quote:But then, I know much more about it than the vast majority of people who believe it. The theory still functions as a faith in that regard.
If you were to assert "many people who argue that evolution is a fact are merely exhibiting faith in the scientific community," I don't think anyone here would disagree.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Tom, you really ARE a troll.
Perhaps you all are right. I don't know as much about evolution as some of you, especially those of you who are best able to defend it. But then, I know much more about it than the vast majority of people who believe it. The theory still functions as a faith in that regard.
Perhaps so. But it's a faith in the process of science, and faith that the people who have dedicated their lives to discovering new knowledge through the scientific method are, on the whole, neither credulous fools nor members of some Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. I can't force you to share their faith, but I do assert that it is not misplaced. I know many scientists (since I hope to be officially be one someday), and while there are undeniably a few militantly anti-religious folks among them, the vast majority went into the field out of a genuine curiosity about the world we live in, and a desire to harness that curiosity for the betterment of mankind. These are serious men and women, who are uniformly smart and incredibly thorough, because this is a field in which any stated conclusions that don't seem to be backed up by the data will inevitably be torn apart in review and repetition of experiments. Peer-reviewed science, by its very nature, doesn't abide fraud, especially on the scale that would be necessary for something as well-accepted as the theory of evolution. Believe me, if there were any reasonable doubt to be had about evolution, you would have thousands of biologists all trying to make their name as being the genius who disproved Darwin.
Ultimately, I choose to put my faith, as it were, in the empirical process. That's my one assumption about reality: that the universe follows a set of constant physical laws, and therefore we can learn about it through the processes of observation and experimentation. Considering that, as I said before, almost everything we use today is the result of such empirical study, I feel pretty safe in making that assumption. If tomorrow, the Sun spontaneously fails to rise because gravity decided to take a break, then I'll reconsider.
Edit (again, sorry): I should add that the majority of scientists are, in fact, religious. My current supervisor, at the NIH lab in which I work, is an observant Catholic who wore the cross on his forehead for Ash Wednesday today, and he is a PhD whose work relies heavily on how genetic homology (which decreases over time as species diverge) allows us to make predictions of functional homology.
posted
Tarrsk, you and a few others here are very capable in your defenses of the theory of evolution and why it seems to be only rational to accept the damn thing. You have to believe me when I say that I see exactly why you feel that way, because is so convincing and does fit the evidence nicely --or should I say the evidence fits the theory so nicely. I am asking if any of you are able to do the same, recognize that there it is perfectly possible for someone to know the theory well enough to understand why is can be true and is so widely accepted, and yet still not believe that evolution is what happened? I already know KoM's answer: "No, you prove your ignorance by rejecting the theory." Is that truly your answer?
I ask you, if you were an astronomer in the 14th century, and someone told you that he didn't think that the planets circled the Earth on wheels in the sky, and that something else had to explain retrograde motion, but was unable to provide a better explanation, would you not chide him for ignoring the wealth of evidence that was present at the time that supported the universally accepted theory? That person might point out the very slight discrepencies that was present and say, "without this, you cannot be certain." Would you accept that, or would you call him ignorant for not having faith in the scientists who know so much better than he?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I ask you, if you were an astronomer in the 14th century, and someone told you that he didn't think that the planets circled the Earth on wheels in the sky, and that something else had to explain retrograde motion, but was unable to provide a better explanation, would you not chide him for ignoring the wealth of evidence that was present at the time that supported the universally accepted theory? That person might point out the very slight discrepencies that was present and say, "without this, you cannot be certain." Would you accept that, or would you call him ignorant for not having faith in the scientists who know so much better than he?
Wouldn't this argument work equally well to discredit faith in Creation?
If two contradictory ideas both have flaws, and one has a wealth of evidence supporting it, while the other is an arbitrary guess which makes more sense to believe?
Biblical Creationism is no more or less logical than any other supernatural Creationism. Why pick that one? Maybe the earth mother birthed the world from her heavenly womb? Maybe an ancient creator spilled his holy seed on the planet and man sprang forth.
Believe in whatever you like, but I don't see how you can call faith in a creation story on equal footing to a well established scientific theory.
I guess my biggest frustration is religious people who want to put their belief on the same footing with science. Faith in religion is not the same as faith in the ability for humans to examine evidence and determine truths. Have your faith, but don't try to say it's the same as fact.
You realize, I hope, that for every argument against evolutionary theory, there are more arguments debunking creation science.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Tarrsk, you and a few others here are very capable in your defenses of the theory of evolution and why it seems to be only rational to accept the damn thing. You have to believe me when I say that I see exactly why you feel that way, because is so convincing and does fit the evidence nicely --or should I say the evidence fits the theory so nicely. I am asking if any of you are able to do the same, recognize that there it is perfectly possible for someone to know the theory well enough to understand why is can be true and is so widely accepted, and yet still not believe that evolution is what happened? I already know KoM's answer: "No, you prove your ignorance by rejecting the theory." Is that truly your answer?
Short answer: yes, it is. Somewhat longer answer? It's certainly possible to understand the evidence and still reject the theory, although given the sheer volume and unanimity of the evidence available to us these days, that would essentially require that you reject empiricism as a useful philosophy. You suggested earlier that the data could just as easily be explained by the divine hand of the Creator, but this is incorrect. To give you one example: pseudogenes are genes that are no longer expressed, and have no function. They often show extremely high sequence homology to genes expressed in related organisms, and in fact, if you trace variation in sequences between species that are progressively further and further apart on the evolutionary tree, you observe that the sequence homology decreases as well- as would be expected, if the gene in each species was mutating away from its primordial, shared form over time. Creationists often try to explain away gene sequence homology by saying that God used a common toolbox to create life in all its variety, but this makes little sense when you consider pseudogenes. Why would God not only use a common toolbox, but actually leave broken tools present in his creation? These genes do nothing more than use up a small amount of energy during DNA replication; they certainly do not confer any advantage to the organism.
And then consider transposable elements, which are pieces of DNA that actually jump in and out of the genome, often severely messing up host genes in the process. Such elements are, in a very real sense, genetic parasites, taking advantage of the cell's own replication machinery to propagate themselves. What's really cool, though, is that by studying transposable element sequences scattered throughout the genome, you can again trace evolutionary history by seeing where and when individual elements jumped into their current locations. Again, there seems to be no reason why an intelligent designer would purposely sabotage His or Her own creation in this manner, but these observations make perfect sense in the light of evolution and natural selection. Indeed, natural selection itself is what allows transposable elements to exist: since they are essentially unique entities, their ability to self-propagate within host genomes is a powerful adaptive advantage.
quote:I ask you, if you were an astronomer in the 14th century, and someone told you that he didn't think that the planets circled the Earth on wheels in the sky, and that something else had to explain retrograde motion, but was unable to provide a better explanation, would you not chide him for ignoring the wealth of evidence that was present at the time that supported the universally accepted theory? That person might point out the very slight discrepencies that was present and say, "without this, you cannot be certain." Would you accept that, or would you call him ignorant for not having faith in the scientists who know so much better than he? [/QB]
What wealth of evidence? I am not an astronomer, but it was my impression that the prevailing Ptolemaic dogma was based as much on popular myth as actual observation. Once Copernicus and Brahe actually started making systematic observations of planetary motion, they demonstrated quite conclusively the incorrectness of the old model. The people who came up with the geocentric model were not scientists any more than the Flat Earth Society, so to try to paint modern evolutionary biologists as making the same mistake as them is simply incorrect. If anything, the more obvious parallel is that evolutionary biologists are to Galileo as creationists are to the Catholic Church of the 17th century.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's taken me a while to gether my thoughts on this subject, so please bear with me. The parts that really got me thinking were back on the first page.
quote: "Survival of the fittest" is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction.
Please don't take this personally, Samprimary, but this really pisses me off. There's been actual science behind this evolution stuff and no one ever bothered to tell me before now? You have statistics and can do experiments? We have actually observed new species forming from others? How did none of this ever come up in any conversation I've ever had before?
More importantly, why wasn't it presented that way in school? I know genetics is complicated. But I also know I have blue eyes because both my parents did and with recessive genes I couldn't have gotten anything else. It was broken down into a simple example I could understand. I have never once questioned the scientific validity of genetics.
So why was evolution presented as a vague load of crap about survival of the fittest? I'm insulted. I'm mad that folks who study evolution don't ensure that textbooks cover the basics properly. I'm mad that plenty of other folks have known this all along but keep giving me attitudes about how all the smart people know this, why don't I?
So I have a lot of reading ahead of me. And I have to try to set aside a decade's worth of skepticism while I do it. And I'm annoyed about that, too.
So in the future, when someone tells you they don't buy into all that evolution stuff, you might want to ask them how they learned it in school. If they're like me, they may have been done a huge disservice by their basic biology class.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Biblical Creationism is no more or less logical than any other supernatural Creationism.
I'd argue that it is less, as there are two mutually exclusive stories of creation in the Bible. Biblical literalist creationists not only reject evolution, but also embrace two stories, only one of which can be true.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Thats a whole lot of "God." However, I might just quickly note that many of your assertions would be just as logically consistent (or not) had we inserted Baal, Ra, Zeus, or whatever.
As an aside for Resh, this of course means that even if evolution is wrong, the default position is not God. Thus, trying (not particularly well mind you) to poke holes in evolution does not automatically make belief in God more right. *Even* if we make the leap that if evolution is wrong, then there has to be *a* god (a leap which is obviously wrong) ... then there could be *any* god.
I agree. I was using God as the default because I was talking to Resh, whose default appearantly is God.
quote:So why was evolution presented as a vague load of crap about survival of the fittest? I'm insulted. I'm mad that folks who study evolution don't ensure that textbooks cover the basics properly.
There are parent watch groups devoted to making sure that evolution, when they can't make it not be presented, is presented as a load of crap. They get on parent committees and reject textbooks that make evolution sound like science. Fortunately, college courses and textbooks do not suffer the same fate.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am asking if any of you are able to do the same, recognize that there it is perfectly possible for someone to know the theory well enough to understand why is can be true and is so widely accepted, and yet still not believe that evolution is what happened?
Sure. You only need two starting premises -- that the Biblical account is correct, and that evolution contradicts the Biblical account. If you grant those premises, no amount of scientific evidence will sway you; you will simply assert that interpretation of the scientific evidence must be wrong.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I also know I have blue eyes because both my parents did and with recessive genes I couldn't have gotten anything else. It was broken down into a simple example I could understand. I have never once questioned the scientific validity of genetics.
Except eye color is actually NOT that simple (in humans, anyway). It is not a single gene, but a number of them and the interactions are complex.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, sorry for the brief derail. Tarrsk, your post about wanting to be a scientist reminded me that you'd mentioned applying to the same biology program at Stanford that I did. You going to be there interviewing next week?
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:So why was evolution presented as a vague load of crap about survival of the fittest?
Because it basically is?
"Survival of the fittest" is a convenient short-hand for the longer description, which would be something like "The process by which those variants that are better suited to reproduce and have successful offspring in a specific environment become more prevelant than those who attempt to exploit the same niche but are worse suited to reproduce and have successful offspring in that specific environment."
A lot of pre-college science is treated kind of simplisticly. It's not great, but there you go. I thought people knew that.
edit: I stand corrected. Sounds like the reasons are more sinister than I thought. I also missed the vague part. Sorry all.
quote:Biblical Creationism is no more or less logical than any other supernatural Creationism.
I'd argue that it is less, as there are two mutually exclusive stories of creation in the Bible. Biblical literalist creationists not only reject evolution, but also embrace two stories, only one of which can be true.
MrSquicky, true enough, there are two creation accounts which have evidently been joined together (presumably by Moses) in the first chapters of Genesis, but your assertion that they are mutually exclusive is unwarranted.
One account says the animals came into the Ark two-by-two (Gen. 6:20). But then in the next chapter, we read that the animals were taken into the Ark by sevens. However, these two statements are harmonized by the details given in Genesis 7:2: "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female." Thus we see that both accounts are correct. The UNCLEAN animals (those considered unfit for food--and consisting mainly of predators and scavengers) entered the Ark by twos, while the CLEAN animals entered by sevens. Why seven? Logically that provides three mated pairs of the clean animals, plus one to be offered as an offering after Moses and company left the Ark. This also indicates a reasonable ratio of predators vs. prey.
Genesis chapter 2 verse 4 seems to introduce a second narrative, which summarizes creation week, saying: "This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens...." This refers to one day, while the prior account talked about seven days. But the use of the word "day" here can reasonably be construed as being general and indefinite, as if it were saying "in the time that the LORD God made the earth and heavens...."
Any other descrepancies can be easily explained simply by being fair-minded about it, taking into account the different focus of each narrative. If there are some more specific examples of "mutually exclusive" statements, please state them, and I will show you why they are not mutually exclusive.
When people claim there are contradictions in the Bible, I have found that in virtually all cases, those who make the claims are jumping to conclusions. One common example is the claim that the Bible implies the value of pi is three, when actually the measurements of the brass bowl that were being given included inside and outside measures which allowed for the thickness of the side, or perhaps for a curved lip. One measure is necessary for figuring the volume contained by the bowl, the other measure was necessary for determining how much space the bowl would take up as an item of furniture in the sanctuary. Those who are willing to figure out what is really being said, and not just trying to seize upon something they can claim is a contradiction, do not see any contradictions in the Bible.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shigosei: Sadly, I'm not interviewing at Stanford. Probably for the best, since my mother actually works there, and as much as I love her, I think it would be a little overbearing to spend my graduate career on the same campus as her. Where else are you interviewing, if I may ask?
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: More importantly, why wasn't it presented that way in school? I know genetics is complicated. But I also know I have blue eyes because both my parents did and with recessive genes I couldn't have gotten anything else. It was broken down into a simple example I could understand. I have never once questioned the scientific validity of genetics.
So why was evolution presented as a vague load of crap about survival of the fittest? I'm insulted. I'm mad that folks who study evolution don't ensure that textbooks cover the basics properly. I'm mad that plenty of other folks have known this all along but keep giving me attitudes about how all the smart people know this, why don't I?
Unfortunately, this too is a byproduct of creationism. Textbook publishers and teachers, especially at the high school level, are under enormous pressure from religiously conservative parents to minimize the teaching of evolutionary theory in schools. To use genetics as an example: it would have been a simple matter in your genetics section to have mentioned that analysis of genetic homology is an incredibly powerful tool for revealing evolutionary history. Yet this simple fact is left out of textbooks. Why? It certainly is not because textbook writers don't *want* to mention it; nor is it because they aren't good at explaining it. I've met several writers, all of whom are endlessly frustrated because they aren't allowed to teach their own discipline effectively. They're forced to reduce evolution to a short chapter in their books (if it is mentioned at all), when in fact it should be essentially mentioned on every other page, considering that pretty much all of modern biology hinges upon it.
In comparison, college-level textbooks DO integrate evolution into their material, especially texts that are devoted to specialized areas of biology, which don't receive much attention from folks like the Discovery Institute. This is why I specifically said that concepts in evolutionary biology should be basic to a *graduate* student- because high school education in biology is crippled, and the only way to learn about many of these things at all is to either take a college course in biology, or look it up online yourself.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just Stanford. I didn't manage to apply anywhere else because I was sick at the end of last semester. If this doesn't work out, I'll apply more places next year.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I ask you, if you were an astronomer in the 14th century, and someone told you that he didn't think that the planets circled the Earth on wheels in the sky, and that something else had to explain retrograde motion, but was unable to provide a better explanation, would you not chide him for ignoring the wealth of evidence that was present at the time that ...
For the record, the main champion in favour of the heliocentric model at the time was actually Christian, not scientific.
quote: Galileo's letter of 1614 to the Grand Duchess Christina Duchess of Tuscany was not widely known, and was ignored by Church authorities. When a year later the Carmelite provincial Paolo Foscarini supported Galileo publicly by attempting to prove that the new theory was not opposed to Scripture, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, as "Master of Controversial Questions," responded. ... to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself (i. e., turns upon its axis ) without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false . For Your Reverence has demonstrated many ways of explaining Holy Scripture, but you have not applied them in particular, and without a doubt you would have found it most difficult if you had attempted to explain all the passages which you yourself have cited.
"Second. I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth , and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe....
I might add that this was written by a *saint* no less. The article goes on to give five specific passages given by a Christian writer contending that the Earth is in fact in the centre of the universe. As an aside, this would be an interesting example for Ron Lambert to handle. Admittedly, the Bible does not contradict "itself" in this subject, but it does rather strongly contradict a rather well accepted scientific theory, even among Christians.
Tarrsk is right in that your parallel is strangely misplaced. Also, as far as scripture is concerned for you to believe that the Earth rotates around the Sun is "just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve."
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: In the first account, the plants and animals are made before man is made.
In the second, man is made before the plants and animals.
You are misreading Genesis 2:4-7, 19. These verses only give a general summation, not a day-by-day breakdown.
Let's look at Genesis 2:4-7 (quoted from NKJV):
quote:4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Please note this section: "in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown"
I submit that this is setting forth the fact that God began His creation of the earth and sky before there were plants or herbs. It is not saying that what is mentioned next, the creation of man, took place before the plants and herbs existed. Just look at it closely, and see how the sentences should properly be related to each other.
Also let's look at verse 19 (NKJV):
quote:Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.
Again, don't assume a chronological sequence where none is expressly stated. This passage does not tell us WHEN God created the beasts and birds; only that He did create them. Then, at some point that is not specified, God brought them to Adam to be named.
A similar situation exists with the statement in Genesis 1:16 (NKJV):
quote: Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.
It would not be sound reasoning to suppose that this statement means God created the stars at the same time He created the sun and moon, on the fourth day of creation week--although there are some people who think it does mean this. Better scholarship would conclude that the statement "He made the stars also" is parenthetical, meant to affirm that the God who created the earth also created the stars, so there is no room left for anyone to think that maybe some other god created the stars.
For that matter, the text does not actually say God created the sun and moon on the fourth day of creation week--it says the "greater light" and "lesser light." Many people only assume this means the sun and moon. But there some Bible students, particularly creationist scientists, who theorize that before the Flood the earth originally was created with some form of water above the atmosphere, as explicitly stated in Genesis 1:7 (the word "firmament" means the atmosphere--see verses 14, 20). The logical consequences of this would be that the orbs of the sun and moon were not directly visible through whatever watery layer existed; rather, there would be an area of bright light where the sun shown through the translucent medium, and the same translucent medium would conduct light around to the apposite side of the earth, where it would appear as a pearly glow, like a permanent night-light. These were the greater light and lesser light, and they were made to appear by God setting into order the arrangement of the atmosphere and the waters above the atmosphere.
I believe, as do most creationists, that the sun and moon and the water-covered earth (and the stars of course) already existed when God began to create earth's biosphere at the beginning of creation week. The text does not contradict this, unless an improper construction is placed upon it, that most people would readily see is an unfair one.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Those who are willing to figure out what is really being said, and not just trying to seize upon something they can claim is a contradiction, do not see any contradictions in the Bible.
quote:that most people would readily see is an unfair one.
Ron, when you wish to discuss this without such malicious assignment of motives and comments about the obviousness of the unfairness of those who disagree with you, let me know. I let the first one go, but it now seems clear this is a pattern with you.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:For those of us who have experienced God's presence as real as anything else we've ever experienced, the choice is also clear.
You've done nothing of the sort. Go talk to BlackBlade. He is a Mormon, and also claims to have experienced God's presence. (So does Dag, a Catholic.) And yet, these three gods have separately assured you three people that different sets of doctrine about them are correct. What is the natural conclusion for this phenomenon?
Its not really that cut and dry KOM.
1: I have no idea what Dag or anybody else has experienced when they say they have felt God's presence. Whether he actually communicated with them or simply announced his existence I cannot say.
2: I am perfectly comfortable with the idea of God communicating with a Catholic, a Protestant, a Muslim, and saying that what they are doing is good. Believing that God exists is a step in the right direction towards the truth.
3: In Dag's case I am also perfectly comfortable acknowledging that God could and quite possibly would confirm to him that He exists and that Jesus is his son, the savior of the world, and that his gospel is found in the Bible.
4: Beyond that I have no understanding of their experiences with God, and thus it does not follow that one could conclude, "The same God communicated with all of them and confirmed 3 completely different sets of doctrine." In my personal view as God has confirmed the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon to me, I can work backwards.
Book of Mormon is true ---> Its translator Joseph Smith was a prophet of God ---> Jesus of whom Smith testified is the Savior of mankind (Bible must also be true as the BOM testifies of it) ---> Jesus's father of whom Jesus testified exists.
There is plenty of good to be found within Catholicism, Protestantism, Buddhism, Islam, etc. I can even reconcile that perhaps God gave Prince Siddhartha or Mohammed some of his truth so that they could share that truth with their neighbors, knowing that ultimately the full truth would be brought to them at a later time. Any religion is better then none. (You of course would disagree.)
So IMO God can communicate with Dag that being a Catholic for him is a good thing at this time, and my church is still every bit as true as I believe it to be.
No offense intended to Dag.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Many people only assume this means the sun and moon. But there some Bible students, particularly creationist scientists, who theorize that before the Flood the earth originally was created with some form of water above the atmosphere, as explicitly stated in Genesis 1:7 (the word "firmament" means the atmosphere--see verses 14, 20). The logical consequences of this would be that the orbs of the sun and moon were not directly visible through whatever watery layer existed; rather, there would be an area of bright light where the sun shown through the translucent medium, and the same translucent medium would conduct light around to the apposite side of the earth, where it would appear as a pearly glow, like a permanent night-light. These were the greater light and lesser light, and they were made to appear by God setting into order the arrangement of the atmosphere and the waters above the atmosphere.
I've never been able to logically reconcile the idea of a sphere of water surrounding the earth. It just doesn't make a lick of sense. It wouldn't allow enough sunlight through to power photosynthesis, and it's a physical impossibility with the physics of the universe.
Did God suspend gravity, the phases of water, diffusion of light through a medium, and who knows how many other physical realities during the early period of the earth's creation?
With this kind of imagination necessary to reconcile the various creation stories with reality, why not just say, "None of it makes any logical sense, but that's just the way it is, because it says so in this book!"
At what point do you decide that nothing we observe is actually what we think it is, and gravity is actually invisible angels pushing everything together, the sun is not a massive fusion reaction, but the light of God's love, and fossils are simply lies hidden within the earth by Satan to try fool us into disbelieving the creation stories and burning for all eternity in a fiery hell?
It feels a little like a cosmic Reeses comercial. You got your science in my religion! You got your religion in my science!
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Without wishing to speak for either Dag or Resh, I rather strongly suspect that they would say
a) Smith was a false prophet. b) This is confirmed for them (perhaps not directly, but through some reasoning) by their experiences of god.
If true - I should be most pleased if one or both of them would confirm or deny - then your experiences and theirs are mutually contradictory; yet we have no way to judge which is correct, since you all give the same testimony of having "experienced the presence of god". The only reasonable conclusion is that you are all actually experiencing something else, and putting a false interpretation on it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: The only reasonable conclusion is that you are all actually experiencing something else, and putting a false interpretation on it.
I would guess that many religious people would say that the only reasonable conclusion is that THEIR experiences are true, and the OTHER people are the ones misinterpreting.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Does anybody like this guy?
*cough* ahem */cough*
I game aou every week with King of Men and as a testimony to our friendship I bail his ass our of the fire each and every time tsk tsk China has to rescue the Norweigians every single war now do they.
Like C'mon Rolf put some more thanks to us Zhongguoren in your AARs.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Without wishing to speak for either Dag or Resh, I rather strongly suspect that they would say
a) Smith was a false prophet. b) This is confirmed for them (perhaps not directly, but through some reasoning) by their experiences of god.
Correct, but having just a testimony of God/Jesus/and the Bible does not immediately rule out Smith. But divine confirmation that Smith is a false prophet certainly falls into the realms of possibility.
quote: If true - I should be most pleased if one or both of them would confirm or deny - then your experiences and theirs are mutually contradictory; yet we have no way to judge which is correct, since you all give the same testimony of having "experienced the presence of god". The only reasonable conclusion is that you are all actually experiencing something else, and putting a false interpretation on it.
I'd say most likely, not "the only reasonable conclusion." For all I know Dag and Resh misinterpreted something else to be God speaking to them. Or perhaps vice versa. Its impossible for me to have experienced what they have and again vice versa.
But do not forget that people can (believe) they have experienced God, and then using that as a basis, draw really strange conclusions from it.
However I would concede that either one of them could have had legitimate experiences with God that have lead them to believe in Christ and the Bible. They could then attempt through use of the Bible to prove that Joseph Smith could not have been a prophet, and indeed Mormons and other Christians have engaged in this debate many many times.
So really the only way I see a contradiction is if somebody claims that God told them specifically that Mormonism was wrong, or that they can effectively demonstrate through Christian doctrine discussion that Mormonism is false. In which case their are only 4 conclusions,
1: They are mistaken
2: I am mistaken
3: We are both mistaken
4: There is a contradiction.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: The only reasonable conclusion is that you are all actually experiencing something else, and putting a false interpretation on it.
I would guess that many religious people would say that the only reasonable conclusion is that THEIR experiences are true, and the OTHER people are the ones misinterpreting.
While I'm sure that's true, most of them don't like to come off as arrogant.
Blayne, when the Chinese pull thirty divisions off the Polish front and enable me to counterattack, you'll get credit. At the moment all you're doing is pulling useless Spanish divisions into Africa. And losing to them, at that. What's with the Libyan situation? And when are you going to jump from Sicily into the Italian mainland? It's the soft underbelly of Europe, you know.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I love the fact that good religion brings like minded folks together.
Take this creationism, or anti-evolution war of words we got going on. Now their is hardly a single right minded Evangelical Christian out there who doesn't know that evolution is just for fools and evil folks, so they do all they can to enlighten the heathens and the dangerous Godless.
Why, just a few weeks ago, a like minded group went so far as to mail off copies of their anti-evolution book to students attending major universities in France.
Sure, they may have out right lied by claiming this was a needed textbook, but when the souls of good people are in danger, what's a little white lie?
And who were the good religious folks behind this cunning plan? Why some descent Islamic extremists. As found here all they wanted to do was stop the foolish secularists.
Now you put a fanatical Evangelical Christian and an Islamic Extremist together in a room, and you just know they'll both be looking for weapons before too long. Its nice to know that though they may want to kill each other, (in mutual self defense of course) they can work together and probably turn that weapon on some Godless secularist instead.
I mean, what's worse than bowing to the wrong God? Why not bowing to any God at all.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now you put a fanatical Evangelical Christian and an Islamic Extremist together in a room, and you just know they'll both be looking for weapons before too long.[/QB]
I cannot confirm this. How many such incidents were there last year?
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, quite a few in Iraq and Afghanistan of the Islamic Extremists looking for weapons, and then we have the Reverend Pat Robertson suggesting we arm ourselves against the Muslims, and a few around here saying that since Islam is such a violent religion we got to convert or kill dem all.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for not speaking for me, KoM. You would be mostly correct, as most Christians and Catholics (probably) believe that Joseph Smith is a false prophet. For me...
The major point of my participation in this thread has been to establish that no matter how wise we may think we are in our eyes, we humans are fallible. That should be the lesson of all of history. And yet hubris still abounds. At least it does around here.
I use the Ptolemy example because I remind myself of it all the time. Things that are so obvious to us... This is something I thought of as I fell asleep last night. The reason many of you are completely unable to see where I'm coming from, which you assume is simple fallacy on my part, is that we are working from completely different paradigms. I experienced a paradigm shift about five years ago when I read that first book exposing the circularity and insularity of evolutionary theory. For the first time in my life, I was removed from the system. I can look back on where I was and see that, when you are in the system, there is no other existence. Anything that is contradictory simply cannot exist in there. That is how solidly built the system is. One major consequense is a gradual removal of God. Like it or not, God has no place in that system. It is a matter of true faith that people believ in God and evolution at the same time, requiring much more faith than I need to believe.
These separate paradigms are the reason there can be no communication between us. For instance, saying that God is the default alternative to evolution; that is simply a non-factor for me who does not exist within the system from which that question originates. I don't know how to address it.
I don't mean to sound elitist. I know that the way most of you are going to read this to be that I somehow can see all of you squirming around, trapped within your little universe of understanding, and I am free, on the outside, watching you and pitying you. This is, in a sense, how I feel. But I don't know how to explain that id doesn't mean I think I'm better, smarter, or wiser than any of you. But think about this: wouldn't it be nice for you to be able to just come and see the universe the way I see it, just so you know what it is I'm talking about and where I (and other like-minded persons) am coming from? Even if when you get there and see that I'm all wrong, and you go back to where you are now. At least you're making a choice.
edit, to include: Here is the best way I can try to express the equality of us who disagree, because I don't want to do what you guys are doing when you say that you know so much better than me and you know, without a doubt that I'm wrong in rejecting an evolutionary explanation of our origins.
It is because of my, of our fallibility, because I remind myself of Ptolemy (whose geocentric model I adore, by the way, because it is such an elegant and brilliant explanation for retrograde motion), it is because of this that I must concede that my belief about the paradigm shift is wrong, and maybe I am just ignorant. The same goes for the existence of God, and that I have been saved by His son. I know I've been wrong before, and there is no reason to think I'm not wrong now. That is what faith is for.
quote:I experienced a paradigm shift about five years ago when I read that first book exposing the circularity and insularity of evolutionary theory.
The point we are making is, the arguments in that book are really bad. Not one of them will stand short of you saying "You have to assume the existence of God" and then adding "and also, he interferes constantly to make X look like Y". (You may, if you wish, give one of the arguments; any one of us will be happy to shoot it down. Please feel free to take that as a challenge. I'll even be quiet and let someone else do the shooting down, since you seem to feel I have too much attitude for you to deal with.) So we're really not very impressed with your paradigm. It requires an incredible amount of special pleading. In short, you have to want to believe in it, really hard. Evolution, on the other hand, has convinced people who wanted very hard to disbelieve it. When one theory convinces only those with a strong emotional commitment, and the other convinces people with a commitment in the opposite direction, no appeal to paradigms will explain away the just plain suckage of the first one.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't want to do what you guys are doing when you say that you know so much better than me and you know, without a doubt that I'm wrong in rejecting an evolutionary explanation of our origins.
If you would take a closer look at our posts, we haven't said this. What we have said is that your reasons for doing so are fantastically bad; it's not a question of not holding water, your 'reasons' won't hold superglue. That's what we object to. You can believe whatever you like, but your arguments for doing so should have some kind of semblance of rationality. They don't.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: The major point of my participation in this thread has been to establish that no matter how wise we may think we are in our eyes, we humans are fallible. That should be the lesson of all of history. And yet hubris still abounds. At least it does around here. ... For the first time in my life, I was removed from the system. I can look back on where I was and see that, when you are in the system, there is no other existence. ... I don't mean to sound elitist. I know that the way most of you are going to read this to be that I somehow can see all of you squirming around, trapped within your little universe of understanding, and I am free, on the outside, watching you and pitying you.
I hope you realize that many evolutionists, myself included, could just as easily say the same thing in regards to Creationism.
You're trapped in a system where God making everything from whole cloth is the only viable answer, so you're blind to the facts.
Hey, if the argument works for you, it must work equally well against you, right?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly right, MightyCow. It does that indeed. I say it again; we are not infallible.
Except KoM,of course. He knows the arguments in the book I read are bad, without having read it, without even knowing what the book is, simply because it had the virtue of not toeing the line of what he already knows is true. This is hubris at it's best (or worst), KoM. But if you've read your tragedies, you know what must come next. The catharsis. I tell you, there is nothing new under the sun.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, hubris is usually followed by nemesis; catharsis is what the audience to the play is supposed to experience.
Everything you've said so far has been refuted, hence my comment that your arguments are really bad. If you still feel your arguments are any good, why not trot them out and let them have a go? You've been challenged to do this in several threads on different subjects, now; put up or shut up.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [QUOTE]4(You may, if you wish, give one of the arguments; any one of us will be happy to shoot it down. Please feel free to take that as a challenge. I'll even be quiet and let someone else do the shooting down, since you seem to feel I have too much attitude for you to deal with.
I'll admit that I haven't read this book either. However, I would encourage you to take KOM up on this. Please post an argument that you feel is particularly compelling. I'm sure that I am not alone in believing that it would be far more productive to discuss a single well defined proposition than it would be to keep going on about the general topic.
Edit: In case it wasn't clear, I was replying to Reshpeckobiggle, but I felt that this particular KOM quote was useful to what I wanted to say.
Let's face it, neither of us will convince the other when discussing evolution in general. Let's face it, we both have fairly strong opinions on the subject already. However, on a narrow topic that is mostly confined to factual information, it will be much more likely for us to come to some semblance of agreement. As I see it, that's a lot better than yelling back and forth.
posted
I usually don't weigh in on.... well.... anything, preferring just to lurk, but here goes...
1) I've read the kind of books you're talking about. I don't know which one, but many years ago in highschool, I was the guy taking on the Biology teacher. I had the 'true facts' on the lie that was evolution and the support of a wealth of creationist literature that put science on the back foot. I was a die-hard evangelical Christian with the real facts and the willingness to do battle on their behalf.
You know who eventually convinced me otherwise? Not the Biol teacher, as AvidReader pointed out, textbooks in school are not exactly equipped to deal with the finer points of evolutionary science.
It was a priest. He saw my fervour, saw my burning desire to bring the light of the truth and then promptly crushed me - it was a priest who explained to me why there is no conflict between Christian thought and evolution. And then he pointed me in the direction of some good reading material which refuted comprehensively the arguments made by 'scientific' Christian literature I had until then employed.
I have no doubt the above will jolt your fervour one whit - but hey, I'm just putting it out there. There are people on this board well qualified to refute every claim in your book - why not give them the chance, rather than just telling them all how closed minded they are? Why not show some true open-mindedness yourself?
2) I'm interested to know that if, on the basis of your belief in creationism, if you also believe in the literal truth of the Bible in all other respects?
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Well, quite a few in Iraq and Afghanistan of the Islamic Extremists looking for weapons, and then we have the Reverend Pat Robertson suggesting we arm ourselves against the Muslims, and a few around here saying that since Islam is such a violent religion we got to convert or kill dem all.
Let me clarify: I wasn't asking whether Westerners, evangelical or otherwise, said we need to fight Moslems. I was asking how many times the incident you pictured happened: "a fanatical Evangelical Christian and an Islamic Extremist together in a room," and "they'll both be looking for weapons before too long." I can't think of any instances.
It would also be interesting to know how many times, when a Moslem and an evangelical found themselves in the same room and pulled weapons on each other, they then decided to shoot the nonbelievers in the area, as you said would probably happen afterwards.
If this actually happened, it should be big news.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troubadour: 2) I'm interested to know that if, on the basis of your belief in creationism, if you also believe in the literal truth of the Bible in all other respects?
Like for example, that the Bible supports a heliocentric model of the solar system rather than a geocentric model...
I mean, we know from your posts that you adore it. However (assuming that you do not in fact believe in it), how can you justify not believing in the literal truth of a heliocentric model but then believing in the literal truth of Genesis? How do you cherry-pick your scientific observations from the Bible? On what basis do you decide "now" that Genesis is "right" when very qualified scholars of the Bible in the past got it wrong when it came to heliocentrism?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I understood correctly, Resh actually believes in some variant of theistic evolution rather than outright young-earth creationism. So I don't think Biblical literalism comes into it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Those who are willing to figure out what is really being said, and not just trying to seize upon something they can claim is a contradiction, do not see any contradictions in the Bible.
quote:that most people would readily see is an unfair one.
Ron, when you wish to discuss this without such malicious assignment of motives and comments about the obviousness of the unfairness of those who disagree with you, let me know. I let the first one go, but it now seems clear this is a pattern with you.
Dragonee, what is your problem? There is nothing malicious about my statements that you quoted, or in anything else that I said. Those statements are entirely true--this is what I have observed, that you can approach Scripture in the manner of a scholar, careful to be fair about what it actually says, or jumping to conclusions and reading into it private assumptions. If you find anything objectionable with such statements, then you have a serious problem that is not of my making. I am talking about proper methodology in interpretation of Scripture. No judgment or denunciation was included, other than to point out the approach that I believe is obviously wrong because it is unfair and careless about actual meaning of the text.
Furthermore, those statements were not aimed at any specific person, but were stated generally. Why on earth did you take personal offence? Perhaps you are inferring things where nothing was implied.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Those statements are entirely true--this is what I have observed, that you can approach Scripture in the manner of a scholar, careful to be fair about what it actually says, or jumping to conclusions and reading into it private assumptions.
It works both ways. You could just as easily say that you can approach Scripture in the manner of a scholar, careful to be fair about what it actually says, and still find contradictions. Or you can jump to conclusions and read into it private assumptions, thus eliminating the contradictions.
To suggest that an open and fair mind can only come to the conclusions that you have come to is both incorrect and insulting.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Like for example, that the Bible supports a heliocentric model of the solar system rather than a geocentric model...
Mucus, the Bible employs common human manners of speaking. So do we today, when we speak of "the four corners of the earth," or "sunrise" or "sunset," etc. We know it is the earth that moves, yet we still speak this way. Everyone understands what is meant, which is the important thing.
Now, there are some interesting passages in Scripture that might be taken to imply something different, like:
"He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." (Job 26:7) Not on the backs of turtles, but on nothing! The Creator knows about gravity, even if Job did not.
"For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like men condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to men." (1 Corinthians 4:9; NIV) Other versions translate this as "we have been made a spectacle to the world." But the Greek word translated as "world" is "kosmos," which meant the whole of existence. That we are said to be spectacles also to angels, who are not native to earth but rather inhabit heaven, according to the Bible, implies the broader interpretation of kosmos.
"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?....When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" (Job 38:4-7) Note that in the Bible, stars are used as symbols and synonyms for angels (ex. Rev. 1:20) And in the genealogy of Luke, Adam is called "the son of God." (Luke 3:38) So who were these other Adams who shouted for joy when the foundations of the earth were being laid? Here is an implication that intelligent life exists on other worlds.
[ February 23, 2007, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: If I understood correctly, Resh actually believes in some variant of theistic evolution rather than outright young-earth creationism. So I don't think Biblical literalism comes into it.
Of course that just goes back to the original question. The most obvious religious way of interpreting the "scientific" statements of the Bible, is that they are in fact true. This is the stance taken by the subject in my quoted letter.
Resh has evidentially thought (or someone has thought for him) that parts of the Bible are too absurd to rationalise, and thus a new allegorical interpretation is necessary. Thus the theistic evolution was born. Now my question is, why cling to the Bible at all when parts were proven wrong (as clearly shown my the letter)? Why try to shoe-horn the Bible into some odd Bible/science hybrid?
More directly linked to my question, by what mechanism does Resh choose what "scientific" statements in the Bible are too ridiculous to rationalise anymore and thus should be completely ignored (e.g. heliocentrism) and what statements should be partially rationalised (e.g. Genesis and evolution)? It cannot be any mechanism in the Bible itself since those Biblical scholars, indeed "not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue" all agreed that heliocentrism was correct. How do you cherry-pick?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Where else are you interviewing, if I may ask?
