Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 123 (8764 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-28-2017 1:22 AM
385 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (2 members, 383 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: superuniverse
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 812,281 Year: 16,887/21,208 Month: 2,776/3,593 Week: 243/646 Day: 6/115 Hour: 0/6

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
5859
60
6162
...
66Next
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
Percy
Member
Posts: 15645
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 886 of 984 (744746)
12-15-2014 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 884 by Colbard
12-15-2014 6:46 AM


Re: A Q of authority
Colbard writes:

The same goes for the rest of you, sealing your own destinies by what you have sown.

Matt 7:1 - Judge not, that you be not judged.

Are you not also "sealing your own destinies by what you have sown?"

This discussion isn't about whether "Colbard's religious beliefs" should be taught in public school, but anyone's.

Many religious adherents believe theirs is the one, right and true religion. When you've convinced the rest that you've got the right one you let us know. Might I mention the possibility that they won't find very persuasive your claims of long study, evidence that you won't tell them, and intellectual superiority. Have you considered humility?

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Wordsmithing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 884 by Colbard, posted 12-15-2014 6:46 AM Colbard has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13204
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 887 of 984 (744770)
12-15-2014 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 884 by Colbard
12-15-2014 6:46 AM


Re: A Q of authority
Colbard writes:

Sorry, but you are so wrong and deceived, but then again how could you possibly know that.


Sorry but you are so wrong and deceived - but then again how could you possibly know that?

Colbard writes:

The same goes for the rest of you, sealing your own destinies by what you have sown.


Our destiny is dirt. Yours too. We're very egalitarian.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 884 by Colbard, posted 12-15-2014 6:46 AM Colbard has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29040
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 888 of 984 (744772)
12-15-2014 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 884 by Colbard
12-15-2014 6:46 AM


Re: A Q of authority
Colbard writes:

Sorry, but you are so wrong and deceived, but then again how could you possibly know that.

Well, we could possibly know that by examining the evidence you provide to support your lies and assertions. But you never provide any evidence or even reasoning to support your assertions.

Colbard writes:

The same goes for the rest of you, sealing your own destinies by what you have sown.

But what is it that we supposedly have sown?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 884 by Colbard, posted 12-15-2014 6:46 AM Colbard has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15936
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 889 of 984 (744785)
12-15-2014 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 884 by Colbard
12-15-2014 6:46 AM


Yay
The same goes for the rest of you, sealing your own destinies by what you have sown.

Ooh, good, I like a well-sealed destiny. But be more specific, what exactly do I win for knowing more about science than you? Will there be cake and dancing girls, or just a pat on the back and someone saying "good job"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 884 by Colbard, posted 12-15-2014 6:46 AM Colbard has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18664
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(4)
Message 890 of 984 (744789)
12-15-2014 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 884 by Colbard
12-15-2014 6:46 AM


Re: A Q of authority
Sorry, but you are so wrong and deceived, ...

Curious, though, isn't it, that we come from different areas, different educations, different upbringing, yet we agree on the basics, the knowledge of scientific evidence and what it means. Things like the age of the earth, ... yet you (singular) with shoddy education can tell this.

Let us assume that one of us (including you) is "so wrong and deceived" then which one is it likely to be? Percy? Ringo? Coyote? Jar? Dr Adequate? Me? yet we agree ... so that leaves you as the odd duck out doesn't it?

Cognitive dissonance theory says that one of the normal reactions to evidence and information that contradicts strongly held beliefs is to claim there is a conspiracy of people all plotting some deceit and fraud or hoax on the person with the strong belief.

So it is normal for you to feel this way, even when you are so evidently wrong on many things, things you fail to substantiate with any objective empirical evidence.

... but then again how could you possibly know that.

Well we could start by having a system to consistently check concepts against reality, to test beliefs against the objective empirical evidence of reality, and we can see that having concepts, beliefs and opinions that aren't contradicted by the evidence of reality puts us in agreement on a number of things in spite of those concepts, beliefs and opinions being different for different people.

It's called testing, and the best method for testing is the scientific method.

The same goes for the rest of you, sealing your own destinies by what you have sown.

What we have sown is the knowledge driven from the scientific pursuit of knowledge of how things work, and the search for new ideas and concepts that build a closer and closer approximation of the reality as it is shown to us by objective empirical evidence.

Not a bad destiny imho.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 884 by Colbard, posted 12-15-2014 6:46 AM Colbard has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2801
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 891 of 984 (744980)
12-17-2014 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 852 by Colbard
12-11-2014 8:03 AM


Well, since you have no objection to elevating science popularizers to the role of Authority, then you will accept what one of our own very well known science popularizers have to say about creationism and its detrimental effects on our children's education ("Bill Nye: Creationism Is 'Raising A Generation Of Young People Who Can't Think'" by Antonia Blumberg, The Huffington Post, 13 Dec 2014 10:59 am EST, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...-creationism_n_6317148.html):
quote:
Nye stood by the debate, however, saying he "stepped into the lion's den" in order to spread awareness about the academic opportunities children are denied by being creationism.

"They will not have this fundamental idea that you can question things, that you can think critically, that you can use skeptical thought to learn about nature," Nye told MidPoint. "These children have to suppress everything that they can see in nature to try to get a world view that's compatible with the adults in who they trust and rely on for sustenance."



Bill Nye's statement has been verified by real-life observation, including the ICR-trained geologists hired for oil exploration work by Glenn R. Morton, all of whose faith started to fall apart by being faced daily with rock-hard geological evidence which they had been taught did not exist and could not exist for Scripture to have any meaning and with no possible excuse for ignoring it. These are the results and consequences of a creationist education.

The article includes a video clip of the MidPoint interview being reported on. The debate being referenced was with Australian expatriate creationist Ken Ham several months ago. You should still be able to find the debate on YouTube.

quote:
"We know that ignorance does not work, because we've tried it already."
(From then-Governor of Mississippi justifying his campaign for educational reform, as heard in a radio news report circa 1990)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 852 by Colbard, posted 12-11-2014 8:03 AM Colbard has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2801
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.5


(1)
Message 892 of 984 (744982)
12-17-2014 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 880 by Colbard
12-14-2014 6:13 PM


Re: A Q of authority
OK, you just informed us that you have absolutely no intention of even attempting to construct and present a case for creationism. No problem. We knew that already. It's obvious that you only tossed out that about "{having come} here thinking that there would be a fair trial for creationism" as a desperate and/or flippant attempt at saving face and pretending to take the moral high-ground. It's obvious that you never expected us to take it seriously. It has always amazed me how the easiest way to confuse and even anger a creationist is to try to discuss his claims seriously.

But should you ever decide to actually have a "fair trial for creationism" (which has already happened many times with YEC; not only has creationism lost consistently, but it's also been thrown out of court for being frivolous), then at least you now have a much better idea of what you will need to do to present a case for it. Such as, present a case for it!

Having talked about it to other audiences, I am aware that the majority, if not all, are incapable of comprehending what I say, it is a matter of intelligence capacities.

Rather, wouldn't it be that what you've presented them is incomprehensible, even incoherent at times? Communication requires three components: a transmitter, a receiver, and a message. For a message to be communicated properly, both the transmitter and the receiver must be functioning properly. If the transmitter is not functioning properly and garbles the message, then the receiver cannot possibly receive the clear and complete message no matter how well it is functioning. Instead of berating everybody else for the motes in their eyes, shouldn't you be attending to the beam in your own eye?

For all your hyper-intelligence, it's amazing how inept you are at constructing a coherent series of logical arguments, which is what you would need to do in order to build a case for creationism. Or even to just be able to communicate your hyper-intelligent ideas. A truly hyper-intelligent being such as you consider yourself to be should have no difficulty in presenting his hyper-intelligent ideas to us mere mortals. By analogy, a good advanced leader in partner dance is able to lead any level of follower regardless of how much of a beginner she is; a hot-shot advanced leader who has far too high an opinion of his own abilities would not be able to lead a beginner. So are you truly so hyper-intelligent that you are capable of the feats of a hyper-intelligent being? Or do you just think that you're such a hot-shot who actually cannot perform the most menial of a hyper-intelligent being's tasks? Don't forget that we've seen you in action. The proof of the pudding and all that, what?

No, rather than a hyper-intelligent being, you come off as yet another typical clueless teen-ager (regardless your chronological age) who thinks that he knows everything and that everybody else knows nothing. Normally, that condition is one that people grow out of, though sadly not everybody.

quote:
When I was eighteen, I thought my father was the most ignorant man in all the world. But when I was twenty-one, I was amazed at how much the old man had learned in just three years.
(falsely attributed to Mark Twain; there is a plethora of different versions)

I'm sure that you have made your escape from the untenable position you have created for yourself here, shaking the dust off of your sandals. I will continue to comment on what you have said. Even though you will undoubtedly not learn from it, others might.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 880 by Colbard, posted 12-14-2014 6:13 PM Colbard has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2801
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 893 of 984 (745168)
12-19-2014 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 880 by Colbard
12-14-2014 6:13 PM


Re: A Q of authority
The bottom line is that we are prone to make mistakes, both in the field of science and theology, and that we as human beings are not infallible.

That is absolutely correct! So why do you pretend that that does not apply to you as well?

The big difference between science and theology is that science employs a methodology that questions and tests its own findings and conclusions, which not only enables it to find and correct mistakes, but which also makes that its SOP ("standing operating procedure"). Theology does not have that methodology, nor the motivation to question and test itself. To be fair, science does have an advantage over theology in this regard by restricting itself to the physical universe, to nature, and to phenomena which it can detect, observe, and measure, whereas theology concerns itself primarily with the supernatural which cannot be detected nor observed nor measured nor lend itself to testing in any manner at all.

I thought this was illustrated rather well by a story attributed to Carl Sagan:

quote:
The Physicist and the Metaphysicist

In the 1920s, there was a dinner at which the physicist Robert W. Wood was asked to respond to a toast. This was a time when people stood up, made a toast, and then selected someone to respond. Nobody knew what toast they'd be asked to reply to, so it was a challenge for the quick-witted. In this case the toast was: "To physics and metaphysics." Now by metaphysics was meant something like philosophy -- truths that you could get to just by thinking about them. Wood took a second, glanced about him, and answered along these lines: The physicist has an idea, he said. The more he thinks it through, the more sense it makes to him. He goes to the scientific literature, and the more he reads, the more promising the idea seems. Thus prepared, he devises an experiment to test the idea. The experiment is painstaking. Many possibilities are eliminated or taken into account; the accuracy of the measurement is refined. At the end of all this work, the experiment is completed and ... the idea is shown to be worthless. The physicist then discards the idea, frees his mind (as I was saying a moment ago) from the clutter of error, and moves on to something else.

The difference between physics and metaphysics, Wood concluded, is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory.


The meaning of this analogy is that you are able to evaluate a scientific idea objectively by testing it against reality. Such tests are simply not available in theology nor in philosophy.

A second analogy that may prove useful would be that of navigating a ship at sea. Not counting external navigational aids (eg, GPS, LORAN), there are basically two methods of navigation: dead reckoning and plotting a fix. You plot a fix on your location by shooting celestrial objects with your sextant and then going back inside to perform the calculations. With dead reckoning, you start from a known location and, using your ship's inertial navigation system (SINS) or even just manually logging your ship's course and speed over time, extrapolate your new position on the chart in the time that has elapsed (basically applying rate time = distance, unless you also never paid attention in algebra class). The problem with plotting a fix is that it's a lot of work and is time-consuming. The problem with dead reckoning is that there are a number of factors that it does not take into account that can throw you off-course (eg, ocean currents, wind, helmsman error in maintaining a steady course). The solution is to use both navigational methods: use dead reckoning starting from a known plotted starting point and then periodically plot a fix on your position and mark your correct position on the chart as the next dead reckoning starting point. Or in other words, you proceed assuming that you are where you think you are, and then you verify your assumed position against reality and correct your assumptions to match up with reality.

In this analogy, dead reckoning would represent coming up with an idea and developing it mentally. A prominent tool in such an effort would be to use logic to develop a chain of arguments (a term in formal logic) in which premises lead to a conclusion with then acts as a premise to arrive at the next conclusion, etc. This is done in science, theology, and philosophy. The difference lies in the fact that only science has the other tool, testing ("plotting a fix"), with which to test the conclusions arrived out by that chain of logic (as well as the initial premises) against reality; neither theology nor philosophy can perform such a test. The only means of testing that theology and philosophy have are all internal; eg, are there no errors in the logic, do the conclusions conflict with some other aspect of the theology or philosophy. And more fundamentally, there is no way for theology to test its initial premises, since it assumes that that which it considers to be Revelation truly is just that. BTW, for your edification, the reason why it's so important to start a chain of logic with true premises is because logic can be certain to yield a true conclusion only if it is both valid and it starts with true premises.

This may well be the fundamental source of theology's feeling of "science envy" that we discussed earlier (Message 875). With science's methodology of questioning and testing, we can feel a high degree of confidence with our conclusions, but since theology lacks that methodology, we cannot feel anything approaching the same degree of confidence, unless we apply blind faith and dogmatism. While this didn't used to be a concern, the growing prominence in society of science in the past couple centuries presents more and more to followers of religion an apparent alternative to their theology -- please note the emphasis on "apparent".

But that is not quite true. The reason why science is so successful in its methodology is because it restricts itself to the types of questions that it attempts to answer, questions for which there is physical evidence in nature. For the most part, these are the "how" questions of how something works and what causes this phenomenon and what happens when we do this ... .

As interesting as those questions are, they pale in comparison to the really big and vitally interesting questions, the questions which we might insufficiently call "the 'why' questions." Those questions are what theology and philosophy attempt to answer, or at least to address; science could never even begin to consider making the attempt. Not that either theology or philosophy is any better equipped than science would be to test any part of attempting to answer such questions. There is no physical evidence in nature to lead the investigations into those questions, so philosophy works with abstractions and ideals while theology works with statements about the supernatural. Neither the supernatural nor abstractions nor intellectual ideals can be tested and any chain of reasoning involving them cannot be tested against reality, but rather only for internal consistency and lack of invalid logic.

Reasoning within theology and philosophy are like navigating by dead reckoning, except that you don't even have a fix on the position of the starting point. Of the two, philosophy is much better equipped than theology to navigate the voyage because philosophy has made a centuries-old study of the process and pitfalls of logical reasoning. Thus philosophy is able to proceed with eyes wide open, while theology stumbles along boldly with eyes wide shut.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 880 by Colbard, posted 12-14-2014 6:13 PM Colbard has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2801
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.5


(1)
Message 894 of 984 (745169)
12-19-2014 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 880 by Colbard
12-14-2014 6:13 PM


Re: A Q of authority
The main difference between genuine Christian believers and the world in general is that they consider the Bible as the word of God, an authority above man made theories and conclusions.

. . .

The first evidence that the true believer has is the word of God and everything else has to be tested by it.

The world on the other hand puts the opinions and conclusions of man above revelation and God. So there is no harmony there.

It does not mean that science cannot be married to creationism, it just means that the conclusions drawn which contradict the Bible have to be left out.

If I were to talk about global flood dynamics, the Bible would be my first and only reference, which has authority over and above the world. It does not matter if other thoughts and conclusions disagree with it.


On HBO I watched a documentary, "Questioning Darwin". As I recall, there was no narrator, but rather it consisted of several people talking about creation/evolution. Only a few of the people featured were pro-evolution; the majority were young-earth creationists and leaders in fundamentalist ministries.

In one clip, a creationist proclaimed proudly about the strength of his faith being such that if he were to find in the Bible that 2+2 is five, then that is how it is and nothing could possibly shake his belief in 2+2=5 and he would actively oppose the atheist teaching of 2+2=4. OK, I did embellish that last part a bit, but it is absolutely true that he stated that if he were to find in the Bible that 2+2=5, then that is how it is and that is what he would believe absolutely regardless of any amount of non-biblical evidence that it really is 2+2=4.

That is the same position that you are arguing for, that the Bible must take precedence over reality. That may whisper "faithful" in your ear, but it shouts "delusional!" to normal people. And it is a blasphemy to the Creator, since you are placing the Word of Man over the Word of God.

quote:
"Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world."
(from the song, The Word of God, http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML

quote:
I'm reading from a scripture revealed to me a couple years back, written by God in His own hand. It's all of God's creation and how His creation works and it teaches me more about God than any other source. It needed a name. I called it "The First Testament of God."

. . .

There are billions of pages written in a language common to all and yet impossible for one human mind, impossible for the collective minds of all of time to absorb them all and it's still being written. The First Testament of God is all of God's creation and it is a work in progress.
("The First Testament of God" by George H. Birkett, a devout Christian, on his website, "Blending Faith with Reality", circa 2000)


quote:
I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.

. . .

As to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me as a species of Atheism -- a sort of religious denial of God. It professes to believe in a man rather than in God. It is a compound made up chiefly of Manism with but little Deism, and is as near to Atheism as twilight is to darkness. It introduces between man and his Maker an opaque body, which it calls a Redeemer, as the moon introduces her opaque self between the earth and the sun, and it produces by this means a religious, or an irreligious, eclipse of light. It has put the whole orbit of reason into shade.

. . .

That which is now called natural philosophy, embracing the whole circle of science, of which astronony occupies the chief place, is the study of the works of God, and of the power and wisdom of God in his works, and is the true theology.

As to the theology that is now studied in its place, it is the study of human opinions and of human fancies concerning God. It is not the study of God himself in the works that he has made, but in the works and writings that man has made; and it is not among the least of the mischiefs that the Christian system has done to the world, that it has abandonded the original and beautiful system of theology, like a beautiful innocent, to distress and reproach, to make room for the hag of superstition."

. . .

It is the fraud of the Christian system to call the sciences human invention; it is only the application of them that is human. Every science has for its basis a system of principles as fixed and unalterable as those by which the universe is regulated and governed. Man cannot make principles, he can only discover them.

. . .

THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD and it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man.

. . .

It is only in the CREATION that all our ideas and conceptions of a word of God can unite. The Creation speaketh an universal language, independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they may be. It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God.
("The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine)


This Bible that you believe must take precedence over everything, including reality, does not exist. Yes, some believers in the Creator believe that it is, but believin' alone don't make things so. There are far more believers in the Creator and in the Bible who do not believe the same things about the Bible that you do; they can accept a Bible that is not perfect though still inspired. There can be and have been and still are long discussions and arguments about the nature of the Bible, one of which is still going on in this forum right now. There is no agreement on this question nor can we expect there to ever be any agreement. The bottom line is that your beliefs in an omni-authoritative Bible have no support other than being part of the particular dogma that you believe in.

One thing that comes close to being a point of agreement is that writing, compiling, translating, interpreting, etc, of the Bible have been performed physically by humans. Even believers in the omni-authoritative Bible as the literal "Word of God" can find some degree of agreement with that fact, though they would probably be reluctant to use that wording, while maintaining their primary position by placing those humans very much under the direct or indirect control and guidance of God. And there again there is disagreement as to the nature and properties of inspiration.

And I'm not including any atheists nor other non-Christians in that. I'm talking about believing Christians (whether or not you want to classify them as such) who do believe in the Creator (whether or not in the particular manner that you want to find acceptable). While their doctrines disagree about the exact nature of the Bible and what all that is supposed to mean, they can generally agree -- or at least taciturnly admit -- that humans were directly involved in writing the Bible. On top of that, those doctrines about the Bible, including your own, are all based on man-made theologies.

Ergo, humans wrote the Bible.

In contrast to all the disagreement about the Bible, there can be no disgreement about the Creation. I can see no reason for a real creationist not believing that the Creation is the work of the Creator.

God wrote the rocks. God wrote the sky. God wrote life. God wrote the world.

Science started out as Thomas Paine described it, as a form of "natural theology" in which we would study the Creation, Nature, to learn more about the Creator. Of course, some of those discoveries have proven embarrassing and humbling for us, such as discovering the Creator's inordinate love of beetles. And to this very day, many believing Christians who are scientists, whether professional or amateur or just fans of science, continue to study the Creation for that same reason.

quote:
"The profoundest act of worship is to try to understand."
(from the song, The Word of God, http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML

But then you and other creationists choose to place your theologies over Nature, the Word of Man over the True Word of God. Not just placing the Bible written by Man over Nature written by God, but rather your fallible and corrupted theologies of what God had written in Nature. Shouldn't that constitute blasphemy?

It does not mean that science cannot be married to creationism, it just means that the conclusions drawn which contradict the Bible have to be left out.

. .

I believe that if we place our opinions above nature or God then we are kidding ourselves.


And yet you are yourself placing your opinions above nature and God.

Remember that regardless of what the Bible's real status is (and whether it even should be used as the final arbiter of what we should accept as Reality), what the Bible says is never what's being contradicted by the conclusions of science (which in turn are our best understanding of reality to date). Rather it is the conclusions of your theology that is being contradicted by reality. The Bible has absolutely nothing to do with any of that.

Your imperfect and inherently corrupted theology does not have the authority to override Nature nor what God has very clearly written in Nature. By believing that you can place your opinions above nature or God, you are doing far worse than simply kidding yourself.

quote:
I think I do know what all this fuss is about. Dr. Morris describes creation scientists as bible believers. That's it. You gotta believe that the bible is God's divine word. It's the literal truth, the absolute truth, the whole truth, the only truth. It is God's truth. If you don't believe that there's just no way you can believe in God. I got a problem though. I hear them saying things they don't think they're saying -- but I hear them plenty clear. Count on it, they're going to deny it but I hear them saying . . .

"The bible IS God;
except for the bible God wouldn't exist;
the bible is the only way we have of knowing God."

The first and third I've heard word for word: verbatim. The middle one, they say the bible wouldn't exist except for God {sic -- from context, I believe is a typo and should be: "they say God wouldn't exist except for the bible"}. Lordy! WE wouldn't exist except for God. Bottom line: they believe in God less and the bible more. Yep! That's what I hear them saying.


You're just a biblio-idolater, a Bible worshipper. And the Bible, especially your theology's ideas about it, is a false idol. Doesn't the Bible have something to say about worshipping an idol?

It is not that others are incapable of knowing, it is just that it is uncommon for someone to have done the homework themselves and exercised their mind to be able to comprehend the facts that scripture makes so plainly.

To date, you have been annoyed that I make outrageous claims, but that is your problem for having squeezed yourself into a certain pigeon hole, which by the way you would like me to do also by asking me to make a statement of where I stand in theology or whatever.

In regards to the outrageous claims, they are very obvious to anyone who has studied the scriptures.


Circa 2000 on another forum, I experienced an epiphany from something a creationist said. Perhaps in sharing it with you then you might also experience an epiphany.

At that point, I had been studying creationist claims for a couple decades. One salient factor in every single one of those claims has been how utterly ridiculous and ludicrous they are -- though your claim of carbon-dating a coin does surpass the majority of those claims in sheer stupidity. One day, a creationist regurgitated the old canard about the amount of sea salt in the oceans. After explaining the facts to him to the point where even he had to admit that the claim is false, I asked him two more questions:


  1. Q: If your position is that the earth is no older than 10,000 years, why use a claim that would make the earth millions of years old?
    A: That doesn't matter, just so long as it's not BILLIONS of years old as science claims that it is!
    Minor Epiphany: Creationists are not trying to argue for creation, but rather the only goal of their claims is to discredit science.

  2. Q: What can you possibly hope to accomplish with claims that are so ridiculous and unconvincing?
    A: The only reason you don't find them convincing is because you are yourself not yet convinced.
    Major Ephiphany! (partial list):

    1. The only reason why they find their claims convincing is because they are already convinced.
    2. We find them unconvincing, because we are not already convinced.
    3. Because they, being already convinced, find their claims convincing, they are not aware of how weak and unconvincing they are. Hence, they are not aware of the need to try to correct and improve them, so their claims remain weak and unconvincing.
    4. Because they need to remain convinced, they cannot allow themselves to become aware of how weak and unconvincing their claims are, further ensuring that their claims will remain weak and unconvincing.
    5. The primary purpose of their claims is to convince. The sole property by which a creationist claim is to be judged is in how concincing it sounds. It does not matter how false a claim is; as long as it continues to sound convincing then it will be embraced and celebrated by the creationist community and continue to be used regardless of how many times it has been soundly refuted.


Case in point: When faced with the undeniable truth about his sea-salt claim, that creationist admitted that it was false. Then a few months later on the same forum I saw him using the exact same admittedly-false claim on somebody else. I immediately called him on that and he immediately fled, having been publicly caught in a deliberate lie. That also illustrated and helps to explain why creationists repeatedly lie.

How does that bone-headedness apply to you?

It is not that others are incapable of knowing, it is just that it is uncommon for someone to have done the homework themselves and exercised their mind to be able to comprehend the facts that scripture makes so plainly.

IOW, in order to accept your strange claims and find them convincing, one would need to work themselves into a state of already being convinced. Certainly this happens all the time in people who convert to an extreme religious theology: first they are motivated for personal reasons, such as seeking solace and/or a solution to personal problems (eg, personal loss, emotional turmoil, depression, addiction), then they work to align their minds with the sect's theology by working on convincing themselves of it.

Of course, those who see no reason to surrender their minds to a sect or a cult will not put forth that great effort to become convinced of the sect or cult's teachings and hence will remain unconvinced.

In regards to the outrageous claims, they are very obvious to anyone who has studied the scriptures.

Only if by "stud{ying} the scriptures" you mean "convincing yourself of those outrageous claims".

Actually, I'm still mystified by your repeated claim that the Bible teaches religious liberty. Everything I've read in the Bible has taught the exact opposite, that you are forbidden to choose to follow another religion or to worship whatever god you chose. Obviously, you've convinced yourself of "things scriptural" that are contrary to what the Bible says.

To date, you have been annoyed that I make outrageous claims, but that is your problem for having squeezed yourself into a certain pigeon hole, ...

Rather, you are the one who has squeezed yourself into a pigeon hole by restricting yourself to only that which you have convinced yourself. Look at the consequences listed above. You come up with and attempt to use weak and unconvincing claims and arguments. You cannot allow yourself to evaluate those claims and arguments, since that could reduce your state of being convinced. As a result of preventing yourself from evaluating and correcting them, your claims remain weak, unconvincing, outrageous, and bone-headed. You also have to blind yourself to anything and everything that could possibly cast any form of doubt on that of which you have convinced yourself. That places you in a constant state of self-deception and self-delusion. It also prevents you from being able to think.

Since I have not wedged myself in any pigeon hole, I am free to observe and to think. I can learn about other ways of thinking. I can question my own ideas. I can think about what you present and evaluate it.

It would be entirely to your benefit for you to get out of that pigeon hole you've squeezed yourself into. If not for your own sake, then at least for the sake of that poor pigeon.

In re bone-headedness:

quote:
In Bablyon 5, they are in a desperate situation and discussing a radical and highly dangerous tactic, namely engaging their jump drive while in an active jump gate:
Susan Ivanova: EarthForce looked into that idea before and decided it was too dangerous and too stupid to attempt, so we called it the "bone-head maneuver".
(She realizes how that must sound to Lennier, a Minbari, who was part of the conversation)
Ivanova to Lennier: No offense.
Lennier: None taken.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 880 by Colbard, posted 12-14-2014 6:13 PM Colbard has not yet responded

    
Rodnas 
Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 809 days)
Posts: 15
From: Seattle
Joined: 12-22-2014


Message 895 of 984 (745428)
12-22-2014 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 880 by Colbard
12-14-2014 6:13 PM


Re: A Q of authority
Colbard writes:
It does not mean that science cannot be married to creationism, it just means that the conclusions drawn which contradict the Bible have to be left out.

I agree, they choose what is convenient and that is not science. The following statement, however, found on p.399 of The Urantia Book has been substantiated by science; it means that the evolution of life was programmed. Urantia is Earth and the book was published in 1955.

"The original life plasm of an evolutionary world must contain the full potential for all future developmental variations and for all subsequent evolutionary changes and modifications."

There are scientists who share this view - e.g., the chemist and computer scientist Donald E. Johnson's "Programming of Life" - some of whom I use in my blog at www.prescribedevolution.com to substantiate it.

Edited by Rodnas, : spelliing error


This message is a reply to:
 Message 880 by Colbard, posted 12-14-2014 6:13 PM Colbard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 896 by RAZD, posted 12-22-2014 10:36 PM Rodnas has responded
 Message 900 by ringo, posted 12-23-2014 11:28 AM Rodnas has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18664
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 896 of 984 (745441)
12-22-2014 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 895 by Rodnas
12-22-2014 7:12 PM


A Question of reality ... or spam?
Welcome to the fray Rodnas,

I agree, they choose what is convenient and that is not science. The following statement, however, found on p.399 of The Urantia Book has been substantiated by science; it means that the evolution of life was programmed. Urantia is Earth and the book was published in 1955.

"The original life plasm of an evolutionary world must contain the full potential for all future developmental variations and for all subsequent evolutionary changes and modifications."

Uh, not really. That concept of preprogramming has been invalidated.

There are scientists who share this view - e.g., the chemist and computer scientist Donald E. Johnson's "Programming of Life" - some of whom I use in my blog at www,prescribedevolution,com to substantiate it.

It is against forum rules to advertise here -- it is viewed as spam and you can be banned.

Enjoy

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

RAZD writes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 895 by Rodnas, posted 12-22-2014 7:12 PM Rodnas has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 899 by Rodnas, posted 12-23-2014 9:38 AM RAZD has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5868
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 897 of 984 (745443)
12-22-2014 10:52 PM


Donald E. Johnson?
Perhaps you need a more reliable source.

http://americanloons.blogspot.com/...7-donald-e-johnson.html

Might I suggest a source with a very similar name, Donald Johanson:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/djohanson.html


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


Replies to this message:
 Message 898 by Rodnas, posted 12-23-2014 9:25 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Rodnas 
Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 809 days)
Posts: 15
From: Seattle
Joined: 12-22-2014


Message 898 of 984 (745470)
12-23-2014 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 897 by Coyote
12-22-2014 10:52 PM


Re: Donald E. Johnson?
In Prgramming of Life, using his "legitimate credentials in Information Sciences and in chemistry" Donald E. Johnson provides scientific proof that substantiates the thesis that life was programmed. I know his religious belief but the book is only about the substantiating science. I disagree with his religious belief but use the science to substantiate my belief.

Edited by Rodnas, : spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 897 by Coyote, posted 12-22-2014 10:52 PM Coyote has not yet responded

    
Rodnas 
Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 809 days)
Posts: 15
From: Seattle
Joined: 12-22-2014


Message 899 of 984 (745473)
12-23-2014 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 896 by RAZD
12-22-2014 10:36 PM


Re: A Question of reality ... or spam?
Thank you for the info about quotes. Sorry, I did not mean to advertise only provide another source material. I don't know that the concept was invalidated and I am presenting the latest scientific proof on the subject which validates it .
This message is a reply to:
 Message 896 by RAZD, posted 12-22-2014 10:36 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 908 by RAZD, posted 12-24-2014 10:56 AM Rodnas has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13204
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 900 of 984 (745485)
12-23-2014 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 895 by Rodnas
12-22-2014 7:12 PM


Re: A Q of authority
Rodnas writes:

"The original life plasm of an evolutionary world must contain the full potential for all future developmental variations and for all subsequent evolutionary changes and modifications."


That seems like a tautology to me: "A box of Tinker Toys must contain the full potential for everything that can be built out of it."

Why wouldn't the box of chemicals contain the full potential for everything that can be made out of them without programming?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 895 by Rodnas, posted 12-22-2014 7:12 PM Rodnas has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 901 by Rodnas, posted 12-23-2014 7:59 PM ringo has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
5859
60
6162
...
66Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017