 |
| |
|
|
beingofone
|
|
U.S.A.
Apr 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
OK - OK I posted a very unfair post.
I just wanted to post something that really rattled everyones cage
I seem to have succeded all to well.
Besides I am providing some of you with great free entertainment by showing your skills at slamming knuckleheads. So as a way of amends you get one free jab at me as long as the insult is done with flair and style.
Proteus_MST
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Quite true. If only Creationists would listen to the wisdom of Aquinas, who admonished Christians not to challenge science with their religious beliefs, but rather to incorporate science into those beliefs. And just making up a term like ID and claiming it's scientific--which it isn't--doesn't cut it. |
I agree with you and Boris.I am not ready to incorporate science to quickly however.It has been wrong almost as much as religion.
quote:
The problem isnīt with people believing in god,
but with people believing that everything written within the bible is literally true |
It is usually a problem with translation from ancient to modern language. This may sound like a bogus argument unless you have invested the years in study it takes to make an educated opinion on this paticular subject.
Let me give you an example of a recent translation study of mine.
Authorized Version
"Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men."
Aramaic
All types of tangled behavior, the missing and falling, the rips and tears -- all the ways you cut yourself off, break your connection, or disrupt the pattern -- can and will be mended. Sooner or later, you will be freed from error, your mistakes embraced with emptiness, your arrhythmic action returned to the original beat. But your state cannot be mended or repaired, when you cut yourself off from the Source of all rhythm -- the inhaling, the exhaling of all air, wind, and atmosphere, seen and unseen -- the Holy Breath.
So you see language is an extreem barrier. These writers were not the ignorant nomads of the desert that they have been painted to be, just mistranslated and misunderstood.
When I say I have been in school forever. Does that mean literally I have been in an infinite experience of school? I just can`t seem to graduate 
This is what is meant buy " the whole world was covered buy a flood".
It was an expression that the fundies choose to make an issue out of. They choose to make the word "world" the literal earth.
BTW just about every ancient Civilization has a record of the Great Flood that covered the whole Earth. Babylonian, Hittite, Assyrian etc.
quote:
What happened to the Dinosaurs? |
They died - that in no way controverts the scriptural account. Just perceived and interjected concepts into the scripture.
quote:
so that the only conclusions can be, that you can only believe in the literal truth of the bible, if you abandon most of the modern natural sciences. |
That is not the only conclusion you can come to. For example the Big Bang - in no way controverts the scriptural account of the universe if both are contemplated with an open mind.
Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle, not exclusive of each other. After all the scripture has contributed to the betterment of mankind and so has science.
The hardcore will say that religion has caused wars and all that.
And science caused Hiroshima and Nagasaki so it is a more badder evil - worse even then Thor and Mars.
Spiffor
quote:
Apolyton isn't like that: you are free to voice your opinion, and you are free to be exposed to the criticisms of others. |
I only wish that were true, I was warned for presenting an argument in defense of scripture as viable history. The critics were allowed all of their last parting statements and I was not.
I do not want to provide a link for obvious reasons but I am being as objective as I can.
Immortal Wombat
quote:
you use the slightest amount of intelligence which the blind forces of natural selection gave you, and understand evolutionary theory in its entirety before you attempt to pick holes in it with no scientifically rigorous counter-hypothesis. |
I believe in evolution of the species to a degree, It just does not answer any questions about your or my existence. So debating with classic creationists is a moot point.
I also believe that the scripture contains great wisdom that is poo poo`d because it has not been understood, especially buy fundamentalist Christians. I believe there were men who had a handle on self- existence that wrote some of the books of scripture.
Last Conformist
quote:
The total amount of responses to creationists posted on this forum alone must run into the hundreds of pages. |
You are right I was wrong and I apologize - can this sin be forgiven? 
GePap
quote:
Its not a religion, as there are no rites nor acts to be performed with any regularity |
Faith defines a religion not its ceremonies.
quote:
If you give us non-literary evidence for creationist claims |
Well how do I read your post and respond then?
quote:
How do you argue faith? Faith is by definition beyond arguement |
Well said. and this is true also with Darwinism.
quote:
But at its very heart science is and can't be a faith- its the opposite of faith, it is seeking understanding through experimentation and complete skepticism unless adequate proof is given |
Science is subjective reasoning (hypothesis ie:faith) until it has been proven wrong.
Boris Godunov
quote:
The entire point is that neither Creationism nor ID are "cogent, well though out" lines of reasoning. |
I agree as far as classic creationism goes. Classic Christianity is probably the largest cause of Atheism today. They argue myth and from a lack of understanding, that in no way controverts creationism properly understood.
quote:
I see no such zeal on the part of evolutionary biologists to demonize Creationists. |
That is just not true. For the most part I agree with you, I would just like to add that both try to downplay and denegrate each other. In my original post I was trying (albeit not very well) to point this out.
quote:
I find the notion of a conspiratorial cabal of scientists seeking to exclude some sort of "cogent" Creationist scientific theory out of some atheistic crusade pretty amusing. |
Where did I say all this? Talk about debating yourself(strawman)
quote:
The false dichotomy that one is either a Creationist or an Atheist Evilutionist is the product of Creationists,not scientists. |
For the most part I agree but I think it is unfair to exclude Evolutionists. They are almost as guilty. They assert without proper facts and study that there is no God. Atheism as well as classic creationism asserts facts that are not proven at all.
quote:
If there were any scientific merit to Creationism, scientists would be beating a path to it. But they aren't, and it's not out of an exclusionary snobbery, it's because, simply put, there is no scientific validity to Creationism. |
That is just not true. Have you been keeping up with the latest quantum physics models?
quote:
Second, how else would you expect "science" to proceed except under the assumption that only "scientific" hypotheses should be considered "science?" Should scientists be investigating unicorns and elves and fairies? |
A hypothesis is faith. And where faith is concerned why don`t Atheistic Evolutionists try including previous conclusions by experts in faith like Gautama, Lao Tzu, and Jesus and try a few experiments.
Chemical Ollie
quote:
beingofone, feel free to propose an alternative theory and back it up with observations |
Cool - wanting new theories is the wisdom of learning. Creation is taking place this very second and the next second a brand new creation exists. The only thing that remains constant is self-existence and awareness.
The only constant in the entire universe is change so carry that thought to its logical conclusion.
quantum
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Well said. and this is true also with Darwinism.
|
Upon which lies your fallacious argument. The whole point of good science like evolution (note Darwinism to me is evolution in the 19th century, I'll stick with evolution 2005 as a safer bet than evolution 1860) is that it does not require faith, in other words one concurs with it rationally. Scientific fact is provisional in that respect, we accept it until something better comes along (which admittedly many scientists do not respect, but they're scientists not philosophers and I am not representative of them). This is a good thing because it allows us to talk about facts, since "faith" facts, in other words absolute facts are a contradiction in terms, as faith and reason are contradictory to a given end. Whereupon faith and reason are not contradictory (i.e., one needs faith in reason as the supposition which leads to science) is irrelevant, since if one lacks that faith the conclusion is Diogenes in his barrel. Science is not a faith, evolution is not beyond arguments. Ones subjective faith is beyond categorical argument, but that also means one cannot communicate it in a categorical sense, i.e. belief/faith in god |= scientific argument for god, and belief/faith in god = less able to reason for god/creation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by beingofone
I agree as far as classic creationism goes. Classic Christianity is probably the largest cause of Atheism today. They argue myth and from a lack of understanding, that in no way controverts creationism properly understood. |
Couldn't disagree more. Atheism is not a reaction to Christianity. That's a pretty self-important belief there. My atheism has nothing to do with rejecting Christianity, it has to do with me being of a skeptical mind when it comes to claims of the supernatural and metaphysical.
Your line about "properly understood" Creationism doesn't say much to me at all, because there is no definition of such a thing. Why should I think your interpretation has any more validity than others?
quote:
That is just not true. For the most part I agree with you, I would just like to add that both try to downplay and denegrate each other. In my original post I was trying (albeit not very well) to point this out. |
And I disagree on the part of those (the scientists) that study and formulated the theories of evolution. These people, by and large, are not ones acting out of a religious agenda, but are simply seeking scientific discovery. When you imply, directly or not, that they ignore another vaild theory out of bias, it's basically unsubstantiated slander.
quote:
Where did I say all this? Talk about debating yourself(strawman) |
When you conflate Evolution and Atheism, you inherently make such a false dichotomy. As I said, when you imply scientists are excluding Creationism out of some agenda, you're basically saying this is the case, since 99.9% of all biologists accept evolution to be fact.
quote:
For the most part I agree but I think it is unfair to exclude Evolutionists. They are almost as guilty. They assert without proper facts and study that there is no God. Atheism as well as classic creationism asserts facts that are not proven at all. |
Evolution != Atheism. I've said this several times already. Conflating the two is simply wrong.
quote:
That is just not true. Have you been keeping up with the latest quantum physics models? |
Nothing about quantum theory so far suggests any ID. This is again just bald supposition on the part of IDists that hasn't any factual support.
quote:
A hypothesis is faith. |
No, a hypothesis is a guess based on the evidence at hand as to why something occurs. It then is tested, which you are completely ignoring. A hypothesis incapable of being tested (like ID) is not scientific, and therefore not science. There is a big difference between making wild guesses and formulating scientific hypotheses.
quote:
And where faith is concerned why don`t Atheistic Evolutionists try including previous conclusions by experts in faith like Gautama, Lao Tzu, and Jesus and try a few experiments. |
"Atheistic Evolutionists..." There you go again. 
What scientific experiments would you suggest to test any of the "conclusions" of the above mentioned men? I am very curious to see this. Do you have any clue what scientific method means?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
UR - you aren't a biologist, are you? Since I'm planning on learning Linux soon, I'll post for your help on that, but leave the biology to those of use who follow it like you do computing. . Here's some biology clarifications for creationist nitpicking.
First, our genetic code has LOTS of junk data that is simply not used. Now the amounts vary, because some things which we assumed are redundant (why do we need 20 copies of the gene) turned out not to be. However, even correcting for that, most of the genetic data on the chromosones is junk.
That in fact is one of the ways to measure genetic drift between species. Find an area of definitive junk DNA and look at the random changes between two related species. The number of mutations is a fairly good indicator. You can't use active DNA because so many mutations are lethal (like almost any mutation in an enzyme).
The sea depth increase similarly wouldn't crush the fish, they typically adjust to pressure very nicely (sudden changes can cause lethal damage to the swim bladder, but we are talking sudden changes due to winching specimen collecting nets out of th depths). Now the change of salinity, PH (not mentioned, I've bred various types of tropical fish, and I would bet on the changes in PH or temperature killing the fish off before salinity changed enough), and temperature would probably turn the ocean into biological deserts. You don't need boiling water - you just need a change that exceeds the fishes enzymatic adaptablility, which is highly temprature dependent. The only think that would survive are some of the highly adaptable brackish water fish (of a world-wide Noah's flood).
The salt sink problem is absurd. You have to argue that all the water being added had exact amounts of preplanned salt deposits sitting there. Occam's razor starts getting really sharp for such absurdist arguments. Add in the PH and temperature problems, and the Noah's flood argument starts getting absurd.
Now as to various forms of radioactive isotope dating (forgive me if I'm a bit pedantic here, I've lived in the Bible Belt now for just over twenty years, and have been over this many times) I have a simple argument for any creationist. YOU go walk into a nuclear reactor core with no protection. If your arguments against certain types of radioactive isotope dating are correct, nothing will happen. Just please notify me first so I can take out an insurance policy. 
Those who argue that Evolution is just a theory and that Darwin was wrong are morons that don't even understand the scientific process (as noted by other posters). That's like using Freud to disprove all of modern psychology. It's totally absurd. Now if they want to discuss Puntuated Equilibrium (google it) - but I guess that has too many syllables.
What's utterly ridiculous is that it's not in Biology we find evidence of Divine intervention, but in Physics. Some physicists determined that if certain basic forces were different by 0.1 percent - as in .001 - an earth where life could evolve would never have existed.
www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=2237&C=2069
ajtp.iusb.edu/Back%20Issues/May2001CompleteIssue.pdf
If you get in an argument with a creationist, mention these postulates that at make more telling case for divine intervention. If like handing them a "Turn me over" card witht that printed on both sides, it can keep them SO busy. Of course since they want to have a Theistic God they sometimes catch on to the problem, that this process has nothing to do with any religious orthodoxy on earth, it just shows that there is a plausible argument someone set the beginning numbers (please note I said plausible, not definitive). I find that argument fascinating.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DarkCloud
|
 |
of Lists
Jul 2000
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
quote:
Originally posted by shawnmmcc
What's utterly ridiculous is that it's not in Biology we find evidence of Divine intervention, but in Physics. Some physicists determined that if certain basic forces were different by 0.1 percent - as in .001 - an earth where life could evolve would never have existed.
That's still a ridiculous argument. Just cuz we won the lottery doesnt mean devine intervention was involved. If things had been different, we wouldn't be here to appreciate the difference. It's kinda like saying, wow, it's sure good the Hawaiian Islands existed or there wouldn't be any Hawaiians.
Of course you know all that, but if you give creationists in inch, they'll claim a mile. |
And it's even more ridiculous when one considers that there could very possibly be an infinite number of universes and that thus, there are an infinite number of chances for an universe such as our own to have possibly arisen, even WITHOUT aid from a Divine Source.
Just becasue something is very unlikely to have happened doesn't mean that God needs to have created it as such.
An a posteriori (after the fact) proof means little. Some might argue that because a child exists, there must be a parent and then attempt to extend this matter to the universe, stating that the universe is the child and God is the parent... but that's a bit of a leap in judgement. How does one KNOW that a universe requires a GOD? It may just requrie the random assortment of matter in an unending, unyielding plane where spontaneous generation of matter happens all the time, inexorably creating universe after universe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Darkcloud, I don't disagree with your premise. I find the Divine setting the proper constants idea plausible, not definitive. The trillion universe lottery theory is also plausible. I'm never going to know, and the existance of an eternal soul/caring god is something that is moot - if that is not the case, then in dying I won't find out, I'll cease to exist or I will find out, and will discover if He is a merciful God - if he's an angry God, well I'm pwnd anyway.
Snowfire, the Flood/young earth miracle theory is the one I use the radioactive dating argument with. The creationists get all huffy, but I stand very strongly by my point. If Uranium decay (used in dating older rocks/fossils) is not a reliable indicator, go walk into a nuclear reactor. I simply try to avoid such people, and as long as they don't try to put their creationism into my daughter's school system, I'm willing to agree to disagree (actually I realize the futility in disagreeing, it took me the first decade of living in the Bible Belt to truly comprehend how useless a discussion with those individuals is).
For those that want to put so-called Creation Science into the public school room, I ask if they are willing to teach the Hindu creation story complete with elephants, turtle, etc. When they inevitably reply that's different, I inform them very matter-of-factly that is why we ended up with a wall between church and state. It took the Supreme Court the better part of a century to put it in place, but they finally realized in the late 1800's that local religious groups recognized by local governments are very bad about sharing with other local religious groups (happened up in New England with the spread of the Unitarians - local taxes were used to support the local Church that the town father's liked). So they finally forced the severence of all such ties.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by beingofone
Proteus_MST
I agree with you and Boris.I am not ready to incorporate science to quickly however.It has been wrong almost as much as religion.
It is usually a problem with translation from ancient to modern language. This may sound like a bogus argument unless you have invested the years in study it takes to make an educated opinion on this paticular subject.
Let me give you an example of a recent translation study of mine.
Authorized Version
"Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men."
Aramaic
All types of tangled behavior, the missing and falling, the rips and tears -- all the ways you cut yourself off, break your connection, or disrupt the pattern -- can and will be mended. Sooner or later, you will be freed from error, your mistakes embraced with emptiness, your arrhythmic action returned to the original beat. But your state cannot be mended or repaired, when you cut yourself off from the Source of all rhythm -- the inhaling, the exhaling of all air, wind, and atmosphere, seen and unseen -- the Holy Breath.
So you see language is an extreem barrier. These writers were not the ignorant nomads of the desert that they have been painted to be, just mistranslated and misunderstood.
When I say I have been in school forever. Does that mean literally I have been in an infinite experience of school? I just can`t seem to graduate
This is what is meant buy " the whole world was covered buy a flood".
It was an expression that the fundies choose to make an issue out of. They choose to make the word "world" the literal earth.
BTW just about every ancient Civilization has a record of the Great Flood that covered the whole Earth. Babylonian, Hittite, Assyrian etc.
|
I think you posted all of the problems, most scientists have with christian fundamentalists (who take the bible literal).
As others already mentioned, most scientists have no Problem with a Belief in God and many of them belief in some kind of supernatural being (and/or other things like soul or reincarnation) for themselves.
What makes it hard for most people to ddeal with fundamentalists is, that they claim to possess the whole truth, which is in their bible (to be more specific only in the translation of the bible they possess [for evangelicals most of the times the King James Bible] as all other translations have been tainted by the hands of Satan)
and that everything which contradicts their translation of the bible must therefore by default be false.
As you already stated it is very difficult to translate the bible and therefore it could be that some things have other meanings than those you can find within the translated versions of the bible.
Well, for a fundamentalist these problems donīt seem to exist. It is written in their translation and therefore true and all other translations are false.
(btw. the literal translation from the aramaic sounds really good, are there any sources where you can find more of them [maybe even the whole bible translated this way?])
As you already said, the account of Noahs flood could also mean that it was "just" an enormous local flood, which was interpreted as global because for the early human tribes their surroundings were the "world" (and maybe it is the same flood all myths of the different cultures point to [because humankind was small enough at this time and not spread all around the earth, so that stories of the flood could reach all humans]).
I think a local flood would be much more acceptable to scientists [and wouldnīt lead to the problems you get if you try to explain a global flood ])
quote:
Originally posted by beingofone
They died - that in no way controverts the scriptural account. Just perceived and interjected concepts into the scripture.
|
Many fundamentalists (like the one I mentioned) seem to think that the dinosaurs died by Noahs flood.
At least this canīt be true as it contradicts the order from God to take a pair of all Land animals onto the arc.
Of course it wouldnīt contradict the bible if they died earlier, but it is strange that the bible hasnīt any entry concerning them, especially as (what most of the creationists claim) they did live at the same time as the early humans.
quote:
Originally posted by beingofone
That is not the only conclusion you can come to. For example the Big Bang - in no way controverts the scriptural account of the universe if both are contemplated with an open mind.
Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle, not exclusive of each other. After all the scripture has contributed to the betterment of mankind and so has science.
The hardcore will say that religion has caused wars and all that.
And science caused Hiroshima and Nagasaki so it is a more badder evil - worse even then Thor and Mars.
|
Well, as I think that all religions point to some eternal truth [but no single religions can claim that it is the sole possessor of the whole eternal truth, although many do it nevertheless] I can only agree with you there.
Both, religion as well as science could be (and was, as history shows) misused by humans to destroy other humans, instead of trying to makle this world a better place for all of them.
Maybe one day all people will recognize, that it doesnīt matter what religion someone adheres to or what colour his skin has, as we are all humans.
Sadly I think this day is far far away, as Religion is still used by all kinds of fundamentalists (of all kinds of religions, be it christians, muslims, jews od hinduists) to claim that their side is the good one and the others are the bad ones.
And science is still used to develop measures to more efficiently kill other people.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
trev
|
|
Adelaide, Australia
Feb 2003
time: 14:59
|
|
I have no problems with the idea that water mostly came from underground to flood the earth, and it did not require 9km of water either. Although it is impossible to prove the true geography of the pre-flood world, the few hints given in the biblical account would indicate a very flat world where max elevation above sea level probably did not exceed 100metres, and therefore a metre of water from the sky and 101m from the underground would succeed in flooding the world sufficiently. The formation of mountain ranges etc after the flood would then allow the waters to drain to the oceans easily.
For those who question why I propose a flat world, the lack of rainbows (rainbows require rain droplets to form) and lack of mention of rain prior to the flood suggests rain did not occur prior to the flood. instead the bible states a heavy mist/dew watered the earth. Mountain ranges, because they cause uplift of air masses and precipitation are incompatible with a climate of mists/dew and no rain, and therefore could not have existed in the preflood climate described in the bible. Likewise a heavy blanket of water vapour in the upper atmosphere as described in the bible would limit temperature differentials through its absorption and reradiation of sunlight. This limitation on temperature differentials would prevent the formation of low/high pressure systems, frontal systems and storms. Therefore no rain would occur, but instead perpetual high humidity and nightly dews/mists globally. The whole world climate from pole to equator would be subtropical/tropical under this scenario.
Although my argument so far has been based entirely on reasoning from the bible, surprisingly there is some scientific support for it. This includes evidence from fossil records which show fossils of lush tropical/subtropical species being found from the equator right through to polar latitudes, which is exactly what would be expected from this climate scenario.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by trev
The formation of mountain ranges etc after the flood would then allow the waters to drain to the oceans easily.
|
And how do you explain the formation of mountain ranges within a geological short time, most of them several kilometers high?
(the mountin range Ararat for example where Noahs arc has landed [according to the translations of the bible] has a height of appr. 3.000 Meters)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Last Conformist
|
 |
of Calakmul
Jul 2003
time: 06:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by trev
I have no problems with the idea that water mostly came from underground to flood the earth, and it did not require 9km of water either. Although it is impossible to prove the true geography of the pre-flood world, the few hints given in the biblical account would indicate a very flat world where max elevation above sea level probably did not exceed 100metres, and therefore a metre of water from the sky and 101m from the underground would succeed in flooding the world sufficiently. The formation of mountain ranges etc after the flood would then allow the waters to drain to the oceans easily. |
This would seem to raise a slight problem with species whose habitats are confined to high elevations. (Mountain goats are teh gahnkir!)
On a swift browse, I can't seem to find any hints of a lack of mountains or hills in the first few chapters of Genesis. Enlighten me? Moreover, Gen. 7:19 says explicitly that the Flood covered "all high mountains". The following verse tells us the water reached 15 ells above the mountains. Some months later the Ark took land on Mt Ararat. There's nothing to suggest that the mountain was newly-made.
Edit: Sentence fragment removed.
Last edited by Last Conformist on 23-01-2005 at 21:15
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
trev
|
|
Adelaide, Australia
Feb 2003
time: 14:59
|
|
There is criticism of my suggestion that mountain ranges formed rapidly following Noah's flood, the implication being that mountains could only form slowly. The fact is that if mountains formed at todays rate of plate movements, uplifts etc, erosion would reduce the height of the mountains as quickly as they were formed. The fact that mountains exist is proof that at at some stage in the past plate movements, uplifts of mountains etc was much quicker than at present, why this should be placed at some other time than at the time of Noah's flood is beyond me, that time for major earth movements is as good as any other that may be postulated by evolutionists
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-01-2005 21:43
|