stuff
But Kirth, the supposition wasn't that others don't beleive in detailed, complicated religions. It was that dismissing Christianity and dismissing the tooth fairy can be done with equal ease. And that is a ridiculous statement.
Look, in a friendly converstion, I am happy to take tenets of other faiths seriously and discuss why I don't think truth is there. At no time in this conversation did I say other religions = tooth fairy. I said the tooth fairy is not an analog to Christianity.
@Bugleyman: you certainly understand that by no means do I think you a servant of evil, nor are you my only gaming friend or acquaintance that is an atheist. I do think you ignore that I have spent a lot of time questioning my beliefs. That part of how I came to believe them. Just look at the paragraph above about the other religions. Your comment wasn't about comparing other religions to Christianity. It was about equating Christianity with the tooth fairy. I am stickler on this because you used the word exact. They aren't the same thing. Talking about Christianity and other religions is a different talk, and one that I have some knowledge on, and one I'm willing to engage in.
@BNW: Of course I know the genocide thing has been floated over and over again by atheists. I haven't ignored it, I have contended that no one who throws out that ablative question is looking for an answer. You and I have talked about looking at what you call genocide in the context of scripture and sovereignty and you don't move from the unending question or look at the uestion from any other angle. There's no callous commission of genocide in the Bible. There are mandates to eliminate a thoroughly corrupt and violent culture, and God uses Israel to punish the sort of people who eat their children and murder their neighbors. If you read the whole Bible, the ideas of sovereignty has meaning and places the stories you already don't believe in into context. If you don't think such a story is true, then the lesson or justification for the supposedly nontrue story doesn't figure into your objection. If you are not interested in listening to the answer, don't ask the question. And if you're not asking questions, you aren't giving yourself the full opportunity to experience the answers and come to a less hostile, open-minded conclusion. I don't mean to be harsh, I simply point out that we have talked about this before, and when offered an explanation by someone who studies apologetics and Biblical history, you ignore the offering yet remain dismissive. That's your right as I said before. May God make Himself clearly known to you.
A few things:
Kirth: Thanks for the link about Expelled. I'll have to check my source better next time. :)
Can you (or anyone else for that matter) tell me what mistakes are on this webpage? If there are no problems with Plate Tectonics then there must be an error or two somewhere and I can't find them.
===
I'm not a geologist like Kirth, but I do have a genetic degree and your point about genetics still holding is false. If humanity was reduced to a population of 8 within the last 6000 years, which your claim says is true, we would see that in the genetic record as there isn't enough time for the wide genotypic variance we do see within humanity. Unless you're positing some kind of hypermutation rate beyond anything we've ever seen, this does mean we have to throw genetics out the window. For the unclean animals (population: 2), this is even worse. Even for the clean animals, (population: 14, before sacrifice), it's not a genetically viable population.
Since you have a genetics degree, I'm curious:
1. How do you think DNA formed? How did the information get there? How did the first living cell form?
2. What do you think of mitochondrial eve? What do you think about the fact that using measured mutation rates at work today she'd be dated at about 6,500 years ago? Citations:
“Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated [previously] that ‘mitochondrial Eve’—the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people—lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.” Ann Gibbons, “Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock,” Science, Vol. 279, 2 January 1998, p. 29.
u “If molecular evolution is really neutral at these sites [occurs at a constant rate at all sites], such a high mutation rate would indicate that Eve lived about 6500 years ago—a figure clearly incompatible with current theories on human origins.” Laurence Loewe and Siegfried Scherer, “Mitochondrial Eve: The Plot Thickens,” Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 12, 11 November 1997, p. 422.
u “Thus, our observation of the substitution rate, 2.5/site/Myr [million years], is roughly 20-fold higher than would be predicted from phylogenetic analyses [evolution studies]. Using our empirical rate to calibrate the mtDNA molecular clock would result in an average age of the mtDNA MRCA [most recent common ancestor] of only ~6,500 y.a. [years ago], clearly incompatible with the known age of modern humans.” Thomas J. Parsons et al., “A High Observed Substitution Rate in the Human Mitochondrial DNA Control Region,” Nature Genetics, Vol. 15 April 1997, p. 365.
Evolutionists who understand this new discovery are shocked. They are now trying to explain why measured mutation rates of mtDNA are so fast, but their inferred mutation rates (based on fossil dating and the evolution of man from apelike creatures) are so slow. Perhaps, they say, mutations occur rapidly at only a few points on the mtDNA molecule, but later correct themselves. Therefore, many mutations are counted, but the net change is small. This “hot spot” hypothesis, is basically a “special pleading”—something imagined to solve a problem. Tests have shown the “hot spot” hypothesis to be invalid.
Thus, the “hot spot” hypothesis, in the absence of additional elements, does not seem a sufficient explanation for the high observed substitution rate. Parsons et al., p. 365.
===
BigNorseWolf, it's not quoting your entire post and I'm too lazy to do it properly:
Stuff about tree ring dating.
Scientists use carbon dating to see how old the wood is, so there's certainly the possibility for bias. See: Henry N. Michael and Elizabeth K. Ralph, “‘Quickee’ 14C Dates,” Radiocarbon, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1981, pp. 165–166.
Stuff and questions about radioactivity.
1. According to the theory almost everything in the fossil record was alive at the same time at the start of the flood. That alone would drastically change the balance before and after the flood.
2. According to the theory the flood was about 2350 BC.
3. According to the theory radioactivity wasn't caused by very high pressures underwater alone, nor were they altered in such a way. There were other forces involved. How can you know if Walt is right about it if you didn't even glance at his theory long enough to know the mechanism that he said did it? I get the impression that you envision any possible global flood as water covering the entire Earth like oceans cover part of it today and little else occurring. I apologize if I'm wrong, but that's the impression that I get.
Darkwing: Using available evidence to come to a conclusion is the exact antithesis of faith. Thats what you do whether you look and see "car" or you look and don't see and conclude "no car"
Definition of faith:
noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6.
the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7.
the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8.
Christian Theology . the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
I'm not trying to shift the burden of proof. If that's all I wanted I wouldn't have bothered trying to present evidence at all. I think it's fair that someone proposing the existence of God should provide evidence. I think it's also fair for people to not demand unreasonable standards of "proof". It seems like some people will never be convinced because their standards seem so high.
I also think it's fair that people that propose that God doesn't exist give a reasonable explanation for how we exist. I'm not just talking about evolution. I'm talking about how the universe itself and life itself started in the first place.
===
Did anybody have any thoughts about the theory or read it? I know Kirth read at least a little of it, but what about everyone else? Even if there are no scientific problems with secular theories about what he claims to explain, isn't it proper to consider if his theory could fit some things even better than current models?
The closet I can see is #2. I find it ironic that the example the website gives of the word being used is in a scientific context. Anyway, belief that isn't based on proof? Sounds like atheism to me, even "hard" atheism.
I'm not trying to shift the burden of proof. If that's all I wanted I wouldn't have bothered trying to present evidence at all. I think it's fair that someone proposing the existence of God should provide evidence. I think it's also fair for people to not demand unreasonable standards of "proof". It seems like some people will never be convinced because their standards seem so high.
I also think it's fair that people that propose that God doesn't exist give a reasonable explanation for how we exist. I'm not just talking about evolution. I'm talking about how the universe itself and life itself started in the first place.
Wait. How is atheism a belief not based on proof?
You are PRECISELY trying to shift the burden of proof.Then you go on to say that, even though the bible can't explain all of existence, that in order to disprove god we should.
Sorry. A rational mind doesn't rise to that level of hubris. The best we can give is an explanation that has worked so far. The ability to revise our beliefs based on newer/better data is something NOT shared by the religious and the rational.
The religion of atheism,
Calling atheism a religion goes beyond disingenuous. It's plain stupidity.
And so I reiterate: faith is not based on proff. Science does not disprove anyhting in the Bible, and the Bible makes no claims to be an exhaustive scientific text or treatise.
(I know some will say evolution contradicts the Bible, but I don't think so. Change among species happens as we observe it, so evolution is real. Speciation isnt evidenced, it's theoretical, and it's sorely lacking in connective species. Also, the subject of abiogenesis doesn't have any answers based on proof, so I'll not allow that the field contradicts the Bible either.)
Proof, whether by the efforts of Christians or atheists is a missing of the mark. Focus on faith as an experience and a relationship made possible by a loving God. Focus on science as improved understanding of the world around us, but not the theoretical framework around which you ignore God or attempt to prove He isn't here. Science will not prove ther isn't a God, and attempting to use what we know as evidence of what you believe to be true about your atheism is as fallacious as Christians trying to prove the earth is 6000 years old. It's not. And the Bible never said it was.
Have the stones to think you're not right about everything, humbly ask God to show up a few days in a row, and He will. Then you'll have the proof you need. Then you'll teach me about geology and I'll answer questions about discipleship, assuming we both want to have those talks.
(That challenge or invitation is not aimed at anyone specific. Geology is just an example of a science I'd like to study more, and by no means do I pretend to be a super-teacher of Scripture.)
...six year olds on a playground...
Is making ad hominem attacks one of your super powers?
As for whether something is a religion or not, by all means, provide us a definition of religion used in scholarship which atheism doesn't meet.
re·li·gion
noun
1. A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Atheism explicitly doesn't contain superhuman agency. But wait...that's probably not "used in scholarship." Of course, it occurs to the cynic in me that that is a conveniently vague concept.
Give us a definition used by someone with a doctorate in cultural studies/anthropology/theology or the like and that atheism doesn't meet. I don't think you can.
Appeal to authority, too? Didn't they teach you about fallacies in your freshman anthropology classes? :P
But really, let's get serious. You've been stuck on semantics for days now, and I'm starting to feel kinda bad about it. Let's say we concede that atheism is a religion, and most self-proclaimed atheists are actually agnostics. It doesn't matter one jot: My point about burden of proof stands.
When somebody says something stupid, calling it stupid and pointing out why it's stupid isn't an ad hominem.
So..it's your position that when someone says something you think is stupid, comparing them to a six-year-old on a playground isn't (1) an attack, and (2) directed at them (rather than at what they're saying)?
We've reached an empasse. I think that what experts (people with doctorates in relevant fields) have to say should guide this discussion. You reject that and (based on the arguments you've made so far) you believe that what 3rd graders have to say should guide this discussion (I hope that doesn't offend any 3rd graders).
But we've not reached an impasse -- I've conceded that most pop-culture atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.) are incorrectly identifying themselves, and are actually agnostic. Having put that unfortunate semantic snafu happily behind us, can we now move on to the argument that the burden of proof must rest with he who asserts the existence of the unobservable?
Both atheists and theists have the burden of proof. The difference between atheists and agnostics is far more significant than mere semantics.
I just conceded that they are significantly different. The error was mine.
Now, can you address the argument as it applies to agnostics, or do you concede that agnostics have a logically superior position to theists?
Logic is about as relevant to the discussion as logic is relevant to art.
Three posts ago you justified comparing me to a six-year-old based on me making an (ostensibly) poor argument! :P But seriously, I really see no purpose in discussion of any kind if we're going to declare the topic as somehow beyond logic. Since we're both having this discussion, I'm just going to assume that we've implicitly agreed that logic is relevant.
As for "the argument as it applies to agnosticism", I've already said that weak agnosticism (ie. "I don't know if God exists") doesn't require the same kind of faith as atheism/theism does.
Atheism and Theism have an equal burden of proof.
I've said repeatedly and clearly that it is the concept I'm concerned with, not the name. Dawkins calls himself an atheist. You call him agnostic. I really don't care what word we use, what I care about is whether you dispute that the rational default with respect to belief in the unobservable is skepticism. Am I correct in understanding that you do not dispute this?
|
... A cup doesn't cease to exist if we don't see it. No one has any more authority to decide what "reasonable means" is than anyone else.
...
The cup never ceases to exist, it either exists or it doesn't, and this is determined by its capacity to be measured, physically or enegetically. It's called Type Physicalism. It's one of a hundred different schools of philosophy. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, one way or the other.
Aside from agreed upon definitions (which must be universally agreed upon, less we have no basis for discussion), none of us is an authority for much of anything--it's part of why we're conducting this classical argument.
We're all still friends, right? I mean, I'd have a cup of coffee (extant or not) with any of you.
Hey, whats wrong with this page?
He's assuming a perfectly solid sate. At that much heat and pressure even rock is somewhat plastic.
1. How do you think DNA formed? How did the information get there? How did the first living cell form?
[BNW speculation]: DNA probably formed from self replicating RNA. The DNA transcription and translation process seems needlessly complex unless it started with RNA and worked from there.
The first cell was formed when in addition to reproducing itself the RNA also started making some gunk to cover itself in for protection. [/bnw speculation]
2. What do you think of mitochondrial eve? What do you think about the fact that using measured mutation rates at work today she'd be dated at about 6,500 years ago? Citations:
Mitochondrial "eve" wasn't the first woman. She had a mother, sister, cousins, a grandmother etc.
AlsoMitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived around 200,000 years ago,[2] most likely in East Africa,[3] when Homo sapiens sapiens ("anatomically modern humans") were developing as a population distinct from other human sub-species.
Many studies report that Y-chromosomal Adam lived sometime later than Mitochondrial Eve, around 142,000 years ago [1] and possibly as recently as 60,000 years ago. [2]]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam
Y chromosome adam is more recent because its far easier for male DNA to.. erm.. get around.
Scientists use carbon dating to see how old the wood is, so there's certainly the possibility for bias
The repeated allegations that it hasn't been statistically verified are ridiculous.
You can't just claim bias, you need to show it. You can't reasonably expect dendrochronologists to give up a powerful and useful tool and continue to do blind studies for 50 years after their work and carbon dating have both been independently verified just to avoid accusations of cross contamination based on purely religious objections to the results.
Carbon dating has been used on giant sequoias that were cut down at known times. There is very little way to "bias" a test that could be done by sesame streets Count von Count. One tree ring ha ha ha, two tree rings ha ha ha...
Yes, an expert will sometimes add or subtract a year or two because it looks like the tree had a false winter or a really mild one. That doesn't alter the truth of what they're doing, just possibly the accuracy. Its very annoying to hear "this isn't perfect therefore its completely false!" over and over. We KNOW its not perfect. That doesn't mean its not good.
1. According to the theory almost everything in the fossil record was alive at the same time at the start of the flood. That alone would drastically change the balance before and after the flood.
No, it wouldn't. How would the variety of creatures on the planet alter atmospheric c 14 ratios?
2. According to the theory the flood was about 2350 BC.
Ok, so don't you think its a little odd that we have unbroken Egyptian and Chinese archeology and history from that time ?
3. According to the theory radioactivity wasn't caused by very high pressures underwater alone, nor were they altered in such a way. There were other forces involved.
Other sources just as?
How can you know if Walt is right about it if you didn't even glance at his theory long enough to know the mechanism that he said did it?
You said the mechanism was pressure. What was the link again?
I get the impression that you envision any possible global flood as water covering the entire Earth like oceans cover part of it today and little else occurring. I apologize if I'm wrong, but that's the impression that I get.
Sigh.. and how are YOU picturing it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@BNW: Of course I know the genocide thing has been floated over and over again by atheists.
You should be even more concerned about it than I am.
I haven't ignored it, I have contended that no one who throws out that ablative question is looking for an answer.
Right. No one who asks such a hard question settles for your easy answers.
You and I have talked about looking at what you call genocide in the context of scripture and sovereignty and you don't move from the unending question or look at the question from any other angle.
If you require that I assume that you’re right to conclude that you’re right then you’re engaging in the very circular argument you are so vehemently denying.
I don’t need to start with my premise that Yawey is just another deity crafted in the image of man… and not particularly nice men at that. All I need to start with is the idea that Genocide is wrong. (and if philosophers can’t justify that position you can see my opinion about them in another thread)There's no callous commission of genocide in the Bible
So it’s an angry commission of genocide?
There are mandates to eliminate a thoroughly corrupt and violent culture, and God uses Israel to punish the sort of people who eat their children and murder their neighbors.
How much culture is a new born infant born with? Is culture stuck on the Y chromosome or something? Your explanations don’t fit the text unless you make some very specific assumptions about the nature of evil: namely that it’s only spread by males and is genetic.
The conqueror’s standard operating procedure of “kill the men rape the women” makes far more sense here.I will show you that murdering your neighbors is wrong.. by killing all of your children!
If you read the whole Bible, the ideas of sovereignty has meaning and places the stories you already don't believe in into context. If you don't think such a story is true, then the lesson or justification for the supposedly nontrue story doesn't figure into your objection. If you are not interested in listening to the answer, don't ask the question.
If you know your answer is poor, don’t expect a good reaction to it.
And if you're not asking questions, you aren't giving yourself the full opportunity to experience the answers and come to a less hostile, open-minded conclusion. I don't mean to be harsh, I simply point out that we have talked about this before, and when offered an explanation by someone who studies apologetics and Biblical history, you ignore the offering yet remain dismissive.
Right, and that HAS to be because I’m not giving you a fair shake. It couldn’t possibly be because your attempts at justifying genocide and infanticide by a good being fall far, FAR short of satisfactory or sensible.
I know some will say evolution contradicts the Bible, but I don't think so. Change among species happens as we observe it, so evolution is real. Speciation isnt evidenced, it's theoretical and it's sorely lacking in connective species
Absolutely, 100% , completely false. Speciation IS evidenced all around us both directly and in the fossil record. That's why phylogenic trees are a confusing morass of Genre, species, sub species, types, variants. Its speciation in action.
Evolution is more than what you call micro evolution. The the fact and theory that life is the result of slow and more or less continuous change resulting from variation and differential reproduction.
Its why you get arguments between groupers and splitters about whether something is its own species, a sub species, or just a local variety.
(corporations prefer groupers, environmentalists prefer splitters because as soon as something is its own species or subspecies it can get threatened/endangered protection)
I really don't care what word we use, what I care about is whether you dispute that the rational default with respect to belief in the unobservable is skepticism. Am I correct in understanding that you do not dispute this?
Anyone...?
Anyone...?
Bueller?
I really don't care what word we use, what I care about is whether you dispute that the rational default with respect to belief in the unobservable is skepticism. Am I correct in understanding that you do not dispute this?Anyone...?
Anyone...?
Bueller?
Well, as per the definition of Reason from the Oxford Dictionary:
verb (used without object)
8. to think or argue in a logical manner.
9. to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.
10. to urge reasons which should determine belief or action.
That would not necessarily be true. Remember not to confuse "Reason" with "Scientific"; the former implies getting to a conclusion starting from premises (regardless of whether these were empirical or not), and the later implies reaching a conclusion starting from empirical premises.
So the phrase would have to be "The scientific default with respect to belief in the unobservable is skepticism".
On that I would agree wholeheartedly. On the former, I would disagree, as I do think faith can be divinely inspired (and thus offer a non-empirical premise from which to start a rational process of thought).
Well, as per the definition of Reason from the Oxford Dictionary:
verb (used without object)
8. to think or argue in a logical manner.
9. to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.
10. to urge reasons which should determine belief or action.That would not necessarily be true. Remember not to confuse "Reason" with "Scientific"; the former implies getting to a conclusion starting from premises (regardless of whether these were empirical or not), and the later implies reaching a conclusion starting from empirical premises.
So the phrase would have to be "The scientific default with respect to belief in the unobservable is skepticism".
On that I would agree wholeheartedly. On the former, I would disagree, as I do think faith can be divinely inspired (and thus offer a non-empirical premise from which to start a rational process of thought).
But you agree that such an inspiration is not empirical, yes?
If so, it follows that, lacking divine inspiration, the rational default is skepticism. In other words, a rational, non-divinely inspired individual should insist on proof? Or the burden of proof rests with he who asserts the unobservable?
:P
And so I reiterate: faith is not based on proof.
I would go further and say it is not based on empirical evidence. The demographics alone make for a pretty convincing argument.
But you agree that such an inspiration is not empirical, yes?
Of course. Anyone who claims otherwise has the terms mixed up (note that this doesn't bar out the possibility of empirical evidence of divine nature. Just that faith itself is in no way empirical evidence).
If so, it follows that, lacking divine inspiration, the rational default is skepticism. In other words, a rational, non-divinely inspired individual should insist on proof? Or the burden of proof rests with he who asserts the unobservable?
I prefer less convenient conditions when reaching conclusions, thus why I insist on a proper wording of "The scientific default is skepticism", which can objectively apply to both believers and non-believers.
Regardless of that particular point of contention, I am absolutely convinced the burden of proof rests in us believers. As a Catholic, and one educated by Jesuits in particular during my school years, I cannot accept the idea of "The lack of proof against the existence of God is proof that He exists", because it attempts to mix two things -empirical evidence and revealed faith- that should not be mixed together, as they serve two different purposes.
But I can still run you a bet: If we die and we end up in Heaven, you have to buy me a drink.
But you agree that such an inspiration is not empirical, yes?
Of course. Anyone who claims otherwise has the terms mixed up (note that this doesn't bar out the possibility of empirical evidence of divine nature. Just that faith itself is in no way empirical evidence).
If so, it follows that, lacking divine inspiration, the rational default is skepticism. In other words, a rational, non-divinely inspired individual should insist on proof? Or the burden of proof rests with he who asserts the unobservable?I prefer less convenient conditions when reaching conclusions, thus why I insist on a proper wording of "The scientific default is skepticism", which can objectively apply to both believers and non-believers.
Regardless of that particular point of contention, I am absolutely convinced the burden of proof rests in us believers. As a Catholic, and one educated by Jesuits in particular during my school years, I cannot accept the idea of "The lack of proof against the existence of God is proof that He exists", because it attempts to mix two things -empirical evidence and revealed faith- that should not be mixed together, as they serve two different purposes.
But I can still run you a bet: If we die and we end up in Heaven, you have to buy me a drink.
Agreed. :)
For the record, I'm not trying to prove God doesn't exist -- frankly, that is (rather obviously) impossible. You'd be surprised how often we atheists (sorry -- agnostics :P) get "God exists unless you can prove otherwise."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. :)
It's settled, then. And if we don't end up in Heaven (this includes either another plane of afterlife existence -not the Fleshwarrens, please, not the Fleshwarrens!- or the immanent void), I'll figure out how to buy you a drink.
For the record, I'm not trying to prove God doesn't exist -- frankly, that is (rather obviously) impossible.
And I've long since determined that trying to prove His existence is equally impossible, and a good way to get people angry at each other.
To Caesar what is Caesar's, to God what is God's.
You'd be surprised how often we atheists (sorry -- agnostics :P) get "God exists unless you can prove otherwise."
Aye, and I understand how frustrating it can be to argue under such impossible conditions.
I strongly believe that we Christians don't have to waste time in trying to prove that God exists; that's kind of missing the whole point. Expanding the faith is about setting examples, not setting arguments.
As the old saying goes, "Spread the Good Word at all times. And, only if necessary, use words".
God told me to skin you alive!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. :)
It's settled, then. And if we don't end up in Heaven (this includes either another plane of afterlife existence -not the Fleshwarrens, please, not the Fleshwarrens!- or the immanent void), I'll figure out how to buy you a drink.
For the record, I'm not trying to prove God doesn't exist -- frankly, that is (rather obviously) impossible.
And I've long since determined that trying to prove His existence is equally impossible, and a good way to get people angry at each other.
To Caesar what is Caesar's, to God what is God's.
You'd be surprised how often we atheists (sorry -- agnostics :P) get "God exists unless you can prove otherwise."Aye, and I understand how frustrating it can be to argue under such impossible conditions.
I strongly believe that we Christians don't have to waste time in trying to prove that God exists; that's kind of missing the whole point. Expanding the faith is about setting examples, not setting arguments.
As the old saying goes, "Spread the Good Word at all times. And, only if necessary, use words".
If only there were more like you... ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If only there were more like you... ;)
There are many more than you might think!
I always get the feeling that most people in the US get a bad idea of what Christians, and religious people in general, are like due to the rampant amount of religious radicalism that exists over there.
Really, save for some fundamentalist redoubts in some specific places (such as in some particular parts of Africa and the Middle East), stuff like not teaching evolution in schools or demanding that natural science's class includes a creationist version of thing is something is something you have a hard time taking seriously. The very Catholic Church, which is the largest provider of education in the world (behind the Chinese, Indian and US governments, if memory helps), completely prohibits the teaching of creationism as science. And it is my understanding the same goes for the Church of England and the Lutheran Church.
I'm not trying to undermine other denominations, just trying to make a point that whenever one reads an american webpage or forum where religious stuff is being debated, and on one hand you have christians claiming that evolution was made up in a hangar in Wyoming, while on the other you have atheists declaring that religious people are a bunch of ignorant baboons that think they can heat up a teapot by praying, it is hard not to raise my eyebrows with a "Wut?".
So I guess my attempts are in the line of "Guys, really, no idea what's going on in there, but out here science and religion get along much better than what you seem to think they do".
|
|
...and on one hand you have christians claiming that evolution was made up in a hangar in Wyoming, while on the other you have atheists declaring that religious people are a bunch of ignorant baboons that think they can heat up a teapot by praying, it is hard not to raise my eyebrows with a "Wut?".
So I guess my attempts are in the line of "Guys, really, no idea what's going on in there, but out here science and religion get along much better than what you seem to think they do".
Some of my fellow citizens are straight up crazy and most of the rest are sheep (and there go any chances of ever running for public office). I found Stephen King's novel The Dome frightening because I believe that small Maine town to be a realistic and plausible representation of most of America in 2011. In a crisis of great enough magnitude, my family had better become SuperChristian, or we'd better run for the hills.
I think I'm only partially joking...
|
|
A few things:
Kirth: Thanks for the link about Expelled. I'll have to check my source better next time. :)
Can you (or anyone else for that matter) tell me what mistakes are on this webpage? If there are no problems with Plate Tectonics then there must be an error or two somewhere and I can't find them.
===
Paul Watson wrote:I'm not a geologist like Kirth, but I do have a genetic degree and your point about genetics still holding is false. If humanity was reduced to a population of 8 within the last 6000 years, which your claim says is true, we would see that in the genetic record as there isn't enough time for the wide genotypic variance we do see within humanity. Unless you're positing some kind of hypermutation rate beyond anything we've ever seen, this does mean we have to throw genetics out the window. For the unclean animals (population: 2), this is even worse. Even for the clean animals, (population: 14, before sacrifice), it's not a genetically viable population.
Since you have a genetics degree, I'm curious:
1. How do you think DNA formed? How did the information get there? How did the first living cell form?
2. What do you think of mitochondrial eve? What do you think about the fact that using measured mutation rates at work today she'd be dated at about 6,500 years ago?
1) BigNorseWolf's ezplanation is pretty much how I understand things working. As a note, RNA has been seen to self assemble, and ahs been seen to self-catalyse, that is the presence of RNA increases the speed of the reaction that creates RNA. So this is a plausible explanation.
2) I have not seen those studies, so can't comment until I look at them in more detail. However, a quick search did find this article which is dated after that date and actually says that 100000 years is too young.
Also, in the interests of fairness, openness and balance (hah), I got my degree 14 years ago and have never worekd professionally in a scientific field. I have rtied to keep up with science (via New Scientist mostly) but I confess to being a slightly better informed layman than a professional scientist.
So I guess my attempts are in the line of "Guys, really, no idea what's going on in there, but out here science and religion get along much better than what you seem to think they do".
Hey! a control group.
The science is the same. Yet there's fighting. Perhaps the difference is in the fundamentalists we have here? Just because two people are fighting doesn't mean both are equally at fault. That was malarkey in the third grade when lazy teachers did it and its still malarkey now.
I don't know if the anti intellectualism is driving the fundamentalism or if the fundamentalism is driving the anti intellectualism, but either way its off the rails of the crazy train over here.
Its Hubris. Instead of saying "huh, mayby i interpreted the bible wrong and that part is an allegory" a large segment of the religious population have set themselves up as the only true believers and have launched a concerted political effort to tear down evolution. What they found was that tearing down evolution based on science was impossible, so they've decided to tear down science.
Carbon 14 refutes creationism.. well get rid of carbon 14 dating. Nuclear decay rates refute creationism... challange the idea that the fundamental laws of the universe can be known from one moment to the next! Quick, someone resurrect Karl Popper!
Wait, they can go all the way back to darwin and provide evidence for evolution based just on the geographic distribution of species...!?? Tear down all conclusions by labeling them faith!
Evolution is a scientific theory.. meaning its a highly proven fact with a lot of explanatory and predictive power. Well people are stupid, just pretend its the same kind of theory as big foot, aliens at roswell or Regis Philbin having talent.
A lot of the people on the atheism side of this discussion keep using words whose meaning they don't know
Example?
Please keep in mind, "they aren't using darkwing ducks definition" isn't REMOTELY the same as us not knowing the word.
There's no callous commission of genocide in the Bible. There are mandates to eliminate a thoroughly corrupt and violent culture, and God uses Israel to punish the sort of people who eat their children and murder their neighbors.
This is demonstratively false. Try reading:
Joshua 6:18
1 Sam 15:21
1 Kings 20:42
1 Samuel 15
1 Samuel 15:2-3
Exodus 17:7-13
and get back to me with justifications for each act, or admit that there is unjustifiable slaughter in the Bible.
I don't have time to get into specifics, but here:
BNW: Origin of Radioactivity. Helps if you've read the Overview beforehand as well. I look forward to hearing what you think.
Oh, and he spent quite a lot of time throughout the book explaining how rock acts at great depth, heat, and pressure, including much of the Earthquakes section. If the plasticity of rock would be a problem for plates not subducting I'd think he would know.
===
Everyone:
About genocide and the Bible:
So your main sticking point about this is the fact that children were killed? According to the Bible children too young to know the difference between right and wrong on a fundamental level automatically make it to heaven in the first place (see 2 Sam. 3:18-23 and Romans 7:9). In order to look at this consistently we have to look at it consistently and in context.
In other words, there were two types of people that the Israelites were commanded to wipe out: children who were at this age or below and everyone else. Everyone else was so evil that God saw the necessity of their destruction. The children, in being killed, were saved from growing up and suffering the fate of the people who were being held responsible for their own actions.
===
What is the basis for morality and logic in a naturalistic society in the first place? Where did they come from? Are they universal or subjective?
If they're universal, where did they come from? Morality and logic strongly imply a very good and very intelligent source that is transcendent and higher than mankind, respectively.
If they're subjective, then who's to say that genocide is wrong in the first place? You can't know a line is crooked unless you have a concept of what a straight line looks like. If logic is subjective, why bother having a logical discussion if your logic is different than mine? How could we have such a discussion?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and he spent quite a lot of time throughout the book explaining how rock acts at great depth, heat, and pressure, including much of the Earthquakes section. If the plasticity of rock would be a problem for plates not subducting I'd think he would know.
I trust neither his knowledge nor his honesty. If you're trying to do solid physics with a semi plastic object you are by definition going to get some screwed up results.
As to his fusion theory... calling it batguano crazy is an insult to chiropterans everywhere whose droppings are at least useful for fertilizer. You do not get that kind of reaction outside of something without at least the mass of jupiter. Another oceans worth of water dumped on the planet would barely budge the crust, much less start a fusion reaction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Slice_earth.svg
Not to put too fine a point on this, but he's underestimating how freaking huge the earth is and how heavy it is. Another itty bitty layer on the surface water wouldn't do jack, even before you consider that water is less dense than everything below it. You wouldn't cause the movement or compression you need to get a fusion reaction.
even after ALL that how on earth do you get a sped up radioactive process so that it all makes SENSE as if radioactivity and gradualism were true? How do you loose precisely the correct number of neutrons in every single rock on the planet so that their relative dates match up with the relative dates of the sediment around them?
So your main sticking point about this is the fact that children were killed?
I'm not too big on killing people for defending their land from invaders either, but arguments that the infants were evil and needed to die tend to be a little rougher.
According to the Bible children too young to know the difference between right and wrong on a fundamental level automatically make it to heaven in the first place (see 2 Sam. 3:18-23 and Romans 7:9). In order to look at this consistently we have to look at it consistently and in context.
2 Sam 3:18-23 *headscratch*
20 Then Abner and twenty men with him came to David at Hebron. And David made a feast for Abner and the men who were with him. 21 Abner said to David, “Let me arise and go and gather all Israel to my lord the king, that they may make a covenant with you, and that you may be king over all that your soul desires.” So David sent Abner away, and he went in peace.
22 And behold, the servants of David and Joab came from a raid and brought much spoil with them; but Abner was not with David in Hebron, for he had sent him away, and he had gone in peace. 23 When Joab and all the army that was with him arrived, they told Joab, saying, “Abner the son of Ner came to the king, and he has sent him away, and he has gone in peace.”
Why the big arguments against abortion then? The babies go strait to heaven anyway.
9 I was once alive apart [a]from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;
... I really can't get your conclusion from either passage.
In other words, there were two types of people that the Israelites were commanded to wipe out: children who were at this age or below and everyone else. Everyone else was so evil that God saw the necessity of their destruction. The children, in being killed, were saved from growing up and suffering the fate of the people who were being held responsible for their own actions.
Right. Because its completely impossible to raise any boy child up the right way because they're born evil, but EVERY single girl age ~12 and under is perfectly fine and can be raised to avoid the evil ways of their culture in a few short years before marriage.
I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the invaders can use the women for sex and children.
What is the basis for morality and logic in a naturalistic society in the first place? Where did they come from? Are they universal or subjective?
The basis for morality is the subjective interpretation of a balance between the competing desires of the objectively existing will of thinking individual beings.
I do not like being hit in the head. It is wrong for others to hit me in the head.
From what other beings tell me and how they act, they don't like being hit in the head either.
I am not that different from other beings.
If it is wrong for others to hit me in the head, then it is wrong for me to hit others in the head because there's no real difference between myself and others.
BNW, sorry, that's 2 Sam 13:18-23. I can see your confusion on why I linked you to the wrong verses though. lol
As to your example of being hit in the head: why is it wrong for others to hit you in the head in the first place? Just because you don't like it? So? How does your preference influence morality? If it's subjective what if someone else has a different morality? Would their morality apply or would yours?
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't hit you in the head even if I could. I just don't see how your example is a valid way of demonstrating how our system of morality came to be.
As to Romans 7, it takes a decently deep study into it, but he speaks of how he was alive before he came to know the law by his conscience.
BNW, sorry, that's 2 Sam 13:18-23. I can see your confusion on why I linked you to the wrong verses though. lol
This one.. isn't helping any better.
20 Her brother Absalom said to her, “Has that Amnon, your brother, been with you? Be quiet for now, my sister; he is your brother. Don’t take this thing to heart.” And Tamar lived in her brother Absalom’s house, a desolate woman.
21 When King David heard all this, he was furious. 22 And Absalom never said a word to Amnon, either good or bad; he hated Amnon because he had disgraced his sister Tamar.
Absalom Kills Amnon
23 Two years later, when Absalom’s sheepshearers were at Baal Hazor near the border of Ephraim, he invited all the king’s sons to come there.
As to your example of being hit in the head: why is it wrong for others to hit you in the head in the first place? Just because you don't like it?
Yes. That pretty much is what morality is. The idea that it HAS to be based on something "higher" presumes the something higher.
So? How does your preference influence morality? If it's subjective what if someone else has a different morality? Would their morality apply or would yours?
What morality specifically would they be trying to apply?
As to Romans 7, it takes a decently deep study into it, but he speaks of how he was alive before he came to know the law by his conscience.
There are a dozen leaps of faith in between that and the idea that all babies go to heaven. Its nice that you want to read the very best into the bible: i think biblical interpretation is more like a Rorschach test than anything else, so it says something good about you at least.