Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Design evidence # 177: male & female
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 16 of 101 (30247)
01-26-2003 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by DanskerMan
01-21-2003 10:57 AM


[QUOTE] by sonnike++++++++++++++++++++
p.s. what happened to my other topic "taste buds" ?? it disappeared...I noticed one of TC's topics disappeared too...hmmm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As the admin stated in this thread, it was simply moved to "Intelligent Design", where this one is now.
So if you found this one, you should be able to find your "taste buds" topic.
And if you find that one, you will find my reply (and a couple of others) awaiting your response. I'll let you address my taste buds post before I move on to this one, although I'll mention that it should be obvious to see that a book written by man would exhibit what man would see in the world around him (man, woman, limited "domination" of species).
And unfortunately it also says a lot of other things that would have been seen by man back when it was written, but ended up not being true once more evidence came in. But that is a whole other topic (regarding the fallability of the bible).
Anyhow, check out taste buds.
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DanskerMan, posted 01-21-2003 10:57 AM DanskerMan has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 17 of 101 (30248)
01-26-2003 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by DanskerMan
01-21-2003 10:57 AM


I'm also curious about your laundry list of evidence for design. You seem to be jumping all over a very large list.
Why not go in order? And is there a place I can go to see this enumerated list?
And please don't say read the bible, as I have read the bible and there is no enumerated list of proof of God's design, though frankly that would have been a pretty intelligent thing for god to have included.
holmes
[This message has been edited by holmes, 01-26-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DanskerMan, posted 01-21-2003 10:57 AM DanskerMan has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 27 of 101 (30743)
01-30-2003 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by DanskerMan
01-29-2003 5:55 PM


I'm still waiting for your response to my points in either this thread or in your one on tastebuds.
I'd also love to know where to find the long list of evidence for design you are jumping around. So far your first two examples have been pretty weak.
In fact, this last post of yours doesn't even address the rebuttals of your evidence, which makes me think you don't have that much confidence in your evidence.
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by DanskerMan, posted 01-29-2003 5:55 PM DanskerMan has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 30 of 101 (30855)
01-31-2003 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by DanskerMan
01-30-2003 9:40 AM


Sonnikke, I went to BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages. and read the entire text of Ecclesiastes, and you are in error.
The conclusion you quoted did NOT reverse the portion which equated men with animals, and there were no statements which put that portion "in context" (ie, man is like an animal ONLY if he's without god).
The text is quite clear that man cannot judge himself different than animals, or better than animals, as we not only share the same style of life and fate, but that in the end we have no way of knowing whether their souls don't go to the same place ours do.
I wish the original poster had included that part about souls as that carries additional weight against Sonnikke. The bible says animals may very well have souls and humans are in no position to judge that they don't or that their souls go anywhere different than our own when they die!
Of course in Ecclesiastes it also says that while their may be one good man amongst 1000, there are no good women amongst them all. I'd love Sonnikke's take on that little gem.
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by DanskerMan, posted 01-30-2003 9:40 AM DanskerMan has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 41 of 101 (31145)
02-03-2003 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by DanskerMan
02-03-2003 11:55 AM


Biblical Verse [Ecclesiastes 3:18-21]++++++++++++++++++++
I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath ; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sonnikke, if you don't have a bible handy then go to biblegateway.com and look it up yourself, because I want an answer.
Clearly, the biblical passage above says that men are like animals. I'm not printing the entire passage to show that it isn't taken out of context because it is too long, but people can go to the link and read it for themselves just like I did.
At the very LEAST, the word of GOD says that animals have spirits!
Sonnikke, why has God forsaken thee? Or why hast thou forsaken Him? Or at the very least why hast thou forsaken fessing up when thou art proven wrong?
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by DanskerMan, posted 02-03-2003 11:55 AM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by DanskerMan, posted 02-03-2003 2:18 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 53 of 101 (31365)
02-04-2003 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by DanskerMan
02-03-2003 2:18 PM


Sonnikke, I want to walk you through this carefully.
You encouraged people to reject ToE and read the Bible which (according to you) says that humans and animals are not the same. Number 1 on your list of differences is that animals don't have spirits.
Then someone quotes a passage from the Bible (Ecclesiastes 3) which refutes that humans and animals are different (other than in the obvious physiological ways).
Your reply was that "you have to read the book in context, what he is actually saying is that without God life is meaningless and we are no different than the animals."
So I went to the Bible and read the entirety of Ecclesiastes and found that there was nothing in the Bible to put that passage "into context" as you said. In fact, it was worse for you because that passage clearly states that animals have spirits.
When I pointed this out, your response was that I shouldn't have read the Bible (written by God or men inspired by God)in order to understand what God's message was. What I was supposed to do was read a FOOTNOTE written by some unknown person and added to one specific edition of the Bible.
This footnote puts Ecclesiastes "into context" by saying the wiseman is erroneous and only exists to show what happens when man's worldly wisdom replaces god's wisdom. Such wisdom is false and leads to ruin, apparently implying that the person who took this man's advice fell into ruin because of it.
Please address the following problems posed with that footnote:
1) Given that men and their "worldly wisdom" (which is all men can offer)are fallable, why are we supposed to trust MEN like the footnote maker to modify or "qualify" God's wisdom (as written in the Bible) using only their own judgements as criteria (remember he points to nothing within the Bible which overtly states that Ecclesiastes is incorrect)?
2) If we posit that some men COULD have enough "worldly wisdom" to offer modifications to the "greatest story ever told", how are people to distinguish which men are right when they offer competing bits of wisdom (how can we tell one of them is not inspired by the devil)??
3) Indeed this particular notemaker seems mistaken... He claims the wiseman speaks of "worldly wisdom" as contrary to "god's wisdom", yet other than the paragraph on animals and a few non-PC attitudes, what statements are made in Ecclesiastes which are not in accordance with current Xtian belief???
4) As it is he doesn't even agree with you. In your first statement regarding this passage you said the wiseman was telling people what life is like without God. But the footnote writer implies the wiseman is simply telling us what life is like (which was my contention), and it is only through inference (if you believe the writer) that we learn how man's wisdom fails compared to God's wisdom. Was your first response wrong and his interpretation takes precedence????
5) Let's assume the Footnote writer's opinion is superior to your own as well as the Bible. Since he instructs us to reject the wiseman's "worldly wisdom", we must necessarily reject the wiseman's conclusion which YOU YOURSELF quoted as something to be followed! Don't you remember his admonition to fear God and keep his commandments? Since this was the wiseman's crowning advice is the footnote maker saying others who followed that advice were ruined?????
6) If you are going to tell me the footnote must be put in context and realize not all of the wisdom in the footnote is true, then how are we supposed to determine anything from the Bible??????
These problems are pretty weighty, but they don't even exist if you take a look at Ecclesiastes without the mental baggage.
In a nutshell, Ecclesiastes is about a wise man recounting his experiences in life to show that nothing in life should be taken too seriously. In the end we shouldn't worry ourselves too much seeking things like justice,riches,pleasure,and knowledge. This is because our inability to fully understand the world, our impotence to correct what we see as wrongs, and our inevitable death render such things meaningless.
As part of this monologue he observes that holding ourselves above animals is one of those meaningless activities. It may be true that God gave us dominion over animals, but that does not make us any different from them. For example we can give a dog dominion over a flock of sheep, does that make the dog less an animal than sheep? We all live and die the same way and our spirits may very well do the same thing after death.
His conclusion is that--- given the meaninglessness of all these pursuits--- the wisest course of action is to be content with one's lot in life (the simple pleasures of food, drink, work, and love) and to follow God's commandments (which is man's sole duty) so that one will be judged good by God.
To be honest, I don't see where any of that is contradictory to Xtian philosophy and sets one on the path to ruin, unless one assumes beforehand that people cannot be animals and that "the Bible doesn't say otherwise." Only then are we required to FOOTNOTE the passage into oblivion.
Think about this carefully Sonnikke. Wouldn't it be easier, and make more sense, to give up the dogma that humans aren't animals (and that animals have no spirits)? That not only makes the Bible more coherent and correct internally, it then finds support in scientific evidence.
Personally, I'd think Xtians would be jumping for joy at this passage and saying "see the bible said man is an animal, and lives through the same natural processes as they do centuries before Darwin did."
After all, it's the same thing Xtians did with Genesis and the bigbang theory. Initially biblical lame-os tried to stamp out astronomy as evidence coming from that corner posed a threat to earth-centered ideas which they felt had to be right or the Bible was undermined.
After enough evidence came in they reluctantly gave up the struggle and the world realized that THEIR FOOTNOTE had been wrong. Of course, once the bigbang theory came along, things didn't look as dark as they had predicted and Biblical sholars could rejoice in pointing out genesis had said it all along.
Do you see the irony here? If the lame-os had WON their fight, Biblical scholars would never have gotten this piece of scientific evidence supporting Biblical scripture (the opening text nonetheless).
Doesn't this look like the same case now?
Couldn't it be that long ago some people got it into their heads that men and animals can't be the same and simply wanted to support their bigotry through scripture? And unfortunately ended up having to denounce a portion of the very scripture from which they were hoping to gain support?
I don't have a telescope but it looks pretty clear from where I'm standing.
Why not accept at least a portion of ToE, and in so doing embrace a greater portion of the Bible AS IT IS WRITTEN, as truth? I think it's called a win-win situation.
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by DanskerMan, posted 02-03-2003 2:18 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by DanskerMan, posted 02-06-2003 12:32 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 55 of 101 (31577)
02-06-2003 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by DanskerMan
02-06-2003 12:32 PM


[QUOTE] by sonnikke+++++
Holmes, I appreciate your long dialogue. You still don't get it though. If you really did read the whole book, you would have seen that the context is that without God life is meaningless and we are like the animals.
+++++
Who says I haven't read the whole book? Who said I never went to church during my childhood, went through confirmation classes, attended a private religious college and took a course specifically in Biblical literature?
Only you.
I do get it and, much like the majority of Xtians who have accepted ToE, understand that people don't have to reject useful scientific inquiry in order to accept the Bible. You (much like Dembski) are clinging to an outmoded and worthless style of thinking, both rejecting knowledge we have gained since the enlightenment and the methods improved during that time, unless they support the "old theories."
Clearly the Bible states that life without God is meaningless (as Ecclesiastes says), and that we are in some manner superior to other animals (as Ecclesiastes indicates), however it never says we are made of and exist in a totally different manner than animals (in fact Ecclesiastes... a part of the Bible... points to the opposite).
You simply refuse to accept the fact that "dominion over", does not necessitate "wholly different from and unconnected to."
[QUOTE] by sonnikke+++++
However, that is looking at it from a worldy human point of view. In the end the writer recognizes that what makes man unique and whole, is to fear God and keep His commandments.
+++++
I agree that he is saying that this is all man can know. Even the WISEST MEN cannot say that men and animals are different, since they live and die in exactly the same way, and so speculation to the contrary is meaningless (though he does posit that they have souls like men... which is contrary to your opinion).
It is due to the meaninglessness of worldly pursuits, including such speculations, that life should be kept simple and that one should follow God's laws.
I don't see how any of that needs to be rejected (or portions "qualified"), unless you want to make the claim that this guy is wrong simply because he says man and animals live the same way and are of the same material nature. To do so is to hinge your whole faith in God on whether man is wholly different from an animal, which is a statement NEVER MADE IN THE BIBLE, ONLY BY MEN.
In fact I find it interesting that the wiseman's wisdom is being rejected (by people like you) based on the latter part of his observation, despite the fact that he starts by saying it is God that tests man repeatedly to show he is the same as animal. He doesn't say "this is all we can see without God", but says outright that God is instructing us to observe this fact.
One would think the Flood story indicates such a lesson. Man's lot was tied in with those of the animals and could die out just the same. Man was made responsible for preserving life, but shown how he is just as vulnerable as they are.
All I see is picking and choosing and circular logic on your part. Prove me wrong.
[QUOTE] by sonnikke+++++
With God in our lives, we realize who we are, children of the Most High, the Creator of the cosmos, Maker of heaven and earth. Made in HIS image (the animals are NOT).
+++++
That is a correct conclusion (assuming a faith in Xtianity).
We were made in his image and have been given dominion over the animals, as God has dominion over us. This was the point of my analogy with the sheepdogs. Just because we trained them to be like us (created in our image as master) and put them in charge of the sheep, does not mean the dogs have become something other than animals.
[QUOTE] by sonnikke+++++
These excerpts from the full document (which I recommend you read) explain it much better.
+++++
And so it continues.
Without addressing the points I made regarding the "worldly wisdom" of men interpreting and modifying the bible, you give me another singularly placed "footnote" by some man to correct the Bible.
Please address the problems I laid out in my previous post. They apply to this reference as well.
In fact, your problems only get worse with this new reference. Did you read your new reference thoroughly? I recommend you do.
This "footnote" has contrary statements to the first "footnote" which happened to contradict your first statement. Whose interpretation am I supposed to believe?????
How can you ever tell someone to "go read the Bible" when in fact everyone has to read all sorts of other authors, who tell you not to believe the bible and believe them instead (and each of them with conflicting arguments)?
I would also like a defense from your own hand, and not another reference, why this situation couldn't be the same as what happened with the Xtian rejection of astronomy, and why rejecting a biblical passage as erroneous (especially one that concludes one should follow God's law) is better than accepting it as true and embracing the fruits of rational scientific inquiry?
In conclusion, I recommend you do something which if you have done before, you have not done well. Read some books on philosophy and logic. How arguments are constructed properly. Read some basics of chemistry, geology, and archeology (why not throw in some biology too). Then construct logical arguments using science based evidence to advance your theory.
In fairness, I DO read the Bible to keep up on my end of the debate. In fact I seem to be way ahead of these knuckleheads you reference, since they can't even keep their interpretations straight (except to conclude you should reject the wiseman's "worldly wisdom" in Ecclesiastes).
holmes
{Chopped down lines of +'s a bit, to narrow page width - AM}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-07-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by DanskerMan, posted 02-06-2003 12:32 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by DanskerMan, posted 02-07-2003 12:02 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 61 of 101 (31669)
02-07-2003 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by DanskerMan
02-07-2003 12:02 AM


[QUOTE] by sonnikke++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I didn't say you didn't. It's sad that (assuming you once had faith) you "lost" your faith....unless of course you are going to tell me that you are now a theistic evolutionist. Either way, you sound to me like you are still very close to not being the typical evolutionist.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You said "if" I had read the whole book. I was pointing out through sarcasm that I'm quite familiar with it, from many sources in my life. I am equally familiar with modern science and philosophy, which evidently you are not.
Thank you... I am not the typical anything.
[QUOTE]by sonnikke++++++++++++++++++++++
You are clearly misunderstanding me, no one is telling you not to believe the bible. The bible is inspired by God, inerrant. If you read ecclesiastes and don't come away with the fact that everything is meaningless WITHOUT God, then you didn't understand it (or chose not to understand it). The commentaries were suggested to complement the reading for those who didn't understand.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No, I understand you clearly. You refuse to understand me, which your refusal to answer my list of problems proves.
Here's one more shot.
You are telling me: anyone who reads Ecclesiastes and does not interpret the passage as you and these two other people say (and I'm sure there are more than those), then they are wrong. You support this using the circular method of referencing your own interpretation. Nothing is quoted from within the Bible to make your case explicitly.
I am telling you: people do read Ecclesiastes and do not interpret it the same way. Perhaps their number is more than yours. Who then is right? How do you determine which of any interpretation is right?
I added weight to this argument by pointing out that while all three of you have come to the same conclusion of rejecting the paragraph regarding animals, none of you have agreed on why that is so. Each of you have a totally different interpretation of whether the wiseman is saying something wise, or saying something foolish and you gain wisdom by ignoring him. Your contrary interpretations, and lack of support from sources inside the bible, make it look like you have started with a conclusion and sought what you needed (or made interpretations) to support that conclusion.
Along these lines, you have not addressed the fact that the wiseman was saying that it was God who tested man to show his similarity to the animals, and not that this is all man can know. This cancels two of the interpretations.
I have asked if it would make more sense to embrace something in the bible as truth, since it is NOT explicitly refuted by other biblical sources, or put into context by other passages, if in doing so it also coincided with what man is finding through scientific inquiry?
[QUOTE] by sonnikke+++++++++++++++++++++
Christian rejection of astronomy??? Have you lost your mind?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No, my memory is still intact. I remember Galileo quite well. Have you heard of Galileo? Do you know what heliocentric theory is and how the church tried to crush it to protect it's earth-centered dogma?
[QUOTE] by sonnikke++++++++++++++++++++++++
Nobody's rejecting ecclesiastes, it is part of God's inspired word, to show us how futile MAN's thinking is.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is incorrect. When read in context, or along with other passages in the Bible, it is not apparent that Ecclesiastes is to be adulterated into an example of man's futility in thinking. Most of it is quoted, even in church, as examples of wise thoughts.
You yourself quoted part of it, which according to one of your references, that conclusion should have been ignored as well.
However, I should note I am getting a clear picture on how Ecclesiastes can prove the futility of man's thinking.
[QUOTE] by sonnikke++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A question for you in closing, and this is actually for all evo's...I've always wanted to know what you will say that day, when you stand before Christ at the judgement seat, and you realize that you were wrong, but now it's too late. What will you say?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If this were to happen, then I would say with confidence he should have made his Bible more clear and its adherents more logical, or designed man so that all of his thoughts and observations would not be futile.
But turn about is fair play.
What would you say if God turns out to be true and you are kneeling before God and he asks why you believed false men instead of interpreting his message yourself. Why did you not use the logic and senses he gave you to observe the truth he set out for you in the world rather than restricting yourself to worshipping faulty translations and interpretations of a book (idolatry). If he designed you with eyes and a brain, was it not for you to see the truth in the world? When men came to you with what they had seen and how that could be reflected in the Bible, why did you call them names and accuse them of saying and doing things that they did not do (bearing false witness)?
My thoughts are, I'd get off lighter.
Then again, what happens if you die and it turns out the Polynesian Cargo cults had it right all along? What a hoot that would be.
BTW, after this thread do not bother starting another on what a miracle of design, and so proof of design, man's senses and brain are. You have stated here quite clearly that man's senses are poorly designed and inadequate for anything. What a small, petty book-bound God you must worship to have done that to man.
holmes
"I don't believe you/ you have the whole damn thing all wrong/ He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays"
---Jethro Tull---

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by DanskerMan, posted 02-07-2003 12:02 AM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Joe Meert, posted 02-07-2003 2:56 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 64 by DanskerMan, posted 02-07-2003 5:16 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 65 of 101 (31734)
02-08-2003 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by DanskerMan
02-07-2003 5:16 PM


Sonnikke, I answered your posts and hoped to get an answer to my questions. You have done nothing to answer my questions at all.
In another thread where you made a valid point (check the circular logic thread) I admitted you had a point!
I am not putting up smokescreens. I am trying to dicuss. You resist all discussion when you cannot answer my questions.
How about simply admitting when I am right?
I am different than "evos" as you call them. But if you thought that meant I was going to be a convert, then you are wrong.
And as far as telling you to stop posting, I am simply saying don't post new evidence until you are done with the first topic, or in the case of minds and senses not at all since you just said they were imperfect.
By all means please present evidence for ID through IC. As a person following ID very closely and wanting to see some good evidence from that quarter, it is disappointing to see you do exactly what Wells, Dembski, Johnson, and Behe accuse the "evos" of doing.
That is my major problem with your posts. I see NO support for ID theory coming from you.
Also, please let me know what "smokescreen" I have used anywhere. I have provided legitimate questions and answers to your questions.
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by DanskerMan, posted 02-07-2003 5:16 PM DanskerMan has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 66 of 101 (31752)
02-08-2003 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by DanskerMan
02-07-2003 5:16 PM


Here's an olive branch sonnikke.
I admit that I have been a little sarcasm heavy.
While it was in response to statements like your initial accusation that my opinions lead to genocide, and your parting insult regarding what happens if I end up before God, that is really no excuse. It does not help discussion, and I apologize, and will try to avoid that in the future.
That said, I know I have laid out some very good points that you have been refusing to address. But let me restate them in a way that makes it more obvious.
First of all your interpretation of the Bible (as well as those you just cited) are completely different than the interpretation I was given by my pastor. There is no question about it.
This raises the question of who do you believe when it comes to interpretations, because there are many. Some claim that you use logic and truths you find in the world to decide between interpretations, others say you must hinge it on strictly Biblical or miraculous evidence.
My pastor believed there was a problem in relying strictly on "Biblical" and miraculous evidence --- and I agree--- as it is bound to man's fallability and shortsightedness (and common mythmaking and idolization) just as much and perhaps more so (due to man's imagination) than simply trusting in the reality of this world.
Along those lines, my pastor addressed the topic of people trusting only in a common conception of Godly wisdom and works (ie, the miraculous), with the following story.:
======================
A man's boat sank in the middle of the ocean. He went under for the first time and realized his life was at an end unless something happened quick, and he prayed for God to save him. He was a devout man and sure that he would be saved.
When he came up there was another boat. The men on board said for him to come on board. He said no because he had prayed to God and God was going to save him.
He went down a second time and came up again to see a helicopter.
The men in the helicopter yelled to him and said they could save him. He said no, because he had prayed to God and God was going to save him.
He went down a third time and did not come back up.
He found himself before God and asked "why didn't you save me?"
God answered, "But I sent you a boat and a helicopter."
=====================
Obviously Xtian scientists would not agree with this story. But that is their interpretation, which is my point.
For me I see a very real parallel between this and science. Only this time the man is asking why didn't God save man from ignorance (or make the truth more obvious), and he replies "But I gave you eyes and a brain and stable laws for how the Universe works."
From my vantage point, you seem to be holding out for a miraculous interpretation of reality, rather than realizing that this may be it. Why couldn't this world, as we discover it to work, be miraculous enough?
The Bible is merely a book, or at the very least that copy you are looking at is only a mere book. Much as Dembski points out, copies only get worse with time. What version (what hundredth or thousandth of a copy) of that book are you looking at?
Who can say what men have altered it or incorrectly interpreted it for their own purposes (even if with good intentions)?
Your last cited reference ended by pointing out a faulty translation.
Wouldn't God be smarter than that and put the truth in this world, rather than binding it (and the hopes of mankind) in one book alone, so that his truth would be revealed whether the book disappeared or was altered beyond recognition?
Wouldn't it makes sense that he'd make man so he'd be able to use his senses to check the veracity of differing interpretations of the book for himself?
The fact is, a known misinterpretation has occured in the past. Galileo is the perfect example (and the pope just recently apologized for that error). Even Demsbki has written that science is useful to cross check Biblical interpretation, citing the error with Galileo as that example, and the bigbang as a reinforcement not to make such a mistake in the future.
Now my question to Dembski, and you, is why does that case not stand for this one too?
I am not seeing a clear distinction here at all, and similar bonuses to removing that bias.
Does this make more sense?
BTW... I am not trying to promote Dembski's work by referencing him. His logic is horribly circular and therefore self-serving. In fact, he used a bit of circular logic to break out of the conclusion he did not want (that his argument regarding astronomy fits the case of evo), despite the fact that Behe (who uses Demski's IC theory) draws the conclusion that evo did happen.
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by DanskerMan, posted 02-07-2003 5:16 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by DanskerMan, posted 02-10-2003 12:37 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 70 of 101 (31903)
02-10-2003 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by DanskerMan
02-10-2003 12:37 AM


[QUOTE] by sonnikke+++++++++++++++++++++++
My interpretation of the bible is not hinging on miraculous. I take it on its word. Therefore if God said He created the cosmos and man, then I have no reason to doubt that.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Without getting into issues of trusting the "literal wording" found in the Bible (which will be addressed later), I need to point out that your interpretation does hinge on the miraculous... not in whether a God created the Cosmos and Man, but in HOW he created the cosmos and man.
Scientists can come to the conclusion that a God created things, and many do. It's simple a question of how he created these things, and current scientific evidence does not fit with traditional (ie, miraculous)interpretations of Biblical creation.
[QUOTE] by sonnikke+++++++++++++++++++++++
The story you presented is one I have heard before, and one that I agree with. If anything, it shows that we may not always get the answer the way we want it, because God's ways are higher than our ways.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Exactly. And while we may want the answer to be "as it is written in the Bible", and further we may want the "as it is written" part to be the interpretation we are used to, it may just be that the answer is not that way at all.
What's wonderful about science, when it is done well, is that it removes that "getting the answer we want" problem from the process of finding answers. While the devout man may say "this is a boat and I expected a sunbeam to save me", the scientist would say here is a boat and it will save me. If he has faith in God then he may understand the boat as being God's answer to his prayer to be saved (and there is no way in hell science could disprove that understanding).
by sonnikke++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is another point I wish to illuminate. Repeatedly you have mentioned ID in relation to IC, however, I never made the assertion that my design examples were or were not in accordance with IC.
It is my contention that regardless of IC, the complexity and functionality were in and of themselves, at the very least, an inference of design, based on logical conclusions from everyday life, where we infer design in many observed instances.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My mistake. I was assuming that the ID forum was about ID Theory in specific, and not about the universe being intelligently designed in general. These are two totally different topics, and I am only interested in the first.
The reason for my specific interest is that IC is pretty much the closest thing to "evidence" from which one can infer design. Behe and Dembski know this and that is why they have hung their entire ID theory on it.
In fact, your statement "where we infer design" is based on IC, or at least a large part of it (specified complexity). How can we say something we have found is designed? Dembski and Behe state that we determine this based on its level of specified complexity. Any other methods of inference are weak and, even if true, bound by a circular logic that will give one just as many false positives. Dembski (in one of his few moments of lucidity, though not clarity) does a run through on this very point.
[QUOTE] by sonnikke+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is obviously a debate forum, and as such, anything anyone says is going to be controverted by the opposing side.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I seriously hope this is not true. If anything (meaning everything) people say will simply be controverted by the opposing side then there is no point to any of this discussion. As it stands, in my own topic on circular logic I agreed with you that homology had been used incorrectly. Check it out.
I came to this site with the belief (faith?) that most are interested in a fair review of evidence and logic to better understand all points of view, and ultimately change their own view if anything is found lacking. I've been caught twice on minor issues, and you yourself pointed out a very real logic problem used by some evo scientists.
[QUOTE] by sonnikke++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That said, I mentioned that I take God's word for what it says, and I do. The obvious response is that "science" doesn't agree with the age, for instance. And, within the christian community this is hotly debated.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Before we get into the meat of your criticism of science, I simply want to point out the reason it is hotly debated in the Xtian community is because it is only contradictory with certain interpretations of the Bible (in this particular case the literal reading of Genesis, and the flood).
I have a problem with literalists in that very very few people take everything in the Bible literally... most notably the Xtian leaders who tell others to take Genesis literally. If there is "wiggle room" for parables, and passing things off as correct for people in that day and region (but not today and in the US), then why not Genesis? Why not the flood?
[QUOTE] by sonnikke+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have been on both sides of the fence, but when I dug deeper it became clear to me that an old world just doesn't fit with the evidence out there. That is just one example. My point is (whether it's clear or not, I don't know) that there's a conflict of interest with perhaps all parties involved. Evolutionary science depends on old ages, uniformitarionism, and arguably, a God-less universe. Therefore, any evidence "science" gathers that isn't in line with this paradigm, must get discarded or overlooked.
So you can't tell me to "open my eyes to the fruits of science" (sorry I can't find your exact quote) because in a lot of areas in science, the bias towards to current paradigm does not allow for veracious investigation.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is incorrect. Science is not a particular belief of any kind. It does not require evolution or an old earth, and it certainly does not require a Godless universe.
Science itself is merely a process to discover how things work, and creates models about the world, given these discoveries.
The worst that can be said (from a Xtian standpoint) is that science ---as a process--- excludes the supernatural from explanations until they are necessary, and currently the supernatural has not been necessary to any model.
This does not mean that science has said supernatural beings or events have not occured, simply that we have no solid evidence for them. This could change (as ID theorists argue) with new evidence, and no current model should be treated as dogma which exempts new evidence which might overturn it.
Relativity is just one example of a conflicting theory (model) which rose to prominence due to gathering evidence. Continental drift is another and perhaps more important to the discussion at hand. Change came to the scientific community whether individual scientists wanted it or not. Their "wants" were removed via the process and replaced by "evidence".
Their wants could not force the world to discard or overlook the evidence.
Granted the discarding and overlooking of evidence (in support of a current paradigm) DOES happen on small scales of time and place. Unfortunately, that is part of the human condition in all endeavors. It is in recognition of this problem, that scientists since the enlightenment have made the process much more rigoruous. In the scientific world of today, discarding and overlooking evidence to support a current theory is called BAD SCIENCE.
Honest debate is supposed to take care of such problems, and ultimately (IMHO) it does. Even Einstein had to fess up that he was human and made some of these errors.
As far as your problems about the current scientific model for the age of the earth... I just do not know what evidence you have for a young earth. I see debates about problems in scientific methods which may lend credence to miscalculations, but nothing positive to advance a young earth.
If there was some real solid evidence, like say we have concrete proof that radioactive decay fluctuates, I'd be the first person on board saying our estimates of the age of the earth cannot be correct. I wouldn't "lose my faith" in science if that happened. And most of the scientific community would jump on board with me.
But this simply is not the case right now, and it is doubtful this will happen. Actually I hope it won't as calculations with regards to nuclear weapons, power plants, waste, and even certain cancer screenings and treatments rely on stable decay rates.
[QUOTE] by sonnikke++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It therefore comes down to one thing, in ALL our lives, and that is faith. We must all decide on which side of the fence we want to be. Because, no one can say for 100% certainty that they have all the facts, or that they know everything. The evidence that two scientists examine, can usually fit two different paradigms, depending on what assumptions you begin with.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I agree... in part. Belief in ultimate causes and how things work "behind the scenes" is a matter of faith for everyone, including the atheist. The only person unclouded by faith is the true agnostic, and there are not many of those.
But you mischaracterize science and scientists when you make statements suggesting that it (or they) say they know anything 100%, or have 100% of the facts. There are many paradigms which scientists investigate, much more than two. And woe unto any scientist which has a paradigm which includes God or Gods.
Science is about making statements regarding the world we interact with directly, or indirectly (if it still has measurable effects). Religion is beyond the scope of science and except for Dembski and Co trying to pull it into science, no one else is trying (or no one noteworthy). In REAL science, you better not begin with ANY assumptions.
It is true that science allows people without a faith in religion to go on not having a faith, because up till now it has been unnecessary to include religion in any model, but that says nothing about science. It merely means that God (or Gods) are not interacting with the Universe via any method obvious to us at this point in time (if indeed they are at all).
Any scientist making a greater claim than that, is simply making a statement of personal faith (or philosophy). Don't take it out on science, just because of a few bad apples.
[QUOTE] by sonnikke+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have often said that evolutionists possess much greater faith than the creationist. Because you believe in spite of the unfathomable odds, and the evidence you see.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You were mistaken in saying this. I hope my explanation so far has made this clear, and that you don't say such things in the future. Mischaracterization is purely add hominem and does not help discussions at all.
Actually, let me reinforce why this is a mischaracterization, so you understand why this isn't just ad hominem on my part.
Evolution is simply the best model science has to explain the physical evidence at hand. While one may be a scientist who accepts evolutionary theory as the best model right now, the term "evolutionist" is meaningless. More evidence will certainly change the nature of the current "evolutionary model" as it already has since the days of Darwin.
Gould and Eldredge's punctuated equilibrium has removed much of the idea that long times are needed for changes to occur within/between species. Lynn Margulis' work is removing the idea that mutations are the sole or primary methods for change. In fact, Margulis has called for an altering of our conception of what a specie is, and under what conditions speciation can occur.
The "unfathomable odds" which get thrown around as reasons to dismiss scientific theories, are generated by science itself. So I'm not sure how they can be used, except perhaps as a test of whether we have the most accurate explanation yet. Since the odds are long, and life is evident, we probably don't have the most accurate explanation (of mechanisms) yet.
I should mention, odds have very little to do with evolution outside of IC issues within specific biochemical systems. Long odds have more to do with abiogenesis which is wholly separate from evolution (as Crick... the discoverer of DNA... makes clear).
While specific known mechanisms result in a calculation of long odds (for abiogensis), scientists currently believe in a general theory of evolution (which is not contigent on those known mechanisms, especially for abiogenesis)BECAUSE OF the evidence they see, not in spite of it.
The fact that evolutionary theory has changed with increases in evidence attests to this truth.
holmes
{Shortened another example of overly long lines of plus symbols - Adminnemooseus}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-14-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by DanskerMan, posted 02-10-2003 12:37 AM DanskerMan has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 73 of 101 (32174)
02-13-2003 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by DanskerMan
02-13-2003 12:52 AM


Thank you thank you thank you sonnikke.
You just said EVERYTHING I have been saying to you all along.
Now please explain how this is not the case regarding evolution, especially in light of what you said about how the problems stemmed from embracing Greek ideology over Biblical truth (which by the way I totally and completely agree with... see I don't always contradict!).
Dembski has pointed repeatedly to the Greeks (namely Plato) as being the proper conduit of interpretation of scripture and science.
Please think about this carefully, even reread some Dembski. His faults are clearly the same as the ones you just outlined.
I am only saying, hey why not rethink this position too?
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by DanskerMan, posted 02-13-2003 12:52 AM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by DanskerMan, posted 02-20-2003 9:46 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 78 of 101 (32734)
02-20-2003 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by DanskerMan
02-20-2003 9:46 AM


quote:
The answer to that is in that same article, today Evolutionism has become the "greek ideology", and dominates the system, see below:
Unfortunately that is not the answer. The article is talking about a role reversal where post greek thought (enlightenment era naturalism) is now in the persecuting role that the church (using greek thought)once held.
This does not mean that evos have accepted greek thought, and does not excuse continued use of greek thought in interpreting scripture (which is what Dembski is doing and what was being criticized originally).
IOW the article addresses a completely different issue. You must still address the problem of retaining greek interpretations of scripture.
quote:
Incidentally, I'm curious about your motives behind studying IC and ID, you seem to have read alot of Demski and Behe, what is your goal?
This is a very long story. I could use Dembski, Wells, and Behe's common answer to your question... motive doesn't matter... but unlike them I do feel it is a fair question.
Wow, actually the more I think about it, the history is huge. The shortest answer is this: In preparation for two different documentaries (one was basic cosmological research) I accidentally stumbled upon a Xtian webring devoted to proving YE theories. As a philosopher-scientist and researcher I was hooked (I give every theory a try).
ID theory, which interestingly enough is anti-YE and its proponents state that creationists hate them, ended up being the only theory to have some marginal scientific validity. Wells does an excellent job of finding bad science done in the name of evo, and Behe raises some interesting questions.
Unfortunately Wells does not realize his criticisms are not anti-evo, and that criticisms do not support ID theory, and Behe makes some important logical missteps (I blame Dembski's guidance) as well as some premature claims to knowledge.
I think much of ID theory and Behe's work will become important in future forensics work as genetic engineering becomes prevalent... and not so much about learning about the past.
Enough said for now.
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by DanskerMan, posted 02-20-2003 9:46 AM DanskerMan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by PaulK, posted 02-20-2003 2:35 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 80 of 101 (32784)
02-20-2003 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by PaulK
02-20-2003 2:35 PM


Grrrrrr... I wrote a nice long reply and my computer ate it as I posted.
Let's just say that with a few differences I agree with your overall assessment... only I put Dembski dead last and I think Wells does provide some useful examples of bad scientific and education practices (unfortunately some of it is his own writing).
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by PaulK, posted 02-20-2003 2:35 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by John, posted 02-21-2003 8:18 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 85 of 101 (32820)
02-21-2003 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by DanskerMan
02-21-2003 11:47 AM


quote:
Could it be that believing in evolution leads a person to everlasting judgement in Hell, and thus the creationist, whose purpose it is to lead people to Christ, is doing everything they can to prevent more people from being misled by the greatest lie ever told?
YES, I think so!
Too bad the church had this same attitude when punishing Galileo because they decided to stick with Greek-style interpretations of scripture. They were wrong, and it turns out believing in heliocentism would not lead anyone to hellfire.
Now with that same zeal, creationists are sticking with a Greek-style interpretation of scripture regarding life. Same ends, same method, just as wrong as before.
Or are you going to provide some evidence that this is not the case? I have shown that your last response did not address this matter at all.
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by DanskerMan, posted 02-21-2003 11:47 AM DanskerMan has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024