, 09:24 AM

I agree 100%, which is why I see no problem claiming God used a natural phenomenon to speciate and populate the entire world. Everything else in God's creation we have no problem attesting to natural processes, and even see it necessary to God's requirement of faith, but this one thing of creation we somehow think is simply an outright miracle.

Not to mention the fact that the bible compares man's perception of one day to god's perception, saying that one day to god is like 1000 years to man. Even with that I would not presume to take this as an exact formula for calculation... merely a way to express that man cannot comprehend god's time.

Further, the "days" of creation begin prior to the creation of the earth, which provides the standard measurement for the length of a 'day'. So, even within the creation account itself we have no indication of the exact length of time involved. Beyond that, man was created on the last day... the last creation on the last day. The highest creation. Surely a metaphorical representation of man's place among the created things as the most complex...or the 'elect' being, so to speak. In the event that evolution is true, it is also metaphorically faithful to that perspective in as much as man is the most evolved being.

redmaxx

11-21-2009, 09:56 AM

Not to mention the fact that the bible compares man's perception of one day to god's perception, saying that one day to god is like 1000 years to man. Even with that I would not presume to take this as an exact formula for calculation... merely a way to express that man cannot comprehend god's time.

Further, the "days" of creation begin prior to the creation of the earth, which provides the standard measurement for the length of a 'day'. So, even within the creation account itself we have no indication of the exact length of time involved. Beyond that, man was created on the last day... the last creation on the last day. The highest creation. Surely a metaphorical representation of man's place among the created things as the most complex...or the 'elect' being, so to speak. In the event that evolution is true, it is also metaphorically faithful to that perspective in as much as man is the most evolved being.

:iagree: Couldn't have said it better myself.

talgot, this is what I'm talking about when I say that there's room for the possibility of God using evolution as a tool.

Libertarian

11-21-2009, 10:31 AM

Is this not the true meaning of atheism...? The rejection of the possibility of a divine being?

No, even the most strident atheists like Dawking and Hitchens, they do not reject the possibility outright. You will never hear them say THERE IS NO GOD AND I KNOW IT. This would amount to declaring knowledge of the unknowable, which is exactly what all religions do. Dawkins admits in his book that his technical position is agnostic, For many good reasons (the infinite regress paradox etc), it is easy to conclude that the probability of an eternal and infinite intelligence is close to 0%, which makes Dawkins a defacto atheist.

Do atheists only reject the christian god, but admit the possibility of an all powerful being that exists outside the universe or do they deny that possibility?

To speak of anything "outside the universe" or "outside time' is to enter the realm of pure irrationality. Such terms are completely meaningless..and any claim to knowledge of what exists "outside space" are completely arbitrary by definition, and in any logical or scientific debate the arbitrary must be thrown out without further consideration.

Not to mention the fact that the bible compares man's perception of one day to god's perception, saying that one day to god is like 1000 years to man. Even with that I would not presume to take this as an exact formula for calculation... merely a way to express that man cannot comprehend god's time.

Come on wuu..The 7 day calendar existed centuries before Christianity was invented. It is terribly obvious that the creation myth was invented by normal men on a man-made time scale. Dawkins calls all of the creation myths very petty and earthbound ideas and he could not be more right about that. Think about space for a moment.. Light travels at 186,000 miles per second

1 light year = 5,865,696,000,000 miles.

Given the speed of the universe's expansion, it could be 50+ billion light years across at present. Can you multiply the miles in a light year by 50 billion? My calculator doesn't go up that high.. Think about the sheer size of the universe for a moment. Think also of the fact that our sun is ONE star out of 400 billion the milky way galaxy alone...and that the milky way is but one of hundreds of billions of galaxies in the known universe. Ask yourself honestly, do you really believe that a supreme being capable of such a mind-blowing creation would choose to reveal himself by whispering in the ears of writers in a primitive bronze age society?

Doctor_Wu

11-21-2009, 12:27 PM

No, even the most strident atheists like Dawking and Hitchens, they do not reject the possibility outright. You will never hear them say THERE IS NO GOD AND I KNOW IT. This would amount to declaring knowledge of the unknowable, which is exactly what all religions do. Dawkins admits in his book that his technical position is agnostic, For many good reasons (the infinite regress paradox etc), it is easy to conclude that the probability of an eternal and infinite intelligence is close to 0%, which makes Dawkins a defacto atheist.

Unfortunately, Dawkins is either a propagandist, or he does not know his own mind. He calls himself 'technical agnostic' yet he writes books declaring god a delusion, and gives many speeches and produces TV shows about the falseness of religion. Some agnostic he is. We must never ignore that agnosticism is a respectable position that is being invaded by atheist sectarians for the purposes of promoting their own intellectual respectability.

Agnosticism demands neutrality. He may say he is 'technically' an agnostic, but as he also admits, he is practically an atheist, a denier of god's existence. And in as much as he has made great efforts to paint all of society as 'practical atheists', I see some irony in the fact that he wishes to keep one foot in the 'agnostic closet' via his 'technical agnosticism'. Agnostics must not allow him to come back in. You see, actions matter in this debate. This is the entire problem with this absurd claim that is being made by so many in society, they want to be agnostics but go around speaking and trying to convince people that religion is false, that god is a delusion, and that we should all agree. Actions matter! When you say one thing and then do another, you can easily demonstrate your true opinion and your true mindset. This is what is happening here.

Dawkins is an atheist. Technically he is an atheist. No these people don't claim to have proved or disproved anything, they just reject the presumed revelation of the Abrahamic religions... which is to say that they believe that these religions are false and this revelation is false. While having disproved neither the possibility of revelation in general, nor this revelation in particular. In turn, they refer to religions as "cults". They can say whatever they like, they can dissemble and try to split hairs saying they are w/o knowledge, but they act as if, and speak as if they do know. This is why they should never be mistaken for agnostics... a-gnosis literally "without knowledge". You don't get to pretend you are w/o knowledge and then act as if you have knowledge.

To speak of anything "outside the universe" or "outside time' is to enter the realm of pure irrationality. Such terms are completely meaningless..and any claim to knowledge of what exists "outside space" are completely arbitrary by definition, and in any logical or scientific debate the arbitrary must be thrown out without further consideration.

You are mistaken. We live in a 'whole' that we did not create. We cannot escape that reality. What lies before this whole, or outside of this whole we cannot say, but to speak of it, or its possibility is not irrational.

Come on wuu..The 7 day calendar existed centuries before Christianity was invented. It is terribly obvious that the creation myth was invented by normal men on a man-made time scale. Dawkins calls all of the creation myths very petty and earthbound ideas and he could not be more right about that. Think about space for a moment.. Light travels at 186,000 miles per second

In the event Genesis was written by Moses (as opposed to being told to Moses) that does not make him 'normal'. Genesis as a book is very complex and philosophically robust, so I cannot agree that they are normal... if it was written by men, they were geniuses of a high order.

Ask yourself honestly, do you really believe that a supreme being capable of such a mind-blowing creation would choose to reveal himself by whispering in the ears of writers in a primitive bronze age society?

I don't claim to know. But I do know that existence is perplexing, and that consciousness is perplexing. Life and our awareness of it is accompanied by a profound mystery. There are many arguments as to why such a revelation might take place at that time and in that place, we could never know for sure that it did or did not happen.

Epiphyte

11-21-2009, 12:39 PM

Unfortunately, Dawkins is either a propagandist, or he does not know his own mind. He calls himself 'technical agnostic' yet he writes books declaring god a delusion, and gives many speeches and produces TV shows about the falseness of religion. Some agnostic he is.

Dawkins is an agnostic atheist, as am I. That means we don't believe there is a God, but we recognize that there always the possibility that we are wrong and that a God does exist. It's impossible to disprove the existence of God. It's also impossible to disprove the existence of ghosts, bigfoot, and the loch ness monster.

A gnostic atheist would deny any possibility of a God existing. You seem to be confusing Dawkins for one. He isn't.

Doctor_Wu

11-21-2009, 12:43 PM

Dawkins is an agnostic atheist, as am I. That means we don't believe there is a God, but we recognize that there always the possibility that we are wrong and that a God does exist. It's impossible to disprove the existence of God. It's also impossible to disprove the existence of ghosts, bigfoot, and the loch ness monster.

A gnostic atheist would deny any possibility of a God existing. You seem to be confusing Dawkins for one. He isn't.

But god is a delusion. How does that work?

Epiphyte

11-21-2009, 12:45 PM

But god is a delusion. How does that work?

One can say bigfoot is a delusion and still think that there is a minute possibility of its existence. The bigfoot proponents could be said to be deluding the general public into thinking bigfoot exists when the actual evidence is sorely lacking.

Edit: A better way to put it would be to say that the case for bigfoot (or God) has been vastly overstated. That would be a delusion.

Doctor_Wu

11-21-2009, 12:57 PM

One can say bigfoot is a delusion and still think that there is a minute possibility of its existence. The bigfoot proponents could be said to be deluding the general public into thinking bigfoot exists when the actual evidence is sorely lacking.

Right so we can try to convince people that we know god to be a delusion, oh wait... that we THINK god is a delusion... but we don't really know. So why call it a 'delusion' then? Why not the 'god problem' or 'i doubt god'. No, these are not impactful enough. The terminology implies that there is knowledge. These many redefinitions and hyphenated terms are part of a campaign to both advance atheism and give it a patina of intellectual respectability borrowed from agnosticism. It's a sham. It's not even respectable atheism.

The 'god proponents' do not enter into the equation here... they are admitted believers, they claim gnosis.

Epiphyte

11-21-2009, 01:16 PM

Right so we can try to convince people that we know god to be a delusion, oh wait... that we THINK god is a delusion... but we don't really know. So why call it a 'delusion' then?

Of course we can call it a delusion. Just like how we can call Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster delusions. You don't think they are delusions?

Why not the 'god problem' or 'i doubt god'. No, these are not impactful enough.

They don't properly describe how overstated Dawkins sees the case for a God.

The terminology implies that there is knowledge.

Knowledge of a lack of evidence is still knowledge. As I've already said, no amount of knowledge can disprove Bigfoot or God irrefutably. That doesn't mean that we sit on the fence about God's existence and live our lives in a way that bows to that tiny tiny possibility.

Phreaker47

11-21-2009, 01:42 PM

See, we're all atheists now! And if we are, then the word no longer has any meaning.

I believe this is simply Dawkins' effort (along with many others) to make atheism "safe". B/c if we're all unknowing atheists then it's not really so bad to be an atheist, see?

It's just a simple observation, which I believe is valid enough. The quote I remember hearing goes something like "We're not all that different. I only believe in one less god than you do." And why not say it? I've seen lots of Christians write and speak with healthy skepticism about other religions.

Now certainly, you'll have those that might admit "positive Atheism", where they assert that there are no gods whatsoever. But, so what? I think there are many many more people, like myself, that are simply rooted in deep skepticism over the current batch of supernatural stories that have been on offer, and don't necessarily care to make blanket assertions about the unknown.

vivahate

11-21-2009, 01:49 PM

But god is a delusion. How does that work?

Have you *read* The God Delusion? Dawkins makes it quite clear he's referring to the god of the Abrahamic religions, not any/all god you might possibly think of. And specifically, the Young-Eathers.

Doctor_Wu

11-21-2009, 05:11 PM

Of course we can call it a delusion. Just like how we can call Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster delusions. You don't think they are delusions?

How can we call it a delusion w/o implying that we have knowledge of the truth? All we have is our "faith in the unproved absence" as I call it. We have only speculation regarding the matter of god and the possibility of revelation.

The monster example is poor b/c monsters lie in a realm to which science has some access. The possibility of testing and discovery exist... until we can escape the confines of the universe or go back in time, we will probably not have access to the realm in which god may or may not reside.

They don't properly describe how overstated Dawkins sees the case for a God.

I agree. Nor do they really convey the notion that god is undoubtedly false.

Knowledge of a lack of evidence is still knowledge. As I've already said, no amount of knowledge can disprove Bigfoot or God irrefutably. That doesn't mean that we sit on the fence about God's existence and live our lives in a way that bows to that tiny tiny possibility.

Yes, but it is only knowledge of a lack of "evidence", not knowledge of the truth of the matter. That difference is important. To be exact, it is a lack of evidence that we can subject to scientific examination... not a lack of evidence simply. There may very well be evidence, but we do not have full access to it.

How can we even quantify the possibility?

redmaxx

11-21-2009, 05:16 PM

One can say bigfoot is a delusion and still think that there is a minute possibility of its existence.

Not really. A delusion is something where there is indisputable evidence towards the contrary. If you're saying that there's a minute chance, then I don't see how you can say that there's indisputable evidence. Plus, a delusion is a psychotic belief, so it's an extreme stretch to use the word, at best.

Edit: A better way to put it would be to say that the case for bigfoot (or God) has been vastly overstated. That would be a delusion.

No, that wouldn't be a delusion, not even close.

Doctor_Wu

11-21-2009, 05:16 PM

Have you *read* The God Delusion? Dawkins makes it quite clear he's referring to the god of the Abrahamic religions, not any/all god you might possibly think of. And specifically, the Young-Eathers.

I've not. But I have watched his somewhat lengthy BBC documentary of the same title, where he lays out his case.

As mentioned above he does reject all prior gods, and declares that he's willing to go one god further. So, it seems he is rejecting any and all gods we have heard of, despite apparently allowing us some future god, or some kind of imagined god. Though I did not get that impression from his documentary.

But we are back to the question I raised earlier... is Richard Dawkins awaiting revelation? I don't think so, nor does he. The quote posted from his article is telling. He defines atheism as involving whatever cult the society subscribes to. This places the matter of the possibility of revelation squarely in question as he suggests that revelation is not possible.

vivahate

11-21-2009, 05:36 PM

Not really. A delusion is something where there is indisputable evidence towards the contrary. If you're saying that there's a minute chance, then I don't see how you can say that there's indisputable evidence.

do you think Scientologists are delusional?

Epiphyte

11-21-2009, 05:52 PM

How can we call it a delusion w/o implying that we have knowledge of the truth? All we have is our "faith in the unproved absence" as I call it. We have only speculation regarding the matter of god and the possibility of revelation.

The monster example is poor b/c monsters lie in a realm to which science has some access. The possibility of testing and discovery exist... until we can escape the confines of the universe or go back in time, we will probably not have access to the realm in which god may or may not reside.

So, if someone tried to tell you that Bigfoot did exist, just that he was invisible and otherwise undetectable, you wouldn't think that to be a delusion? You would think that just as likely as God existing?

Yes, but it is only knowledge of a lack of "evidence", not knowledge of the truth of the matter. That difference is important. To be exact, it is a lack of evidence that we can subject to scientific examination... not a lack of evidence simply. There may very well be evidence, but we do not have full access to it.

Do you think of everything we have a lack of evidence for the way you think of God? El Dorado? Ghosts? Hogwarts? Someone trying to convince you of their existence you would treat the same as someone trying to convince you that God existed?

Not really. A delusion is something where there is indisputable evidence towards the contrary. If you're saying that there's a minute chance, then I don't see how you can say that there's indisputable evidence. Plus, a delusion is a psychotic belief, so it's an extreme stretch to use the word, at best.

I'm speaking scientifically. There is never indisputable evidence for anything. If a delusion requires indisputable evidence to the contrary then there is no such thing as a delusion because that can never be provided.

It's impossible to provide indisputable evidence to the contrary of the existence of God. Same goes for countless other things, like ghosts, bigfoot, or whether you're actually awake and not just some brain floating in space dreaming this up.

Copperblade

11-21-2009, 06:30 PM

Well the way I see either the ape we evolved from is extinct which means it doesn't exist so it can't continue or it is continuing but how? We're not related to the modern ape so how again?

It's not like a different creature suddenly gave birth to a human. There's a lot of inbetween steps. We ARE the ape that evolved from our ancestors... and so are the chimps. We've just diverged enough that we're very different now.

And on another thread the scientist were caught read handed on the biggest lie yet "Global Warming". I don't believe all scientist are wrong just the ones that say the other is wrong without the opposing view not being present. It's easy to make a statement when you have no rebuttal witness. How long did the theory of "Capitulation" get pushed as being a fact but it had always been a "Theory" thats why they finally admitted it was wrong. Your "Scientists" have been caught in a few MAJOR lies regardless if they admitted to them or not.

There's a huge huge difference between an individual scientist being wrong about an individual point, than the whole scientific community being wrong about a general body of peer reviewed studies.

By the way, being wrong about something isn't such a big deal in the scientific community. It happens more often than being right. But when you take the process as a whole you see that we develop things like medicines and cell phones out of it. That's the important part. And regardless of what wrong points there may be in the current theory of evolution, it has proved useful in predicting outcomes and allow us to control our environment.

Copperblade

11-21-2009, 06:36 PM

See, we're all atheists now! And if we are, then the word no longer has any meaning.

"Atheism means non-belief in the particular cult that happens to pervade the society under discussion."

I have to agree with you on this one. We should be using the word skepticism. But the reason why people like Dawkins refer to it in terms of being "atheistic about other beliefs" is really to give people who are religious the chance to understand what it means to be an athiest, like "we simply feel the same way about your religion that you feel about the other religions."

But you're, right atheism isn't really the best word. It's too much poetic license for a scientific discussion.

Copperblade

11-21-2009, 06:38 PM

Further, the "days" of creation begin prior to the creation of the earth, which provides the standard measurement for the length of a 'day'. So, even within the creation account itself we have no indication of the exact length of time involved. Beyond that, man was created on the last day... the last creation on the last day. The highest creation. Surely a metaphorical representation of man's place among the created things as the most complex...or the 'elect' being, so to speak. In the event that evolution is true, it is also metaphorically faithful to that perspective in as much as man is the most evolved being.

A symbolic interpretation was almost surely what the writers wanted to convey anyway. This is totally acceptable to me as long as people don't start trying to draw too much out of it (for example the order of creation in the Bible doesn't match what we know).

Copperblade

11-21-2009, 06:42 PM

But god is a delusion. How does that work?

IMO, I think in the sense that people who are atheists certainly don't think that if there is a God, the Bible is correct, etc. It pretty much means "your religion is a delusion" not really the fact of the existence of God can't be true.

Or maybe it's more like they're not making the distinction between their own beliefs and their own knowledge very clearly. "God is a delusion" is a belief. The lack of evidence for God may be fact.

redmaxx

11-21-2009, 06:51 PM

I'm speaking scientifically.

Then using a word such as delusion is extremely inaccurate.

redmaxx

11-21-2009, 06:53 PM

do you think Scientologists are delusional?

Where are you going with this?

Epiphyte

11-21-2009, 07:05 PM

Where are you going with this?

I think (?) he's making the argument that any cult/religion is just as delusional as any other. Religions are no more valid or less delusional than cults.

Copperblade

11-21-2009, 07:17 PM

I think (?) he's making the argument that any cult/religion is just as delusional as any other. Religions are no more valid or less delusional than cults.

One man's religion is another man's cult. ;)

Phreaker47

11-21-2009, 10:27 PM

If anyone would consider it delusional to be convinced that alien souls inhabit our bodies and only the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard can help us get rid of them, then why not also a tale of a man born of a virgin birth who turned water into wine, instantly cured blindness and disease, then died and crawled out of his grave 3 days later?

Whether the word is fairly applied or not, I think the example gives perspective.

And hell yeah, "atheist" deserves a softer image. Why should those of us who have every rational reason to doubt these fantastical stories continue being effing pariahs?

Copperblade

11-21-2009, 10:43 PM

One definition of delusional, that I think we're talking about here:

3. [Psychiatry] A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness

And Dawkins did claim he felt it was a mental illness of sorts. But I think that's more poetic license. I don't think he seriously considers it mental illness in the psychiatric sense.

If he does well... I disagree.

darkfrog

11-22-2009, 03:08 AM

vivahate

11-22-2009, 04:54 AM

Where are you going with this?

I'm wondering whether you accept that Scientology may be true.

Libertarian

11-22-2009, 06:45 AM

Agnosticism demands neutrality.

Yes, but neutrality does NOT imply the odds of any particular claim being true are automatically 50/50. If an assertion lacks evidence, it does not mean you do not need to assume it could go "either way" with equal probability. It is perfectly possible to be an agnostic while putting the odds of something existing near (but not quite at) zero. We must all be agnostics on the existence of Russell's teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot)..since our most powerful methods of observation can not prove or disprove its existence..but drawing on everything we know about human history and the laws of nature, we can reasonably conclude that it is extremely unlikely that a teapot is currently orbiting the sun. Those who assert the existence of the teapot are making an arbitrary claim with no valid evidence. Until such evidence emerges, there is no reason to entertain the idea and it is perfectly logical to consider yourself an "ateapotist".

The same applies when people make arbitrary claims about knowing something that exists "outside time" or "outside the universe"..and not only knowing OF such a being, but actually knowing his thoughts...that he wants you to do this, and this, and this..and not to do that, etc. These are nonsensical claims that should be dismissed by any rational person without a second thought.

redmaxx

11-22-2009, 09:48 AM

I'm wondering whether you accept that Scientology may be true.

I don't but I don't think delusional is the right word.

vivahate

11-22-2009, 12:15 PM

And Dawkins did claim he felt it was a mental illness of sorts. But I think that's more poetic license. I don't think he seriously considers it mental illness in the psychiatric sense.

If he does well... I disagree.

I think he does mean it in the psychiatric sense. He likens it to the symptoms of schizophrenia which can be very similar

* You won't change your beliefs when others point out a lack of evidence and you're hyper-sensitive to criticism - you're offended if anyone challenges you to show evidence
* You are awaiting a world-ending event where you will be vindicated
* You try to convert others to your way of thinking
* You identify with a superhero or group
* You feel you're part of a great plan
* You have a confused frame of reference - in other words, you think everything is somehow related to you

BTW, He's not saying all religious folk are mentally ill, but a lot have one of more of the same symptoms.

vivahate

11-22-2009, 12:20 PM

I don't but I don't think delusional is the right word.

You don't accept there's a chance that Scientology may be true - so surely you'd have to say Scientologists are delusional

A delusion, in everyday language, is a fixed belief that is either false, fanciful, or derived from deception. (the wiki description)

It seems that Scientology would fit this to a tee

martib

11-22-2009, 12:47 PM

WTF is the theory of Capitulation? When is any theory 'pushed' as fact? Actually, what does it mean to be 'pushed as fact' to begin with?

Sorry forgot the Recapitulation And it was another big lie that convinced a lot of people that evolution as "fact" because the "evolution" scientists said the "theory" was true. Wasn't it around the same time as piltdown man, Lucy which they didn't have to lie about and did,and the fossil fuel hoax http://specialguests.com/guests/viewnews.cgi?id=EEFFuZZZlpQMjFmQcd&style=Full%20Article . There are others but you get my drift.

darkfrog

11-22-2009, 01:23 PM

Sorry forgot the Recapitulation And it was another big lie that convinced a lot of people that evolution as "fact" because the "evolution" scientists said the "theory" was true. Wasn't it around the same time as piltdown man, Lucy which they didn't have to lie about and did,and the fossil fuel hoax http://specialguests.com/guests/viewnews.cgi?id=EEFFuZZZlpQMjFmQcd&style=Full%20Article . There are others but you get my drift.

Are you seriously claiming that because abiotic methane CAN form in Saturn, that the earth's methane is not derived from plant and animal fossils?

You can find many instances of finds or theories that support evolution but are later discredited. That doesn't mean evolution is discredited. This is something that happens all of the time in science. As was pointed out previously, it certainly wasn't creationists that found the truth about Haeckel's incorrect theory or discovered the incorrect placement of an ape jaw with a human skull leading to piltdown man, a fossil that was always seen as an anomaly and never fit well within the known family tree of hominids. Guess what, scientists figured those things out. You know those people you think are deluded and/or liars simply because they are evolutionists. Use your brain for once.

Phreaker47

11-22-2009, 02:27 PM

Are you seriously claiming that because abiotic methane CAN form in Saturn, that the earth's methane is not derived from plant and animal fossils?

You can find many instances of finds or theories that support evolution but are later discredited. That doesn't mean evolution is discredited. This is something that happens all of the time in science. As was pointed out previously, it certainly wasn't creationists that found the truth about Haeckel's incorrect theory or discovered the incorrect placement of an ape jaw with a human skull leading to piltdown man, a fossil that was always seen as an anomaly and never fit well within the known family tree of hominids. Guess what, scientists figured those things out. You know those people you think are deluded and/or liars simply because they are evolutionists. Use your brain for once.

I think this once again illustrates the interesting (yet annoying) phenomenon of biblical/creationist indoctrination: that their veracity is based on how long-standing and unwavering an idea or belief is. This is constantly reinforced in the church through "keep the faith no matter what" pep talks. Therefore, being self-correcting is perceived as a weakness. They taunt and flaunt things like piltdown man, and see ET as weak because it "changes all the time." It seems a bit unbelievable that some people can't understand that self-correction is an essential component of fact finding (and therefore the opposite promotes stagnation)... but then again, to some of these people, accepting this means challenging a very hard-coded cornerstone of their belief system. It suddenly becomes both understandable and sad at the same time.

redmaxx

11-22-2009, 03:33 PM

You don't accept there's a chance that Scientology may be true - so surely you'd have to say Scientologists are delusional

A delusion, in everyday language, is a fixed belief that is either false, fanciful, or derived from deception. (the wiki description)

It seems that Scientology would fit this to a tee

I don't have to admit any such thing. I do not accept Wikipedia's (I can only assume you mean Wikipedia since there's no one "wiki") definition over a real dictionary.

Libertarian

11-22-2009, 03:45 PM

I think this once again illustrates the interesting (yet annoying) phenomenon of biblical/creationist indoctrination: that their veracity is based on how long-standing and unwavering an idea or belief is. This is constantly reinforced in the church through "keep the faith no matter what" pep talks. Therefore, being self-correcting is perceived as a weakness. They taunt and flaunt things like piltdown man, and see ET as weak because it "changes all the time." It seems a bit unbelievable that some people can't understand that self-correction is an essential component of fact finding (and therefore the opposite promotes stagnation)... but then again, to some of these people, accepting this means challenging a very hard-coded cornerstone of their belief system. It suddenly becomes both understandable and sad at the same time.

yet another example of this flowchart in action:

http://i46.tinypic.com/ehyps1.jpg

;)

Phreaker47

11-22-2009, 05:12 PM

yet another example of this flowchart in action:

http://i46.tinypic.com/ehyps1.jpg

;)

I've posted that one a few times myself. I have a printout tacked up on my bulletin board. One of my favorites.

talgot

11-22-2009, 05:22 PM

:iagree: Couldn't have said it better myself.

talgot, this is what I'm talking about when I say that there's room for the possibility of God using evolution as a tool.

When did he inject spirits? What poor ape/ human missed the cut-off into getting a spirit and soul? Or did the first cell have a soul? What makes us any more special than the rest of creation if you are right?

The day with the lord quote can be shown in scripture to not being refering to creation at all. THere are other scriptures that back up a literal day meaning. I think it would be incumbant on you to show scripturely how you can get God used evolution as a tool vs special creation. There is no room unless you clear away the scriptures or have some kind of revised version or translation of the bible.

I don't think the kind of capitulation of scripture does any Christian any good. We are all just Peters denying our Lord

martib

11-22-2009, 07:02 PM

When did he inject spirits? What poor ape/ human missed the cut-off into getting a spirit and soul? Or did the first cell have a soul? What makes us any more special than the rest of creation if you are right?

The day with the lord quote can be shown in scripture to not being refering to creation at all. THere are other scriptures that back up a literal day meaning. I think it would be incumbant on you to show scripturely how you can get God used evolution as a tool vs special creation. There is no room unless you clear away the scriptures or have some kind of revised version or translation of the bible.

I don't think the kind of capitulation of scripture does any Christian any good. We are all just Peters denying our Lord

To refer to the first question of the soul lets go a little farther how was Jesus procreated He has no earthly father. Joseph was His step father. What caused the cells to split and form a human in approximately 9 months. Did He followe the laws of birthing but not of procreation. There a numerous time stamps through out the Bible. Keep reading Genesis it speaks of the ages from Adam to Methuselah in literal years. The bible always backs itself up a day is a 24 hr period show me specifically where it allows for anything else and then give a second witness to back that up. The Bible always give several witnesses/references to confirm its understanding. I say all this by FAITH in God's Word. Evolution disputes God I don't; if this statement is not true there wouldn't be a dispute here.

martib

11-22-2009, 07:23 PM

yet another example of this flowchart in action:

http://i46.tinypic.com/ehyps1.jpg

;)

In this I absolutely disagree on I have said I don't believe "evolution" scientist and most other scientist have helped in finding ways to better human life. NO scientist has "discovered" anything that did not exist already. They have found ways of manipulating things but changing one thing into another ie lead into gold. Most major diseases are never 100% curable but still haven't figured how to cure the common cold. I refuse to buy the evolution lie because they been caught too many times in deceit. They made sure the world knew of their"discoveries" but when it was found wrong/flawed the silence was deafening.One of their lies is still in school books and being taught. So if their so up front of admitting their mistakes why don't the "evolution" scientists right this wrong they perpetrated.

Phreaker47

11-23-2009, 12:05 AM

NO scientist has "discovered" anything that did not exist already.

You're right. The ingredients for the cure for Polio, for example, already existed and were scattered about. Dr. Salk didn't deserve the credit for his 7 years of scientific research that led to the vaccine; rather, God should have been thanked instead. But then again, one must wonder why God allowed polio to exist in the first place, especially since it primarily targeted children.

martib

11-23-2009, 05:00 AM

You're right. The ingredients for the cure for Polio, for example, already existed and were scattered about. Dr. Salk didn't deserve the credit for his 7 years of scientific research that led to the vaccine; rather, God should have been thanked instead. But then again, one must wonder why God allowed polio to exist in the first place, especially since it primarily targeted children.

You know your like a pack dog waiting to pounce. I used a couple of examples and did you see the not 100% you can still get polio very rare but it happens. My friends daughter is on of the exceptions she was given the vaccination and was brain damaged from it and died at an early age. My aunt had a patient living at her home that had polio in the late 60's so it is not 100% cured! So improve your reading skills before you pounce again. I won't respond to this kind of accusation again. Your another that likes to argue for the sake of argument.

Libertarian

11-23-2009, 05:31 AM

What's your point mart? Science is not perfect and has not found 100% cures for every disease on the planet, but are you honestly going to denounce it for this? The fact that every disease has not been cured doesn't change the fact that scientific advancement has saved millions of lives over the past century. The average life expectancy for most of human history was 20-25 years. It is SCIENCE and the power of reason that dragged us up from the caves and deserts. Science has provided abundant food and the comforts of modern life, and it has more than tripled the average lifespan of humans. Please show me where "prayer" has ever come close to achieving that.

I'm also curious what your answer is to Phreaker's question? Why did God create polio, AIDS, malaria, and countless other diseases and parasites that cause horrific suffering and the death of thousands of innocent people every day? If he is a just and moral God, why does he condemn millions of children in Africa to a painful death every year? We are talking about people who have never been given a chance to form religious beliefs. They are born, live short and miserable lives, then die pointlessly. Where is the justice?

vivahate

11-23-2009, 06:16 AM

I don't have to admit any such thing. I do not accept Wikipedia's (I can only assume you mean Wikipedia since there's no one "wiki") definition over a real dictionary.

yes, wikipedia. Where is your definition from?

vivahate

11-23-2009, 06:20 AM

Why did God create polio, AIDS, malaria, and countless other diseases and parasites that cause horrific suffering and the death of thousands of innocent people every day?

I love parasites... you reminded me of a quote from David Attenborough:

I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs

martib - why did god create that parasitic worm?

Epiphyte

11-23-2009, 06:27 AM

I love parasites... you reminded me of a quote from David Attenborough:

I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs

martib - why did god create that parasitic worm?

Clearly the worm:

A. Is benefiting the child in some manner we can't comprehend
B. Is punishing the child for sinning in some manner (we also may not be able to comprehend the child's sins)
OR
God is not one of the following: omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, or real

superdan54

11-23-2009, 07:11 AM

Clearly the worm:

A. Is benefiting the child in some manner we can't comprehend
B. Is punishing the child for sinning in some manner (we also may not be able to comprehend the child's sins)
OR
God is not one of the following: omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, or real

Even from the Bible we know that these are not true.

Luke 13:1-3

1 Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him about the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
2 And He answered and said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered this fate?
3 "I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.

So it doesn't seem that anything in this incident warranted special consideration, i.e. it wasn't a fault in God's power, or a specific sin in the men's lives that caused this. It certainly didn't benefit them, either.

Yes, sometimes there are cases of divine judgment mentioned, but those seem to be the exception and only occur in times when God's Spirit & Power is being shown in vast quantity, which also appear to be at rare and important times. The rest of the time, this world is left subjected to the natural order of things, ultimately resulting in death, and the only hope & escape is repentance and faith.

Epiphyte

11-23-2009, 07:20 AM

Even from the Bible we know that these are not true.

Luke 13:1-3

1 Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him about the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
2 And He answered and said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered this fate?
3 "I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.

So it doesn't seem that anything in this incident warranted special consideration, i.e. it wasn't a fault in God's power, or a specific sin in the men's lives that caused this. It certainly didn't benefit them, either.

Yes, sometimes there are cases of divine judgment mentioned, but those seem to be the exception and only occur in times when God's Spirit & Power is being shown in vast quantity, which also appear to be at rare and important times. The rest of the time, this world is left subjected to the natural order of things, ultimately resulting in death, and the only hope & escape is repentance and faith.

I'm not sure I understand the quote. God is admitting that those individuals did not deserve their fate any more than other Galileans, yet there was unequal treatment? I think that implies that God is either not all powerful (he couldn't intervene), not all knowing (he didn't know what was occurring), or not all good (he could intervene and also knew what was happening, but chose not to be just by either punishing all or punishing none).

redmaxx

11-23-2009, 09:37 AM

yes, wikipedia. Where is your definition from?

Merriam Webster.

superdan54

11-23-2009, 10:01 AM

I'm not sure I understand the quote. God is admitting that those individuals did not deserve their fate any more than other Galileans, yet there was unequal treatment? I think that implies that God is either not all powerful (he couldn't intervene), not all knowing (he didn't know what was occurring), or not all good (he could intervene and also knew what was happening, but chose not to be just by either punishing all or punishing none).

I suppose I'm just looking at it from another perspective. I don't see anywhere in scripture where perfect justice is mitigated on this physical Earth. In fact, many of the Psalms are dedicated to the fact that justice is not mitigated in this life. Psalm 73 laments the "prosperity of the wicked. For there are no pains in their death; And their body is fat." However, later on the psalter takes hope when he "came into the sanctuary of God; Then I perceived their end." This may be vindictive and short-sighted, but I do think it illustrates that we should not expect the scales to balance perfectly in this lifetime.

Now admittedly this only eliminates part of the objections, and still calls into question as to why didn't God intervene now, and mitigate justice for all to see? Well, this may seem ludicrous and superstitious, but bear with me as no matter which angle you approach the answer to life, you'll end up waxing theoretical the further you pursue that path. Anyhow, many parts of scripture seem to indicate that God is not in total control of the world, but rather the enemy is. Perhaps this is in essence why justice isn't mitigated, because it's not God's to give at this time.

Does this mean God is not omnipotent? In the classical sense, perhaps, but not in the way God says He works. He is a covenantal God, one who binds himself to act upon certain constraints. He has a covenant with nature, in that he cannot create a four-sided triangle, and maybe even restricts Himself from acts of special creation. Then there are the various Biblical covenants, Abrahamic, Noahic, Mosaic and finally the New Covenant in Christ, where God restrains Himself from doing harm or doing good based on a series of criteria.

However, it seems there are even times when He makes a covenant with the enemy, so to speak. In Job, after Satan accuses God of only having followers whom God divinely blesses, God agrees to allow Satan to torment Job, and in doing so, prevents Himself from supernaturally rescuing Him or proving Satan wrong. Perhaps in the same manner, all of Creation is simply a pawn on the Cosmic chessboard of good vs. evil.

I certainly don't expect this to answer every specific objection to God's purpose. If He does exist, then I am certain the blueprints and reasonings are far grander than I can summarize on an Internet thread ;).

scp443

11-23-2009, 10:03 AM

what if god was lying?

martib

11-23-2009, 10:16 AM

What's your point mart? Science is not perfect and has not found 100% cures for every disease on the planet, but are you honestly going to denounce it for this reason? The fact that every disease has not been cured doesn't change the fact that scientific advancement has saved millions of lives over the past century. The average life expectancy for most of human history was 20-25 years. It is SCIENCE and the power of reason that dragged us up from the caves and deserts. Science has provided abundant food and the comforts of modern life, and it has more than tripled the average lifespan of humans. Please show me where "prayer" has ever come close to achieving that.

I'm also curious what your answer is to Phreaker's question? Why did God create polio, AIDS, malaria, and countless other diseases and parasites that cause horrific suffering and the death of thousands of innocent people every day? If he is a just and moral God, why does he condemn millions of children in Africa to a painful death every year? We are talking about people who have never been given a chance to form religious beliefs. They are born, live short and miserable lives, then die pointlessly. Where is the justice?

When Adam sinned man was no longer perfect therefore not able make perfect decisions or his body in perfect condition able to not react to outside influences. So no God did not specifically create diseases to afflict man they were always there but couldn't afflict man. Science proves this point by the fact the weaker our immune system the more deadly a simple disease is and in fact a common cold can kill a person if his immune system is compromised ie HIV. But you don't believe in God so why accuse Him?

martib

11-23-2009, 10:18 AM

I suppose I'm just looking at it from another perspective. I don't see anywhere in scripture where perfect justice is mitigated on this physical Earth. In fact, many of the Psalms are dedicated to the fact that justice is not mitigated in this life. Psalm 73 laments the "prosperity of the wicked. For there are no pains in their death; And their body is fat." However, later on the psalter takes hope when he "came into the sanctuary of God; Then I perceived their end." This may be vindictive and short-sighted, but I do think it illustrates that we should not expect the scales to balance perfectly in this lifetime.

Now admittedly this only eliminates part of the objections, and still calls into question as to why didn't God intervene now, and mitigate justice for all to see? Well, this may seem ludicrous and superstitious, but bear with me as no matter which angle you approach the answer to life, you'll end up waxing theoretical the further you pursue that path. Anyhow, many parts of scripture seem to indicate that God is not in total control of the world, but rather the enemy is. Perhaps this is in essence why justice isn't mitigated, because it's not God's to give at this time.

Does this mean God is not omnipotent? In the classical sense, perhaps, but not in the way God says He works. He is a covenantal God, one who binds himself to act upon certain constraints. He has a covenant with nature, in that he cannot create a four-sided triangle, and maybe even restricts Himself from acts of special creation. Then there are the various Biblical covenants, Abrahamic, Noahic, Mosaic and finally the New Covenant in Christ, where God restrains Himself from doing harm or doing good based on a series of criteria.

However, it seems there are even times when He makes a covenant with the enemy, so to speak. In Job, after Satan accuses God of only having followers whom God divinely blesses, God agrees to allow Satan to torment Job, and in doing so, prevents Himself from supernaturally rescuing Him or proving Satan wrong. Perhaps in the same manner, all of Creation is simply a pawn on the Cosmic chessboard of good vs. evil.

I certainly don't expect this to answer every specific objection to God's purpose. If He does exist, then I am certain the blueprints and reasonings are far grander than I can summarize on an Internet thread ;).

Bible does say it rains on the just and unjust.

what if god was lying?

What if can't be answered because it didn't happen yet.

Libertarian

11-23-2009, 10:23 AM

When Adam sinned man was no longer perfect therefore not able make perfect decisions or his body in perfect condition able to not react to outside influences. So no God did not specifically create diseases to afflict man they were always there.

WHY were they there though? Why would a benevolent being create diseases, viruses, cancers, and eyeball-eating parasites at all? These things have no conceivable benefit to mankind. They exist merely to propagate themselves like all other living things. And you didn't answer my question about why he chooses to punish so many children who never live long enough to be "saved" by your god.

vivahate

11-23-2009, 10:37 AM

What if can't be answered because it didn't happen yet.

From your KJV

1Kgs.22
[22] And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
[23] Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

I guess lying by proxy doesn't count?

Epiphyte

11-23-2009, 10:46 AM

I certainly don't expect this to answer every specific objection to God's purpose. If He does exist, then I am certain the blueprints and reasonings are far grander than I can summarize on an Internet thread ;).

I appreciate the explanation, Dan. I can usually count on you to offer reasonable arguments. Thanks. ;)

talgot

11-23-2009, 10:53 AM

I suppose I'm just looking at it from another perspective. I don't see anywhere in scripture where perfect justice is mitigated on this physical Earth. In fact, many of the Psalms are dedicated to the fact that justice is not mitigated in this life. Psalm 73 laments the "prosperity of the wicked. For there are no pains in their death; And their body is fat." However, later on the psalter takes hope when he "came into the sanctuary of God; Then I perceived their end." This may be vindictive and short-sighted, but I do think it illustrates that we should not expect the scales to balance perfectly in this lifetime.

Now admittedly this only eliminates part of the objections, and still calls into question as to why didn't God intervene now, and mitigate justice for all to see? Well, this may seem ludicrous and superstitious, but bear with me as no matter which angle you approach the answer to life, you'll end up waxing theoretical the further you pursue that path. Anyhow, many parts of scripture seem to indicate that God is not in total control of the world, but rather the enemy is. Perhaps this is in essence why justice isn't mitigated, because it's not God's to give at this time.

Does this mean God is not omnipotent? In the classical sense, perhaps, but not in the way God says He works. He is a covenantal God, one who binds himself to act upon certain constraints. He has a covenant with nature, in that he cannot create a four-sided triangle, and maybe even restricts Himself from acts of special creation. Then there are the various Biblical covenants, Abrahamic, Noahic, Mosaic and finally the New Covenant in Christ, where God restrains Himself from doing harm or doing good based on a series of criteria.

However, it seems there are even times when He makes a covenant with the enemy, so to speak. In Job, after Satan accuses God of only having followers whom God divinely blesses, God agrees to allow Satan to torment Job, and in doing so, prevents Himself from supernaturally rescuing Him or proving Satan wrong. Perhaps in the same manner, all of Creation is simply a pawn on the Cosmic chessboard of good vs. evil.

I certainly don't expect this to answer every specific objection to God's purpose. If He does exist, then I am certain the blueprints and reasonings are far grander than I can summarize on an Internet thread ;).
I do enjoy your musings on these kinds of things. You have much instinctive insight that I very much agree with here. I would add scripture indicates God gave man dominion of this earth and all in it. When he sinned he in effect gave dominion over to Satan. In effect death entered the world and now dominates our lives. But in order to correct this the ultimate sacrifice had to be made(Jesus) to give us a chance to escape death. And eventually God will renew a new covenant with us and re-make the earth casting out death forever.

This is why God blesses through covenants and faith. He restricts himself to honor his word.

talgot

11-23-2009, 11:02 AM

WHY were they there though? Why would a benevolent being create diseases, viruses, cancers, and eyeball-eating parasites at all? These things have no conceivable benefit to mankind. They exist merely to propagate themselves like all other living things. And you didn't answer my question about why he chooses to punish so many children who never live long enough to be "saved" by your god.
Why do you think your way of thinking is better than the one who created you? Just because you can't see the reasons for things doesn't mean there are not any? This is but a blip of our lives compared to eternity. God doesn't condem the innocent to hell. What if he knew the future? What if letting some things occur that we think horrible but in the end allows those afflicted and others a chance for redemtion? Is it better for God to allow sin and death to take some if it means they will be in heaven for eternity? or is it better to satisfy you and save a child miraculously now and they are condemed by their actions later in life? which is more merciful? You make it sound cut and dry. You can hardly judge God when you have so little information to base it on.

talgot

11-23-2009, 11:12 AM

From your KJV

1Kgs.22
[22] And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
[23] Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

I guess lying by proxy doesn't count? I guess cherry picking verses with out reading context is a lost art form? This is not even what you think it is and should not ever be attempted again to prove what you were trying to prove with it. ;)

superdan54

11-23-2009, 11:17 AM

Bible does say it rains on the just and unjust.

See? We do have something in common after all!

I do enjoy your musings on these kinds of things. You have much instinctive insight that I very much agree with here. I would add scripture indicates God gave man dominion of this earth and all in it. When he sinned he in effect gave dominion over to Satan. In effect death entered the world and now dominates our lives. But in order to correct this the ultimate sacrifice had to be made(Jesus) to give us a chance to escape death. And eventually God will renew a new covenant with us and re-make the earth casting out death forever.

This is why God blesses through covenants and faith. He restricts himself to honor his word.

It's been awhile since we've been able to agree on here, so let me be the first to :highfive:

I appreciate the explanation, Dan.

It's amazing how incredibly civil this age old debate can be with the right attitude. Thank you as well for your honest questions and calm demeanor. :thumbup:

Epiphyte

11-23-2009, 11:22 AM

What if letting some things occur that we think horrible but in the end allows those afflicted and others a chance for redemtion? Is it better for God to allow sin and death to take some if it means they will be in heaven for eternity? or is it better to satisfy you and save a child miraculously now and they are condemed by their actions later in life? which is more merciful? You make it sound cut and dry. You can hardly judge God when you have so little information to base it on.

What would be more merciful would be for God to both save the child's life and also allow that child into heaven later in life.

I'm very wary of arguments that can easily be used to justify things like genocide (e.g., it spares them from the fate of sinning later on and being condemned, they get to go to heaven for eternity while their killers suffer in hell for eternity, etc.).

vivahate

11-23-2009, 11:37 AM

I guess cherry picking verses with out reading context is a lost art form? This is not even what you think it is and should not ever be attempted again to prove what you were trying to prove with it. ;)

I think it means exactly what I implied it meant. I would love to hear your interpretation though - it's very possible I'm missing something.

martib

11-23-2009, 02:10 PM

From your KJV

1Kgs.22
[22] And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
[23] Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

I guess lying by proxy doesn't count?

The lying spirits were Lucifers minions. So God didn't lie the minions did. No your Bible before you make a challenge. There was more than 1 "These my prophets"

vivahate

11-23-2009, 02:15 PM

The lying spirits were Lucifers minions. So God didn't lie the minions did.

I said "lying by proxy"

The verse said the Lord put the spirits there. Does that mean Lucifer is your Lord?

martib

11-23-2009, 02:17 PM

What would be more merciful would be for God to both save the child's life and also allow that child into heaven later in life.

I'm very wary of arguments that can easily be used to justify things like genocide (e.g., it spares them from the fate of sinning later on and being condemned, they get to go to heaven for eternity while their killers suffer in hell for eternity, etc.).

What the difference is why would you prolong the child's suffering when he can experience heaven sooner than live here struggling through life.

martib

11-23-2009, 02:20 PM

I said "lying by proxy"

The verse said the Lord put the spirits there. Does that mean Lucifer is your Lord?

I don't understand your question The Lord put the (evil) spirits there. They're fallen angels what's the problem?

Epiphyte

11-23-2009, 02:41 PM

What the difference is why would you prolong the child's suffering when he can experience heaven sooner than live here struggling through life.

Ah, the all-children-should-die-because-it's-better-for-them-in-the-long-run argument. :)

vivahate

11-23-2009, 02:42 PM

I don't understand your question The Lord put the (evil) spirits there. They're fallen angels what's the problem?

The Lord put the spirits there to lie. Therefore the Lord is lying by proxy. What am I missing here?

What the difference is why would you prolong the child's suffering when he can experience heaven sooner than live here struggling through life.

You can experience heaven sooner too. Why don't you? (I'm not being glib, it's a serious question)

superdan54

11-23-2009, 03:39 PM

I said "lying by proxy"

The verse said the Lord put the spirits there. Does that mean Lucifer is your Lord?

It's a weird passage no doubt. At the risk of getting to overtly philosophical, I'll offer a couple short views. One is that the "vision" by Micaiah was parabolic in nature. There are similar instances of this in other scripture, such as the story of the Rich Man & Lazarus. They aren't portraying actual events, but often feed of the superstitions and beliefs of that timeframe. It's also interesting to note that before giving the vision of the lying spirits, the prophet Micaiah actually gives a false prophecy that the king will succeed.

The second view deals with the difference between concessional & initial wills of God. From the passage, we know that it wasn't God's initial will to lie. Verse 20 shows what his initial will was: "Who will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?" He was not concerned with the details, but rather the big picture.

Afterwards, much discussion is had until finally a spirit approaches and tells the Lord he will, and that he will do so by lying. Afterwards, God simply tells him that this method will succeed and allows him to go. So it is not a violation of God's nature, ergo it is not His initial will to lie. However, the spirit's initial was. In summary this view would argue that these are really two seperate wills combining to produce one outcome.

That is an overly simplified presentation of a complex manner, of which lots of people have written large fine-rpint volumes.

martib

11-23-2009, 05:25 PM

The Lord put the spirits there to lie. Therefore the Lord is lying by proxy. What am I missing here?

You can experience heaven sooner too. Why don't you? (I'm not being glib, it's a serious question)

When God decides it time then I go like it or not. His will not mine. He put me here for such occasions as this.

No HE is not lying or causing them to lie but he knew the spirits would because that is their nature. God surely wasn't going to help them because they were not in obedience so he gave them what they would understand.

Read up on King Saul the same thing happened out of pride again. I hope this helps you understand a little better.

martib

11-23-2009, 05:48 PM

Ah, the all-children-should-die-because-it's-better-for-them-in-the-long-run argument. :)

I won't give you the satisfaction of me replying to a foolish statement.

Copperblade

11-23-2009, 07:36 PM

what does the "will not be archived" symbol mean on this thread?

Copperblade

11-23-2009, 07:41 PM

So no God did not specifically create diseases to afflict man they were always there

Really? Forgetting the fact that things like viruses can't live without a host, are you implying that they were not created by God? That they are in fact, eternal without God's help?

Copperblade

11-23-2009, 07:44 PM

From your KJV

1Kgs.22
[22] And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
[23] Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

I guess lying by proxy doesn't count?

Yeah, the old testament is really confusing:

http://www.thebricktestament.com/king_david/god_kills_70000_israelites/2s24_01p1ch21_01.html

Copperblade

11-23-2009, 07:54 PM

Ah, the all-children-should-die-because-it's-better-for-them-in-the-long-run argument. :)

But it's a valid argument, I just don't know anyone who really believes it. Otherwise, a good parent would kill their children immediately rather than risk the chance they go to hell.

Doctor_Wu

11-23-2009, 09:31 PM

then what better "purpose" could there be than a dedication to learning the truth..to improving human knowledge and probing the mysteries of the universe?

Certainly that is a very fine purpose indeed, and might even be the most noble purpose. However while I recognize you are speaking of science... we cannot exclude the original science, philosophy, from this purpose. And in as much as philosophy is prior to science, it is the only 'science' that is capable of exploring the question of man's abilities concerning knowledge.

Before we can know "why" we need a more complete picture of the "what".

Yet we cannot discount the "why" question via science. You can say we need a more complete picture of the 'what', but that is conjecture, and not science. Only philosophy is capable of approaching the why question reasonably. It is also capable of acknowledging limitations in a way that science is not. So it is aware of both its own limitations and those of science.

And it is no accident, IMO, that these popular atheist doctrines find scientists among their most militant adherents... with Dawkins leading the way.

Religion has has no power to answer this question or advance the human race in any way.

Heh... well, religion claims the ability to explain the why question... and in as much as it has garnered millions of followers I do not believe we can say that it does not have the power to answer the why question. On the contrary it appears to be doing more to address the why question than any other force in our world, and its adherents say it does provide an answer... just not one you care to appreciate.

As for the latter, the notion of "advancing" the human race is an inherently progressive idea. Why is progress important? What does science have to say about the importance of progress?

Libertarian

11-23-2009, 09:44 PM

Why do you think your way of thinking is better than the one who created you? Just because you can't see the reasons for things doesn't mean there are not any? God doesn't condem the innocent to hell.

But he does condemn them to misery and suffering (hell) on earth.

What if he knew the future? What if letting some things occur that we think horrible but in the end allows those afflicted and others a chance for redemtion?

That's a pretty capricious god..saving some people while creating others who are born with disease, live a short life of suffering, then die.

Someone summarized this well earlier. If an eternal and infinitely powerful god allows such misery, he either (a) doesn't care about us and has no interest in our actions (in which case he doesn't deserve worship and prayer is a waste of time), (b) can't intervene (in which case he is not all powerful and contrary to what the bible said, can't perform miracles), or (c) is actually enjoying what he does. He designed us along with every every disease and parasite in the world, evidently intending pain to be widespread. This seems an awful lot to me like a disturbed child trapping ants in a jar, then slowly burning them with a magnifying glass to see if they can "redeem" themselves by escaping. Why on earth would such a sadistic being deserve respect?

Libertarian

11-23-2009, 10:02 PM

Certainly that is a very fine purpose indeed, and might even be the most noble purpose. However while I recognize you are speaking of science... we cannot exclude the original science, philosophy, from this purpose. And in as much as philosophy is prior to science, it is the only 'science' that is capable of exploring the question of man's abilities concerning knowledge.

Yes, philosophy is very important..but it in itself won't give us any of the "big answers". And there is no reason to bring religion into the realm of philosophy anyway. The word philosophy actually translates to "love of wisdom", and blind faith does not promote wisdom, no matter how many people think otherwise.

Only philosophy is capable of approaching the why question reasonably. It is also capable of acknowledging limitations in a way that science is not. So it is aware of both its own limitations and those of science.

Science is the first realm to acknowledge it's limitations.. The best science has done for us is to show us how much we know about what we don't know. That's one definition of knowledge. We've learned much about the universe over the past few hundred years, but every layer of the onion we "peel back" reveals more mysteries that astound us. This isn't a knock on science however..It should be the highest compliment you can give it.

As for the latter, the notion of "advancing" the human race is an inherently progressive idea. Why is progress important? What does science have to say about the importance of progress?

Science has nothing to say about anything. It is an amoral process. We humans are the one who have decided that progress is a good thing..that comfort, good health, and happiness are values worth striving for and spreading to others. It just so happens science is the best tool available for the job.

darkfrog

11-23-2009, 10:18 PM

Wu, would you care to comment on this philosopher? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_9w8JougLQ

Doctor_Wu

11-23-2009, 10:50 PM

Yes, but neutrality does NOT imply the odds of any particular claim being true are automatically 50/50.

But it is not possible to be an agnostic and write books calling god a delusion based on your own statistical guesswork.

Agnosticism requires neutrality b/c it involves the basic Socratic insight of "knowledge of one's ignorance"... awareness of what one does not know, and cannot know. When I said that agnosticism requires neutrality what I was actually implying was that agnosticism compels silence on the matter of god's existence. If you really believe that the matter is unknowable then you cannot go around saying otherwise, lest your fundamental agnosticism be contradicted by your actions.

To take the opposite scenario for the purposes of illustration... a person who claimed to be an agnostic, yet said that we were foolish to not pray and/or worship god "just in case" would be labeled a theist or some such by you guys, and rightly so. No matter the correct name, you would in no way accept this person as an agnostic, as their neutrality would be undetectable. The only way neutrality can be demonstrated is by saying nothing.

If an assertion lacks evidence, it does not mean you do not need to assume it could go "either way" with equal probability. It is perfectly possible to be an agnostic while putting the odds of something existing near (but not quite at) zero.

What does statistics have to say about the odds of the universe existing in the first place? What are those odds? Are they long, short? Is the universe an accident that was 90% certain or one that was only 4% likely. How could we ever know this?

How can we calculate the odds of god existing? Is that voodoo science? B/c it doesn't sound like any sort of genuine science.

We must all be agnostics on the existence of Russell's teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot)..since our most powerful methods of observation can not prove or disprove its existence..but drawing on everything we know about human history and the laws of nature, we can reasonably conclude that it is extremely unlikely that a teapot is currently orbiting the sun. Those who assert the existence of the teapot are making an arbitrary claim with no valid evidence. Until such evidence emerges, there is no reason to entertain the idea and it is perfectly logical to consider yourself an "ateapotist".

Dawkins contends that the agnostic conciliation "must also give equal respect to belief in an orbiting teapot, since the existence of an orbiting teapot is just as plausible scientifically as the existence of a supreme being."

The following was authored by atheist James Wood in a longer work (http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-celestial-teapot/) critical of popular atheism...

"It seems to occur neither to Dawkins nor to Russell that belief in God is not like belief in a teapot. The referent--the content of the belief--matters here. God may be just as undisprovable as the teapot, but belief in God is a good deal more reasonable than belief in the teapot, precisely because God cannot be reified, cannot be turned into a mere thing, and thus entices our approximations. There is a reason, after all, that no one has ever worshiped a teapot: it does not allow enough room to pour the fluid of our incomprehension into it. "

The "fluid of our incomprehension"... a wonderfully artful way to describe the perplexing quality of existence. I suspect, however, this will fall flat with those who are so totally committed to Dawkins and his ideas. My experience with atheists is that they do not have ears to hear such things... they do not really feel any incomprehension, at least none that they show or that I can detect. Life does not present itself as fundamentally mysterious to these people. I think a proper agnostic can still feel this, and obviously some, if not most religious people do.

The same applies when people make arbitrary claims about knowing something that exists "outside time" or "outside the universe"..and not only knowing OF such a being, but actually knowing his thoughts...that he wants you to do this, and this, and this..and not to do that, etc. These are nonsensical claims that should be dismissed by any rational person without a second thought.

The thing is... the celestial teapot is arbitrary in a way that the idea of a creator is not. The reality is this... something happened... the universe came into existence. Did it have a reason for doing so? We don't know. Life came forth... was there a reason for that? Again, that is unknown. Then life developed awareness of itself, consciousness. Why did that happen? We can't say, but at the same time, it is now WE who are asking these questions. The universe has brought us to the point of questioning our own existence and raison d'etre. This is not a trivial matter. But Dawkins would have us believe that it is, as you also would.

You dismiss the idea of a creator and revelation as nonsensical, yet how can that be nonsensical? It actually does make some sense... consciousness is special, we're the only animal that has philosophy. There may be a reason for that. Revelation as a possibility cannot be disproved. It is my view that a "rational" person should be open to such things as one who is aware of their own ignorance. I'm not saying a rational person becomes religious ... but the notion that rationality involves an abject dismissal of this "w/o a second thought" is tragic in that it urinates on the very notion of human reason as the function of a liberated mind.

Doctor_Wu

11-23-2009, 10:56 PM

Wu, would you care to comment on this philosopher? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_9w8JougLQ

I would, but not until I watch this video, and that may take some time... as I have other videos in my pipeline and my time at the computer is limited. Plus... when I'm watching videos I can't also be simultaneously working on these conversations, and all good podiumites know that conversations are the real reason to be here... so the opportunity cost of watching this is rather high. But I will at some point.

Dawkins' introduction is not a good start though... "I'm sometimes tempted to wonder, what's the point of philosophers?" His temptation is tragic in as much as he would be an ignorant man w/o philosophers. Beyond that... here is a scientist who calls god a delusion and also believes that religion is a disease and that it's time for "people of reason" to say "enough is enough"... here is that same scientist now wondering about the 'point' of philosophers. This is a man with the soul of a tyrant.

Libertarian

11-23-2009, 11:16 PM

Revelation as a possibility cannot be disproved. It is my view that a "rational" person should be open to such things as one who is aware of their own ignorance.

This is what it all boils down to Wuu.. It is impossible to disprove the existence of something for which there is no evidence. To discuss the existence (and will) of a being that exists outside of the universe, you must exit the realm of reality entirely..and this is the definition of irrationality in my opinion. Can we dismiss the idea of an intelligent God entirely? Can we dismiss revelation with absolute certainty? Of course not..but at the same time, we have no reason to entertain the ideas for a single second. Unprovable assertions without evidence are just as arbitrary as assertions of celestial teapots and flying spaghetti monsters. Proposing the existence of such things is silly but actually quite harmless. The problem comes when religion not only preaches the existence of the great cosmic dictator..but that THEY KNOW his mind and have been given his will by revelation, thus granting them the power to dictate the behavior of others. Such hubris is the source of much conflict in the world today and we would be better off without it. Humanity is perfectly capable of developing a rational moral code that does not come as a matter of supernatural revelation or commandment .

Doctor_Wu

11-23-2009, 11:16 PM

So, if someone tried to tell you that Bigfoot did exist, just that he was invisible and otherwise undetectable, you wouldn't think that to be a delusion? You would think that just as likely as God existing?

You use the term 'otherwise undetectable'... yet as I have pointed out the problem is not exactly that there is a lack of evidence, it is that there is a lack of evidence that we can submit to scientific examination. Put differently, there is a lack of evidence that you are willing to consider. This is the work of positivism.

People often claim to detect the work of god in their lives in their own way. Also, god has allegedly made revelations to man of both his will, and prophecies of future events. Then there is the matter of miracles that are alleged to have happened. While these things are not evidence in the scientific sense, they are a form of evidence.

Do you think of everything we have a lack of evidence for the way you think of God? El Dorado? Ghosts? Hogwarts? Someone trying to convince you of their existence you would treat the same as someone trying to convince you that God existed?

As for El Dorado and Hogwarts I do think of those things differently. But they are also quite trivial in comparison. The main issue I take with popular atheism is its attempt to borrow intellectual legitimacy from agnosticism. The agnostic recognizes the inability of man to profess knowledge on the question of god. Man can deal scientifically with the question of El Dorado in a way that he cannot deal with the question of god.

Doctor_Wu

11-23-2009, 11:22 PM

Science is the first realm to acknowledge it's limitations.. The best science has done for us is to show us how much we know about what we don't know.;) That's one definition of knowledge. We've learned much about the universe over the past few hundred years, but every layer of the onion we "peel back" reveals more mysteries that astound us. This isn't a knock on science however..It should be the highest compliment you can give it.

Science has nothing to say about anything. It is an amoral process..a tool to be used how we choose. We humans are the one who have decided that progress is a good thing..that comfort, good health, and happiness are values worth striving for and spreading to others. It just so happens science is the best tool available for the job.

Science is an amoral process that has nothing to say about anything, yet is the first realm to acknowledge its limitations? This is contradictory. Science cannot comment on itself, it has no mechanism by which it can address the "whole" of itself... philosophy is required for that.

You speak of the values of progress, the notions of comfort, good health, and happiness being values worth striving for and spreading, and there are very good arguments to be made for that. Yet we can just as easily note religion has brought all of these things to people. Religion certainly brings comfort, it has brought happiness... and a case can be made that for those who are inclined to follow its teachings concerning living moderately it brings comparative good health.

You believe Science to be the best tool for the job, but this is just an opinion and in no way any kind of proven fact. I agree that science has brought many wonders, but it has also brought many new pains, and many side effects. We should not be so blindly loyal to science that we allow it to dominate us in the way that religion once did... by that I mean, we should not come to view science as holy, or as the only path to man's salvation. Unfortunately both beliefs are common.

Libertarian

11-23-2009, 11:36 PM

Science is an amoral process that has nothing to say about anything, yet is the first realm to acknowledge its limitations? This is contradictory. Science cannot comment on itself

Correction: Scientists* are the first to acknowledge the limits of science.

You speak of the values of progress, the notions of comfort, good health, and happiness being values worth striving for and spreading, and there are very good arguments to be made for that. Yet we can just as easily note religion has brought all of these things to people. Religion certainly brings comfort, it has brought happiness.. You believe Science to be the best tool for the job, but this is just an opinion and in no way any kind of proven fact. I agree that science has brought many wonders, but it has also brought many new pains, and many side effects. We should not be so blindly loyal to science that we allow it to dominate us in the way that religion once did... by that I mean, we should not come to view science as holy, or as the only path to man's salvation. Unfortunately both beliefs are common.

The point is that faith itself has not produced these things. All of the modern comforts, vaccines, germ-free food, etc are products of scientific progress..not prayer. Religion may well provide a placebo effect. It's unnecessary in my opinion but if it makes you live a more happy and moral life, go for it. Just don't depend on it when it counts. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1218719/Couple-prayed-dying-daughter-11-seek-medical-help-jailed-months.html)

People often claim to detect the work of god in their lives in their own way. Also, god has allegedly made revelations to man of both his will, and prophecies of future events. Then there is the matter of miracles that are alleged to have happened. While these things are not evidence in the scientific sense, they are a form of evidence.

Do you really think so Wu? People all over the world from all different religions (and even atheists) can have profound "spiritual" experiences. The human mind is capable experiencing moments of great inspiration and joy..but this hardly qualifies as evidence for the supernatural. I would think if god really wanted to make his presence known to us, he could have done something a bit more explicit, and he certainly could have given us much more "hard" evidence than making a human sacrifice in the most primitive part of the world 2000 years ago.