And that attitude is most consistent with theistic evolution when compared to the other major categories.Wikipedia has a bunch of different types of creationism. The US has 40% of the population refusing to believe that humans evolved from primates, with annother 20% unsure. Sure, 1 of the types listed is perfectly compatible with science, but a larger percent of the US population believes the versions that outright reject science - the versions that are toxic. When people complain about creationism, they aren't talking about theistic evolution, which is what you belive. Heck, the second most compatible with science wants to include magic in the scientic method.I wouldn't say I believe "theistic evolution", per se. Did we evolve from primates? Maybe. Did we have to in order to be here? Dunno.
The how's simply don't matter to me, aren't important to my personal beliefs, and aren't worth splitting hairs about.
I'm not going to go on a rant about monkey hands and bananas or anything...
Fair enough. If that's the box that's closest to fit what I believe, I'll go in there...
I don't thing Caineach meant you believe in theistic evolution, but that you believe that the people complaining about creationism are talking about theistic evolution.
And he's right. They're not. People who believe that evolution happened as biologists have found, but think God started the process or was directing it from behind the scenes aren't the problem. That's a viable approach. There's no evidence distinguishing it from regular evolution, but it also doesn't conflict.
The problem Creationists are the ones ranting about how evolution must be wrong and that people didn't evolve from monkeys (which we didn't of course) or talking about kinds and macroevolution or the Young Earth types at the extreme. All of them stand apart from the scientific process and oppose it and that is a problem.
Oh, ok. Yes, I agree. There is nothing wrong with the scientific process.
Things that can be reproduced in a lab or repeatable and observable are pretty darn hard to argue against.
Right.
"Hey, you know that land of ice and snow with nothing living in the interior? That no one's ever been to? There should be marsupial fossils down there?
"Seriously?
"Seriously.
And there were.
How the hell do you ignore a prediction like that coming true?
Cool. So His omnipresence makes Him omniscient?I imagine sometimes that God's forehead is red from all the facepalming.Being omnipresent, none of this is news to him.I think you meant omniscient...
I know my sister is an idealist. Nothing she says or does suprises me.
I still facepalm. Frequently.Assuming God has a forehead...
Omnipresent, he's everywhere at all times, that would include the past and the future. It's even in the Bible, that God knows the entirety of all events, past, present and future.
Acts 15:18
Known to God from eternity are all His worksBefore creating anything, God knew that the serpent would trick Eve into eating the apple.
Is it your desire to focus the conversation on specific words and their meanings? Especially ones with such small differences?
I don't thing Caineach meant you believe in theistic evolution, but that you believe that the people complaining about creationism are talking about theistic evolution.
And he's right. They're not. People who believe that evolution happened as biologists have found, but think God started the process or was directing it from behind the scenes aren't the problem. That's a viable approach. There's no evidence distinguishing it from regular evolution, but it also doesn't conflict.
The problem Creationists are the ones ranting about how evolution must be wrong and that people didn't evolve from monkeys (which we didn't of course) or talking about kinds and macroevolution or the Young Earth types at the extreme. All of them stand apart from the scientific process and oppose it and that is a problem.Oh, ok. Yes, I agree. There is nothing wrong with the scientific process.
Things that can be reproduced in a lab or repeatable and observable are pretty darn hard to argue against.
Not to pick on you or anything (honestly) but I think the idea is that physical laws haven't changed. So, if something is true now, it was true then, like the atomic half-life of chemicals, that sediment layers created later are on top, and so forth.
Whether we can entirely comprehend it or document it, there is an underlying belief (not assumption) in scientific thought that there is uniformity in physical laws across space and time.
I don't thing Caineach meant you believe in theistic evolution, but that you believe that the people complaining about creationism are talking about theistic evolution.
And he's right. They're not. People who believe that evolution happened as biologists have found, but think God started the process or was directing it from behind the scenes aren't the problem. That's a viable approach. There's no evidence distinguishing it from regular evolution, but it also doesn't conflict.
The problem Creationists are the ones ranting about how evolution must be wrong and that people didn't evolve from monkeys (which we didn't of course) or talking about kinds and macroevolution or the Young Earth types at the extreme. All of them stand apart from the scientific process and oppose it and that is a problem.Oh, ok. Yes, I agree. There is nothing wrong with the scientific process.
Things that can be reproduced in a lab or repeatable and observable are pretty darn hard to argue against.How about cases where you can predict what kinds of fossils should be out there and then someone goes out and finds them?
The "can be reproduced in a lab or repeatable and observable" bit sounds a lot like Ham's historical science attack.
If you have a hypothesis based on data that suggests fossils are in an area, then you find them there? I guess that's pretty much the scientific method in a nutshell, right?
EDIT: I only brought up that bit because it's part of the scientific method, not to repeat Ham or give him any validity.
Is it your desire to focus the conversation on specific words and their meanings? Especially ones with such small differences?
I'm trying to understand why you're making the distinction, or what difference it makes.
Omniscience and omnipresence aren't mutually exclusive, right? Is it important that He is one without the other? Or which one He is, first?
Not to pick on you or anything (honestly) but I think the idea is that physical laws haven't changed. So, if something is true now, it was true then, like the atomic half-life of chemicals, that sediment layers created later are on top, and so forth.Whether we can entirely comprehend it or document it, there is an underlying belief (not assumption) in scientific thought that there is uniformity in physical laws across space and time.
That's fine. I have no problem with that thought.
Is it your desire to focus the conversation on specific words and their meanings? Especially ones with such small differences?I'm trying to understand why you're making the distinction, or what difference it makes.
Omniscience and omnipresence aren't mutually exclusive, right? Is it important that He is one without the other? Or which one He is, first?
Well, as far as the Bible is concerned, he's both. He's also omnipotent.
Omniimpotent.
Omniimpotent.
Well, he got one chick pregnant without even touching her...
Omniimpotent.Well, he got one chick pregnant without even touching her...
I thought that was his son. Or her son. Or their son. Wait, he is his own son? Does that make him his own grandpa, too?
I believe in "omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, choose any two".
If you're omnipotent, you could just use your power to make yourself omniscient.
Maybe not. After all, we don't have much in the way of experience with that.
Now, with choose any two, we get three possible Gods:
First, the one that is omniscient and benevolent. He knew from the start everything that would happen, and he does love us, but he's mostly a spectator, and has to count on us knowing he loves us.
Second, the omnipotent and benevolent. He doesn't quite know what will happen, he bumbles along, trying to help the people he truly loves, but it's so difficult keeping track of every little human settlement. After all, blow up a volcano somewhere and lots of people die. It's just so hard.
Third, the omniscient and omnipotent one. He got it all planned out, he knows exactly what will happen, and he knows exactly how hard to push to lift a boulder he can't lift. But why, he wonders, do the humans STILL insist on his loving them after every little thing he's done to torture them because it's fun? One would have thought the Black Death was a pretty clear signal...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You do know stuff like this makes America look silly.
Being omnipresence, omniscient, and omnipotent, would be so boring...
You would know all the football scores, have to sit through sports like lawn bowls and curling and even if you do something to make it all random and interesting like making it rain fish, you would know you were going to do that any way and you would know the results.
Spoilers all spoilers...
It would be awesome if (and a big if), they prove that there is a god, and it turns out to be Q. Anything else, and I would be severely disappointed.
Bonus points if he appears as discord.
You do know stuff like this makes America look silly.
You think America is the only place with young earth creationists?
He may be talking about the debate itself...
Fair point.
It would be awesome if (and a big if), they prove that there is a god, and it turns out to be Q. Anything else, and I would be severely disappointed.
That would be cool if He appeared to people as the guy that played Q (not corbin bernsen)...
"the least bear-like bear that ever beared" =)
It should have been "the least bear-like bear that ever bared its quasi-bear fangs".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would be awesome if (and a big if), they prove that there is a god, and it turns out to be Q. Anything else, and I would be severely disappointed.That would be cool if He appeared to people as the guy that played Q (not corbin bernsen)...
John De Lancie or death!
Dunno that benevolent really fits. He's portrayed as having done some very un-benevolent things.
In some storys He comes accross as a petulent child, wanting to take his ball and go home.
In some He is merciful, but just.
In some He seems to throw devout followers under the bus just to make a point.
In some He is the mighty host of heaven, raining fire down on the unjust.
In some He is a comforter, knowing what's in store for us and having a plan we can trust in Him to fulfill.
In the most important, He lived as a human and died, all for some redemptive process or rule that was in place that I honestly don't fully understand. I don't know why it was necessary, but apparently it was.
Does the Bible's picture of Him change depending on the author? The circumstances behind the story being told?
Why would He want a book around that is so self contradictory and has such a wide span of depictions of Himself?
Don't know that I'll ever get satisfactory answers to those questions.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dunno that benevolent really fits.
[...]Don't know that I'll ever get satisfactory answers to those questions.
Well, that's one reason that reading the Bible critically often leads to loss of faith.
Indeed. I think the Bible's main problem is that men wrote it.
Men decided what's in the latest version.
I don't think it lives up to what He intended it to be, but like you said, I don't think that makes it meningless or without merit.
But, hey. If one had all the answers, it wouldn't be faith, right?
You do know stuff like this makes America look silly.You think America is the only place with young earth creationists?
America has twice the number when compared to most of of the developed world. The movement started in the 50s/60s in the US.
As was explained to me by a Christian Brother (a Catholic Monastic order) teaching my required theology elective back in the day:
The Bible is the work of Man.
It was divinely inspired, but was still the work of Man.
Like all of Man's works, and indeed Man itself, it is flawed.
However, just because it is flawed does not mean it does not render it meaningless or without value.He then went on to discuss the historical context of the Council of Nicea, the politics and theologic arguments of the time, the nature of translation and ordering as political and propaganda tools (see the King James translation), that many of the gospels probably weren't actually written down by the men themselves, and even brought up the Jefferson Bible.
I don't know how mainstream or official that stance is in the Catholic church since I'm a weird mix of natural zen Buddhist and discordian, but it always seemed like a logical and reasonable explanation for all the wackiness.
As far as I can tell, it is pretty common among scholars, but is also denomination and region dependant.
Dunno, still prefer to know facts as opposed to blind belief without any proof.
I leave the how things work to science.
I leave the why is it there in the first place to faith.|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dunno, still prefer to know facts as opposed to blind belief without any proof.I leave the how things work to science.
I leave the why is it there in the first place to faith.
Hm, always found a pretty good answer to your second sentence to be "because".
There is no greater reason or purpose behind existence. There never was. As long as you can accept that that doesn't devalue it in any way, you're OK.
A friend once asked me now that I know that emotions are simply electrochemical processes in the brain and body, how can I feel emotions and not have them be pointless. I found that one of the stupidest questions ever, right after a creationist's question about sunsets. I know why a sunset forms, and how it happens, and the science behind it. It doesn't make it any less beautiful. When I play Beethoven's 9th, i am moved. I know why it happens, but I am still moved. When I love someone, I get the science behind it. I still love them the same. Maybe even more.
It is easy. You just have to let it sink in.
If there's an answer, it's just that it's just that way. :)
Maybe not. After all, we don't have much in the way of experience with that.
Then by definition, you would not be omnipotent. Omnipotent means having unlimited power, able to do anything. If you place a single restriction on a beings power, it is by definition, no longer omnipotent.
Ham rejects the philosophical underpinnings of science.
This makes him whackadoo because _______________ ?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you need a larger line, BigNorseWolf.
In accepted scientific method, a Model or Theory lasts until it's replaced by one that does a better job in filling the gaps of our knowledge.Ham rejects the philosophical underpinnings of science.
This makes him whackadoo because _______________ ?
That's not really answering the question.
How accepted scientific methodology operates is irrelevant to someone that doesn't accept scientific methodology.
@buri: Write smaller!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In accepted scientific method, a Model or Theory lasts until it's replaced by one that does a better job in filling the gaps of our knowledge.Ham rejects the philosophical underpinnings of science.
This makes him whackadoo because _______________ ?
That's not really answering the question.
How accepted scientific methodology operates is irrelevant to someone that doesn't accept scientific methodology.
@buri: Write smaller!
Ken Ham is not whackadoo because he rejects the fundamental underpinnings of science. That makes him stupid, not crazy.
Ken Ham is whackadoo because he attempts to argue against evolutionary theory with the trappings of scientific methodology, and does so incredibly poorly. He has no consistent ideology, just a desperate need to reconcile his preposterously literal view of Genesis with the world around him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, then that person should be irrelevant.
Sadly, he helps spearhead a movement that is gaining traction and affecting public policy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And unfortunately all Bill Nye accomplished in that debate, was to give him more of what he craves... publicity. It is very unlikely that Nye converted a single creationist in his widespread audience. On the other hand, Ham got to rally the troops and show them front and center the "Anti-Godness" of science by keeping it a Nye vs. God's account approach. He framed his approach that to reject Creationism is to reject the ONE Witness who matters, the big G-Man.Well, then that person should be irrelevant.Sadly, he helps spearhead a movement that is gaining traction and affecting public policy.
I disagree. Nye made Ham sound like an idiot. While the Creationists may use it as a rally cry, the people in the center saw a well reasoned, energetic person up against a close minded fool. If people don't call creationism out and actually address it's stupidity, then it will only gain momentum as it has for the past decade.
I think it would be better if it was a Christian scientist who debated Ham so that he couldn't use the anti-god angle, but Nye is a well respected face who knows how to be in front of a camera. Scientists need more of those.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He has no consistent ideology
Oh its very consistant. It will be the same on wednesday as it was on monday regardless of what he learned tuesday.
Hm, always found a pretty good answer to your second sentence to be "because".
Which I usually follow with "because why"?
I understand your point, though. I'm glad that you're comfortable with that answer, and you find peace in it.
I'll keep asking.