Bible-Creation-Evolution (2)

[rjc34]

AMEN, BROTHER! PREACH IT! --

You two should meet up for some coffee, and rant about how much evil science does and how it's from the devil etc, etc.

 

[AV1611VET]

You two should meet up for some coffee, and rant about how much evil science does and how it's from the devil etc, etc.

We don't need to -- that's called 'preaching to the choir'.

Matthew 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

And we were specifically talking about evolution, not science in general.

 

[lucaspa]

Like to see a statue of Darwin placed in a temple overnight with the ark of the covenant! Soon his theories will have their head and hands cut off, and bow at the feet of God anyhow.

What? You think the ark has magical powers? Wow. Real departure from Judeo-Christianity there. Looks like you have a false idol with the ark.

Why would God do that? Darwing figured out how God created! Why get upset over a statue? No one ever said Darwin was a god.

dad, Darwin never denied God created. You and AV keep making this false witness. What do you think is going to happen if you breakers of the 9th commandment are locked up overnight with the ark.

Look again:
"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species,pg. 449.

 

[lucaspa]

"But some humans can detect God!" Good, then he's scientifically testable.

That doesn't make the experience subject to scientific inquiry. In order for science to study a subject, the experiences ("detection") must be intersubjective. That means that everyone would have to be capable of "detecting" God. But not everyone does have experience of God. You don't, do you?

Well, how do you distinguish between reality and a hallucination, dream, wishful thinking, indigestion, a mental disorder, or a just a general warm, fuzzy feeling?

The same way you deal with your experiences that are not intersubjective. What type of music do you like? Whatever it is, not everyone is going to have the same experience of the music you do. So how do you tell that your experiences is not " a hallucination, dream, wishful thinking, indigestion, a mental disorder, or a just a general warm, fuzzy feeling"?

For class, I use the example of the taste of Brussels sprouts. No class ever has everyone having the same taste for them. This year there were 3 bland but pleasant, 1 bland, 1 sweet, 2 bitter, 1 sweet and very delicious, 1 bitter and very bad, and one "what are Brussels sprouts?"

What do Brussels sprouts taste like to you? How do you distinguish your experience "between reality and a hallucination, dream, wishful thinking, indigestion, a mental disorder, or a just a general warm, fuzzy feeling"?

 

[Nostromo]

I know it's a few pages back but I thought this warranted a mention.

Sorry, but creationism is a scientific theory. ... A falsified one. But a scientific theory does not lose its status by being falsified.
...
Adam Sedgwick publicly announced that his own variant of Creationism had been refuted

Certain variants of creationism may be scientific, but Creationism as a whole is not for the same reasons as in your cell culture explanation.

 

[sandwiches]

That doesn't make the experience subject to scientific inquiry. In order for science to study a subject, the experiences ("detection") must be intersubjective. That means that everyone would have to be capable of "detecting" God. But not everyone does have experience of God. You don't, do you?

The same way you deal with your experiences that are not intersubjective. What type of music do you like? Whatever it is, not everyone is going to have the same experience of the music you do. So how do you tell that your experiences is not " a hallucination, dream, wishful thinking, indigestion, a mental disorder, or a just a general warm, fuzzy feeling"?

For class, I use the example of the taste of Brussels sprouts. No class ever has everyone having the same taste for them. This year there were 3 bland but pleasant, 1 bland, 1 sweet, 2 bitter, 1 sweet and very delicious, 1 bitter and very bad, and one "what are Brussels sprouts?"

What do Brussels sprouts taste like to you? How do you distinguish your experience "between reality and a hallucination, dream, wishful thinking, indigestion, a mental disorder, or a just a general warm, fuzzy feeling"?

That's the key. I don't distinguish between my tastes and other processes in my body, other than I prefer some of these processes over others. In other words, I know my tastes are mere thoughts, feelings, and other bioelectrical processes. They're nothing outside my brain. But maybe you're right and I should regard the god idea and theists' "evidence" in the same way.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Like to see a statue of Darwin placed in a temple overnight with the ark of the covenant! Soon his theories will have their head and hands cut off, and bow at the feet of God anyhow.

Is this part of that delusion of power and authority you subscribe to? Furthermore, is this the only way you can think of to express it?

'The real power, the power we have to fight for night and day, is not power over things, but over men.' He paused, and for a moment assumed again his air of a schoolmaster questioning a promising pupil: 'How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?'

Winston thought. 'By making him suffer,' he said.

'Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating? It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined."

it's all about power for the fundies, isn't it?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

We don't need to -- that's called 'preaching to the choir'.

Matthew 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

And we were specifically talking about evolution, not science in general.

Evolution has its fingers in all fields of biology. So when you attack evolution, you're also messing with molecular biologists, biochemists, anatomists, embryologists, cell biologists, computational biologists, pharmacologists, microbiologists, doctors, etc.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution has its fingers in all fields of biology. So when you attack evolution, you're also messing with molecular biologists, biochemists, anatomists, embryologists, cell biologists, computational biologists, pharmacologists, microbiologists, doctors, etc.

Fine by me -- guilt by association then; but my calling is showing creationism over evolution, not creationism over science.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Fine by me -- guilt by association then; but my calling is showing creationism over evolution, not creationism over science.

It doesn't matter how narrowly you construe your failure -- it's still complete.

Bluff, bluster, and blather is no substitute for actual results.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Fine by me -- guilt by association then; but my calling is showing creationism over evolution, not creationism over science.

So it would follow that because modern biology rests on evolution, and you claim evolution is false, then modern biology must be in shambles as well? So do you discredit the majority of the findings in the field, including biomedical science?

 

[pgp_protector]

Fine by me -- guilt by association then; but my calling is showing creationism over evolution, not creationism over science.

So you're OK with Guilt by Association?

 

[AV1611VET]

So it would follow that because modern biology rests on evolution, and you claim evolution is false, then modern biology must be in shambles as well? So do you discredit the majority of the findings in the field, including biomedical science?

Nice try, but you left a prefix out that changes the whole thing: micro-, as in microevolution.

I can accept some of evolution, without having to accept all of it.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Nice try, but you left a prefix out that changes the whole thing: micro-, as in microevolution.

I can accept some of evolution, without having to accept all of it.

Incorrect. All of those fields directly utilize or have demonstrated macroevolution, not just microevolution. The macro/micro distinction won't save you this time.

 

[Hespera]

Incorrect. All of those fields directly utilize or have demonstrated macroevolution, not just microevolution. The macro/micro distinction won't save you this time.

if evolution just is not true, there wont be much left of chemistry, physics or geology either, not just biology.

 

[AV1611VET]

All of those fields directly utilize or have demonstrated macroevolution, not just microevolution.

I don't believe that in the least bit; but even if it did, it can take a hike.

Since you're so gung-ho on evolution, LHM, let's take creationism a little deeper and see how you defend evolution disarmed.

Let's back up to Day One of the Creation week -- no plants, no animals, nothing.

Just God, the angels, heaven and earth, as a pool of water in the hollow of God's hand.

How did that water get there?

And if you mumble something about 'itdinhappen', I'll go ahead and take your evolution with a smidgen of mustard seed.

 

[Hespera]

What? You think the ark has magical powers? Wow. Real departure from Judeo-Christianity there. Looks like you have a false idol with the ark.

Why would God do that? Darwing figured out how God created! Why get upset over a statue? No one ever said Darwin was a god.

dad, Darwin never denied God created. You and AV keep making this false witness. What do you think is going to happen if you breakers of the 9th commandment are locked up overnight with the ark.

Why would anyone witnessing for god need to bear false witness?

Could be an acid test for whether someone really is wirnessing for god, or, for something else.

 

[AV1611VET]

if evolution just is not true, there wont be much left of chemistry, physics or geology either, not just biology.

That's because your computers connect the dots [of sand] between all these philosophies, then when one crumbles, they all crumble.

Remember Jesus' story of the atheist who built his house on the sand?

Interesting sidebar: computers run on silicon chips, which silicon is harvested from the sand.

 

[pgp_protector]

That's because your computers connect the dots [of sand] between all these philosophies, then when one crumbles, they all crumble.

Remember Jesus' story of the atheist who built his house on the sand?

Interesting sidebar: computers run on silicon chips, which silicon is harvested from the sand.

Sorry, no silicon in this computer.
YouTube - Babbage Difference Engine made with LEGO

 

[TheReasoner]

Nice try, but you left a prefix out that changes the whole thing: micro-, as in microevolution.

I can accept some of evolution, without having to accept all of it.

Alas, no AV. Maybe you cannot accept it, but that does not mean you're right. Sorry but evolution - even on a macro scale - is most assuredly not wrong on the levels you want it to be. Sure maybe we may discover that some of the branches on the tree of life are actually further apart or closer together than at first thought but that does not mean there is no tree.

AV, what Hespera said is true:

if evolution just is not true, there wont be much left of chemistry, physics or geology either, not just biology.

Quite. And well, it's not just that abstract fields which the average joe neither understands nor feels he can relate to will have to change for evolution to stop having a central role. It's very well cemented into the whole human existence at this point. It's not just an abstract theory and play with thoughts as some creationists like to think. Nor is it something neat which is played with a bit in the lab but has no applications on neither macro or micro level outside the heads and beakers of us who work and study in the field. Evolution, like relativity and quantum mechanics, is heavily utilized in practical applications making much of what even the average joe uses every day a possibility. Whereas if these theories were as wrong as YECers claim they are, well then society as we have it with the technology we have would not exist.

This seems to be something AV and his ilk cannot seem to understand. It's not a philosophy. it is not a religion. It is science and it is also thoroughly implanted in many modern technological applications.

Okay AV. I'm sorry if you've placed your entire faith upon a premise requiring that modern detergent simply cannot exist, or that diabetics have to die of their disease. Perhaps a revision of your position might behoove you spiritually. Especially if you could possibly de-emphasize your apparent idolization of your own infallible nature with respects to the bible and it's interpretation.
You're not infallible. No-one is.