An Oklahoma state senator is writing legislature to give creationism equal time with evolution in Oklahoma classrooms.
This is not the main point. The main point is his weird, rambling essay on the matter, partly plagiarized from Lee Strobal, otherwise nonsense he's making up. It's a delightful train-wreck, so I thought I'd share it.
People voted this man into a political office! People actually voted for this man!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
lol
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Are other modern countries having to deal with this crap?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Sigh... Here we go again.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Can I demand that Chris Angel's body of work be given equal time as well? we havent proven his methods scientifically (not publicly atleast) but he sits higher than most religions in proof of miracles and magic. So long as govt funded schools are teaching about magical talking snakes and bodies of water defying physics why not mention that Angel made an elephant dissapear in public?
quote: People voted this man into a political office! People in Oklahoma actually voted for this man!
Fixed that for you.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:People voted this man into a political office! People actually voted for this man!
I can beat that. The man who said this on national television.
quote:George, the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you’ve got more carbon dioxide. And so I think it’s clear…
has not only been elected. Republicans have selected him to be speaker of the house. That's right. This was said by the most powerful elected republican in the world.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Real Americans LAUGH in the face of science.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
If thats true, how do you book-burn xkcd.com?
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel:
quote: People voted this man into a political office! People in Oklahoma actually voted for this man!
Fixed that for you.
What do you mean by that?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Oklahoma isnt overly known for its forward thinking and diverse cultural background. Guys like this do alot better on the bible belt for a reason.
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
And other areas/states, perhaps every area/state, has politicians that are less than ideal for whatever reason. Why single out Oklahoma? Why deride Oklahomans for voting for him, rather than focusing on the man himself?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I wasnt personnally targeting Oklahoma, merely that it was Oklahoma that put him in power. I wouldnt pretend like my own state of Arizona is any better, Arpaio uses fear and racism to hold power over many things outside his jurisdiction and has for some time while Brecheen pretends that his propisition will be effective and that gets him votes. Honestly aside from this my only mental notes about Oklahoma is singing and disturbingly bright clothing.
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
Okay. I still don't see why it was necessary to actively point out Oklahomans voted him in. Its obvious from his position and the thread title; the redundancy of specifically pointing it out again (especially the way you did) comes off as unnecessarily demeaning to an entire population of people. This especially bothers me because, as I said, every state/region/country whatever has at least one politician to be ashamed of.
Anyway, if you say you meant no harm, though, then you meant no harm.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
It's been pretty standard for Americans to make fun of *gasp* other Americans!
To a Southerner a Yankee is someone north of the Mason-Dixie line.
To someone north of the line a Yankee is someone from the north-east.
To someone from the north east it is someone from new england.
to someone from new england a yankee is someone from vermont.
To someone from vermont a yankee is something you eat.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Would someone be so kind as to show Mr. Brecheen and others of his ilk this before they go making- or plagarizing- their statements, if only so they understand the terms they're deriding?
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote:That professor had a deep appreciation for me by semester end... I specifically remember asking how in 4,000 years of recorded history how we have yet to see the ongoing evidence of evolution (i.e. a monkey jumping out of a tree and putting on a business suit).
Oh yes. I'm certain that his professor had a deep, deep appreciation for him.
Why is there no facepalm smiley?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I don't want to dig through this for good content. Could somebody who's read it post some choice quotes?
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Well, to be fair pretty much every sentence is a gas, and it isn't that long. Still, here's a few samples, out of many:
"(his planned bill) is an attempt to bring parity to subject matter taught in our public schools, paid for by the taxpayers and driven by a religious ideology. I’m talking about the religion of evolution. Yes, it is a religion... Gasp! Someone reading this just fell out of their enlightened seat!!! “It’s not a religion as it’s agreed upon by the entire scientific community,” some are saying at this very moment. Are you sure? Let’s explore the facts."
Getting more in-depth, he says "Even the difference among lions, tigers and cougars could be attributed to species adaption and interbreeding if one so decried. Additionally, human differences seen notable in ethnicity proves that change among species is real but this is NOT evolution, its adaption. Changes with the classification of species is DRAMATICALLY different then changes among Phyla."
"Absolutely ZERO phyla evidence supporting Darwin’s hypothesis has been discovered after millions of fossil discoveries. Darwin’s cornerstone hypothesis where invertebrate’s transition into vertebrates is majorly lacking and so is Darwin’s “theory”."
It goes on pretty much like that. He rails on about phyla crossover a lot, which is apparently a term he made up out of whole-cloth, and which I've never heard in any of the books I've read on the actual subject.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
to be fair, oklahoma politics is frequently and amazingly dumb.
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: to be fair, oklahoma politics is frequently and amazingly dumb.
Can't argue with that, although I think you could say the same for politics everywhere (just maybe different kinds of dumb).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It's just a handful of states, really. AZ, OK, TX, NJ, SD .. most can't be said to have a cripplingly dumb and/or corrupt state scenario.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
As a Louisiana resident, I am not ashamed to add my state to the list of dumb AND corrupt politics. Its just the sad truth.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We tend towards corrupt but not so dumb locally. We do okay at the Federal level even if our new senator is a Republican. And I am always happy with my Representative.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ginol, I can understand why you would say pointing out this is an Oklahoma problem specifically is particularly critical but...isn't that truly because, when you get right down to it, on this issue, Oklahoma is historically pretty (in)famous for being quite behind the times and provincial (that's putting it very politely)?
Oklahoma has a representative government, just like the rest of us. If they elect fools like this, they ought to have it pointed out. Perhaps not with quite so much scorn, but really it's hard not to laugh when the emperor has no clothes on and he's the emperor.
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Ginol, I can understand why you would say pointing out this is an Oklahoma problem specifically is particularly critical but...isn't that truly because, when you get right down to it, on this issue, Oklahoma is historically pretty (in)famous for being quite behind the times and provincial (that's putting it very politely)?
Oklahoma has a representative government, just like the rest of us. If they elect fools like this, they ought to have it pointed out. Perhaps not with quite so much scorn, but really it's hard not to laugh when the emperor has no clothes on and he's the emperor.
I'm just asking for a little bit of courtesy when you start generalizing about a an entire state's population. You, instead, decided to go out of your way to provoke and insult me and everyone I know despite not being a part of this thread earlier. Despite my having reached common ground with the guy who posted the initial comment, you brought it up again why? To prove a point that Oklahomans are backwards and stupid? To show how much better you are?
Feel free, I guess. Can't stop you. Just know that ignorance runs both ways.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I think you need a chill pill.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
You know, I know I don't have any special privileges as the OP, but this is a silly thing to squabble over. Every state has stupid politicians.
This is about one stupid politician in particular. A state politician, not even national. It's much easier for weirdos to become state senators. Heck, dead people and convicted felons have been elected in the past, due to regional party preference type things. It just happens.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
We have tom tancredo! the day we elect him to office is the day you can know we're dumb as rocks and should admit it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ginol,
In what way am I generalizing? I was quite specific when talking about Oklahoma to point out I was talking about 'this issue', meaning clearly issues of evolution, biology, and how they're taught in school. So your criticism of me on that basis seems pretty flawed.
How did I go about provoking and insulting you? By calling Sen. Breechan a fool? Well, Ginol, that's about as close to a fact as such a subject matter can get. There are plenty of worse things than a fool to be, but when it comes to discussing biology and evolution, Breechan is quite the fool, and has no bones about showcasing it in public. If that sounds provocative and insulting to you, I really don't know how to lighten up the language any further.
Do you want to have a discussion on whether or not his opinions on evolution are correct? Because I think if you do, it will quickly be revealed that they are, well, quite staggeringly foolish. And if so, then what have I said that was so insulting and provocative? Much less to 'everyone you know'? Do you only know people in Oklahoma?
I wasn't trying to prove I was better than you. I wasn't insulting or provocative, I didn't call you and everyone you know out, I didn't call everyone in Oklahoma out. The only way you could think that was if you believed I somehow wasn't aware that, yes, 'ignorance runs both ways', a bit of fortune cookie wisdom that anyone with even a bit of reading and knowledge of history is aware of.
I submit that your outraged reaction to what I think was a pretty mild post might have a better outlet if directed towards some pretty absurd, embarrassing local and state politicians, frankly. Not just because they're embarrassing, but because they're doing harm to the education system in Oklahoma, and aren't we hamstringing ourselves enough without this 'evolution is religion' nonsense?
ETA: And, y'know, it really didn't appear as though you 'reached common ground' with the initial poster. More like a cease-fire. And the thread is less than a week old, in a week that contains both Christmas and Christmas Eve, no less-is it really so surprising that someone would arrive a little late to the discussion? So your remarks along those lines are pretty off-base too.
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:Ginol,
In what way am I generalizing? I was quite specific when talking about Oklahoma to point out I was talking about 'this issue', meaning clearly issues of evolution, biology, and how they're taught in school. So your criticism of me on that basis seems pretty flawed.
You referred solely to "Oklahoma." You may have meant "this particular Oklahoma politician" or "Oklahoma politicians" or something, but that didn't come across in your text. You refer to the entirety of Oklahoma. If you didn't mean it that way, then you didn't mean it that way. Sorry I misunderstood.
quote:How did I go about provoking and insulting you? By calling Sen. Breechan a fool? Well, Ginol, that's about as close to a fact as such a subject matter can get. There are plenty of worse things than a fool to be, but when it comes to discussing biology and evolution, Breechan is quite the fool, and has no bones about showcasing it in public. If that sounds provocative and insulting to you, I really don't know how to lighten up the language any further.
Do you want to have a discussion on whether or not his opinions on evolution are correct? Because I think if you do, it will quickly be revealed that they are, well, quite staggeringly foolish. And if so, then what have I said that was so insulting and provocative? Much less to 'everyone you know'? Do you only know people in Oklahoma?
You provoked me by simply bringing it up. I took issue with a minor comment from AchillesHeel that, I felt, lumped the entirety of Oklahoma in with this guy. We came to resolution, all seem well, then you brought it back up for no reason I could see.
As for insulting me, you also lumped me in with this guy (or at least appeared to). Clearly, by my reaction, I agree he's a fool. I don't want to be regarded in the same breath as him; he's an embarrassment to the state. My only issue was ever, which AchillesHeel and yourself, being lumped in with him like all Oklahomans are, well, fools. By addressing me I assumed, I suppose incorrectly, that you were speaking about that.
Also, "most everyone I know," if hyperbole is not allowed. I would say that everyone I know really well lives in Oklahoma, though, so not much of an exaggeration.
quote:I wasn't trying to prove I was better than you. I wasn't insulting or provocative, I didn't call you and everyone you know out, I didn't call everyone in Oklahoma out. The only way you could think that was if you believed I somehow wasn't aware that, yes, 'ignorance runs both ways', a bit of fortune cookie wisdom that anyone with even a bit of reading and knowledge of history is aware of.
Just because its well known "fortune cookie" wisdom doesn't mean its not true. I'll try to pull something more obscure next time; I wouldn't want to imply you hadn't a bit of reading or knowledge of history.
quote:I submit that your outraged reaction to what I think was a pretty mild post might have a better outlet if directed towards some pretty absurd, embarrassing local and state politicians, frankly. Not just because they're embarrassing, but because they're doing harm to the education system in Oklahoma, and aren't we hamstringing ourselves enough without this 'evolution is religion' nonsense?
I think both you and Blayne Bradley (chill pill waived, BTW) read more "outrage" into my post than I felt when writing it. Similar, perhaps, to how I apparently read too much into your post and assumed you were indeed generalizing about Oklahoma.
quote:ETA: And, y'know, it really didn't appear as though you 'reached common ground' with the initial poster. More like a cease-fire. And the thread is less than a week old, in a week that contains both Christmas and Christmas Eve, no less-is it really so surprising that someone would arrive a little late to the discussion? So your remarks along those lines are pretty off-base too.
Semantics. Personally, I feel "cease-fire" implies more hostility than existed. He said something I took some offense at. I questioned him on it. He explained his position. I claimed "no harm done" (not a literal quote, since we're nitpicking) and that was it. Maybe "common ground" could overly imply that we are now in exact agreement, which I suppose is untrue, but I don't think any other particular phrase works substantially better (I already explained my dislike of "cease fire," of course).
And, finally, of course you're free to come into the thread whenever. I was referring simply to my small conversation with Mr. Heel. I felt that issue was resolved and things could move on. I also felt I explained my position fairly well, so why would it need to be brought back up except if some ill will were meant towards my home state?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ginol,
quote: You referred solely to "Oklahoma." You may have meant "this particular Oklahoma politician" or "Oklahoma politicians" or something, but that didn't come across in your text. You refer to the entirety of Oklahoma. If you didn't mean it that way, then you didn't mean it that way. Sorry I misundestood.
I meant precisely what I said: that the population of Oklahoma taken as a whole is well known for being behind the times and (in)famous on issues of evolution and how it is taught in schools. That wasn't generalizing, Ginol, that was quite a specific statement about a state population. Your problem with the statement was that you didn't like it which isn't the same thing. I notice you don't challenge my statement, you just criticize me for 'generalizing'.
quote:You provoked me by simply bringing it up. I took issue with a minor comment from AchillesHeel that, I felt, lumped the entirety of Oklahoma in with this guy. We came to resolution, all seem well, then you brought it back up for no reason I could see.
Well, man, that's your problem, not mine. I'm not going to take responsibility for your disproportionate reaction to such 'provocations' when not only are many (all?) of your criticisms of my post off-base, but many of your statements about what you've done ring hollow as well. You didn't 'come to resolution', all that was said was 'if you say you didn't mean to insult, you didn't mean to insult'.
quote: As for insulting me, you also lumped me in with this guy (or at least appeared to). Clearly, by my reaction, I agree he's a fool. I don't want to be regarded in the same breath as him; he's an embarrassment to the state. My only issue was ever, which AchillesHeel and yourself, being lumped in with him like all Oklahomans are, well, fools. By addressing me I assumed, I suppose incorrectly, that you were speaking about that.
Well, Ginol, you're going to be regarded in the same breath as him. He's one of your state's Senators. You can't escape it. If you don't like it, agitate. That's one of the virtues and laments of a representative society-you don't get to just wash your hands of the guys you don't like, especially at that level. So, no, I'm not going to grant your request not to associate you with your state Senator. Why on Earth would I? He's yours, like all Oklahomans, who were could've been eligible to vote anyway. Now here is where you might have had some justification for getting as outraged as you did: by associating him with you, I was not, as you suggest, insinuating you were incredibly stupid, nor all Oklahomans, or anything else like that. Or that I personally was better than you.
All I was suggesting was that the people of Oklahoma had made a pretty foolish choice in their pick of state senator here, so poor it reflected badly on them because of that word 'choice'. There's no escaping that connection. I went on to point out that it doesn't really seem reasonable for you to get so angry at folks poking fun at Oklahoma for electing a jackass for a state senator because, again, 'choice'.
Yes, everyone makes stupid choices sometimes. I remember when over here in Florida a decade ago we did, folks just couldn't seem to shut up about how foolish we were, not able to handle an election properly, and then of course it turned out that many places across the country were running things sloppy. When someone makes fun of you for a stupid choice, perhaps the most productive thing to do isn't to get angry that they're making fun of you but to first ask, "Did I make a stupid choice? What can be done about that?"
quote:Just because its well known "fortune cookie" wisdom doesn't mean its not true. I'll try to pull something more obscure next time; I wouldn't want to imply you hadn't a bit of reading or knowledge of history.
Well, of course you would, Ginol, because you're lashing out due to embarrassment at being associated with this jackass of an elected official. I'm not stating that as a zinger, either, you've all but stated as much in plain language.
quote:I think both you and Blayne Bradley (chill pill waived, BTW) read more "outrage" into my post than I felt when writing it. Similar, perhaps, to how I apparently read too much into your post and assumed you were indeed generalizing about Oklahoma.
I really don't. You've been using words like provoke, insult, and of course suggesting that I'm taking issue with your entire state overall instead of just with one particular issue as I was very clear in stating in the first place. So if folks - not just Blayne and I - are reading more outrage than you feel when writing in your posts, well, perhaps the reason for that doesn't like with the readers.
quote:I also felt I explained my position fairly well, so why would it need to be brought back up except if some ill will were meant towards my home state?
Well, there are two possibilities. One is because I hate Oklahoma and think it and its residents are stupid. Another possibility is one very closely tied to my original post: that when a population living under representative government elects absurd, foolish officials, they ought to have it pointed out to them instead of it being kept quiet out of fear of offending anyone.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If I had to suffer the embarrassment of President Bush - and I did and it was right that I should have - and Governor Blagojevich - ditto - then you have to suck it up when you elect idiots, too.
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
Rakeesh,
I don't think you hate my state entirely. You are, as you clearly stated, saying my entire state is backwards in its belief in evolution. This is what I take issue with. Yes, this senator is an idiot. I have said as much. I have agreed, even, that Oklahoma politics in general are stupid. I don't agree, however, that the entire population agrees with him or his beliefs on this matter. I don't. Nobody I've spoken to about this does. That's all I take offense at: the insinuation that the entire state's population believes that evolution is religion, etc.
I don't see how that's not generalizing. You're saying something specific about a very large amount of people. Maybe its all you hear about Oklahoma; dumb politics and tornadoes (and I guess the Thunder now) seem to be most of what we get national news coverage for. It doesn't mean its entirely true or applicable to everyone or even most everyone in the state.
I do express my displeasure with the gov't, by the way. Sen. Brecheen, however, does not represent my district, so I doubt he'd really care what I'd have to say.
Everything else you're talking about seems rather superfluous (why do you even care how my conversation ended with AchillesHeel?). Its semantics and doesn't really matter, so I won't bother.
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If I had to suffer the embarrassment of President Bush - and I did and it was right that I should have - and Governor Blagojevich - ditto - then you have to suck it up when you elect idiots, too.
I didn't elect him, for one. He doesn't represent my district. Two, I'm not against acknowledging he's an Oklahoma State Senator. I'm against insinuating that everyone in the state agrees with him.
And its not like I didn't have to suffer Bush either. And I've got Mary Fallin coming in for governor, so we may be even in a few years Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that you get a not-my-district pass, then. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ginol,
quote:I don't think you hate my state entirely. You are, as you clearly stated, saying my entire state is backwards in its belief in evolution.
Alright, I'm dropping out of this discussion with you, because it's quite clear you're not interested in having a good-faith dialogue. Hate? I haven't said or even suggested anything approaching that sentiment.
quote:That's all I take offense at: the insinuation that the entire state's population believes that evolution is religion, etc.
Nor have I said anything suggesting this, either. I don't know whose posts you're reading, because they certainly aren't mine.
quote: I don't see how that's not generalizing. You're saying something specific about a very large amount of people. Maybe its all you hear about Oklahoma; dumb politics and tornadoes (and I guess the Thunder now) seem to be most of what we get national news coverage for. It doesn't mean its entirely true or applicable to everyone or even most everyone in the state.
How what's not generalizing? The things I haven't said? That I don't entirely hate Oklahoma and its residents (which until recently included most of my extended paternal family, I despised them). That I think the entire state and all its residents are backwards in their beliefs on evolution. I certainly didn't say anything like Oklahoma is infamous for having a government that is backwards on evolution and how it's taught in schools, or that its population cannot be entirely free from criticism for that.
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, there are two possibilities. One is because I hate Oklahoma and think it and its residents are stupid.
I was responding directly to this. Considering I said I don't think this is the case, I don't see how you took offense.
I may have over-reacted in my initial response to you and I apologize. Since then, however, I feel I've tried very civilly to explain my feelings towards the subject and how I interpreted, perhaps incorrectly, your posts.
In return, I've received what I perceive to be... Well, I guess I shouldn't try to summarize your posts. I apparently seem to be misinterpreting them as much as your are mine.
Its just as well you're dropping out, since I'm tired of it too.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I was responding directly to this. Considering I said I don't think this is the case, I don't see how you took offense.
I don't even know how hate even came into it. The fact that you ever conceived the thought that I hated Oklahoma is just plain baffling to me, and not supported by anything I said. The only way this conversation makes any sense to me is if when you said 'hate my state entirely', you meant that 'you don't think that at all', rather than 'I think you only hate Oklahoma somewhat'.
But even without that misunderstanding, your reactions in the face of repeated clarifications make further communication impossible, and I'm not interested in the non-resolution of 'well I didn't mean to insult Oklahoma', even though I never did. It's just that I don't think that is a resolution, and I don't believe in it.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Can I demand that Chris Angel's body of work be given equal time as well? we havent proven his methods scientifically (not publicly atleast) but he sits higher than most religions in proof of miracles and magic. So long as govt funded schools are teaching about magical talking snakes and bodies of water defying physics why not mention that Angel made an elephant dissapear in public?
Sure, why not? We teach that the entire universe just poofed into existence once day. Teach about the FSM for all I care. If it is important for children to learn other types of world views, why not?
Magic is fine too, but can we use someone other than Chris Angel? The two times I met him he was kind of a douchebag.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:We teach that the entire universe just poofed into existence once day.
And we have large bodies of evidence to support that. It was a hypothesis that was predicted, which would have turned out to be false if some particular evidence had turned up differently. But the evidence ended up lining up with the prediction. It is, to the best of our current knowledge, the truth, in a way that bending spoons is not.
We don't teach what came BEFORE THAT, because we don't know.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
But it is implicit in the whole mechanistic viewpoint. In the beginning there was nothing--no time, no space, no matter, no energy. Then suddenly nothing exploded, all by itself with no divine intervention, and nothing became everything.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I will reiterate: we don't know.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* Seriously, Ron, science does not, as a body of knowledge, make any claim about what may or may not have existed before the observable universe. The only reason you can honestly add "by itself with no divine intervention" to that sentence is that there is no evidence to suggest that it happened due to someone or something else's help, with any divine intervention.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ron, what we have no scientific evidence for - divine intervention, what came "before" and so forth - does not belong in a science class.
[ December 29, 2010, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Ron, what we have no scientific evidence for - divine intervention, what came "before" and so forth - does not belong in a science class.
Unless you believe God used science to create the universe, and that he is a scientist himself. No?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Do we have scientific evidence for that belief?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Unless you believe God used science to create the universe, and that he is a scientist himself. No?
Saying "suppose someone else used science and did X" is not science. At best, it's philosophy. But usually not even that.
Science is distinguished from other modes of determining truth value precisely because it is NOT just saying "suppose this" and then inserting appropriate buzzwords that sound plausible.
[ December 29, 2010, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Ron, what we have no scientific evidence for - divine intervention, what came "before" and so forth - does not belong in a science class.
Unless you believe God used science to create the universe, and that he is a scientist himself. No?
Yeah, no. If you believe that I am a scientist and I believe I created the universe with magic powers, does that make my claim scientifically valid? Whether or not you buy into that belief?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Did I mention magical powers? We are discovering that we can replicate the Big Bang, create life in a lab, and other remarkable things. It's pretty arrogant to think we are the only life forms that have been able to do that.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Hypothetical possibility does not evidence make.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Here's a question: How do you test it? How do you discern between the universe having been made by some lab God made, and through some natural process?
And, heck, there's the bigger problem to begin with: Assuming something else created our universe, how did that thing come into being?
If the answer, and it's not a bad one, is that it (say, God or some other extra-universal thing) didn't need a cause, that it's the first cause, or since time is an aspect of the universe itself then thinking of things from the perspective of "first" doesn't make sense, then... why couldn't that same answer be used for the universe in the first place? You skip a step that doesn't actually add anything, because either way things start "just because".
This, of course, isn't even strong enough to be considered a hypothesis. My suggestion falls under the purview of "bald and unsubstantiated speculation." There's nothing there but a use of Occam's Razor to other speculation. I certainly put no real weight on it, because, well, I have no clue!
Are there other universes? I don't know enough to know! Is there a trigger that started our universe? I dunno. Does our universe begin, end, and begin again? Dunno. Is the universe actually some series of interconnected golden "braids"? Actually, that one I doubt, but... maybe? (ten cents to anyone who can guess which book's introduction I paraphrased that scornful misunderstanding from.) Was our universe started by some other being? I can't say. There's no evidence that I've seen for any of these, other than the fact that the universe exists in the first place. And that could mean any number of things, and I certainly don't know a way to test it out.
Maybe the astrophysicists have some ideas. I've heard vague things about a few hypotheses being tested, or waiting to be tested. But I certainly don't know.
And that's the thing. I don't know the source of our universe. However, nobody else does either. Even if you use a religious text as the solution, there are so many contradictory ones out there that you're bound to find someone who'd burn you at the stake because you disagree with theirs. Passion, thus, doesn't make something more or less true.
Rambling aside, how do we test this thing, the origin of the universe?
[ December 29, 2010, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: 0Megabyte ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You figure out how to test your hypothesis and you can talk about it as science.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Megabyte, science does not require your comfort. Science has its own requirements. That is why it is science. Everything else you've said, well, it doesn't mean much.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Orin, who are you arguing with? As far as I can tell, 0Meg agrees with you entirely.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
To this:
quote: But it is implicit in the whole mechanistic viewpoint. In the beginning there was nothing--no time, no space, no matter, no energy. Then suddenly nothing exploded, all by itself with no divine intervention, and nothing became everything.
Ron, the only interest of science is finding out how the process works. If you can't observe something or get any kind of evidence of it happening, then you can't find out how it works. For years and years you have not been able to grasp the idea that the universe has (at least) 4 dimensions, and that the beginning of time, is as far as we can observe that universe in 4 dimensions. Because "before" the beginning of time is not a time, in the same way that "beyond" the north pole is not a destination. Your conception of a lot of stuff filling a lot of empty space is wrong. There was no space. There was no "moment" before the moment. What causes that, if anything, is probably outside our purview. Leastwise, should we ever figure out that it isn't, the thing that we do discover will be another mechanism. Because that's all we as humans can actually understand. That's the only way we can actually rationally explain things. That's why "divine intervention" is not a part of science, because nothing fundamentally irrational can be effectively used as part of a rational discussion of cause and effect. Ever. Never ever.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Orin, who are you arguing with? As far as I can tell, 0Meg agrees with you entirely.
Not really. The handwaving approach is not one I have a lot of respect for.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I still do not understand what you are arguing against.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Orincoro, are you really objecting to the observation that scientists are not creatures of absolute certainty?
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
What the heck is this?! Orin, what exactly do you imagine I was saying here?
Science doesn't require my comfort? Excuse my language, but no shit. Where, exactly, and please quote my exact words, did I ever say otherwise? Where did I imply anything about my comfort?
I'm sorry, is me pointing out I don't know a certain thing for certain, and neither does anyone else, somehow suggest that I'm looking for comfort? I'd say the opposite, actually.
What, exactly, am I hand-waving? Do you imagine my tone was one of defeatism, as though "oh, how could we ever figure this out?! Woe is us, with our eternal limits to knowledge!" Please.
Is it the earlier use of Occam's Razor, in response to Geraine's statements?
kmboots: I don't have any hypotheses about it, that's the thing. Mostly, my point was that wild speculation isn't helpful at all. I don't know, I don't pretend to know, how the universe began. I certainly can't think of any tests to figure it out. The question was mostly rhetorical, in response to the sorts of speculation Geraine was giving.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Ron, what we have no scientific evidence for - divine intervention, what came "before" and so forth - does not belong in a science class.
The word "science" means knowledge, not some magical super-logic that can only be appreciated by those initiated into the inner mysteries of Denial--as practiced by mechanistic materialists. If you do not know, and claim that you CANNOT know, how the universe began, then you have no starting point for your science. You have no way of explaining WHY experimental results should be repeatable, thus there is no foundation for the basic premise of the scientific method. You cannot be sure it is not all just coincidence. You have no way of being assured that all natural laws may clease operating tomorrow. You have no science. None at all. So you have no science to teach.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The word "science" means knowledge...
Sciencia means "knowledge." In the same way, religare means "to tie together."
Neither definition is the one used in the modern world.
-------------
quote:You have no way of explaining WHY experimental results should be repeatable...
Science doesn't say that they should. It notes, however, that the ones which are repeatable tend to lead to more accurate predictions, and modern science is after all about creating models that produce accurate predictions.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Orincoro, are you really objecting to the observation that scientists are not creatures of absolute certainty?
No. I am objecting to the implication that this means that supernatural or "divine" intervention are valid explanations of anything. Typically these two observations are presented together, and form a rather foul piece of slovenly logic.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
0Meg, my comment was to Geraine. Sorry for the confusion.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
What?! Orin, you completely misunderstood me.
The implication was absolutely not that the supernatural was a valid explanation. It was kind of exactly the opposite of that. I was trying to point out that without something that can be tested, at least theoretically, there is only baseless conjecture.
I wasn't being mean about it, maybe, but it doesn't take away that that was what I was saying, in response to the whole "god made it in a lab" speculation.
kmboots:
Sorry about that. My fault too, really.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If you do not know, and claim that you CANNOT know, how the universe began, then you have no starting point for your science.
the starting point for science has no absurd requirement to be based on the timeline of the physical universe. It could, in fact, be the simplest and most basic of certifiably testable effects.
quote:You have no way of being assured that all natural laws may clease operating tomorrow. You have no science. None at all. So you have no science to teach.
This is like saying 'you have no way of being assured that the sun will rise tomorrow, so you can't go to work.'
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Is there some reason you believe this, Ron? Because 'scientists cannot prove how the universe began, therefore their system of viewing the world is without merit' doesn't seem very valid on its own basis, much less as a statement of their own beliefs.
Please explain where in any element of science there is a requirement that, 'How the universe ultimately began' is a necessity for that particular field to be valid. Because it sounds suspiciously like you're making sure you have only one answer, the one you want.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
To expand on Samp's last point:
That's not what science even is. Science never, ever states something is absolutely true without question. Even though theory does not mean the same thing as the word does in common parlance (and yes, words can have more than one meaning) the fact remains that these things, including relativity, are called theories, not absolute, immutable facts that can and will never be challenged.
Let's look at relativity, one of the strongest theories out there, the thing we use every day for sending ships out into space, and for utilizing the communication satellites which transfer the signals you watch whenever you turn on your television. Planes have clocks that take relativity into account for gauging time, as that's the only way to be as accurate as we want those clocks to be. These things use a theory that is, at best, incomplete. It doesn't quite work as is at the atomic level, though that's certainly just a necessary simplification.
Heck, why do you think people still use Netwonian physics in everyday settings? We know it isn't accurate at large scales, and relativity is obviously more accurate, if still imperfect. It's because it describes things on the scale we're used to well enough for our purposes, and the math is much faster than the math involved with relativity. (Someone stop me if I'm inaccurate here!)
Because Newtonian physics doesn't describe the beginning of the universe, should we just throw it out and stop using it? Should we throw away relativity? I mean, we could do that. For relativity, we could let all the satellites in orbit fall back to earth, give up on sending probes to other worlds, etc. For Newtonian physics, which explains even less, we could throw away all the technology we get from utilizing that, too.
Because, after all, if we don't teach that science because it doesn't explain the beginning of the universe, nobody will be able to use any of those things within a generation, so we might as well.
Here's the thing: Science works. Science is testing theories to see if they predict the future accurately. If something falls, and keeps falling, we look to see if it falls the same rate every time. If it does, that tells us something.
If it suddenly stops, that doesn't mean science throws its hands up and gives up. It tries to figure out why the object refused to fall in that particular case, and does experiments to see if those ideas work out.
If we find something that explains it, an idea that, when tested, has all the ramifications the conclusion says it would have, even if that means something really bizarre, such as little creatures too small for us to see are making us sick, or that when you go really, really fast time slows down, or that when they aren't being watched subatomic particles shot towards two slits go through both at the same time somehow, well we go with that. Naturally, we test other things related to that, to see if the conclusion really does mean those things are true, but if they do, then our belief in it is strengthened. And when tens of thousands of different tests which all would only be true if that first conclusion was true -but wouldn't be true if another conclusion was- all agree, then we have a pretty good idea that it's true. And if it has no bearing on the beginning of the universe, well too bad! Nowhere was that necessary.
The only thing that's necessary is that the things work. If they do stop working, science tries to understand why.
It's not like you don't use this every day, Ron. When driving down the street, you tend to expect that street to not suddenly become intangible, do you? When you sit down in a chair, you don't expect it to disappear into thin air, do you?
And if, after looking away and sitting down, the chair isn't there, you don't just go "oh noes, everything I believed is a lie!" No, you look around to see what happened! Because you know it generally means there was a factor you didn't take into account, perhaps even something you couldn't have, but which now you've seen. Such as the fact that your friend, sitting in the next chair, is a practical joker. Or that you misjudged the distance while not paying attention.
There is no way of assuring that every single natural "law" stops working tomorrow. That's true enough. But they're working today, they worked yesterday, and when they stop working we look to why they stopped working in this case. If the "laws" of the natural world really do just change arbitrarily, we'll probably figure something out something important about the universe from that.
But it certainly seems less likely than your car failing to start, if experience is anything to judge by.
And that's the thing: Science goes by experiences alone. That's how you figure things out. I agree, if experience is useless in understanding the universe, or making things work, we'd be pretty screwed. Good thing, in reality, that doesn't appear to be the case, huh?
Tl;DR: Science works. Talk to me when the principles that make radios work start failing because the laws of physics decided to change, and then we'll talk about hypotheticals.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Why are we bothering with this argument?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The more Ron expands on his misinterpretation of science, the more fascinating it becomes to watch how it is justified?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
None of you are able to explain, within the limits of your materialistic philosophy, how you can have a science that can predict anything, when you have no way of knowing that all the "laws" of physics as we know them will not abruptly change tomorrow. You can talk about the "laws" of physics, but this implies the laws were ordained by Someone, and that Someone enforces them. If you deny this, and claim it is not a part of science to recognize the validity of this fundamental inquiry into the nature of reality, then you have competely demolished science as a viable enterprise for finding out anything. All you are left with is being arbitrary, and hoping that the traditions of the majority will not be exposed as vain falsehoods too soon.
The existence of highly ordered design should be admitted by any honest mind to be evidence of Intelligent Design, which in turn demonstrates that an Intelligent Designer must exist.
What the Bible said long ago is still true: "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good." (Psalms 14:1)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: You can talk about the "laws" of physics, but this implies the laws were ordained by Someone, and that Someone enforces them.
Oh, come now. Don't be this degree of ridiculous. Do you know what the scientific definition of law and theory is?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Better than you, twit. Your problem is that you do not understand wisdom. You cannot, because you deny the beginning of wisdom.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:None of you are able to explain, within the limits of your materialistic philosophy, how you can have a science that can predict anything, when you have no way of knowing that all the "laws" of physics as we know them will not abruptly change tomorrow.
At least two members of this forum have written fairly lengthy papers on what it means to "know" something. Did you know that? The nature of knowledge, and the distinction between truly knowing that gravity will still "work" tomorrow and simply being reasonably certain that gravity will continue to work, is actually a fairly interesting -- if somewhat pointless -- philosophical discussion.
But science doesn't really speak to the sort of philosophical "knowledge" that is meant by "total certainty." In fact, science generally speaks in terms of known probabilities, if anything. It is highly improbable, based on what we currently observe, that the laws of physics will be noticeably different tomorrow. This level of extreme improbability is enough that, for all intents and purposes, it is dismissed; until there is some reason to think that these laws are suddenly going to change, or make a habit of regularly changing, it is generally presumed that they do not (with, of course, some minor exceptions, but we'll save those for another topic.)
quote:it is not a part of science to recognize the validity of this fundamental inquiry into the nature of reality, then you have competely demolished science as a viable enterprise for finding out anything
No, see, here's where you're most wrong. Science is all about using observations about the behavior of the observable universe to predict future behavior of the observable universe. It does not and cannot speak to something outside of that realm, except insofar as those things might affect the observable universe in an observable way.
Consider the classic "brain in a jar" or "Matrix" argument, in which you're just a brain in a jar who's experiencing a very detailed hallucinatory simulation of reality. You can form all kinds of observations of how that simulation works, and those observations will be accurate within the simulation. If someone outside the simulation changes a parameter -- or cuts out a chunk of your brain, causing things to dramatically change -- you will have no explanation for that behavior.
This is a limitation, of course, of only being able to work with observable reality. If we're all so many brains in jars, science as we know it is limited to describing the boundaries of the simulation in which we're trapped.
But religion, in claiming that it can somehow describe the world outside the simulation -- without even providing any kind of proof that there is a simulation, mind you -- is arrogating to itself an authority it does not have. You may as well say that purple koalas have hooked a bunch of butterflies up to milking stations, and that we're just the dreams of the cells of the milk as it's being consumed by the hungry crocodiles that populate the infinities of "real" space; it's just as provable, and you can just as easily say that the science we've developed to explain what we see is as incapable of answering the hard questions about those crocodiles.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:None of you are able to explain, within the limits of your materialistic philosophy, how you can have a science that can predict anything, when you have no way of knowing that all the "laws" of physics as we know them will not abruptly change tomorrow.
So your response to 'science works' is, "You don't know it works, God could choose to overturn all known laws of science now should He choose!" Very persuasive, Ron. You certainly have a lock on knowledge of the beginning of wisdom. And no, the existence of a law of physics doesn't necessarily imply that someone ordained them just because you cannot imagine a reality in which such a thing couldn't happen. That's simply a fact, Ron, however uncomfortable and distasteful you find it. You don't get to will facts into existence.
The superiority of science over your outlook is that it doesn't try: it doesn't make claims about what went before its own tried-and-tested knowledge. When scientists do so, they're either simply theorizing, or aren't speaking scientifically. When you do it, well, you're calling people twits and speaking about 'wisdom' and missing the irony.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"None of you are able to explain, within the limits of your materialistic philosophy, how you can have a science that can predict anything, when you have no way of knowing that all the "laws" of physics as we know them will not abruptly change tomorrow."
By testing it to see if the idea works? Duh. If it stops working, we try to figure out why by doing more tests. It's not really that hard a concept to understand.
"You can talk about the "laws" of physics, but this implies the laws were ordained by Someone, and that Someone enforces them."
Not really. Oh, and here's an important point: The term "law", which I used in quotes as well and which I presume you're using for that reason, doesn't mean -in any way, shape or form- some kind of universal absolute truth. Something like Netwon's law of universal gravitation isn't some barometer of the absolute. It's merely a statement of what's been observed, nothing more. I put it in quotes because I'm aware it isn't a law in any sense but analogy. It certainly isn't used to imply it's been ordained, like something in the law books. Words have meaning. In fact, words can have more than one. Hence a little something called equivocation.
Let me give an example:
"All heavy things have great mass. This is heavy fog. Therefore, this fog has a great mass."
Or, and you might find this more relevant, "laws are ordained by people. Newton's law of universal gravitation is a law. Therefore, gravitation was ordained by someone."
"If you deny this, and claim it is not a part of science to recognize the validity of this fundamental inquiry into the nature of reality, then you have completely demolished science as a viable enterprise for finding out anything."
Once again, no it doesn't. Science is about testing things. If we don't know the answer to something yet, that doesn't diminish science in the least. Doing science is only possible when there are things we don't understand. Because, after all, the point of science is finding things out.
You have your hypothesis, (that the existence of the universe means an intelligent designer) but the only evidence you've submitted is that the universe exists. As I pointed out in a previous post, that could mean many things. How are we to decide between your specific narrative of the creation of the universe, and all the other contradictory ones?
Oh, I know! See if there's a way to do a test, the way I described in my previous post. In other words, see if there's a way to use science to figure it out.
If we can't test it, then science won't be able to say anything about it. Of course, the things we can test keep growing in number as we build on our knowledge.
However, and let me be clear here, your hypothesis (the existence of the universe means someone designed it) being true is in no way, shape or form a prerequisite for the validity of the scientific method. (To reiterate a highly basic version: suggest an explanation for a phenomenon that would have effects we can measure, [that's a hypothesis, btw] testing those effects, and seeing what the results are, and then either adjusting the hypothesis if it's wrong, or doing further tests if it succeeds, generally a huge number of times, and then testing other hypotheses if you need to.)
Whether it's true or not has no bearing on it. It's in fact completely irrelevant. After all, an ordering God can interfere just as much as an unordered universe. There's more than just the two possibilities, after all.
"All you are left with is being arbitrary, and hoping that the traditions of the majority will not be exposed as vain falsehoods too soon."
Once again, no. We're left with testing things. If the tests turn out to not mean anything, we'd pretty quickly figure it out, and give up on it.
If we have two people doing the exact same test in different places, and come up with two wildly different answers, we'd try to see if there's any reason for this. If we ultimately end up finding it's because the result is completely arbitrary, well then, we'd just stop doing tests and go get wasted at the nearest bar or something.
Or at least, we'd hope we'd get wasted, because if the results of things really was arbitrary, we'd have an unknown chance of being turned into dragons when we drank it, or of getting less drunk, or something. Who knows? The universe would be arbitrary.
However, in our experiences, both mine and yours, the universe isn't arbitrary. We agree on that.
But the existence of a god is not, and let me repeat this, is not the only possible explanation of this fact.
And yet, the only evidence you give that your explanation, which is, and let me repeat this a third time, not the only explanation, is that the universe exists and that some book says it's what happened.
If you really can't see any other explanation, then that's a failure of your imagination, not a fault in science. To paraphrase something a cool guy once said, "take the beam out of your own eye before pointing out the splinter in another's." You may know him, he's apparently pretty popular.
"The existence of highly ordered design should be admitted by any honest mind to be evidence of Intelligent Design, which in turn demonstrates that an Intelligent Designer must exist."
..which in turn demonstrates, as the Intelligent Designer is obviously ordered, that it must have an Intelligent Design, which in turn demonstrates an Intelligent Designer of the Intelligent Designer must exist. Which in turn...
But no, you're going to say that's ridiculous. Because, admittedly, it is. However, if your Intelligent Designer can come into existence on its own, whatever the reason you use, then why couldn't the universe? Seriously, why one and not the other? I'm not asking what the Bible says on the matter, I'm asking you.
But also, the things I said before also apply to this sentence, as you had the same message. So I refer to myself above, in response to your previous sentence, for more on my take of your statement.
"What the Bible said long ago is still true: "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good." (Psalms 14:1) "
You are implying that those who disagree with you are fools. I see.
quote: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Matthew 5:22
FYI: This probably only means calling one a fool unreasonably. But then again, stating that anyone who disagrees with you is a fool is pretty damn unreasonable, so that works, too.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Better than you, twit. Your problem is that you do not understand wisdom. You cannot, because you deny the beginning of wisdom.
Hah
Really the only thing I'm denying here is your claim about what a 'law' constitutes, scientifically, in order to fit inside your latest Ron's Disproof of All Science™ — if you want to defend yourself from it, the best way is not with namecalling, but by telling me what your definition of a scientific law is.
It's guaranteed to be inaccurate. Just so you know.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ron have you ever at any point come across a situation where any scientific law was ever completely proven to be incorrect and discarded and something completely new takes its place?*
As far as I understand it this has never happened, in fact it is pretty much the case that any new theory actually cannot really contradict a scientific law that has been mathmatically proven but in fact must explain it better and more precisely.
Thus there can never be a theory that throws out general relativity, only a theory that draws a new circle of understanding to encase and expand upon it.
*Since the beginning of the usage of the Scientific Method and scientific and methodological experimentation. Theories like there being an "aether" or only having 4 elements don't count as real scientific observations because they were just crude guesses with little to know evidence to back it up with essentially no tools to make any proper experiments to determine the fundamental composition of the universe.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Better than you, twit. Your problem is that you do not understand wisdom. You cannot, because you deny the beginning of wisdom.
No. You don't.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
The part of me that is going to stand in front of a 140 students come Wednesday and lecture on the history of science really wants to jump into this discussion.
But then I come to my senses and remember that I am supposed to be relaxing this weekend. :-).
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
More prosaically, only a few centuries ago, mainstream scientists asserted with utter self-assurance that rocks cannot fall out of the sky, and ridiculed venomously anyone who dared to suggest otherwise. Today there is no scientist who does not acknowledge the reality of meteorites. Some even make a study of the comparative number of micrometeorites found in various rock strata.
Most of these responses you lot have given here are just double-talk, and avoid dealing with the real logical import of the points I have made. You seem to be wedded (enslaved) to your chosen fondly held traditions, and keep trying to convince yourselves that anyone who challenges your assumptions must be unintelligent or uninformed or blindly biased. The only ones who show themselves to be blindly biased are these characters who keep harping about materialist views being the only true views of reality. You actually have no rational reason for disregarding the tremendously likely paradigm of an Intelligent Designer being responsible for the highly ordered universe we observe, other than totally arbitrary rejection of the possibility. Claiming that it is unscientific, or that science need not concern itself with such things, is a plain lie. You need to quit lying to yourselves, and begin analyzing the world with more open-minded objectivity. What have you got to lose?
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
Ron,
I suggest you go to this thread and read JanitorBlades warning to Malanthrop. I'm surprised you haven't received a similar one yourself, but am hoping you will soon.
You are incredibly disrespectful to anyone who doesn't agree with you and apparently have such a lock on "the truth" that you don't have to actually listen to anyone. After all by disagreeing with you, they are, of course, wrong since you are, of course, all-knowingly right.
According to you everyone here is wrong/stupid/biased/going to hell etc and won't ever change. So why do you keep showing up? Are you simply trolling?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
So you claim I am disrespectful, so biased that I can't or won't understand what anyone else is saying. But what I am actually doing is pointing out how that is exactly what my habitual detractors are doing. What they (and you) are doing is called projection. You are imputing to me what you and others are the ones truly guilty of.
I make clearly logical arguments, with supporting evidence and practical examples, and so far the only response has been to dismiss everything I say in any thread arbitarily, and with personal insults. Then you accuse me of being the one doing what you are actually the ones doing.
I am not trolling. I am simply refusing to let intolerant, arrogant blowhards drive me away. A number of people have communicated with me privately over the past few years, asking why I bother to put up with such outrageous treatment--they tell me they gave up and stopped frequenting this forum some time ago out of disgust for the one-sided, atheistic, materialistic bias, and the self-righteous derogatory discourtesy shown toward anyone who challenges them. My reply was that I did not want to leave the field to these bigoted, would-be manipulators of the forum unchallenged, and perhaps allow any innocent reader to come away with the impression that no one dared to stand up to this kind of thing. I do dare, and I can answer them, and have never been afraid to.
If my answers and arguments did not shake them up, then they would not be so obssessed with countering and ridiculing anything I say about anything in any thread. Look how they follow me around in any thread, just making silly insults. Every time they do this, they demonstrate the wrongness of their spirit, the weakness of their positions, and the rightness and strength of mine. It is not to those who will not hear--or read--fairly and with an open mind to whom I minister; it is to those other readers, the vast majority, who need to know that someone can and will speak up to these ill-mannered control freaks. In service to them I put up with it, and contend with the contentious.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Actually, this is my thread, about my point unrelated to you, and you came here of your own accord, but whatever.
I do welcome debate, but don't act high and mighty here. I didn't make this thread as some trap for you. The thread name is pretty clear on what the tread entails, and you came and read it yourself, and responded yourself. That was your choice, and the other readers of this thread, including me, decided to respond right back.
I'm sorry that you feel so persecuted, but the truth doesn't care what you feel, Ron. And the truth about science is that it works. I pointed out what we'd do if or when it suddenly stops working, like you posited.
We'd stop using it.
If that's not an honest response, then I don't know what is.
Science thrives on unanswered questions. As soon as the questions are all answered, science ends. The fact that we don't know something means science still has something to do.
Because it is a method. It is a tool. It is a way of trying to figure things out. It is not a dogma. It only goes by what the evidence says at the time.
And, one last thing, because I'm not going through everything you said in this post: You pointed out how in the past no scientists believed in rocks in space, but now they do.
That doesn't mean what you think it means.
What that means is that science works. Let me explain. If the science of today is the same as the science of a century ago? That means science failed.
Because science is about correcting your mistakes. Science is filled with humans, and humans are imperfect. Yet even so, these human scientists, using science, figure out that they were wrong. And they change their views to fit the evidence.
What you said about the meteorites, in full truth, shows science's strength, not its weakness. Its ability to correct its many errors is the strongest thing about it, and above all the reason I trust the method, even when I know that some things believed now are at best incomplete, and sometimes completely wrong.
[ January 01, 2011, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: 0Megabyte ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: So you claim I am disrespectful, so biased that I can't or won't understand what anyone else is saying. But what I am actually doing is pointing out how that is exactly what my habitual detractors are doing. What they (and you) are doing is called projection. You are imputing to me what you and others are the ones truly guilty of.
That's kind of like saying that you didn't really call me a twit who is devoid of wisdom; it was really me all along.
It's like an M. Night Shyamalan twist. And about as fictional!
If we're going to start slinging around the names of psychological mechanisms like projection, why not talk about the worrying trend of assuming all disagreement from you that burrs under your skin on theological matters (which you, in turn, inflect upon ANY serious disagreement, including Star Wars, literature, and biology) are the hallmarks of not only delusion but often the corruption of sin and the doomedness of those who do not see your way?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ron, allow me to destroy this argument for you.
The argument:
quote:You actually have no rational reason for disregarding the tremendously likely paradigm of an Intelligent Designer being responsible for the highly ordered universe we observe, other than totally arbitrary rejection of the possibility...
1) No Intelligent Designer has ever been observed directly. 2) The impact of an Intelligent Designer has never been indirectly observed. 3) There does not appear to be any mechanism currently unexplained by science that uniquely demands an Intelligent Designer. 4) Of those mechanisms currently unexplained by science, none are most simply or elegantly fulfilled by postulating an Intelligent Designer, not least because... 5) ...an Intelligent Designer is an enormously complex assertion. Even the most basic model -- that some alien lifeform somehow deliberately seeded life on this planet -- requires several assumptions which currently cannot be tested or substantiated. More complex forms of Intelligent Designer, like some timeless Prime Mover, of course fall victim to classic logical arguments like "Why, if the Prime Mover doesn't require something to create it, must we assume that the universe required something to create it?"
quote:If my answers and arguments did not shake them up, then they would not be so obssessed with countering and ridiculing anything I say about anything in any thread.
No. I ridicule what you say, Ron, because it's really, staggeringly, amusingly dumb. And if you honestly believe you're "ministering" to the silent lurking multitudes, here, you're dumber than I thought.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I want to highlight and emphasize that part, too, because I know there will be an effort to ignore its import.
quote:There does not appear to be any mechanism currently unexplained by science that uniquely demands an Intelligent Designer.
again.
quote:There does not appear to be any mechanism currently unexplained by science that uniquely demands an Intelligent Designer.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
AT the risk of performing an excercise in silliness, Tom--
Your point number one is untrue. The Intelligent Designer has been observed directly, by many people. You just disregard the written testimony.
Your point number two is obviously false. The existence of a highly ordered universe, from the macrocosmic to the submicroscopic levels--and especially on the genetic level--is clearly the impact of an Intelligent Designer.
Your point number three contradicts what you yourself and your philosophical kin have already admitted, that you cannot account for the origin of anything, let alone the origin of every natural mechanism now known to exist.
Your point number four is simply an arbitrary assertion that is patently contrary to what every reasonable person can observe for himself.
Your point number five is disengenuous in introducing contrived complexity where none is required. The beginning of Existence can only be explained by ONE who IS EXISTENCE. Nothing else can suffice. Nothing in addition can be valid. And positing ONE who IS EXISTENCE is the simplest possible explanation.
And your final two sentences merely show you resorting to the usual insults, which is all you have left when you have forsaken reasonable argument. Thanks for your confirmation of all that I said previously. I rest my case.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Okay.
So why can't the universe itself be this one existence? Why does it have to be a conscious entity?
And no, "it has to be" isn't a reason. Why does it have to be, is the question.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Your point number one is untrue. The Intelligent Designer has been observed directly, by many people. You just disregard the written testimony.
Which people? The Hindu? The Mormons? The Baptists? Note that many of these supposed contacts are with "designers" that are mutually exclusive. And none of them provide particularly reliable evidence to back up their claim that theirs is in fact the actual designer, or even that any contact has happened at all.
quote:Your point number two is obviously false. The existence of a highly ordered universe, from the macrocosmic to the submicroscopic levels--and especially on the genetic level--is clearly the impact of an Intelligent Designer.
No. Order does not require intelligence, as anyone who's watched crystals form knows intimately. You're welcome to argue, but calling it "obviously false" ignores the fact that well over 80% of the people who work in the physical and biological sciences don't agree with you. That's not "obviously false" by any stretch.
quote:Your point number three contradicts what you yourself and your philosophical kin have already admitted, that you cannot account for the origin of anything, let alone the origin of every natural mechanism now known to exist.
You make the assumption that because one cannot account for the origin of everything, one cannot account for the origin of anything. Science actually does a pretty good job of accounting for the origin of stuff since the creation of the universe; there are a few additional gaps, but for the most part the mechanisms are known or reasonably supposed. And while, yes, science does not currently have an explanation for the origin of the universe, neither do you (as I've noted) have an explanation for the origin of the thing you say created the universe.
quote:Your point number four is simply an arbitrary assertion that is patently contrary to what every reasonable person can observe for himself.
This is, I should note, precisely the response I expected. Because point #4 is the point that absolutely destroys your argument. I did not expect you to have a satisfactory rebuttal, and indeed you do not.
quote:Your point number five is disengenuous in introducing contrived complexity where none is required. The beginning of Existence can only be explained by ONE who IS EXISTENCE. Nothing else can suffice.
Really? Why is that? You honestly can't come up with any other way to conceive of the beginning of existence? I mean, you can't imagine a universe which has always existed? Or a universe which was created by accident when some aliens blew up their galaxy? Nothing? Just "Oh, there's a universe; therefore, there must be God?" I know you're smarter than that, Ron.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Blayne, didn't Einsteinian physics supersede Newtonian physics?
More prosaically, only a few centuries ago, mainstream scientists asserted with utter self-assurance that rocks cannot fall out of the sky, and ridiculed venomously anyone who dared to suggest otherwise. Today there is no scientist who does not acknowledge the reality of meteorites. Some even make a study of the comparative number of micrometeorites found in various rock strata.
Most of these responses you lot have given here are just double-talk, and avoid dealing with the real logical import of the points I have made. You seem to be wedded (enslaved) to your chosen fondly held traditions, and keep trying to convince yourselves that anyone who challenges your assumptions must be unintelligent or uninformed or blindly biased. The only ones who show themselves to be blindly biased are these characters who keep harping about materialist views being the only true views of reality. You actually have no rational reason for disregarding the tremendously likely paradigm of an Intelligent Designer being responsible for the highly ordered universe we observe, other than totally arbitrary rejection of the possibility. Claiming that it is unscientific, or that science need not concern itself with such things, is a plain lie. You need to quit lying to yourselves, and begin analyzing the world with more open-minded objectivity. What have you got to lose?
Incorrect, Newtonian physics is still perfectly valid on the local scale, ie the math for an apple falling is equally correct with either general relativity OR newtonian physics, newtonian is only incorrect when dealing with when alpha centuri would notice the sun suddently being removed from the universe.
"A few centuries ago" what? Are you smoking blow or crack? Chinese astronomy texts have been tracking comets and meteorites for thousands of years, the Summarians also have significant written records of meteors! Your making stuff up!
Yau, K.; Weissman, P.; Yeomans, D.. "Meteorite Falls in China and Some Related Human Casualty Events". Meteoritics 29: 864–871
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Your point number one is untrue. The Intelligent Designer has been observed directly, by many people. You just disregard the written testimony.
Which people? The Hindu? The Mormons? The Baptists? Note that many of these supposed contacts are with "designers" that are mutually exclusive. And none of them provide particularly reliable evidence to back up their claim that theirs is in fact the actual designer, or even that any contact has happened at all.
While it may be true that Cultural Diversity seems to call into question religious testimony, that doesn't matter, logically, with what you have argued here Tom. You claim that no one has *ever* directly observed an Intelligent Designer, but it doesn't matter if anyone has, it matters if it is logically possible or not. For your argument to work, it must be logically impossible for one to observe an intelligent designer, and you are far from proving that with your cultural diversity argument.
I'm not saying you are wrong, I am just saying that I think you have much more work to do than that.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: So you claim I am disrespectful, so biased that I can't or won't understand what anyone else is saying. But what I am actually doing is pointing out how that is exactly what my habitual detractors are doing. What they (and you) are doing is called projection. You are imputing to me what you and others are the ones truly guilty of.
I make clearly logical arguments, with supporting evidence and practical examples, and so far the only response has been to dismiss everything I say in any thread arbitarily, and with personal insults. Then you accuse me of being the one doing what you are actually the ones doing.
I am not trolling. I am simply refusing to let intolerant, arrogant blowhards drive me away. A number of people have communicated with me privately over the past few years, asking why I bother to put up with such outrageous treatment--they tell me they gave up and stopped frequenting this forum some time ago out of disgust for the one-sided, atheistic, materialistic bias, and the self-righteous derogatory discourtesy shown toward anyone who challenges them. My reply was that I did not want to leave the field to these bigoted, would-be manipulators of the forum unchallenged, and perhaps allow any innocent reader to come away with the impression that no one dared to stand up to this kind of thing. I do dare, and I can answer them, and have never been afraid to.
If my answers and arguments did not shake them up, then they would not be so obssessed with countering and ridiculing anything I say about anything in any thread. Look how they follow me around in any thread, just making silly insults. Every time they do this, they demonstrate the wrongness of their spirit, the weakness of their positions, and the rightness and strength of mine. It is not to those who will not hear--or read--fairly and with an open mind to whom I minister; it is to those other readers, the vast majority, who need to know that someone can and will speak up to these ill-mannered control freaks. In service to them I put up with it, and contend with the contentious.
Id this an elaborate con? Do you really think you are ministering to a "vast majority" of posters here?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:For your argument to work, it must be logically impossible for one to observe an intelligent designer...
No. My argument is not that it is impossible to observe an intelligent designer; it is that we have no clear and reproducible evidence that an intelligent designer has ever been observed.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:My reply was that I did not want to leave the field to these bigoted, would-be manipulators of the forum unchallenged, and perhaps allow any innocent reader to come away with the impression that no one dared to stand up to this kind of thing. I do dare, and I can answer them, and have never been afraid to.
Ron, I'm not sure who you're attempting to impress, but it takes exactly zero 'daring' to 'stand up' to people on the Internet. None whatsoever. Even if, for the sake of argument, we granted that your ideas were heroic in and of themselves, espousing them here most certainly doesn't require any sort of daring.
Being afraid doesn't enter into it. Your words along these lines just illustrate what has been quite clear for some time, that this is quite an enormous exercise in vanity for you. I say this because I don't think you can really be entirely unaware of it. You're not actually doing this for the 'betterment of the readers', Ron. And you're clearly not doing it for an interesting exchange of ideas, or to learn. It's because, as you come so close to admitting with your talk of 'daring' and 'not afraid', that there's nothing new under the sun.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Blayne, if you are unaware that not too many centuries ago the scientific mainstream denied there were such things as meteorites, then you are woefully ignorant of history. You need to go read up on it. You are wasting my time.
Parkour, I am guessing there are close to 10,000 registered members of this forum. There are only a handful of yapping terriers nipping at my heels, always the same ones, the same select few, who can't stand having their ideological hegemony over this forum challenged.
Tom, you demand "clear and reproducible evidence" about seeing the Intelligent Designer. Why don't you just come out and say it--you demand that scientists who refuse to believe in God are the only ones whose testimony you will regard as credible. Thus it would seem that you are making unbelieving "scientists" to be your holy men. You exalt them over prophets, apostles, and other saints, since you disregard their testimony, even when verified by perfectly fulfilled prophecy, when compared to history, interpreted objectively using sound scholarly methods.
Also Tom, God is not a phenomenon, He is a Person with free will. He chooses to whom He will reveal Himself, and how repeatedly--by His choice, not ours. He did appear to some people repeated times, always saying things that were consistent. He also chose to join Himself to human nature and live among humans as part of their community for 33 and 1/2 years. Note John 1:1-4, 14.
Rakeesh, what are your real motives? Notice that I am asking you, not merely imputing things to a strawman.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: A number of people have communicated with me privately over the past few years, asking why I bother to put up with such outrageous treatment--they tell me they gave up and stopped frequenting this forum some time ago...
and good riddance to them, if they shared your definition of reality, debate and evidence we're better off without them
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: it is to those other readers, the vast majority, who need to know that someone can and will speak up to these ill-mannered control freaks. In service to them I put up with it, and contend with the contentious.
OK Ron, here's another "put your money where your mouth is" idea that you will ignore and use to pivot to one of your tirades about how you're so awesome and we all suck.
You claim to be protecting the "vast majority"... so list them. Give us a list of the posters here on this board that you are "speaking for" or "standing up for". If you can get even close to a majority you'll have taught us all a lesson and I, for one, will cease telling you you're the twit in this case.
On the other hand if, as I suspect is the case, you can't it will prove you are deluding yourself and maybe you'll just shut up already. Or better yet, maybe you'll finally take the hint that this board is not the place for your behavior and just leave already.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Also Tom, God is not a phenomenon, He is a Person with free will. He chooses to whom He will reveal Himself, and how repeatedly--by His choice, not ours. He did appear to some people repeated times, always saying things that were consistent. He also chose to join Himself to human nature and live among humans as part of their community for 33 and 1/2 years. Note John 1:1-4, 14.
Ron, you are completely missing Tom's point. And using scripture to try and "prove" your point proves this even further (and is just a downright stupid circular argument.
At this point you are demonstrating an extraordinary level of stupidity in not comprehending what anyone is saying or an extraordinary level of arrogance/self-righteousness/jerkiness in ignoring it or an extraordinary level of trollishness in understanding it but pretending you're not.
Which is it, Ron? Are you: a) an idiot b) an arrogant/self-righteous jerk c) a troll
Or do you want to propose, and provide support for, another option?
And don't spout this "I am all knowing it's all of you who are deluded nonsense". Your "debate style" of simply claiming the victory without actually addressing the issues is tiresome, not to mention infuriating.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Let's at least pretend like we're trying to have a productive conversation Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Tom, you demand "clear and reproducible evidence" about seeing the Intelligent Designer. Why don't you just come out and say it--you demand that scientists who refuse to believe in God are the only ones whose testimony you will regard as credible. Thus it would seem that you are making unbelieving "scientists" to be your holy men.
Hee. Yanno, he's not going to come out and say that because even a really basic-level comprehension of his scientific point shows his position has no requirement to make only atheist/unbeliever testimony credible. It's not necessary, and it's not even a point being led to! It's entirely a supposition of your own, which is invalid regardless of your own attachment to the idea. But, as always, when you're certain of an idea, you're shut off to practically even the possibility that it's wrong. I'm sure when he corrects you, you'll default to assuming he's lying to you (for whatever reason) even if he explains why there's no practical requirement for your assertion. I guess it helps keep the cognitive dissonance in check for you?
quote:You exalt them over prophets, apostles, and other saints, since you disregard their testimony, even when verified by perfectly fulfilled prophecy,
Are these anything like your own little prophecies? :)
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
quote:Rakeesh, what are your real motives? Notice that I am asking you, not merely imputing things to a strawman.
I have two motives I can think of offhand. The first, most obvious one is that your ideas and the way you express them are frequently pretty objectionable and even obnoxious to me, so I tend to rebut them, particularly when it's simple to do so as it was this time. The second motive, less powerful (by a substantial amount) is that I'm aware that there are people who buy into the rhetoric you were using about 'bravery' and I wanted to dispel it.
As for strawmen, I used none. You were, I'll put it charitably, conveying an impression that doesn't reflect the reality. You put yourself forward as a brave, almost heroic defender of 'innocent' readers out there, Ron. You used the words 'dare' and 'never been afraid' to describe your behavior here on Hatrack.
As I said before, it takes no daring and there isn't any fear involved in 'standing up' to your detractors on this issue, especially for you. You're obviously not afraid of us-why would you be? You don't value our good opinion (nor should you), and we cannot in even the slightest way punish you for your disagreement or insult (of which there've been a >0 number, your comments about the insults of others notwithstanding. 'Twit' being an example from this very thread, Mr. Defender of the Innocent.)
So given that it obviously takes no daring and no overcoming of fear to state your ideas in this medium - and this cannot be argued, Ron, it simply can't - who were you trying to impress when you very clearly (again, not arguable, your language made a very clear case) implied otherwise? The only way I was attacking a strawman is if you had some other motive than vanity by making yourself appear brave and daring, and I'd be very interested to hear what it might be.
I await the explanation with pleasure. I suspect I'll be waiting quite awhile.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ron, do you want to rephrase your strawman, or do you want me to actually waste your time answering it?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah that actually answers nothing about my questions. Though I was amused to see more of your weird 'them jews got it all wrong about the sabbath, can't you seeeeeeeeeeeeee' stuff
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Parkour, I am guessing there are close to 10,000 registered members of this forum. There are only a handful of yapping terriers nipping at my heels, always the same ones, the same select few, who can't stand having their ideological hegemony over this forum challenged.
So you want to assume that ten thousand registered users means that there have to be thousands of lurkers being ministered to by you? If there were even a handful of people who you "stand up for" why is it that still nobody ends up standing up for you? And how is it productive in fighting the "secularists" to embarrass yourself like this every time? I know you really have no idea how you come off, but that you also invent an audience for yourself is. More than a bit sad.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Okay, honestly, I never intended this thread to become a dogpile on Ron.
I'm definitely not taking back anything I think on the matter, but maybe we should let it go. It seems as though the actual subject of this thread is dead, anyway.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sam, I keep the same Sabbath that the Jews do. Why would I say they were wrong about it? The Fourth Commandment (explicitly stating that the seventh day of the week is the Sabbath) applies to Christians as well as to Jews (and all the human race), as do all the other commandments, but the fourth especially since it is predicated on the Sabbath that God created at the end of Creation Week (Compare Gen. 2:2,3; Ex. 20:8-11).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
No please can we not do this thing where you talk endlessly about the sabbath or quote the bible or whatever. That was kind of my point is that referencing a page full of that babble isn't an answer to my question and there's no way I'm going to read all that to try to figure out what you are trying to mean by it all, try again?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Well, Sam, that would appear to be a rather large part of your problem, if you do not read what I actually say, but then try to argue against me anyway. No wonder you misrepresented me about something so obvious and basic as my view of the Sabbath. By now, virtually everyone here knows that I am a Seventh-day Adventist. We SDAs are Christians who believe the Sabbath was never changed from Creation Week on, and still remains the seventh day of the week. In this we agree with Jews. (The only difference is that some Jews think the Sabbath was only for them, neglecting the fact that it was created at the end of Creation Week, when Adam and Eve were the whole human race, and Jews would not come on the scene for thousands of years.)
And note: YOU were the one who brought up the Sabbath.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sorry 0Megabyte. But obviously I have a right to defend myself when the rabid currs do try to pile on. But I am not afraid of them. I believe I have demonstrated that I can handle everything they can dish out, and send their dogpile flying. That is one reason they are so obssessed with me.
In a way, I am actually grateful for the practice they are giving me, so that I will be better prepared to deal with their kind on a larger stage, as may well happen in the future.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I believe I have demonstrated that I can handle everything they can dish out...
Anyone who thinks Ron has satisfactorily responded to my observations and criticisms in this thread, please post to say so.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Ron, account me as one of those whom your opinion does not reflect, so don't come to my defense.
Refuting evolution in favor of one groups interpretation of the Bible does not make it true. While you point out that the science of today is different than the science of 100 years ago, you act as if that were a bad thing. Its called learning.
I note that biblical interpretations we get from our scholars today are also different. Many of the predictions, prophesies, and ideas that Christian experts have interpreted from the Bible have proven to be wrong in the past. As a 7th Day Adventist, you should be familiar with several of them.
From defending racism, slavery, rape, and torture the faithful have misinterpreted the Bible often.
That is, of course, if you believe in the Bible.
You say we must because hundreds of people have heard the word of God and reported it--in the Bible.
Hundreds of others have heard the word of God and reported it in other religious texts. Each one, from the Torah to the Koran to the Analects have internal proofs that they are the one and only truth.
Do you know when science left the folds of the church? When people of different beliefs found no way to tell who was correct and who was wrong. They each proved their points using their own Bibles or holy books, and each held those written facts sacred and each side was unable to prove anything--so they started killing each other. Kill them all and let God sort it out seemed to be the final experiment in discovering the truth.
Finally people took up a scientific method to find truth, and its worked pretty well so far.
Science works. If anyone tells you differently, they are trying to sell you something. In this case its membership in their religion.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Well, Sam, that would appear to be a rather large part of your problem, if you do not read what I actually say, but then try to argue against me anyway. No wonder you misrepresented me about something so obvious and basic as my view of the Sabbath. By now, virtually everyone here knows that I am a Seventh-day Adventist. We SDAs are Christians who believe the Sabbath was never changed from Creation Week on, and still remains the seventh day of the week. In this we agree with Jews. (The only difference is that some Jews think the Sabbath was only for them, neglecting the fact that it was created at the end of Creation Week, when Adam and Eve were the whole human race, and Jews would not come on the scene for thousands of years.)
And note: YOU were the one who brought up the Sabbath.
Yeah, because I pulled up that thread and saw a lot of yammering about that stuff, and felt that there was no indication whatsoever that your link answered my question.
So please forget the sabbath. The point is that I don't care about the sabbath or that thread at all. Please just answer my question instead.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
To be fair, Ron, you threw the first insults, at least that's true in this thread. Don't act like you're just defending yourself, you brought it on yourself.
I'm just tired of my thread being used as a dog-pile, whether deserved or not. It was never supposed to be about you in the first place.
Incidentally, you haven't responded much at all to my own points, unless you included me in the all-encompassing "you're all just wrong" type stuff.
However, this whole thing is pointless anyway. Just more negativity on both sides, and you'll walk away imagining you did some noble thing baiting people into insulting you on an internet forum, and they'll walk away knowing whatever it is they know. Nobody is improved by this, and the potentially interesting discussion is pretty much brain-dead at this point, replaced by personal insults and criticism.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Why should I, Sam? You already have said you won't read it anyway. Besides your question is rather snidely stated, to the point of being untrue to start with.
I referenced you to a summary I gave in two other forums of the basic outline of history given in the prophecies of Daniel, which included discussion and debate and my further scholarly defense (such as the evidence refuting the cavil that Daniel was written later than it claims to be, and such as pointing out that even if Daniel were written at the later date, it still would not explain away the continued accuracy of the prophecies as they apply to the centuries long after that claimed later date). I also showed that my methods of interpretation are objective and sound.
My apologies if that last sentence was too long for you to comprehend. Let me recommend that you be sure to include in your diet three or four teaspoons daily of coconut oil, so your brain cells will be better nourished. Also try to imbibe beet juice as often as you can, since that has been shown to improve circulation to the brain.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
0Megabyte, you are not reading my posts honestly. You can take that as an insult if you want to, but it is a deserved rebuke. Instead of imputing mistaken misjudgments of what I say, why don't you actually come to grips with the substance of what I have said?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Why should I, Sam? You already have said you won't read it anyway.
Yes, that is actually an excellent reason! Another reason is because it's just you drifting waaay off from any subject we could possibly see any point in sticking on!
quote:My apologies if that last sentence was too long for you to comprehend. Let me recommend that you be sure to include in your diet three or four teaspoons daily of coconut oil, so your brain cells will be better nourished. Also try to imbibe beet juice as often as you can, since that has been shown to improve circulation to the brain.
You know, you have an odd morality if you consider yourself so just and you represent it with .. well, feeling tempted to get snide so easily. Is snideness a virtue for seventh-day adventists? Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
I'm not going into this, Ron. It's not like you've been responding to my posts on the actual subject of interest.
This is silly. It's just you and them insulting each other now, and there's no reason for it to continue. Be an adult and just walk away. Be Christlike and, with humility in your heart, ask God to forgive those who have attacked you, and instead of standing around waiting for the crucifixion, do what Christ couldn't and turn off the computer.
To the others: Stop feeding this. Ignore him, at least in this thread, as I urge him to ignore you. There's nothing worthwhile here, and nothing will change.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Now, having said that, Ron, feel free to don the cloak of virtue and lecture others some more on flinging insults, if you please?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: There's nothing worthwhile here, and nothing will change.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)