FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Richard Dawkins Interviews Creationist Wendy Wright (Page 4)

  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: Richard Dawkins Interviews Creationist Wendy Wright
The White Whale
Member
Member # 6594

 - posted      Profile for The White Whale           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
What is wrong with noting that Henry Morris had a Ph.D.? Is it not proper to note if a person has submitted to the discipline and learning necessary to obtain a doctorate? Isn't this the normal way to refer to anyone? Why is that "putting an alphabet soup" after his name?

Such objections are just plain silly, and lead me to question the maturity of the people who indulge in this typical pattern of sniping.

When I have a question about physics/health/astronomy/biology/history, I trust the knowledge of a physicist/doctor/astronomer/biologist/historian. If they have a PhD, then they have even more clout in their field. I do not go to a physicist with a PhD with a question about Napoleon.

Similarly, I do not go to a doctor in engineering with questions on biology and genetics, and I do not take his opinions on the matter as necessarily valid.

quote:
Most Creationists take Henry Morris to be a fairly responsible and cogent expositor of Creationist thinking, someone that evolutionists do not seem able to answer reasonably--because his criticisms of evolutionist thinking are so obviously valid.
Not an obvious thing at all.

quote:
As I already pointed out, the typical response of evolution defenders is to attack the people making the criticisms of evolution, not face up to the substance of the criticisms.
I think you are nitpicking your "evolution defenders." You can roam the internet looking for people who poorly defend a topic you disagree with, and find many of them. Or, you could roam around and find those who ask valid questions and engage them.

And so I ask you again:
quote:
Ron, please explain to me why you don't see the sequence australopithecus, homo habilus, homo erectus, archaic homo sapiens, and modern homo sapiens as evidence for evolution.
When I see this series, evolution pops out. It appears obvious to me. This sequence appears to follow every tenant of evolution. It seems straightforward. Where specifically do you see it failing?
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Most Creationists take Henry Morris to be a fairly responsible and cogent expositor of Creationist thinking, someone that evolutionists do not seem able to answer reasonably--because his criticisms of evolutionist thinking are so obviously valid.
Most of his criticisms of the Smithsonian exhibit have nothing to do with evolutionist thinking, but rather that the museum doesn't give fair time to creationist dogma.

But why should the museum grant equal time to a belief system which has been widely disproved by the general population of scientists? It's like asking a convention of physicists or chemists to give equal time to alchemists.

Morris doesn't prove what you think he proves. His arguments are more geared toward exciting the faithful rather than making any sort of cogent, believable argument.

Sorry-- like I said, I'm not an evolutionist. I'm just a guy, and I find Morris' arguments to be ridiculous.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:
Originally posted by swbarnes2:
While I agree that many theists make that argument, I don't believe anyone here has done so. Indeed, the last big thread on religion revealed a totally different reason: people worship God because they intend to to believe and hold as true whatever they wish were true, and they wish to believe in God. Why one would wish to believe in an all-knowing God who never has and never will help fallible, limited mortals save the lives of their children with vaccines, for example, is beyond me.

If you look at God as a father and not just an All Knowing Being (He would be that as well) then it may make more sense to you.
No, it doesn't. Parents don't watch as their chldren die from preventable disease. Only awful parents kill the first-born children of slaves and prisoners to prove a point about theri power to their children.

quote:
If your father had all knowledge and power and provided everything you ever wanted whenever you wanted it, what would you learn?
You tell me, what did all the chidren who died of measles as infants learn? What did the first born sons of the slave and thr prisoners learn in Exodus What would you learn about hard work, kindness, sharing, etc if your father just gave you everything the instant you wanted it??

"Providing everything I ever wanted" is not the standard. The mroe realisitic standard would include things like "Not letting infants die of tretable diseases". Certainly "killing infants because an unelected monarch was influenced into giving God an excuse to show off his power by killing said infants" is pretty much the opposite of the standard of good parenthood. But Exodus is quite clear that that's what the God of the Bible did.

quote:
Life is about experiences, and God won't give you anything that he hasn't experienced or that you can't handle.
How do you define "handle"? Do you mean "No one has ever been so overwhelmed by catastrophe that they killed themselves"? Because you can't possible think that's accurate.

Tell me, how did the son of the slave and prisoner "handle" the experience God gave them? What possible thing could those victims have done to make you conclude "Oh, I guess those poor doomed people coudln't handle what God gave them after all?"

quote:
Life isn't awesome all of the time, we have times in our lives when the world seems against us. But it is those experiences that help us learn and become better people.
I'm sorry, but the people who were burned alive because of their religious beliefs did not become better people because of their agony, and neither did their torturers. They just became painfully dead, and their torturers became more monstrous human organisms.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
fugu13, would you be specific? I do not recognize any responses to my statements about evolution that have any substance, or that I have not indeed answered.

This is the same old foolishness I encounter constantly with evolution fanatics, who absolutely will not allow anything to penetrate their already made-up minds. But I do not even write for them. I write for the others who are not so locked into the evolutionist mindset that they cannot appreciate that there is an intelligent, cogent, and fact-based alternative to the arrogance and mental blindness of fanatical evolutionism. There are indeed factual and compelling and fundamental criticisms of evolution theory. Humanity is ill-served by the determined campaign to deny this on the part of many who claim to be intelligent.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The White Whale
Member
Member # 6594

 - posted      Profile for The White Whale           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by The White Whale:

And so I ask you again:
quote:
Ron, please explain to me why you don't see the sequence australopithecus, homo habilus, homo erectus, archaic homo sapiens, and modern homo sapiens as evidence for evolution.
When I see this series, evolution pops out. It appears obvious to me. This sequence appears to follow every tenant of evolution. It seems straightforward. Where specifically do you see it failing?

Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Here's one from Tom:

quote:
What you do not seem to understand -- but which anyone who understands the mechanisms of natural selection should understand -- is that there is no one "amphibian-reptilian link." To say that this one fossil represents some kind of single-event "link" between different "types" is to completely misunderstand, well, pretty much all of the last 200 years of biological science.

(edit: I was mistaken on "numerous"; I'm having flashbacks to previous threads where you have completely failed to respond to extensive, detailed posts. Nevertheless, you have been ignoring substantive critiques in this thread).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sean Monahan
Member
Member # 9334

 - posted      Profile for Sean Monahan   Email Sean Monahan         Edit/Delete Post 
Here's one from Samp that I am interested in:

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
There is zero evidence for evolution. Everything claimed to be evidence for it is interpretation based on circular reasoning.

Demonstrate very specifically what you are talking about. What is a case of 'interpretation based on circular reasoning' that invalidates, say, instances of observed speciation, or models of chromosomal transition.

Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by The White Whale:

And so I ask you again:
quote:
Ron, please explain to me why you don't see the sequence australopithecus, homo habilus, homo erectus, archaic homo sapiens, and modern homo sapiens as evidence for evolution.
When I see this series, evolution pops out. It appears obvious to me. This sequence appears to follow every tenant of evolution. It seems straightforward. Where specifically do you see it failing?
TWW, Ron would think you're begging the question of how it was determined that those constitute a "sequence", as well as disagree with the classification.

He doesn't believe in carbon dating or the other scientific methods of dating fossils and other items, or even that the earth itself existed more than 6000 years ago. (In fact, the 'fact' that the Earth is only a few thousand years old is what disproves those dating methods!)

He doesn't see that sequence as evidence of anything other than malfeasance and/or stupidity on the part of the so-called scientists who pieced it together. After all, it's obvious to him - and all the credible science supports this belief, mind - that T-Rex roamed the earth at the same time as humans.

(In case the implied eye rolls aren't coming through: [Roll Eyes] )

My point is that it's gonna be hard to get anywhere with this line of questioning.

Edit: Oh, forgot. It's "tenet." [Wink]

Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
This is the same old foolishness I encounter constantly with evolution fanatics, who absolutely will not allow anything to penetrate their already made-up minds.

No, Ron, we are perfectly willing to allow cold, hard facts into our minds. Not your made-up assertions.

For instance, you have repeatedly claimed that a "library" of characteristics exists within microbial genomes.

Pick a microbe whose genome is sequenced and show us the library. We will pay attention, I assure you.

Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Edit: Oh, forgot. It's "tenet." [Wink]

Bless you.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The White Whale
Member
Member # 6594

 - posted      Profile for The White Whale           Edit/Delete Post 
Oops. Sorry.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by swbarnes2:
No, it doesn't. Parents don't watch as their chldren die from preventable disease. Only awful parents kill the first-born children of slaves and prisoners to prove a point about theri power to their children.

According to your interpretation of scriptures, am I correct? You could look at it that way. Another way you could look at it is that God didn't want those children to be brought up in the kind of community that would enslave millions of people. There are multiple ways to interpret something. Keep in mind also the Bible was written by men. Men aren't perfect and can exaggerate. I'm not saying it did not happen that way, I just wanted to point that out.

quote:
[QB]You tell me, what did all the chidren who died of measles as infants learn? What did the first born sons of the slave and thr prisoners learn in Exodus What would you learn about hard work, kindness, sharing, etc if your father just gave you everything the instant you wanted it??

"Providing everything I ever wanted" is not the standard. The mroe realisitic standard would include things like "Not letting infants die of tretable diseases". Certainly "killing infants because an unelected monarch was influenced into giving God an excuse to show off his power by killing said infants" is pretty much the opposite of the standard of good parenthood. But Exodus is quite clear that that's what the God of the Bible did.

Again, your interpretation. Let me put it this way. If there was no sickness, would we have learned as much as we do about DNA, the body, herbs, and even more emotional things such as loss, love, and longing?

quote:
How do you define "handle"? Do you mean "No one has ever been so overwhelmed by catastrophe that they killed themselves"? Because you can't possible think that's accurate.

Tell me, how did the son of the slave and prisoner "handle" the experience God gave them? What possible thing could those victims have done to make you conclude "Oh, I guess those poor doomed people coudln't handle what God gave them after all?"

Please. What you basically said is that we have no choice in anything we do.

Secondly, I never mentioned killing ones self. Sometimes that is how people handle it. I don't think they are sane when they do it, but at times that is how people cope.

quote:
I'm sorry, but the people who were burned alive because of their religious beliefs did not become better people because of their agony, and neither did their torturers. They just became painfully dead, and their torturers became more monstrous human organisms.
Human actions by evil men, who acted on their own will to commit dispicable acts.

I'm NOT being sarcastic in asking this, but what does an evolutionist see as the purpose of life? Is there a purpose to our lives?

I like this thread a lot more than others because it seems more civil. I feel more comfortable asking the question here. [Razz]

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The White Whale
Member
Member # 6594

 - posted      Profile for The White Whale           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
I'm NOT being sarcastic in asking this, but what does an evolutionist see as the purpose of life? Is there a purpose to our lives?

I like this thread a lot more than others because it seems more civil. I feel more comfortable asking the question here. [Razz]

I'm glad.

Here is a video I linked to earlier that sums up most of my feelings on this matter. I don't appreciate his jab at religion. It is too general.

I love feeling awe. I feel it when I look at the stars, at clouds, at bugs and rivers and snowfall and the capabilities of humans.

During my life, I hope to do good work (that helps people, in some form), have a good, healthy family, and provide my children with a good life, and the ability to live a good, healthy, helpful life themselves. When I die, I hope to be able to look back and see a good life that I am proud to have lived. I don't need the concept of a creator or a God to make me want these things. And from my point of view, I see the presence of a creator or a God as a diminishing of the awesomeness of the universe.

On the flip side, why do you think that a lack of belief in a creator would prevent me from seeing meaning and purpose in my life?

Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
Honestly, Geraine, the original claim was pretty weakly made. "God won't give you anything...that you can't handle."

This is weak sauce to someone who lives on the edge of starvation in miserable conditions for a scant few years before dying of disease caused by malnutrition. Sure, they are "handling" it, but so what? Are they supposed to be comforted by the knowledge that it could have been worse, except God wouldn't do that to them? It's a terrible line of argumentation. There are much better ways to justify the suffering and misery that people experience than this.

Here's a reformulation of the concept. I hope you agree it is awful:

"That's the right amount of misery for you, in God's opinion. Sorry it's so much more than what I can handle."

(At least you didn't go as far as to say that God doles out about the same amount of suffering-as-trial to everyone, just in different ways. I've heard this claim made quite seriously by multiple people, and it's deeply stupid. "Yeah, your disease and murder-ridden life are pretty much equivalent to my seasonal affective disorder and stress over money.")

Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
fugu13, would you be specific? I do not recognize any responses to my statements about evolution that have any substance, or that I have not indeed answered.

We realize to a person, I think, that you believe you are ten times the intellect of anyone on this board. However, you don't prove it through such painfully obvious prevarication.

"I don't recognize any responses of substance, or that I haven't answered"

"you didn't answer *my* point"

"Ah, my dear fellow, your point had no substance!"


See, we *notice* this Ron. We have eyes and can see it, and can grasp the reason for it. Now, it has always been an open question to me as to how knowingly or intentionally you yourself construct these prevarications, but it should have become obvious to you by now that they are noticed, and that they do not accomplish what you think they do. They *do* effectively spool out the discussion for pages while people try vainly to stop your narrative from flitting about the page like a pixie on speed, so nobody ever feels like they've won... but you've lost Ron. You've lost and you don't know why.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
That and assume that somehow they must be ignorant of science, which is another ad hominen attack. Thus Tom Davidson wants to conduct me on a tour of a natural history museum. Such arrogance!
The offer remains, for what it's worth. I think you'd benefit from it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:
Originally posted by swbarnes2:
No, it doesn't. Parents don't watch as their chldren die from preventable disease. Only awful parents kill the first-born children of slaves and prisoners to prove a point about their power to their children.

You could look at it that way. Another way you could look at it is that God didn't want those children to be brought up in the kind of community that would enslave millions of people.
But it's totally fine for the first born daughters to grow up in a world like that?

That's really your argument? Is there one line you can cite from the text that supports your interpretation?

quote:
You tell me, what did all the chidren who died of measles as infants learn? What did the first born sons of the slave and thr prisoners learn in Exodus

quote:
If there was no sickness, would we have learned as much as we do about DNA, the body, herbs, and even more emotional things such as loss, love, and longing?

Sure. How much research are you claiming all those dead infants got to grow up and carry out? How many deep emotions are you claiming they got to experience?

quote:
Please. What you basically said is that we have no choice in anything we do.
No, I didn't.

Just explain how the sons of the prisoner and slave girl could have "handled" what happened to them, and what their possible choices tells you about the God that killed them. Because I can't imagine what you think their choices were, or what their choices say about the God that put them in that position.

You and Tres and Kmboots all do the same thing; you make a sweeping statement about your beliefs, and when I ask how they apply to an unpleasant sitaution, you all run away from your arguments. If you argue that God doesn't give anyone anything they can't handle, then explain how the infant first born sons "handled" what God gave them in the tenth plague.

quote:
quote:
I'm sorry, but the people who were burned alive because of their religious beliefs did not become better people because of their agony, and neither did their torturers. They just became painfully dead, and their torturers became more monstrous human organisms.
Human actions by evil men, who acted on their own will to commit dispicable acts.
How can you tell the difference between men's work and God? God told people to burn witches!

God killed infants for his own glory, remember? I don't see a huge difference between that and burning a woman who one sincerely believes is a witch. Why is one so much more moral than the other?

Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MightyCow
Member
Member # 9253

 - posted      Profile for MightyCow           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
Secondly, I never mentioned killing ones self. Sometimes that is how people handle it.

In other words, "God doesn't give people anything that they can't at the very least commit suicide over."

How comforting.

Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
The following news excerpt confirms what I have predicted earlier in other threads, that when the DNA of wolves was compared to various species of dogs, it would be found that the characteristic DNA of all varieties of dogs is present in the wolf DNA--thus proving the Creationist theory of speciation. This has long seemed to be intuitively obvious, because if it were not true, then selective breeding as it has been practiced for thousands of years would not work.
quote:
PARIS (AFP) – Husky, shar pei, terrier or mutt, today's dogs descended from wolves that probably lived in the Middle East, not Europe or Asia as many thought, according to a study published Wednesday in the British science journal Nature.

"Dogs seem to share more genetic similarity with Middle Eastern grey wolves than any other wolf population worldwide," said one of its authors, Robert Wayne, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of California in Los Angeles.

The researchers sequenced the genetic code from more than 900 dogs from 85 breeds and 200 wild grey wolves, including wolves in North America, Europe, the Middle East and East Asia.

They analysed more than 48,000 single genetic markers, seeking areas of comparison that would enable them to build a canine family tree.

Its trunk, they found, is rooted in the Middle East, which concurs with evidence for the remains of dogs found at sites from 13,000 years ago.

link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100317/sc_afp/scienceanimalsdogs

The wolf DNA includes a library of alternate traits (in the vast portion of DNA that is switched off and was previously thought to be "junk" DNA) that can be selected for, to adapt to varying and changing envirnomental conditions. Thus God did not need to create all the breeds of dogs in the beginning, He just created the wolf. And only the wolf needed to be brought aboard the Ark, in order to repopulate the earth with all manner of dogs.

Further confirmation can be offered by deliberately seeking to produce various species of dogs by engaging in selective breeding of wolves. The Russians recently reported success in selective breeding foxes and producing tame dogs.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
The following news excerpt confirms what I have posted earlier in other threads, that when the DNA of wolves was compared to various species of dogs, it would be found that the characteristic DNA of all varieties of dogs is present in the wolf DNA--thus proving the Creationist theory of speciation, and contradicting the evolutionist theory.

Please print this "characteristic DNA of dogs", or at least 1 kilobase of it. Yes, yes, of course IUPAC ambiguities are allowed.

Ensembl's dog genome is right here:

http://www.ensembl.org/Canis_familiaris/Info/Index/

"Evolutionists" have always claimed that dogs descended from a common ancestor to modern wolves. The article you cited perfectly supports the "evolutionist" hypothesis".

It makes you look like an idiot to argue otherwise.

Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
natural_mystic
Member
Member # 11760

 - posted      Profile for natural_mystic           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
--thus proving the Creationist theory of speciation.

In the 'Creationist theory of speciation' what definition of 'species' is used?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
... that when the DNA of wolves was compared to various species of dogs ....

Actually, they did no such thing since there is only one species of dog. This is why the article never mentions species and consistently uses "breeds" whereas you seem to have misread it as "species."

quote:
... it would be found that the characteristic DNA of all varieties of dogs is present in the wolf DNA--thus proving the Creationist theory of speciation.
Ummmmm, no. Read the actual paper, specifically the first sentence of the conclusions.
quote:
The absence of both the SINE element and SNP allele in grey wolves suggests that the mutation for small body size post-dates the domestication of dogs. However, because all small dogs possess these diagnostic mutations, the mutations likely arose early in the history of domestic dogs.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/16/%3Cp%3E%3Ca

What they actually found was an element and an allele that was absent in the wolf that explains some small dog breeds.

Thats actually the opposite of your claim.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Further confirmation can be offered by deliberately seeking to produce various species of dogs by engaging in selective breeding of wolves. The Russians recently reported success in selective breeding foxes and producing tame dogs.

Missed this the first time.

No, they didn't. They made tame foxes. They did not magically turn into dogs.

Really, this is beyond lame. You are making things up, and being absolutely transparant about it.

Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
natural_mystic
Member
Member # 11760

 - posted      Profile for natural_mystic           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:

What they actually found was an element and an allele that was absent in the wolf that explains some small dog breeds.

Actually, the Bible quite clearly says that Noah took a pair of wolves and a pair of small dogs onto the Ark. [Wink]
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Ron, it boggles my mind that you are able to look at that article and see in it a confirmation of your own "theory," when in reality it is evidence against it. I don't know how to explain why to you, though, unless you're willing to actually listen to the things I try to explain to you about the biological sciences. Are you willing to give it a shot?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sean Monahan
Member
Member # 9334

 - posted      Profile for Sean Monahan   Email Sean Monahan         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
--thus proving the Creationist theory of speciation.

In the 'Creationist theory of speciation' what definition of 'species' is used?
I would like to know this as well. In another thread, which has since been deleted, you used "species" in reference to animals, and "race" in reference to humans, but you seemed to be using them to mean the same thing. I asked you if you defined them as the same thing, and if not, how you defined each one, but the thread was deleted before you responded.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
Sadly this is about the fourth episode on file where Ron posts some 'proof' of how he's right, which, in actuality, clearly contradicts him.

As all three episodes before it, he will not budge. Even if the wording is plain and clear that the source shows the opposite of what he thinks. He can not not rationalize it away.

Or, you know, maybe this time is different.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sinflower
Member
Member # 12228

 - posted      Profile for sinflower           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there was no sickness, would we have learned as much as we do about DNA, the body, herbs, and even more emotional things such as loss, love, and longing?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure. How much research are you claiming all those dead infants got to grow up and carry out? How many deep emotions are you claiming they got to experience?

None, but presumably the parents of those children felt more deep emotions than they would have otherwise. Maybe it made some of them go insane with grief, but maybe it made others wiser and stronger. Perhaps others were moved by the infants' deaths and realized how precious life is. No, life isn't fair, but on the other hand people really can't appreciate and understand what joy is until they've known suffering, just like they can't really appreciate the free time they have unless they work too, or know what light is without darkness and so on. The world wouldn't be better with no suffering at all. Suffering gives happiness meaning and makes it precious.

Look, I'm not a theist and I never will be, but the "if God existed he would be mean and unfair" argument is just about as pointless as the "but God has to exist to give life meaning" one. It really brings us nowhere.

Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sean Monahan
Member
Member # 9334

 - posted      Profile for Sean Monahan   Email Sean Monahan         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by sinflower:
The world wouldn't be better with no suffering at all. Suffering gives happiness meaning and makes it precious.

sinflower, do you believe in heaven? And if so, do you believe there will be suffering there?

ETA: Ah, never mind. I just read one sentence further. Not reading the whole post before replying, ftl.

Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
I wonder, Ron, would you be open to discussing this with just one other Hatracker? For example, in a specific thread. It couldn't be locked to view-only except by you and that person, I think, but we could all agree to shout down anyone who butts in.

Just as a for-example, I totally volunteer fugu, if he is willing and you're willing. It seems to me that he's been pretty respectful, non-hysterical, and business-oriented in this discussion with you. That's just as a possibility, though-if not him, is there any individual you would discuss the issue with, one-on-one?

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Raymond Arnold
Member
Member # 11712

 - posted      Profile for Raymond Arnold   Email Raymond Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
I think for that to be worthwhile, Ron would have to start by stating certain circumstances that would cause him to believe in evolution, so that he could be held to them (ha!) later. Otherwise, we wouldn't even have the illusion of the discussion not going in circles with Ron revising his thesis and requirements for acceptance.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sinflower
Member
Member # 12228

 - posted      Profile for sinflower           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
sinflower, do you believe in heaven? And if so, do you believe there will be suffering there?

lol, that's actually exactly why I had trouble with the idea of heaven when I was a child. I couldn't envision a place where no struggles and suffering existed. I thought it'd be boring and I didn't want to go.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MightyCow
Member
Member # 9253

 - posted      Profile for MightyCow           Edit/Delete Post 
If God personally told Ron that evolution is true and Genesis is a parable, Ron would tell God that He's wrong.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by sinflower:
None, but presumably the parents of those children felt more deep emotions than they would have otherwise. Maybe it made some of them go insane with grief, but maybe it made others wiser and stronger. Perhaps others were moved by the infants' deaths and realized how precious life is. No, life isn't fair, but on the other hand people really can't appreciate and understand what joy is until they've known suffering, just like they can't really appreciate the free time they have unless they work too, or know what light is without darkness and so on. The world wouldn't be better with no suffering at all. Suffering gives happiness meaning and makes it precious.

I’ll believe that this argument is made in sincerity when someone volunteers their life to enhance the emotional richness of their family’s lives.

Honestly, to argue that the death of innocent children is a mixed blessing? That it's good that some innocent people are sacrificed for the emotional edification of others? This argument is grotesque.

Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MightyCow
Member
Member # 9253

 - posted      Profile for MightyCow           Edit/Delete Post 
By that reasoning, we should encourage torture, violence, and general mayhem, because it's just God's way of teaching us all sorts of good things. I'm going to go rob a store to teach the clerk that money isn't everything [Big Grin]
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sinflower
Member
Member # 12228

 - posted      Profile for sinflower           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Honestly, to argue that the death of innocent children is a mixed blessing? That it's good that some innocent people are sacrificed for the emotional edification of others? This argument is grotesque.
Oh come on now, cool it with your outraged righteousness. And no, "sacrifice all the babes and innocents to teach a lesson to everyone else!" was NOT what I'm saying at all, and you know it.

Here's what I am saying: I'm saying that it's good that life has suffering and unfairness as well as joy and fairness. That it's a balance. Yes, there are sometimes painful, unfair things that happen to decent people (I'm not going to say "innocent people" because I don't think there's such a thing; everyone's good and bad in some proportion). But if life were totally painless and the "good" were always rewarded (never mind who gets to make the definition of good), then it wouldn't be as meaningful. Who would appreciate how wonderful peace is if war didn't exist? How wonderful wealth is if they'd never been poor? You can't have a world where the only events that happen range from neutral to greatly joyous, and emotions are the same. So I like this one. Even if, OMG, sometimes bad things happen and life is tough.

quote:
I’ll believe that this argument is made in sincerity when someone volunteers their life to enhance the emotional richness of their family’s lives.

But that's ridiculous. Just because I acknowledge that suffering is a necessary part of life doesn't mean I'm going to actively seek it out. That kind of goes against the definition of suffering, no?

But if I could choose a world where no suffering happened, to me or to anyone, I wouldn't choose it. I like this world better. If I could choose to protect myself completely from terrible things ever happening to me, I wouldn't. That doesn't mean I celebrate when terrible things happen. It means I accept that suffering, as well as joy, is part of what gives life meaning. My happy carefree times are lovely, but I learned to appreciate them because I'm not always happy and carefree. I'm a stronger and wiser person because of it. To me, that's the opposite of grotesque.

[ March 18, 2010, 03:55 AM: Message edited by: sinflower ]

Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Who would appreciate how wonderful peace is if war didn't exist? How wonderful wealth is if they'd never been poor?
*raises hand*
For that matter, I fail to understand why it's important for children to starve in central Africa so Paris Hilton can appreciate her wealth.

quote:
To me, that's the opposite of grotesque.
Frankly, I assume that is because you have neither experienced nor witnessed real suffering.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
[QB]
quote:
Who would appreciate how wonderful peace is if war didn't exist? How wonderful wealth is if they'd never been poor?
*raises hand*
For that matter, I fail to understand why it's important for children to starve in central Africa so Paris Hilton can appreciate her wealth.

:points everyone toward the Worthing Saga:

My love for my healthy children hasn't really increased because I've got a daughter with a serious heart defect. Given the chance, I'd heal her in an instant.

Given the opportunity, I'd make it so she was never born with the defect in the first place.

But I would never make it so she was never born. If the choice is to have Tiptoe with the heart defect, or not have her at all-- I'll take Tiptoe Every. Single. Time.

The emotional pain of coping with her disease is not enough for me to want to cancel her out of existence. I can't imagine an experience that WOULD make me wish she'd never come along.

There are certainly things I've learned from this ordeal that are invaluable to me now. I don't know that I would have learned them otherwise.

This is not to compare my family's suffering with the suffering of a starving family in Africa. Or any other suffering family or individual.

It is to point out that, in my belief, there were only two ways God could go about creation: either don't do it at all, or do it and accept that Creation is going to have blemishes, diseases, pain, toil, and suffering. I think Creation's value is worth it to Him, in spite of the sorrow.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It means I accept that suffering, as well as joy, is part of what gives life meaning.
I agree with this. The quantity of happiness is not in itself the sole important thing in the world.

The tricky question is: Why so much suffering? Why not less? One could definitely imagine a world with some suffering, but not nearly as much as this one. Would that be better?

quote:
Frankly, I assume that is because you have neither experienced nor witnessed real suffering.
Who has never experienced real suffering? You writing off sinflower's viewpoint with an assumption that's definitely not true.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
I am curious, Tom, how you would go about appreciating something if that something had always been just a fact of life, a constant like gravity or taxes.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
:points everyone toward the Worthing Saga:
But here's the thing: we don't actually get to see the society that the Worthing Saga tells us is flawed. We hear about it after it is over -- and, of course, the author asserts that pretty much nothing noteworthy happened while peace and prosperity and painlessness reigned. But why?

The Worthing Saga is a pretty good analogy, sure, but it fails to make its case persusasively; it simply asserts that suffering produces goodness, and then proceeds from that point as if that were the established case. I note, of course, that the case has not actually been established.

quote:
in my belief, there were only two ways God could go about creation: either don't do it at all, or do it and accept that Creation is going to have blemishes, diseases, pain, toil, and suffering
Of course, if your God -- like the "gods" of Worthing -- is not truly omnipotent, that's possible. And I agree that this worldview is not internally inconsistent. If your God is omnipotent, however, it is not at all difficult to imagine a Creation without blemish.

quote:
I am curious, Tom, how you would go about appreciating something if that something had always been just a fact of life, a constant like gravity...
I appreciate gravity. And air. Don't you?
Another question, of course, also arises: why is appreciation necessary? What is the virtue of appreciating painlessness when there is no possibility of pain?

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Tom: I think you are working with the assumption that God, if he exists, lives in a world devoid of pain. I don't believe that to be the case. Take God's dealings with the Israelites, God frequently speaks of his wrath, his pain, his sadness. While one could argue he is simply trying to communicate with us in such as way that we understand to a point. To me it seems much more simpler and correct that God, like us, experiences the full gamut of emotions when he considers us, his creation.

The trick to this existence is to mature and grow so that you yourself no longer yield to sin, and so God can use you as one of his instruments to make any circumstance you are placed in better.

In short, by cooperating with God, he is more able to accomplish good, and we increase in knowledge and power by allowing him to work through us.

Also,
quote:
Another question, of course, also arises: why is appreciation necessary? What is the virtue of appreciating painlessness when there is no possibility of pain?
I'd have to chew on that for awhile, I don't really have an answer as I've never really considered that question.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
To me it seems much more simpler and correct that God, like us, experiences the full gamut of emotions when he considers us, his creation.
And, again, that's not a problem for a non-omnipotent God. An omnipotent God, though, certainly doesn't have to.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
To me it seems much more simpler and correct that God, like us, experiences the full gamut of emotions when he considers us, his creation.
And, again, that's not a problem for a non-omnipotent God. An omnipotent God, though, certainly doesn't have to.
Even if an omnipotent God could live in a world without pain, would it necessarily follow that it would be better to exist that way?

BTW don't you have some sort of omnipotence involving an albino reptile, covered with emerald fire that needs managing?

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Even if an omnipotent God could live in a world without pain, would it necessarily follow that it would be better to exist that way?
Not necessarily. That God could have also chosen to make pain necessary for some reason. But why would He do that?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Even if an omnipotent God could live in a world without pain, would it necessarily follow that it would be better to exist that way?
Not necessarily. That God could have also chosen to make pain necessary for some reason. But why would He do that?
Maybe pain in of itself has effects that are needful, God recognizing that allows it to exist.

I forget, did you disagree that a God that can do all that can be done instead of being able to do anything was still omnipotent?

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
I want to point out that I was not the first one to do a cross-forum game prompt this time.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
I want to point out that I was not the first one to do a cross-forum game prompt this time.

Don't lie, you told me to do it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I forget, did you disagree that a God that can do all that can be done instead of being able to do anything was still omnipotent?
Yes.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Bearing in mind the inadaquacy of words, I have two things to keep in mind that might be useful.

1) God /= superman in the sky

2) We tend to think of Creation as something that happened instead of something that is happening. We have our part in Creating and we are not "done".

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2