Fundamentalism and Intellectualism

Catherineanne · #51 2nd July 2009, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by corvus_corax

From The Straight Dope

You heard right, more or less: The Mayflower colonists decided to settle at Plymouth because they were running low on beer.

They leave Southampton, travel across the Atlantic and land at Plymouth.

What are the chances of that?

It reminds me of William the Bastard fighting King Harold at a place called, would you believe, Battle.

Not to mention the Duke of Wellington fighting Napolean at a village in the middle of nowhere, which just happened to be named after his favourite railway station.

My daughter just reminded me of another one. Tobias Furneaux sailed right round the world, only to land at the Furneaux Islands.

And they say there is no God.

Catherineanne · #52 2nd July 2009, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by Bombila

Nature generally demands the addition of something like fruit and something like yeast to water before any wine can appear.

The gospels are silent about the addition of fruit and a fermenting agent. They don't say it was there, and they don't say it wasn't.

What they say is that several containers were filled with water, and then fine wine was poured out of them.

As with Genesis, we are told the beginning and the end, but some of the bits in the middle are not so clear. However, whatever the process, it is not what I would call supernatural. Supernatural is breaking the laws of nature, not just speeding them up a bit.

Others may think differently, of course. That is up to them.

Hentenza · #53 2nd July 2009, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by Hespera

Ok then prove there is no bigfoot. You know what I meant.

As for what you said about theories....

Theories are based on data, and subject to falsification.

The problem for creationism to even qualify as a theory is that it
a) has not data
b) is magic-based and as such not subject to falsification.

If you want to use the reasonable doubt model, i have reasonable doubts about creationism since it has no data to confirm it. Evolution has a real edge there!

I also doubt the existence of other things for which there is no evidence and no way to detect their existence.

Can you cite a single theory of origins that is falsifiable?

Again, evolution does not posit origins.

Hentenza · #54 2nd July 2009, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by Hespera

And back at you.... I'd say that those who do accept the supernatural, automatically or otherwise, on the basis of no evidence whatever are not being detectably intellectual to any degree at all.

Who says there is no evidence? I see plenty of evidence for a creator in nature.

Bombila · #55 2nd July 2009, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by Catherineanne

The gospels are silent about the addition of fruit and a fermenting agent. They don't say it was there, and they don't say it wasn't.

What they say is that several containers were filled with water, and then fine wine was poured out of them.

As with Genesis, we are told the beginning and the end, but some of the bits in the middle are not so clear. However, whatever the process, it is not what I would call supernatural. Supernatural is breaking the laws of nature, not just speeding them up a bit.

Others may think differently, of course. That is up to them.

I could actually hazard, if I thought the story was an actual record of a real event, that what was in the containers originally was wine, reduced by dehydration to a syrup or gel at the bottom. Water added to that might dissolve it, resulting in a wine flavoured cordial. Given the guests had already drunk all the wine provided by the host, it's unlikely they were in any condition to judge either the quality or alcohol content of this 'new wine' made by Jesus.

Catherineanne · #56 2nd July 2009, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by Hentenza

Can you cite a single theory of origins that is falsifiable?

Again, evolution does not posit origins.

Personally, I find 'barking mad' and 'sane' much more meaningful as categories.

redwards · #57 2nd July 2009, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by Hentenza

Can you cite a single theory of origins that is falsifiable?

Again, evolution does not posit origins.

Certainly. Any particular hypothesis regarding earthly abiogenesis would be utterly shaken by the discovery of extraterrestrial eukaryotes.

Catherineanne · #58 2nd July 2009, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by Bombila

I could actually hazard, if I thought the story was an actual record of a real event, that what was in the containers originally was wine, reduced by dehydration to a syrup or gel at the bottom. Water added to that might dissolve it, resulting in a wine flavoured cordial. Given the guests had already drunk all the wine provided by the host, it's unlikely they were in any condition to judge either the quality or alcohol content of this 'new wine' made by Jesus.

That works fine as well. Anything you like, as long as the Lord is not in red undies.

Bombila · #59 2nd July 2009, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Hentenza

Who says there is no evidence? I see plenty of evidence for a creator in nature.

I suppose you will only cite the effects of 'The Fall', but nature provides some pretty horrific examples of creation in the form of parasites, prey animals eaten alive by predators, natural poisons which cause the eater to die in agony, and so on.

I've always thought it far easier to consider the possibility of a benevolent God if you admit to evolution being the method of creation. Lets the deity off the hook for a lot of dismal realities.

Hentenza · #60 2nd July 2009, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by atomweaver

Please provide the reasoning behind your opinion...

Simply because exceptions to laws have a heuristic value. They are goads to progress in our understanding of the universe. It is not necessary to believe that all exceptions to known law call for another natural law to explain it. Some scientific understanding is based on regular and repeated events, one must be able to show how the exception is repeatable before one can claim that it has a natural cause rather than a supernatural one. Origins is a forensic science given that it is a singular event, hence an exception, not being repeatable.