|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 141 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Apr-29-10
 | | OhioChessFan: <YouRang: So, lets not be bothered about whether an explanation sounds silly or not. In fact, we can safely assume that to some degree, even the true explanation *will* sound silly.> I agree with this statement. So does the Bible.
Acts 17:22-23 Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: Later in the same speech:
Acts 17:31-32 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead." And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, "We will hear you again on this [matter]." |
|
| Apr-29-10 | | whatthefat: <OCF: Are you affirming that the only evidence science claims for the evolutionary process is what they find in carefully controlled experiments?> Yes, by definition. Nothing else can be used to support or undermine a scientific theory. |
|
| Apr-29-10 | | playground player: <Whatthefat> What "carefully controlled experiments" support the myth of Evolution? <You Rang> Live and let live works best when it applies to both sides, not just one. Christians in this culture are supposed to shut up and smile while secularists claim exclusive rights to the public sector, including the right to mock and vilify us in the media at every opportunity, and the right to take our taxes and use them to finance a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Christian public education system. Some of us are getting kind of testy about things like that. Just like secularists would be, if the politics changed and fundamentalist Christians owned the media and the schools and used them to bash non-Christians. Personally, I really don't believe that's what God wants us to do: I don't even believe it would be right to do. But day after day, when it's done to us, it wears kind of thin. Oh, well--Jesus warned us. Universal approval of our position would mean we were doing something wrong. I wouldn't dream of interfering with anyone's attempt to pursue a naturalistic explanation of reality. Nothing will come of it. But boy do they get crazy whenever anybody tries to introduce "Intelligent Design theory" into the schools! (No, I am not an ID guy--I am a creationist.) |
|
| Apr-29-10 | | whatthefat: <playground player: <Whatthefat> What "carefully controlled experiments" support the myth of Evolution?> If you even need to ask that question, then you're not really in a position to be casting judgment upon it, are you? |
|
Apr-29-10
| | OhioChessFan: <Playground: What "carefully controlled experiments" support the myth of Evolution?> Beat me to it. I'll pursue this false claim:
<Yes, by definition. Nothing else can be used to support or undermine a scientific theory.> |
|
| Apr-29-10 | | YouRang: <OhioChessFan>
<<YouRang: ...do you think science is biased for refusing to accept miraculous explanations?>OCF: Yes.>
Hmmm, this wasn't the answer I was expecting, because earlier we had this exchange: <Apr-04-10 OhioChessFan: <YouRang: Because you are the one who seems to think that science is biased for refusing to accept miraculous explanations.>OCF: I don't think that, nor have I claimed or even implied it.> This strikes me as an inconsistency on your part. |
|
Apr-29-10
| | OhioChessFan: It appears inconsistent because I misread it. I will clear that up by saying I believe science is biased for refusing to consider miraculous explanations. If you ask twice more in the future with "consider" once and "accept" once, I just might do the same thing again. |
|
Apr-29-10
| | OhioChessFan: A scientist's claims about the evidence for Darwinian evolution. From this link:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/12/ev... My recent book, Why Evolution Is True, gives 230 pages of evidence for evolution--evidence from many areas of biology, including the fossil record, anatomy, biogeography and molecular biology. My main problem in writing the book was not deciding what to present, but what to leave out; I could easily have made it three times longer without even beginning to exhaust the data. There is so much evidence <and so many kinds of evidence> that one would have to be either willfully ignorant or blinded by faith to think otherwise. That's one. I can find 100 more such claims. You are oblivious, <whatthefat> to what the world of science claims as evidence for Darwinian evolution. Another claim from the same site:
The tenets of evolutionary theory are simple: Life evolved, largely under the influence of natural selection; this evolution took a rather long time; and species alive and dead can be organized on the basis of shared similarities into a tree whose branching pattern implies that every pair of living species has a common ancestor. <Among genuine scientists, there is not the slightest doubt about the truth of these ideas.> Again, I can find 100 more claims. You are oblivious, <YouRang> to what the world of science has to say about your alleged room for doubt on this matter. |
|
| Apr-29-10 | | whatthefat: <My recent book, Why Evolution Is True, gives 230 pages of evidence for evolution--evidence from many areas of biology, including the fossil record, anatomy, biogeography and molecular biology.> Yes, fossil studies, anatomical studies, molecular and genetic studies all of course require carefully controlled experiments, which are clearly reproducible by other scientists. What is your point? <Another claim from the same site:The tenets of evolutionary theory are simple: Life evolved, largely under the influence of natural selection; this evolution took a rather long time; and species alive and dead can be organized on the basis of shared similarities into a tree whose branching pattern implies that every pair of living species has a common ancestor.> This is totally orthogonal to our discussion. It is a description of the theory; it says nothing about evidence for or against. <That's one. I can find 100 more such claims. You are oblivious, <whatthefat> to what the world of science claims as evidence for Darwinian evolution. > Let's be clear about this:
I have taken the time to actually read some of the evolutionary literature and have developed an understanding of the basic principles of science. You have very clearly done neither, and base all your opinions on these kind of links. You need to get a proper education in science. |
|
Apr-29-10
 | | chancho: I believe in a God. No doubt in my mind. As described by the Bible though? The way I see it, telling ancient primitive man how the world was made would have been waste of time, hence some of the stories. I don't buy the idea that the whole of creation was an accident and that it all happened on it's own. When you think about the complexities of DNA and it's genetic instructions for all variety of lifeforms... How could that be an accident? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped... |
|
Apr-29-10
| | OhioChessFan: <chancho: I believe in a God. No doubt in my mind. As described by the Bible though? The way I see it, telling ancient primitive man how the world was made would have been waste of time, hence some of the stories.> I think there is some validity to that. I would suggest conversely that a God capable of creation is capable of explaining it to man. <I don't buy the idea that the whole of creation was an accident and that it all happened on it's own. When you think about the complexities of DNA and it's genetic instructions for all variety of lifeforms... How could that be an accident? > I think the orderliness of creation speaks to a creator. |
|
| Apr-29-10 | | YouRang: <OhioChessFan><If you ask twice more in the future with "consider" once and "accept" once, I just might do the same thing again.> I said "accept" both times.
I have been under the impression for some time that you have implied that you hold a certain position at one time, but later when that position is challenged, you deny it so that you can quickly dismiss the challenge rather than have to defend against it. This is a pretty clear example of that, IMO. |
|
| Apr-29-10 | | NakoSonorense: <When you think about the complexities of DNA and it's genetic instructions for all variety of lifeforms... How could that be an accident?> You seem to be forgetting (or ignoring) that God would have to be millions of times more complex than DNA itself. Yet, it is perfectly okay to give him a free pass, even though his existence is infinitely less likely than DNA arising from an accident. |
|
| Apr-29-10 | | YouRang: We recently had this dialog regarding your expectation of scientists: <OCF: As for the realm of science, I expect them to consider the possibility the Bible is accurate.<<YouRang: What exactly must scientists do to satisfy you that they *have* considered this account of creation?>OCF: Acknowledge the same evidence they use to affirm evolutionary theory could also be used to affirm the Creation model.> > This raises the following points:
~~~
FIRST POINT: You've said on a few occasions that you want scientists to 'consider' the account of creation. Examples: <Apr-08-10 <YouRang: Above all, you seem to think it is reasonable to expect scientists to accept not only that the stated testimony of these witnesses is credible, but also that your interpretation of their 'implied' testimony (that which they didn't see or state) is also credible. >OCF: No, but I'd be happy if they gave it some consideration, and at a bare minimum wouldn't run as far as possible from it.> <Apr-08-10 YouRang: <But I do have a problem with your expectations that science should respect the accounts of the Bible.>OCF: I think they should consider them. They don't do that.> <Apr-10-10 OCF: I think the scientists should give some creedence to the Bible witnesses.> Now it seems that in truth, you want much more than mere consideration: - You also insist that scientists *render a favorable verdict* which states that the creation model fits the observed evidence as well as the evolution theory. - You also insist that scientists 'suspend' their policy of refusing to consider miraculous explanations (since agree that science [wrongly, in your view] doesn't consider miraculous explanations AND you agree that the creation model is miraculous). So taking it that you want this favorable verdict from scientists, I'll move on to the next point... ~~~
SECOND POINT: I would like you to propose how scientists should arrive at that verdict. The evolution theory makes certain predictions that scientists can test, and so far, those predictions have affirmed the theory. What predictions does the creation model make by which scientists could test and affirm that model? If there are none, how can scientists claim that it works as well as evolution? Or are you proposing that scientists leave the realm of science in order to produce the verdict that you expect them to render? ~~~
THIRD POINT: Perhaps you could provide some motivation for *why* scientists should consider the miraculous creation model. - In what ways would it advance their understanding of nature? - Why should scientists believe that their current methods are unsuccessful? |
|
| Apr-29-10 | | cormier: I have found David, son of Jesse, a man after my own heart;
he will carry out my every wish.
From this man’s descendants God, according to his promise,
has brought to Israel a savior, Jesus.
John heralded his coming by proclaiming a baptism of repentance
to all the people of Israel;
and as John was completing his course, he would say,
‘What do you suppose that I am? I am not he.
Behold, one is coming after me;
I am not worthy to unfasten the sandals of his feet.’ |
|
| Apr-29-10 | | cormier: When Jesus had washed the disciples’ feet, he said to them:
“Amen, amen, I say to you, no slave is greater than his master
nor any messenger greater than the one who sent him.
If you understand this, blessed are you if you do it. |
|
| Apr-29-10 | | NakoSonorense: Thanks for your last post, <cormier>. <OCF> <<Nako> here's my take on the psychological aspect of belief/disbelief in God/the Bible. To believe in God is far different than to believe/disbelieve in unicorns or electricity or UFO's or the Pythagorean theorem or the Loch Ness Monster or most other things. To believe in God carries a moral aspect. That is, to admit one believes in God carries a concomitant responsibility to act on that belief. I think a large number of people don't believe because they understand the moral aspect. They know what the Bible says, and they know their chosen lifestyle doesn't measure up. Thereupon cognitive dissonance sets in, and they must either change their life, or disbelieve God/the Bible. I recognize that can't be quantified or objectively proven, but I think it is by far the most prevalent reason for unbelief.> Well, your take is wrong. You are assuming that morals are derived exclusively from the Bible. Not just that, you are saying that those who don’t believe in God/the Bible don't measure up and therefore are morally inferior to those who do believe. You don't need to look further than <cormier>'s post (where Jesus clearly condones slavery) to show how ridiculous this is. Is this the moral high ground that the Bible teaches? |
|
Apr-29-10
| | chancho: <Nako> I think Jesus was saying that a lesser person should merit the same kind of treatment that a Master receives. He was portraying the Master (himself )cleaning the feet of his slaves (disciples) I don't think he was condoning slavery. The bible has been translated to such an extent, that the original meaning might have been lost. |
|
| Apr-29-10 | | NakoSonorense: <chancho> As you may know, "condone" means to overlook, or disregard something bad. That is what Jesus is doing when he says "no slave is greater than his master". But even if you were right in this case, there are other instances in the Bible where slavery is condoned. This is not the only example. |
|
| Apr-29-10 | | cormier: I am not speaking of all of you.
I know those whom I have chosen.
But so that the Scripture might be fulfilled,
The one who ate my food has raised his heel against me.
From now on I am telling you before it happens,
so that when it happens you may believe that I AM.
Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send
receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.” |
|
Apr-29-10
| | chancho: <Nako> True, there are other instances in the Bible of slavery being condoned. That was the world as it was 2,000 years ago.
Don't you find it strange though that he would go to the trouble of wiping the feet of his disciples (those lesser than him) as an example at a time when doing such a thing was mostly unheard of? Anyway, I'm not trying to convince anyone, just expressing my opinion.
My 22 year daughter is an atheist, and I've had these kind of discussions with her. I know how they can get. :-) |
|
| Apr-29-10 | | NakoSonorense: <chancho> Well, yes. Slavery was the norm 2,000 years ago and and I understand that the Bible does not condemn it. But this is the 21st Century and people still regard the Bible as the ultimate source of morality. We can do much better than that. Is this the daughter that got married recently? I think you said something like that not long ago. Hmm, she's an atheist? Surely you must've raised her wrong! =) |
|
Apr-29-10
| | OhioChessFan: <YouRang: What predictions does the creation model make by which scientists could test and affirm that model? > An explosion of fossils in the archaeological record. |
|
| Apr-29-10 | | whatthefat: <OCF: An explosion of fossils in the archaeological record.> What do you mean by that? Do you mean there is a certain point in time at which a whole bunch appear? If so, how are you dating the fossils? |
|
Apr-29-10
| | OhioChessFan: <In what ways would it advance their understanding of nature? > They could quit wasting time trying to produce life from nonlife in a laboratory setting. They could quit positing outlandish claims of human behavior predicated on trillions of years of evolutionary processes. I'm not sure what you want here, though it strikes me as something "Are they really hurting anybody?" <Why should scientists believe that their current methods are unsuccessful?> The fossil record is a huge problem. Their inability to produce life from nonlife in an organized laboratory setting, never mind observe it in nature. The fact that human recorded history is only a few thousand years old. The fact the oldest observed living organisms are only a few thousand years old. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 141 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
rreusser/...
