Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: bribery or justice?

    I said:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Exactly, and what is the probability that a God would create an elaborate universe, complex lifeforms, sentient personal beings (like humans), and NOT communicate with his creation? Even yo-yo makers label their product and include instructions for how to use it. If there is a God that created an amazingly complex "product" like human life, it seems extremely probable that this God would have done no less than yo-yo makers do, and included at least some kind of instructions regarding his purpose in creating us, as well as how human life was designed to be used.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Originally posted by PureX
    Except that it's obvious that God (if God exists) has not done so. At least not in a way that we have been able to grasp. How to be a human being is written into our genetic code, but why human beings exist is not; at least not that we know of. Or maybe it is there, but we haven't been able to recognize it, yet, sort of like not being able to see the forrest because of all the trees.

    Another possibility is that there simply is no "reason" that we exist other than that we can. Maybe the answers we keep looking for belong to questions that are moot. Maybe being itself is the 'why'.
    I realize that you are playing the "anything is possible" card, but I recall you stating previously that you were a theist. So in that regard, I find your above arguments to be somewhat misleading. My main point, (which you didn't really dispute) is that if God exists, there is a very high probability that this God would have communicated with His creation. I made this argument in response to your "probabilities rule" sentiment. We can differ on whether or not we think God actually has communicated to us, but that doesn't change the logical probability for it.


    I said:
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Acknowledging that probability is the basis for looking for possible ways that our Creator might have communicated those things to us......If is it highly probable that God would have communicated to his creation, (which I think it is) then we have no reason to dismiss all historical accounts of such divine communications out of hand.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Well, I'm not a god, but even I know that if I want person "M" to know something, telling person "W" and expecting person "W" to convey the idea accurately to person "M" is foolish. The message will ALWAYS get garbled, and as often as not, person "W" will use the fact that he has information that person "M" needs to manipulate person "M" or to puff himself up falsely.

    I have to believe that whatever "God" wants us to know. We already know. Because I can't assume that a god that could create all that exists would be so stupid or weak that he couldn't put in our minds what he wanted to be there.
    I agree with much of your sentiment here. However, I think you are limiting God to some degree by assuming that God would communicate with us only in one way - internally. Like most Christian philosophers, I believe God has revealed himself to us in THREE ways - 1) through Creation (there is much you can learn about a creator by studying his/her creations) - 2) human conscience, (our inbred moral compasses imply a moral agent is it's originator) - and, 3) Holy Writ (although its not a perfect method of communication, it can be useful for corporate instruction).

    Since mankind is a social species, God knew that we would need organization, government, leadership, etc. While it is true that some have corrupted or misused God's message, it is ALSO true that many have not. It seems that skeptics (like yourself) tend to cynically adopt "the glass is always half empty" view when observing religion. As rationalist, I take neither the overly opimistic or overly pessimistic view; since the truth is - humans have both properly used, AND improperly misused God's written revelation.

    The fact that some have misused a thing does not mean the thing wasn't worth creating. For example, many have used knives to prepare food, while many others have used knives to stab and kill other people. Does the fact that some have misused knives to stab and kill people mean that the knife should have never been invented? Likewise, does the fact that some have misused God's written word mean that God should never have given it?



    I said:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "Extraordinary claims require far more justification than ordinary claims because they are so much more unlikely."

    Agreed, but what makes that idea somewhat meaningless is the fact that each individual may have a different idea about what is "extraordinary" and what is not. Evolutionists, for example, do not find it extraordinary to believe that the universe exploded, and from this chaotic explosion, molecules mindlessly assembled themselves into human beings over billions of years of lucky accidents. Yet, this "extraordinary" idea is taught every day in most educational institutions throughout the world.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, I don't know of any "evolutionists". Evolution is a scientific theory, not a philosophical proposition. There are no "evolutionists" except maybe for scientists or historians who study the theory of evolution itself. If they exist, I have never met one.
    You have to be kidding me. You think the theory of evolution is NOT philosophical??? More on this below......

    If you are referring to people who generally accept the theory of evolution as the most plausable and workable concept of biomechanical change, then as one of those people I can safely say that I do find it quite extraordinary. And although the Big Bang has nothing to do with biological evolutionary theory I'm guessing that even most cosmologists find the Big Bang extraordinary, too, even though they know that chemicals "mindlessly assemble themselves" into all sorts of new compounds all the time. How much luck or accident is involved in this process, though, none of us can really say.
    The chance results of the Big Bang have everything to do with life on earth. If the earth was located even slightly closer or farther away from the sun, life would not exist. If the moon was larger or smaller, life would not exist; if the sun was different type of star; life would not exist; if the electromagnetic force was of a slightly different value; life would not exist; etc., etc. To say that the chance-results of the Big Bang have nothing to do with evolution, is asinine.

    Furthermore, please show me an example of even ONE instance where chemical compounds were observed to mindlessly assemble themselves into a living organism. This is never been observed to occur in the natural world, and even intelligent designers ("scientists") have not been able to make living organisms out of chemicals, even employing all of their intelligence and benefits of modern technologies. Only a mythologist would suggest that blind, mindless forces accomplished a creative feat that all the world's scientists cannot.


    I said:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the realm of philosophy.....(and origins is a philosophical topic, btw) people pick and choose what they believe is "extraordinary" and what is not.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Science is science, and philosophy is philosophy. One is not the other. Both may sometimes investigate the origins of humanity, but that doesn't mean they become the same endeavor. They don't, and they aren't.
    Perhaps we have different ideas about what "science" is. I understand science to be a discipline that empirically satisfies the scientific method's proof criterion. This means that a scientific theory must be based on experiments that are testable, observable, and reproducable. The origin of the universe, the origin of life on earth, and the last 4 billion years of biological history of life on earth are NOT directly testable, observable, OR reproducable. Therefore, origin theories are not even remotely "scientific". Most origin theories are inductive, philosophical postulations. Some of these postulations involve some types of experiments, but these experiments are usually ASSUMED to have some correlation to a hypothesized event millions of years ago; but as long as the hypothesized event remains unobservably buried millions of years in the past, any and all correlations made to it are fancied out of *speculation*. That my friend, is philosophy; not "science".


    I said:
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In my view, I find the molecules-to-man evolution myth to be far more "extraordinary" than the idea that there is a Creator God, and this God chose to make known Himself, and his will, through a man such as Jesus Christ. If a Creator God exists, it would be within his desire to communicate with us, and it would be within his ability to communicate to us through a human representative of His choosing. These are not extraordinary ideas at all. In fact, they are very likely possiblities if theism is true.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Well, sure, if I'm right about concept "X", then it will be VERY likely that I am right about concept "X". But if I am not right about concept "X", it will be very unlikely that I am right about concept "X". But it's the "if" that carries all the weight, here, not how right I think I am.
    Erm, in your attempt to sound clever you overlooked the fact that I was proposing TWO concepts, not just one. Here they are:

    Concept X - God exists.
    Concept Y - God communicates to creation.


    My argument was this - If concept X is true, concept Y is very probable. Are we clear now?

    When people believe that myth and magic are reality, and that science and experimentation are just fantasy and wishful thinking, they will very like view their myths as "history" and magic as commonplace.
    You speak in parables my friend. WHO is claiming anything about "magic"? And just what is magic? Are black holes "magical" because all laws of physics break down at their points of singularity? Is uncaused universes popping into existence uncaused out of nothing - "magic"?


    So of course to those folks science and whatever evidence it produces will always appear "wild" and "unbelievable" and too extraordinary to accept.
    As I pointed out before, the origin theories are not "science", nor do they represent "evidence". There is no "evidence" that universes pop into existence uncaused out of nothing. No experiment has proven such a thing can occur, or ever has occured. There is no evidence of eternally existent universes, or of singularities of infinite density. All of these things are just concepts; ideas - not "evidence".........they are PHILOSOPHICAL IDEAS. There is no evidence that species can hump themselves into different species, just given enough generations and the right environments. Geneticists have only discovered limitations within each species' capacity for change. Many of the naturalistic origin theories contain mythical concepts that have never been directly observed, tested, or reproduced...........therefore, those origin theories are not "science".


    I said:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Originally posted by Scrimshaw I agree. The "religions" that teach skepticism is wrong are usually what are called - "cults". Christianity, as well as the other world religions are not cults; but may have extremist cult-groups within them. It is important to understand that difference, lest in one's attempt to be rational they inadvertently become prejudicial by slapping a false stereotype on an entire religion.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I do understand the difference. But I have to tell you that I have encountered so many Christians who are of the "cult" variety that I have ceased to even call myself a Christian, anymore. It's been made overwhelmingly obvious to me that what is currently being called Christianity is in reality and practice just another blind cult based on myth, magic, and willful ignorance.
    If Christianity as whole opposed skepticism, or skeptical thinking, why is there numerous Christian Apologetics ministries throughout the world, not to mention tens of thousands of volumes of Christian literature that critiques other philosophical/religious ideas? Perhaps what you are saying that Christians believe in being skeptical towards other beliefs, but not their own. If that is what you mean, then I would ask you - what makes Christians different than anyone else? I have yet to encounter an individual or organization of individuals that forthrightly practices self-skepticism. It is human nature to defend one's own ideas, and attack any contrary ideas. You do it, I do, Christians do it, scientists do it, atheists do it, Muslims do it, Democrats do it, Republicans do it, etc. Perhaps everyone who believes in anything and attempts to defend it - is a "cultist"??????
    Last edited by Scrimshaw; September 6, 2003, 02:28 PM.
    SCRIMSHAW

    "Passions act as winds to propel our vessel; our reason is the pilot that steers her, without the winds she would not move; and without the pilot she would be lost". - The French

    Comment


    • Re: bribery or justice?

      quote:
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Originally posted by Scrimshaw
      Exactly, and what is the probability that a God would create an elaborate universe, complex lifeforms, sentient personal beings (like humans), and NOT communicate with his creation? Even yo-yo makers label their product and include instructions for how to use it. If there is a God that created an amazingly complex "product" like human life, it seems extremely probable that this God would have done no less than yo-yo makers do, and included at least some kind of instructions regarding his purpose in creating us, as well as how human life was designed to be used.

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


      Originally posted by bmyers
      I don't think that your analogy is necessarily a good one. First of all, yo-yo makers do not include instructions for the benefit of the yo-yo, but rather for the user who will be using the product in the absence of the manufacturer. If the manufacturer of a product is going to stick around while that product is being used, then why give instructions indirectly? Why not simply continue to communicate explicitly, "training" the users at all times?
      As I mentioned in my latest response to PureX, I believe God does in fact communicate with us on a regular basis - through our conscience. I also mentioned that Holy Writ is useful for corporate instruction. Humans are a social species. We need corporate instruction.........that is why we have governments, leaders, organizations, etc. Certainly if God created us as a social species, he would be aware that we would need corporate instruction, and He would have provided it to a greater or lesser degree.

      Further, though, this argument assumes a particular intent on the part of the manufacturer. Since we cannot know with certainty what God's intent was (assuming there is a God) in creating the universe, the world, or human beings, it is impossible to assign any probability to what "should" happen in the context of this creation.
      I think you reading too much into my analogy. The analogy was submitted to highlight this principle - The creators of things usually communicate the purpose for their product's use/function. And to that end, my analogy was quite appropriate. If God created a product as complex as sentient human beings, he most likely would have communicated information for how human life is designed to be used. This is a very intiutive concept so I am surprised that you would be motivated to argue against it. It's common knowledge the intelligent designers communicate instructions for how their products are to be used.

      What makes things tricky is the fact unlike almost all other products ever created, humans have an ability to contradict the purpose they were designed to function. They have the unique ability to *choose* not to follow the designer's instructions for how their life should be used. In fact, humans have the uncanny ability to write their own instructions for how they think their lives should be used, and their own instructions usually don't lead to lasting happiness. Most times, their own instructions for life lead to the hurt of others, either individually, or collectively. The history books show this phenomena quite thoroughly.


      For one possibly disturbing, but not dismissable, example - rats in a laboratory experiment are not given instructions regarding the nature of the experiment, or how they are "supposed" to get through it.
      That example does not undercut the intent of my analogy, which was to highlight the fact that intelligent designers communicate instructions for how their products are to be used.


      quote:
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      In my view, I find the molecules-to-man evolution myth to be far more "extraordinary" than the idea that there is a Creator God,
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Why do you believe these must be exclusive of one another?

      It is possible God could have directed evolutionary events/processes. However, evolution is generally defined as a wholly naturalistic theory that precludes the need/existence of any supernatural agents. The ones who created evolution theory (Darwin, and others) set out to create a theory which explains the origin of species WHOLLY by *natural* processes only. To interject a supernatural being as the "chief operator" of evolution undermines the entire purpose that the evolution theory was designed for. So in that sense, theism is exclusive of *Darwinian* evolution theory. Theistic evolution is not Darwinian evolution. They are entirely different theories.
      Last edited by Scrimshaw; September 6, 2003, 02:18 PM.
      SCRIMSHAW

      "Passions act as winds to propel our vessel; our reason is the pilot that steers her, without the winds she would not move; and without the pilot she would be lost". - The French

      Comment


      • Re: Re: bribery or justice?

        Originally posted by Scrimshaw
        As I mentioned in my latest response to PureX, I believe God does in fact communicate with us on regular basis - through our conscience. I also mentioned that Holy Writ is useful for corporate instruction. Humans are a social species. We need corporate instruction.........that is why we have governments, leaders, organizations, etc. Certainly if God created us as a social species, he would be aware that we would need corporate instruction, and He would have provided it to a greater or lesser degree.
        Or again - perhaps it's all just one big experiment to see how a species "designed" with the capacity for social interaction develops such things on their own. There seem to be no end of possibilities here, nor any good way to exclude at least most of them.


        If God created a product as complex as sentient human beings, he would have communicated information for how human life should be used. This is a very intiutive concept so I am surprised that you would be motivated to argue against it.
        I do not intend to argue against it so much as to show that it is hardly the only possible conclusion, and so far I see no reason to prefer it over the other possibilities other than the fact that we would like it to be so.


        It's common knowledge the intelligent designers communicate instructions for how their products are to be used. Therefore, if there is an intelligent designer for human life, it is highly likely that such a designer would have done no less.
        Intelligent designers SOMETIMES communicate instructions on how their products are to be used; it depends on the motivation for creating the products in the first place, who the product will be used by, etc.. Hammers do not generally come with instructions, as they are assumed to be so simple as to be immediately understandable by their intended user. Puzzles generally do not come with explicit solutions (unless their so hard that you feel the customer will likely be frustrated to the extent of giving up and demanding such), since that's the whole point. Finally, I do not write instructions if I'm making something for my own use (no matter how complex), since as the designer, I expect that I will always understand the product well enough to use it.



        quote:
        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In my view, I find the molecules-to-man evolution myth to be far more "extraordinary" than the idea that there is a Creator God,
        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Why do you believe these must be exclusive of one another?

        It is possible God could have direct evolutionary events/processes. However, evolution is generally defined as a wholly naturalistic theory that precludes the need/existence of any supernatural agents.
        Precluding the need for something does not disprove its existence; however, the way science operates, it is required to search for only those portions of the model sufficient and necessary to explain a given process. That there may be additional factors beyond the explanation is not disproven, it merely becomes an unanswered (and possibly unanswerable, within the context of the model under study) question.


        The ones who created evolution theory (Darwin, and others) were set out to create a theory which explains the origin of species WHOLLY by *natural* processes.
        See above. I don't see any reason to believe that Darwin or anyone else specifically set out with the goal of coming up with a theory that "denied God." That's a false characterization that has been put forth primarily by the fundamentalist/literalists on the theistic side of all this. (It is particularly unlikely that Darwin had this goal, as he was after all a clergyman in the Church of England, with a degree from Cambridge in theology.) However, the theory which logically developed from the evidence found no need to require supernatural intervention, which is another thing altogether.

        Comment


        • Re: Re: bribery or justice?

          Originally posted by Scrimshaw I realize that you are playing the "anything is possible" card, but....
          "Anything" is not possible, and I was not intending to imply that it is. As I understand it, the universe is basically just energy. Matter and space and time are all manifestations of energy expressing itself. But the energy expresses itself only in certain ways, and does not express itself in ANY way. So clearly, anything (everything) is not possible. Only those things that can happen as an expression of energy are possible, and so only those things have occurred. So though the universe may be made of energy, existence is not just energy, but is energy and the "laws" (patterns of behavior) that all the energy follows. Those laws dictate what is or isn't possible.
          Originally posted by Scrimshaw I recall you stating previously that you were a theist. So in that regard, I find your above arguments to be somewhat misleading. My main point, (which you didn't really dispute) is that if God exists, there is very high probability that this God would have communicated with His creation.
          I can't see any reason why we should assume this to be a high probability. And as I can easily see that we humans don't know very much about the nature of the universe or our own place within it, I'd have to say that the evidence suggests that God has not communicated such things to us. Also, reason would imply that if God exists, and if God created everything including ourselves, then God certainly would be capable of making us know whatever God wished us to know without doubt, confusion or error. Since our state is in fact one of doubt, confusion and error, I think it's reasonable to assume that this is our intended state.
          Originally posted by Scrimshaw Acknowledging that probability is the basis for looking for possible ways that our Creator might have communicated those things to us......If is it highly probable that God would have communicated to his creation, (which I think it is) then we have no reason to dismiss all historical accounts of such divine communications out of hand.
          I can't acknowledge that probability, however, as I don't see any evidence or reason to support it.
          Originally posted by Scrimshaw I agree with much of your sentiment here. However, I think you are limiting God to some degree by assuming that God would communicate with us only in one way - internally. Like most Christian philosophers, I believe God has revealed himself to us in THREE ways - 1) through Creation (there is much you can learn about a creator by studying his/her creations) - 2) human conscience, (our inbred moral compasses imply a moral agent is it's originator) - and, 3) Holy Writ (although its not a perfect method of communication, it can be useful for corporate instruction).
          One and two are basically the same thing. What we are calling "human conscience" is natural and therefor a part of creation; if the concept of creation is reasonable at all. But I agree that if the common definition of God as the creator and sustainer of all that exists is accurate, then we should be able to apprehend something of this God's will, intent, character, intellect, whatever, from the nature of creation itself. And as creation includes ourselves, we should be able to see ourselves as some sort of a reflection of the God that created us.

          I'm OK with following this line of thought, but I can't ignore the gigantic "if" written across the entrance of this whole line of thinking. I will and do contemplate the universe as I know of it as an expression of what I'd call "God", but while doing so I also remain aware that what I am contemplating may be a complete fantasy. This might appear "double minded" to some, and it is, but to me it seems a lot more honest than just grabbing on to an assumption and running away with it.
          Originally posted by Scrimshaw Since mankind is a social species, God knew that we would need organization, government, leadership, etc. While it is true that some have corrupted or misused God's message, it is ALSO true that many have not. It seems that skeptics (like yourself) tend to cynically adopt "the glass is always half empty" view when observing religion. As rationalist, I take neither the overly opimistic or overly pessimistic view; since the true is that humans have both properly used AND improperly misused God's written revelation.
          You're jumping way ahead of me, here. I can accept the natural world as an expression of God, I can't accept man's claims of divine revelation, however. And the reason is that I do not see how a man could know a divine revelation even if he experienced one. When I was a child, I spent an afternoon with God. I realize this is a very bizarre thing to post, but even as a reasonable person, I have no better way of conveying the experience I had then that. Yet even having been there, and having experienced something that extraordinary, I have to be honest enough to doubt my own experiece. I have to accept that whatever it was that happened, it still may not have been a day with God at all. So I can't reasonably accept anyone's assertions of divine revelation - not even my own.

          You, of course are free to choose otherwise, if that's what seems the most honest thing for you to do.
          Originally posted by Scrimshaw You have to be kidding me. You don't think the theory of evolution is philosophical??? Tell you what.....send me a test tube sample of the last 4 billion years of biological history of life on earth showing all of the evolution theories are true, and I'll reconsider my belief that evolution theory is a wholly philosophical origin model.
          No. The theory of evolution is a scientific model, and is NOT a philosophical model. I realize that lots of folks get these confused, but they were confused to begin with. Evolutionary theory is a bionechanical model that scientists use to test specific hypotheses about how biology works. It is not intended to be a philosophical proposition, and it never was.

          However, I realize that many people have taken the most elementary aspects of the evolutionary model and used them to make philosophical claims, that they wrongly may have called some sort of "Darwinist" philosophy. I have noticed that the antagonists seem to do this more often than the protagonists do, which is truely a strange phenomena when you think about it. Philosophical "Darwinism" seems to loom much larger in the minds of those who oppose it than it does for anyone who might be asserting it.

          I think what's really happened is that when Darwin used his observations of nature to present his biological model, he inadvertantly shined the light of human consciousness right on an aspect of reality that religion has difficulty dealing with, and as a result, religious people took it as an attack. And I suppose that some people who were looking for a reason to attack religion, found one in Darwin's observations, too. But all of this is superfluous to Darwin and the evolutionary model itself, as they had nothing whatever to do with religion, and never intended to.

          I have found that even discussing it is basically pointless these days, as people are so completely entrenched in their respective positions that nothing at all comes from the discussion but more animosity and entrenchment. And besides that, I am not a scientist, nor a religious apologist, and do not know enough about these things to make a good case either way. For myself, I have had very bad experiences with trying to live by myth, magic, and willful ignorance, and so I have learned to become more pragmatic and skeptical as a result. I'm not a pessimist. But I'm not a chump, either.
          Originally posted by Scrimshaw The chance results of the Big Bang have everything to do with life on earth. If the earth was located even slightly closer or farther away from the sun, life would not exist. If the moon was larger or smaller, life would not exist; if the sun was different type of star; life would not exist; if the electromagnetic force was of a slightly different value; life would not exist; etc., etc. To say that the chance-results of the Big Bang have nothing to do with evolution is asinine.
          The "Big Bang" tells us nothing at all about chance, or about evolution, or about the existence or non-existence of God. The "Big Bang" is a cosmological model that so far has proven to be functional in testing lots of other cosmological hypotheses. Like Darwin's biological model, however, people have wildly misunderstood it's significance, and have used it to assert all sorts of bizarre, unrelated, and unfounded philosophical propositions.

          Also like Darwin's model, I think the Big Bang accidentally focussed the light of human conscoiusness on an issue that we were already having great argument and difficulty with, and so it was drawn into a fray that it had nothing really to do with.

          My suggestion would be for those who wish to continue the debate to skip Darwin and the Big Bang all together, and go directly to the original troubling issues. These issues are not evolution and the Big Bang, these issues are "is my God real, and if so (or if not), what does that mean?"
          Originally posted by Scrimshaw Furthermore, please show me an example of even ONE instance where chemical compounds were observed to mindlessly assemble themselves into a living organism. This is never been observed to occur in the natural world, and even intelligent designers ("scientists") have not been able to make living organisms out of chemicals, even with all the benefits of modern technologies.
          Every cell in your body is made up of chemicals joining together to become those living cells, and then breaking back down into their "lifeless" components again. But I'm not going to get into this with you. If you want to live in a world of myth, magic, and willful ignorance, that's your choice, and I know that nothing I say, right or wrong, will change that.
          Originally posted by Scrimshaw Perhaps we have different ideas about what "science" is. I understand science to be a discipline that empirically satisfies the scientific method's proof criterion. This means that a scientific theory must be based on experiments that are testable, observable, and reproducable. The origin of the universe, the origin of life on earth, and the last 4 billion years of biological history of life on earth are NOT directly testable, observable, OR reproducable. Therefore, origin theories are not even remotely "scientific".
          Lots of things are not directly testable, but can reasonably be inferred by things that can be tested. So far, the models of evolution and the Big Bang have proven functional for the vast majority of those indirect tests, and so are still considered to be good working models. This could change, of course, as our ability to test the models more directly improves.
          Originally posted by Scrimshaw Most origin theories are inductive, philosophical postulations.
          Scientific hypotheses are not philosophical propositions. They never were. This is where you keep getting caught up. Because you see them as threatening YOUR philosophical views, you consider them opposing philosophies. But they are not, and never were. What is opposing your philosophical view is that scientific observation is leading us to conclusions that are contrary to your beliefs, and you don't want to ammend your beliefs accordingly. So you see the science as a philosophical opponent: a threat. But the opposition blaming on science is inside you and your opponent is yourself. Science is just science. Scientific models are just scientific models. They work as long as they work and they get dropped when they stop working.
          Originally posted by Scrimshaw Some of these postulations involve some types of experiments, but these experiments are usually ASSUMED to have some correlation to a hypothesized event millions of years ago; but as long as the hypothesized event remains unobservably buried millions of years in the past, any and all correlations made to it are fancied out of *speculation*. That my friend, is philosophy; not "science".
          Everything human involves assumptions. There's nothing we can do about that. It's how we deal with the assumptions that separate science and philosophy and religion and art, etc. But I can see that you are very adament in protecting your philosophy from any admission of error, and so for you science has become a "threat" that has to be dismissed and discredited at all cost.
          Originally posted by Scrimshaw Err, in your attempt to sound clever, you overlooked the fact that I was proposing TWO propositions, not one. Here they are:

          Concept X - God exists.
          Concept Y - God communicates to creation.


          My argument was this - If concept X is true, concept Y is very probable. Are we clear now?
          I see no conncetion at all between "X" and "Y" except that you believe that there is one.
          Originally posted by Scrimshaw You speak in parables my friend. WHO is claiming anything about "magic"? And just what is magic? Are black holes "magical" because all laws of physics break down at their points of singularity? Is uncaused universes popping into existence uncaused out of nothing - "magic"?

          100 years ago, most scientists would have thought it would have to be by "magic" if the continents could drift. So much for the "magic" arugment.
          "Magic" is how you are connecting "X" and "Y".
          Originally posted by Scrimshaw If Christianity as whole opposed skepticism, or skeptical thinking, why is there numerous Christian Apologetics ministries throughout the world, not to mention tens of thousands of volumes of Christian literature that critiques other philosophical/religious ideas?
          It seems to me that the whole function of "Christian apologetics" is to thwart skepticism, and to try and explain away all the contradictions and incongruities that are inevitable in any theology, so that it can pretend it is "divine revelation" rather than a man-made religious theology.
          Originally posted by Scrimshaw Perhaps what you are saying that Christians believe in being skeptical towards other beliefs, but not their own.
          Christianity is not even skeptical toward other religions, as skepticism implies an open mind. Christianity is downright hostile toward any other view of anything, as it is claiming for itself ALL righteousness, and denying any validity whatever to any other concept of God, life or humanity.
          Originally posted by Scrimshaw If that is what you mean, then I would ask you - what makes Christians different than anyone else?
          Well, that does. With the single exception of Islam, Christianity would stand alone in the intensity of it's elitism. Even Islam can recognize Jesus as a prophet, Christianity accepts no way and no one but it's own.
          Originally posted by Scrimshaw I have yet to encounter an individual or organization of individuals that forthrightly practice self-skepticism. It is human nature to defend one's own ideas, and attack any contrary ideas. You do it, I do, Christians do it, scientists do it, atheists do it, Muslims do it, Democrats do it, Republicans do it, etc. Perhaps everyone who believes in anything, and attempts to defend it - is a "cultist"?
          It's true that people don't like change, and so won't easily accept new ideas, but it's also true that most people understand that they don't know many things, especially when it comes to God and the "right and wrong" of life. But fundamentalists (and I am separating them from Christians because fundamentalism is a sickness that can infect many other ideologies as well) can't accept being wrong about anything. And so they will ONLY fight with a new idea. They can't accept the reality of their own ignorance, or the possibility of being in error, or the need to change their beliefs according to new information. They are ideological extremists who see every issue as an absolute extreme, and since they can't be absolutely wrong, they assume they are absolutely right about everything.

          This sickness of fundamentalism has been infecting Christianity since the beginning and has warped it's doctrine to the point where it's difficult now to even find the babe in the muck that used to be bath water. And it's "fruit" is getting more rotten by the day.

          Comment


          • Communicatication

            It should be obvious to everybody by now, after millions of words of theological wrangling with sceptics, as well as among divided theists, that nothing is ever going to be solved through furthur argument. When you recall that this has been going on for 2000 years, plus another 500 to include Greek phiolosophical theological enquiry, with no breakthrough in sight, the obvious conclusion is that God does not care to speak with us ( except in the fevered imagination of some of his devotees), and that therefore he is indifferent to us, or far more líkely, he does not exist, and never did, ( except again , in the fevered imagination of his devotees). I suggest we inform god that we humans have come of age, the gloves are off, and there will be no more mindless sychophantic, reverential grovelling and humility to him or his alleged trio of close family members: In short, we demand to know what he thinks he is up to, and to either put up ,or shut up.

            Comment


            • cheeezywheeezy

              Originally posted by cheeezywheeezy
              quoting bymers:

              "...the one that has always seemed to be the most troubling in this respect is Jesus' dying words (according to Mark and Matthew) - "Why have you forsaken me?" - which at least appears to indicate not only disagreement with God's plans, but doubt."

              Just a comment about the statement "Why have you forsaken me?" Ironically I have been asked about this same exact thing at least three times in the past few months. So if you care here's my thoughts...

              Suppose I come up to you and I say "Knock Knock"

              You will more than likely respond with a "Who's there"

              Why? Because everyone knows from experience and repitition of the joke that the response to "Knock Knock" is "Who's there". As an aside I use "everyone" as a figure of speech becuase obviously not every single person knows this.

              I believe that similarly when Jesus was on the cross and said (Matt 27:46 and Mark 15:34)"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Everyone knew what He was talking about. No...He wasn't telling a Knock Knock joke...but in a like manner once He said that...He was telling His Jewish audience that knew the scriptures "Hey...you know what I'm quoting...think about the rest of it.

              He was quoting the lyrics to a song. Or more accurately...a Psalm. In fact it was Psalm 22:1.

              I think that when the Jewish audience heard Him so that line they began to think about the Psalm 22. More specifically starting with verse 12. In affect Jesus was telling the audience that that Psalm was about Him.

              This is where we read about no bones of Jesus were broken etc...

              So I do not believe that God left Jesus or anything along those lines. But rather He was telling them that He was fulfilling this "prophecy" written such a long time ago. Including the casting of lots for His clothing etc..."

              Just my thoughts.
              Your thoughts put me in mind of the school of thought which suggests that Jesus manoevered himself into a mock crucifiction in order to try to demonstrate that Old Testament prophecies were being fulfilled through him. This is plausible if he had a fixation that he was the messiah come to fulfill the Law of Moses. He would go through a mock crucifiction, accept drugs on a sponge to assuage the pain, and make sure beforehand that the usual Crurifragium, (breaking of the legs), would not be administered. When he was "dead", he would be taken down, and after sleeping off his drugs, and having his wounds tended , his supporters would engineer a "resurrection|", so that the prophecies might be fulfilled. If you find this far-fetched, consider in the Phillipines to-day, how local Christians get themselves crucified, nails and all, just to be like Jesus. from "Wadsworth"

              Comment


              • Re: Re: bribery or justice?

                Originally posted by Scrimshaw
                I said:
                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Exactly, and what is the probability that a God would create an elaborate universe, complex lifeforms, sentient personal beings (like humans), and NOT communicate with his creation? Even yo-yo makers label their product and include instructions for how to use it. If there is a God that created an amazingly complex "product" like human life, it seems extremely probable that this God would have done no less than yo-yo makers do, and included at least some kind of instructions regarding his purpose in creating us, as well as how human life was designed to be used.
                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                I realize that you are playing the "anything is possible" card, but I recall you stating previously that you were a theist. So in that regard, I find your above arguments to be somewhat misleading. My main point, (which you didn't really dispute) is that if God exists, there is a very high probability that this God would have communicated with His creation. I made this argument in response to your "probabilities rule" sentiment. We can differ on whether or not we think God actually has communicated to us, but that doesn't change the logical probability for it.


                I said:
                -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Acknowledging that probability is the basis for looking for possible ways that our Creator might have communicated those things to us......If is it highly probable that God would have communicated to his creation, (which I think it is) then we have no reason to dismiss all historical accounts of such divine communications out of hand.
                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                I agree with much of your sentiment here. However, I think you are limiting God to some degree by assuming that God would communicate with us only in one way - internally. Like most Christian philosophers, I believe God has revealed himself to us in THREE ways - 1) through Creation (there is much you can learn about a creator by studying his/her creations) - 2) human conscience, (our inbred moral compasses imply a moral agent is it's originator) - and, 3) Holy Writ (although its not a perfect method of communication, it can be useful for corporate instruction).

                Since mankind is a social species, God knew that we would need organization, government, leadership, etc. While it is true that some have corrupted or misused God's message, it is ALSO true that many have not. It seems that skeptics (like yourself) tend to cynically adopt "the glass is always half empty" view when observing religion. As rationalist, I take neither the overly opimistic or overly pessimistic view; since the truth is - humans have both properly used, AND improperly misused God's written revelation.

                The fact that some have misused a thing does not mean the thing wasn't worth creating. For example, many have used knives to prepare food, while many others have used knives to stab and kill other people. Does the fact that some have misused knives to stab and kill people mean that the knife should have never been invented? Likewise, does the fact that some have misused God's written word mean that God should never have given it?



                I said:
                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                "Extraordinary claims require far more justification than ordinary claims because they are so much more unlikely."

                Agreed, but what makes that idea somewhat meaningless is the fact that each individual may have a different idea about what is "extraordinary" and what is not. Evolutionists, for example, do not find it extraordinary to believe that the universe exploded, and from this chaotic explosion, molecules mindlessly assembled themselves into human beings over billions of years of lucky accidents. Yet, this "extraordinary" idea is taught every day in most educational institutions throughout the world.
                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                You have to be kidding me. You think the theory of evolution is NOT philosophical??? More on this below......



                The chance results of the Big Bang have everything to do with life on earth. If the earth was located even slightly closer or farther away from the sun, life would not exist. If the moon was larger or smaller, life would not exist; if the sun was different type of star; life would not exist; if the electromagnetic force was of a slightly different value; life would not exist; etc., etc. To say that the chance-results of the Big Bang have nothing to do with evolution, is asinine.

                Furthermore, please show me an example of even ONE instance where chemical compounds were observed to mindlessly assemble themselves into a living organism. This is never been observed to occur in the natural world, and even intelligent designers ("scientists") have not been able to make living organisms out of chemicals, even employing all of their intelligence and benefits of modern technologies. Only a mythologist would suggest that blind, mindless forces accomplished a creative feat that all the world's scientists cannot.


                I said:
                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                In the realm of philosophy.....(and origins is a philosophical topic, btw) people pick and choose what they believe is "extraordinary" and what is not.
                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                Perhaps we have different ideas about what "science" is. I understand science to be a discipline that empirically satisfies the scientific method's proof criterion. This means that a scientific theory must be based on experiments that are testable, observable, and reproducable. The origin of the universe, the origin of life on earth, and the last 4 billion years of biological history of life on earth are NOT directly testable, observable, OR reproducable. Therefore, origin theories are not even remotely "scientific". Most origin theories are inductive, philosophical postulations. Some of these postulations involve some types of experiments, but these experiments are usually ASSUMED to have some correlation to a hypothesized event millions of years ago; but as long as the hypothesized event remains unobservably buried millions of years in the past, any and all correlations made to it are fancied out of *speculation*. That my friend, is philosophy; not "science".


                I said:
                -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                In my view, I find the molecules-to-man evolution myth to be far more "extraordinary" than the idea that there is a Creator God, and this God chose to make known Himself, and his will, through a man such as Jesus Christ. If a Creator God exists, it would be within his desire to communicate with us, and it would be within his ability to communicate to us through a human representative of His choosing. These are not extraordinary ideas at all. In fact, they are very likely possiblities if theism is true.
                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                Erm, in your attempt to sound clever you overlooked the fact that I was proposing TWO concepts, not just one. Here they are:

                Concept X - God exists.
                Concept Y - God communicates to creation.


                My argument was this - If concept X is true, concept Y is very probable. Are we clear now?



                You speak in parables my friend. WHO is claiming anything about "magic"? And just what is magic? Are black holes "magical" because all laws of physics break down at their points of singularity? Is uncaused universes popping into existence uncaused out of nothing - "magic"?




                As I pointed out before, the origin theories are not "science", nor do they represent "evidence". There is no "evidence" that universes pop into existence uncaused out of nothing. No experiment has proven such a thing can occur, or ever has occured. There is no evidence of eternally existent universes, or of singularities of infinite density. All of these things are just concepts; ideas - not "evidence".........they are PHILOSOPHICAL IDEAS. There is no evidence that species can hump themselves into different species, just given enough generations and the right environments. Geneticists have only discovered limitations within each species' capacity for change. Many of the naturalistic origin theories contain mythical concepts that have never been directly observed, tested, or reproduced...........therefore, those origin theories are not "science".


                I said:
                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Originally posted by Scrimshaw I agree. The "religions" that teach skepticism is wrong are usually what are called - "cults". Christianity, as well as the other world religions are not cults; but may have extremist cult-groups within them. It is important to understand that difference, lest in one's attempt to be rational they inadvertently become prejudicial by slapping a false stereotype on an entire religion.
                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                If Christianity as whole opposed skepticism, or skeptical thinking, why is there numerous Christian Apologetics ministries throughout the world, not to mention tens of thousands of volumes of Christian literature that critiques other philosophical/religious ideas? Perhaps what you are saying that Christians believe in being skeptical towards other beliefs, but not their own. If that is what you mean, then I would ask you - what makes Christians different than anyone else? I have yet to encounter an individual or organization of individuals that forthrightly practices self-skepticism. It is human nature to defend one's own ideas, and attack any contrary ideas. You do it, I do, Christians do it, scientists do it, atheists do it, Muslims do it, Democrats do it, Republicans do it, etc. Perhaps everyone who believes in anything and attempts to defend it - is a "cultist"??????
                One of you; is it Scrimshaw?, seems to be having trouble confusing Philosophy and Science. He states that origin theories are not science; but science is all about proposing hypotheses and theories, and then testing them. Cosmological theories are at present being tested by space based probes which measure x-Ray, gamma-ray, optical , microwave and infra-red cosmic radiations. Is this not science in practice, testing its origin-theories? Similarly, a recent ice-core sample from Antarctica has obtained samples going back nearly a million years, of atmospheric gases at that time, and of microfossils. Is this not empirical science testing scientific theories of the origin of life?
                Similar ice-core samples from Greenland have dated traces of life back to 3.81 billion years. Is this not empirical science? You can attach the term "philosophy" to these enterprises as a flyer if you must. Scientists have to philosophise initially in order to produce scientific hypotheses, and then the practical scientific methods kick in to produce the results. Also the (scientific) Theory of Evolution may reasonably be coupled with a philosophical point of view, ie the validity of Metaphysical Naturalism, but if it is testable, by examining fossils, core samples, molecular genetic evidence, (which it is), then I am sorry, "my friend", but it is science whether you like it or not. It is an error to allow a hatred for a naturalistic world-view, based on religious fundamentalism, to warp what should be rational thinking. from "Wadsworth"
                Last edited by Wadsworth; September 7, 2003, 02:40 PM.

                Comment


                • Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bribery or justice?

                  Originally posted by PureX
                  Except that it's obvious that God (if God exists) has not done so. At least not in a way that we have been able to grasp. How to be a human being is written into our genetic code, but why human beings exist is not; at least not that we know of. Or maybe it is there, but we haven't been able to recognize it, yet, sort of like not being able to see the forrest because of all the trees.

                  Another possibility is that there simply is no "reason" that we exist other than that we can. Maybe the answers we keep looking for belong to questions that are moot. Maybe being itself is the 'why'.
                  Well, I'm not a god, but even I know that if I want person "M" to know something, telling person "W" and expecting person "W" to convey the idea accurately to person "M" is foolish. The message will ALWAYS get garbled, and as often as not, person "W" will use the fact that he has information that person "M" needs to manipulate person "M" or to puff himself up falsely.

                  I have to believe that whatever "God" wants us to know. We already know. Because I can't assume that a god that could create all that exists would be so stupid or weak that he couldn't put in our minds what he wanted to be there.
                  First, I don't know of any "evolutionists". Evolution is a scientific theory, not a philosophical proposition. There are no "evolutionists" except maybe for scientists or historians who study the theory of evolution itself. If they exist, I have never met one.

                  If you are referring to people who generally accept the theory of evolution as the most plausable and workable concept of biomechanical change, then as one of those people I can safely say that I do find it quite extraordinary. And although the Big Bang has nothing to do with biological evolutionary theory I'm guessing that even most cosmologists find the Big Bang extraordinary, too, even though they know that chemicals "mindlessly assemble themselves" into all sorts of new compounds all the time. How much luck or accident is involved in this process, though, none of us can really say.

                  But I agree that human beings often do not view reality the same way, and so what one will see as unlikely, another will see as commonplace. There is nothing I can do about this, nor should I have to. I guess we will each have to decide for ourselves what we think is extraordinary, and what is not. Just as we will have to decide for ourselves what is evidence for the probable and what is not. But the fact that we are so easily confused doesn't negate the fact that the process of following established probabilities is mostly all we have to go with, and is worth trying as best we can.
                  Science is science, and philosophy is philosophy. One is not the other. Both may sometimes investigate the origins of humanity, but that doesn't mean they become the same endeavor. They don't, and they aren't.
                  Well, sure, if I'm right about concept "X", then it will be VERY likely that I am right about concept "X". But if I am not right about concept "X", it will be very unlikely that I am right about concept "X". But it's the "if" that carries all the weight, here, not how right I think I am.

                  When people believe that myth and magic are reality, and that science and experimentation are just fantasy and wishful thinking, they will very like view their myths as "history" and magic as commonplace. So of course to those folks science and whatever evidence it produces will always appear "wild" and "unbelievable" and too extraordinary to accept. Likewise, to people who believe that the scientific process is the most unbiased and reasonable way to learn about the world around them, myth and magic will appear to be very poor evidence for any realistic view of existence. People are different, but the difference itself doesn't make anyone more right or more wrong.

                  I realise people are different, and have different points of view, but I would dispute that this doesn't make anyone more right or more wrong. How do we define right as opposed to wrong? I would say by applying reason and logic. Now I know fundies are trying to hijack both of these to support their own world view, so what else can we claim for the side of reason? I would say the application of the principles of cause and effect, and Inductive principles, (which though imperfect in theory are nevertheless of lasting dependency): in other words, turning water into wine is magic; you may say why not magic?- well we have no verifiable regular day to day evidence of magic, so i would suggest (IMHO), that magic is false, compared with events which are known to be reliably causally connected, over a long observable period of time.
                  We have to make this distinction between alleged magic, and natural processes, otherwise madness will reign, and I will have as good a reason to claim that I get to work on a magic carpet, as to drive rationally and causally in by rational and causally operated automobile. from "Wadsworth".


                  I do understand the difference. But I have to tell you that I have encountered so many Christians who are of the "cult" variety that I have ceased to even call myself a Christian, anymore. It's been made overwhelmingly obvious to me that what is currently being called Christianity is in reality and practice just another blind cult based on myth, magic, and willful ignorance.
                  Last edited by Wadsworth; September 7, 2003, 08:06 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wadsworth I realise people are different, and have different points of view, but I would dispute that this doesn't make anyone more right or more wrong. How do we define right as opposed to wrong? I would say by applying reason and logic. Now I know fundies are trying to hijack both of these to support their own world view, so what else can we claim for the side of reason? I would say the application of the principles of cause and effect, and Inductive principles, (which though imperfect in theory are nevertheless of lasting dependency): in other words, turning water into wine is magic; you may say why not magic?- well we have no verifiable regular day to day evidence of magic, so i would suggest (IMHO), that magic is false, compared with events which are known to be reliably causally connected, over a long observable period of time.
                    We have to make this distinction between alleged magic, and natural processes, otherwise madness will reign, and I will have as good a reason to claim that I get to work on a magic carpet, as to drive rationally and causally in by rational and causally operated automobile. from "Wadsworth".
                    Well, the thing about reason and logic is that they're sort of like an Excel program. The computations will be accurate, but if you put the wrong numbers in the little boxes, you'll still get wrong numbers back in the end. We all use reason and logic, but we keep coming up with different conclusions because we put different information into the process to start with.

                    To a lot of people, magic is real. They pray for a good parking space at the Pigly-Wigly and there it is! Thus, they reason that prayer has magical power. When the parking space is not there, they reason that the God they pray to wanted them to walk that day, and as they walk they will be looking for some event to justify having to do so. So when they stop and help an old lady put a box in her trunk, they reason that God made them walk so that they could help the old lady. And on and on it goes.

                    Everyone uses reason and logic, even lunatics. What is missing in some people, about some things, is skepticism. We need to be skeptical about how we reason and what "logical" conclusions we are accepting. We need to doubt ourselves and to act on that doubt by looking for ways to prove ourselves wrong. But few of us ever really do this. And some of us are so frightened of being wrong that we become obsessed with avoiding it at almost any cost.

                    I don't believe in magic, either, if the word is defining a state that defies natural laws. However, I do believe that natural laws allow for things to happen that we do not yet understand. If the word "magic" is referring to this sort of event, then I believe magic does happen. I realize that I am making a claim of naturalism for something that I am then claiming not to understand, and that this is somewhat contradictory. But I will stand by it anyway, because A; there are many natural things that we do not yet understand, and B; there is no evidence that I know of that can validate a claim for "supra" naturalism.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by PureX
                      Well, the thing about reason and logic is that they're sort of like an Excel program. The computations will be accurate, but if you put the wrong numbers in the little boxes, you'll still get wrong numbers back in the end. We all use reason and logic, but we keep coming up with different conclusions because we put different information into the process to start with.

                      To a lot of people, magic is real. They pray for a good parking space at the Pigly-Wigly and there it is! Thus, they reason that prayer has magical power. When the parking space is not there, they reason that the God they pray to wanted them to walk that day, and as they walk they will be looking for some event to justify having to do so. So when they stop and help an old lady put a box in her trunk, they reason that God made them walk so that they could help the old lady. And on and on it goes.

                      Everyone uses reason and logic, even lunatics. What is missing in some people, about some things, is skepticism. We need to be skeptical about how we reason and what "logical" conclusions we are accepting. We need to doubt ourselves and to act on that doubt by looking for ways to prove ourselves wrong. But few of us ever really do this. And some of us are so frightened of being wrong that we become obsessed with avoiding it at almost any cost.

                      I don't believe in magic, either, if the word is defining a state that defies natural laws. However, I do believe that natural laws allow for things to happen that we do not yet understand. If the word "magic" is referring to this sort of event, then I believe magic does happen. I realize that I am making a claim of naturalism for something that I am then claiming not to understand, and that this is somewhat contradictory. But I will stand by it anyway, because A; there are many natural things that we do not yet understand, and B; there is no evidence that I know of that can validate a claim for "supra" naturalism.
                      I agree with you:"garbage in, garbage out".---- hence the use made of logic by lunatics and fundies, and their spurious claim to be acting rationally. The reason I think, why some people bring god into everything, as in your parking space, and old lady examples, is that they regularly commit the logical fallacy of "post hoc ergo proper hoc", - a furthur example of which might be, "I sneezed, and the Empire State building collapsed, I had better try and control my sneezes." Christians seem to be particularly blind to this type of fallacy, as well as circular argument or question-begging fallacies. Of course we do not yet understand all natural processes, but in that case we have to look for causal connections that would explain them. whereas i think "magic", like miracles, are violations of causality. Hume said that because events are juxtaposed they do not prove a causal connection, but I think that is only partially true. A causal connection for instance between Fire and Burning can be observed at a common sense level, but it can also be explained rationally at a chemical level, eg oxidation effects, which would tend to support the observation of connection between them.-- Wadsworth

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
                        Bigotboy,



                        Is this the most banal, ridiculous, childish statement any one has EVER made here..

                        Boo Hoo poor BB.. we have told you a million times where these things come from. They evolved from earlier species. The original life was probably formed from a mix of chemicals and environmental conditions. You just choose not to listen.

                        Your mind is closed to anything but a mythological explanation of “God did it”

                        When clearly God didn’t do it..

                        A bird comes from its parents. One provides the Egg and the other the sperm.. God clearly does not manufacture every living creature.. we know they come about naturally.. why would anyone assume he ever did ?? It doesn’t make sense.

                        BTW Cya BB.. it not like you added much of any relevance anyway..LOL..jk !
                        Dear Aussie, if you would learn the English language you would notice that I was looking for empirical (you might want to consult www.dictionary.com for this word) evidence for dogs coming from beetles, or whatever you propose for your evolutionaly scheme. I already have a belief based on faith, I'm looking for hard evidence to change that belief. You may want to take your index fingers, but them into your ears and give a sharp tug. That will release your head from your rear end and you can navigate over to "Origins> life from non life" and pick up on the discussion. I await your towering intellect.

                        Comment


                        • BB,

                          I thought you were leaving !

                          Dear Aussie, if you would learn the English language you would notice that I was looking for empirical (you might want to consult www.dictionary.com for this word) evidence for dogs coming from beetles, or whatever you propose for your evolutionaly scheme.
                          To most of us Evolution is a FACT. Evolution means change over time and the evidence in the fossil and geological record is VERY clear.

                          1. The Earth is very old
                          2. We know that many different creatures have existed on this planet
                          3. We know that they lived in different times
                          4. We know that they did not coexist
                          5. We know that there is a clear progression of ever more complex creatures (in other words we don’t see birds appearing before fish in the fossil record)

                          All this makes it clear that

                          1. Either some sort of evolutionary process happened
                          2. Some higher being kept revisiting and seeding the planet (recreating)
                          3. Some higher being created all as is including a bunch of fake fossils.

                          Now as 2 & 3 seem ridiculous 1 seems the obvious choice. But science has not been happy to just accept 1 they have examined the proposed process extensively. They know that :

                          1. Creatures do mutate
                          2. Creatures with successful traits have increased survival chances
                          3. Creatures with sexual attraction have increased survival chances
                          4. Creatures adapt to their environment
                          5. The evolutionary process has been observed (insect and bacterial immunity etc)
                          6. The genomes of creatures that have been mapped show they are all related
                          7. Science actually uses molecular genetic manipulation based on evolutionary prediction to make genetically based medicines

                          Now I KNOW that the only thing that will make this clear for you is a time machine.. but I have to ask why do you accept that atoms exist ? You can’t see them. Do you accept what scientists tell you.. I never saw an atom mentioned in my Bible !

                          I already have a belief based on faith, I'm looking for hard evidence to change that belief.
                          Why should evolution change that faith. I hope your faith is not dependant upon evolution or life forming naturally or I am afraid it is in for a HUGE test one day.

                          You may want to take your index fingers, but them into your ears and give a sharp tug. That will release your head from your rear end and you can navigate over to "Origins> life from non life" and pick up on the discussion. I await your towering intellect
                          I would actually say that “heads stuck up arses” is usually reserved for those that reject science and believe in mythology. What do you mean by life from non-life. Who decides what is life.. arbitrary ‘ol mankind ? That question is like saying fire can’t come from non fire.. err but it can and does .. can water come from non water ? Yep, what about iron from Non iron.. Yep again..

                          You know the nuclear furnace of a Star produces other elements from Hydrogen and Helium, you know that elements form molecular bonds with other element.. why is it such a stretch for you to have chemicals forming into amino acids, proteins and simple self replicating molecules ?

                          Comment


                          • PureX,

                            > sort of like an Excel program. The computations will be accurate,

                            ppsssst.... not Excel
                            Battling TOL creationist jerks-for-Jesus since 1998

                            I'd rather be (e^-lamba*lambda^x)/x! -ing!

                            Everything might be wrong! -Richard Feynman

                            My God I love Star Trek TNG

                            Comment


                            • If "evolution is change over time" then I would have to be labelled a believer in evolution. However, since I don't believe that new features can arise via random mutation and natural selection then this probably means I am not an evolutionist but instead am a creationist.
                              Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
                              Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

                              Comment


                              • BobB

                                If "evolution is change over time" then I would have to be labelled a believer in evolution. However, since I don't believe that new features can arise via random mutation and natural selection then this probably means I am not an evolutionist but instead am a creationist.
                                Bob.. if you believe change over time has occurred then the only creation that is compatible is creation and recreation and recreation.. etc.. is that what you really believe ?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X