Fairytale?

[FoeHammer]

Mr. Hammer, your points lead to obvious questions.

The Bible was written by men and is therefore arbitrary.

It is divinely inspired by The absolute authority (God).

Science isn't try to sell anyone on anything, the purpose is to study nature.

Science may not be but scientists may very well be.

Why the arbitrary position that man is not related to apes, but the rest of the classification system share common ancestry?

The Bible tells us that Adam and Eve were created in Gods image, I accept that.

Evolution is also the scientific conclusion after rigorous testing.

I do not accept that evolution is the conclusion of science I am however told that it is the conclusion of most(?) scientists.

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

By your own implicit definition, any other classification system, being man-made, would be at least as arbitrary.

Yep.

To the degree that you have made a completely arbitrary exception to the scientific classification system -- a system which you yourself criticized as already too arbitrary.

I never said that it was ''too arbitrary''.

FoeHammer.

 

[Nathan Poe]

It is divinely inspired by The absolute authority (God).

Funny, He never said so. You sure you want to accept man's arbitrary word on it?

Science may not be but scientists may very well be.

Some may, some may not. Fortunately, both science and scientists encourage such skepticism -- don't take their word for it, run the experiment yourself, and all that.

I've yet to see a religious belief encourage skepticism -- except maybe Buddhism.

The Bible tells us that Adam and Eve were created in Gods image, I accept that.I do not accept that evolution is the conclusion of science I am however told that it is the conclusion of most(?) scientists.

I suppose that neither science nor most scientists are as arbitrary as you choose to be.

FoeHammer.[/quote]

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yep.I never said that it was ''too arbitrary''.

FoeHammer.

So, your solution to an arbitrary classification system is to make it more arbitrary?

 

[thaumaturgy]

The Bible tells us that Adam and Eve were created in Gods image, I accept that..

This is a very important question:

Man is created in God's image. What is God's image? What if, gasp, it was the image of a PRIMATE????

Face it, it all boils down to the yuck factor for creationists. They don't like monkeys and apes because they think they are nasty. They themselves will deny every single piece of evidence on their bodies that tell them that they are indeed just other apes.

To do so they will trot out logically incoherent statements.

You say man isn't an ape because man is made in God's image. But what is God's image?

AND HOW DO YOU KNOW?

 

[Lilandra]

It is divinely inspired by The absolute authority (God).Science may not be but scientists may very well be.The Bible tells us that Adam and Eve were created in Gods image, I accept that.I do not accept that evolution is the conclusion of science I am however told that it is the conclusion of most(?) scientists.

FoeHammer.

Do you know how scientists arrive at conclusions? It is a process called The Scientific Method.

​

Notice that drawing a conclusion is next to last in the process?

Drawing conclusions are what scientists do. But not in the way nonscientific conclusions are drawn. Results are tested and communicated to other scientists for testing.

Evolution has undergone repeated testing and scientists are coming to the same conclusion.​

http://mrskingsbioweb.com/images/scientific_method01.gif

 

[Aron-Ra]

Of course that definition is inadequate for biology, and rather than tell you why, I suppose I should show you

There really is no need. The point I am trying to make is that the scientific classification system is a man made system and therefore arbitrary.

If you didn't duck and dodge every offer to prove otherwise, then you'd know it isn't arbitrary at all. Nor is it even "man-made". There is only one way to do it, and the only way to prove that to you is to get you to try to do it any other way. I suspect you already realize that, and that's why you refuse to try. It would mean having to admit an error, and you'll never do that.

For the purposes of ''study'' you can classify anything you like for any reason you like, it makes no difference to me until you use that classification in an attempt to prove to me (and others) that you are right and I am wrong on a particular point.

So in fact, I can't classify anything the way I "like", but must instead adhere to something I can defend even to those who don't want to believe me.

Take the case of men being apes... Similarity in form and/or function shows that we are similar in form and/or function and nothing more. It is no more evidence of evolution than it is of creation.

Except that evolution is an inescapable fact of all population genetics; we know it works, and we know why it works. Creation is often asserted, but no one knows of a single instance in which anything ever magically poofed out of thin air fully-formed, nor is that even possible.

As a creationist, who believes that Adam and Eve were created in the image of God, why can I not say that I accept, for the purpose of study, the scientific classification system but take exception to the inclusion of man with apes? If I make this one distinction to what degree (if any) would it impact the classification and study of living organisms?

I did ask you to explain how your classification system would work, and to explain how you define "ape". You ignored both of those questions, apparently because your system is obviously arbitrary where my system is not.

I am not arguing against the scientific position I am arguing against your conclusions that you claim are based on it.

Then you are arguing against the scientific position.

And you have neglected to explain to me why, if evolution is true, any of this matters. (paraphrased from http://foru.ms/t6053243&page=4 post #36)

If God exists, great. I hope its not your version of god, because I've heard of better ones. But even if it is yours, OK. It wouldn't have any impact on our lives at all, and we wouldn't know about it until after we die. Hopefully, the mythology is inaccurate, in which case, I might get to reincarnate a bunch of times, and not have to spend eternity anywhere. But if you're scriptures are right about that, then your god's existence won't effect me at all because I'll still die, both in the flesh and "in the spirit" just as I intended to anyway.

But if creationism were really true, especially your brand of it, then all our lives would still be just as meaningless if not more so, since life itself would lose its value, but so would everything else be meaningless too, because it would mean that reality itself is unreal. Evidence would be is naught but coincidental. Everything we see, know, or are -would be an illusion and we could never really know anything about anything ever. It would be just like Neo waking up to the reality of the matrix and realizing that the real world isn't real after all, and that everything is wrong including the calendar. If your delusion were real, there'd be no reason even to exist anymore, and for some of us, there'd be no way to escape existence either, since we'd be deprived even of the ability to die. How anyone could lovingly embrace such a nightmarish phantasm is beyond me, especially when that demands that you lie to yourself every day to believe it; its madness.


Now delusions aside, I didn't "neglect" to explain why it matters in terms of reality the way it really is. I did explain it, and you deleted, and now act as though you've never seen it. So here it is again:

If evolution from common ancestry is not true, and some flavor of special creation of different (as yet unidentified "kinds") is true, then there would be some surface level(s) in a cladogram where you would accept an actual evolutionary ancestry. But there must also be subsequent levels in that twin-nested hierarchy where life-forms would no longer be the same "kind", and wouldn't be biologically related anymore. At that point, they would be magically created separate "kinds" from those listed around it, and they would only be in those categories "in the mind of man", as seems to be your stance. Throw away any ideas you have about the importance of any other argument you might be thinking about. None of them compare to this. If creationism is true of anything more than a single ancestor of all living things, or if the concept of common ancestry is fundamentally mistaken, then there MUST be a point in the tree where taxonomy falls apart, where what we see as related to everything is really unrelated to anything else. And unless you're a Scientologist or a Raelian, that criteria must apply to other animals besides ourselves.​

I also asked you a series of critical questions to prove the point, and you really should take a stab at answering them, if you still want to pretend that you're pursuing this honestly.

Is the short-tailed goanna related to the Perentie and all other Australian goannas?
Are all Australian goannas related to each other and to the other monitor lizards of Indonesia and Africa?
Are today's varanids related to the giant goannas of Australia's past?
Are terrestrial monitors related to the mosasaurs of the Cretaceous?
Are Varanoids related to any other Anguimorphs including snakes?
Are any Anguimorphs also related to scincomorphs and geckos?
Are all Scleroglossa also related to iguanids and other squamates?
Are all of squamata related to each other and all other lepidosaurs?
Are all lepidosaurs related to placodonts and plesiosaurs? Are Lepidosauromorphs related to archosaurs and other diapsids?
Are all diapsids related to anapsids, or synapsid "reptiles" like dimetrodon?
Are all reptiles related to each other and all other amniotes?
Are all amniotes related to each other and to all other tetrapods?
Are all tetrapods related to each other and to all other vertebrates?
........and so on.

Which of these are biologically related?
Which of these were magically created?

 

[Aron-Ra]

The Bible was written by men and is therefore arbitrary.

It is divinely inspired by The absolute authority (God).

Nope. Leading theologians admit that all of the scriptures were written by human hands and were subject to the interpretations, impressions and perspectives of their primitive and often prejudiced and politically-motivated authors, and they cite this as the explanation behind many of the contradictions in those books, especially those in the Bible. This is also why so much of these works can be shown to be dead wrong about damned-near everything back-to-front. If the Bible had been written by a supreme being, then it wouldn’t contain the mistakes that it does. If it was written by a truly superior being, and meant to be read as literal history, then the Bible wouldn’t contain anything that it does.

The Bible tells us that Adam and Eve were created in Gods image, I accept that.

The Bible tells us we were created with a golem spell. It says that because the Biblical authors were inspired by the polytheist mythology of their Mesopotamian ancestors. They didn't know any better.

I do not accept that evolution is the conclusion of science I am however told that it is the conclusion of most(?) scientists.

If ninety-nine and forty-four one-hundredths percent counts as "pure", (which it does in some applications) then we may accurately say that evolution is the conclusion of the entire global scientific community -because that is the conclusion of 99.86% of all earth-and-life scientists, and the less than 1% who abstain do so strictly according to a prior commitment to religious dogmatism.

 

[Nathan45]

What if they were all just three different whales? I mean, is it possible? What if? It seems most of the so called evidence is in this form of information. I still get those same recurring questions. Is it possible that it didn't happen this way? Everyone keeps saying there is evidence but all I see is a method that questions and then hypothesizes and tests their hypothesis and then concludes with what they consider the "best" possible conclusion but there is always that "what if it didn't happen that way?" question.

Look, anything is possible, that doesn't mean it isn't completely absurd.

...

The other day on this forums, a creationist made the comparison between a scientist and someone who goes outside, sees that the streets are wet, and presumes that it rained.

It is a very good comparison, because rain is the best explanation for why the street would be wet.

Yes, there are other explanations, but they'd leave evidence... we arn't living in an informational vacuum here, if the water came that way by rain it would most likely be spread out around everywhere, but if the water is localized near a broken fire hydrant or something, then we might presume the water got there by that way instead.

Of course it is possible that someone or something meticulously spread water around everywhere in the same pattern rain does but it did not actually rain, yes this is "possible" but it is also completely absurd. So unless you can show evidence that it did not rain recently or produce a testable hypothesis for an alternative method of the water getting there, we should presume scientifically that it did in fact rain.

...

i hope that was a good analogy.

...

You have to understand that the word "Proof" has been defined out of existence. So, you can't "Prove" anything, you can only provide evidence.

So you are right, there is always that question "What if it didn't happen that way?" that is what science is about, science tests everything.

But if you are going to ask this question, you should also ask yourself, is there any "proof" or "evidence" that you would accept?

The scientific method is just a tried and tested method of gaining knowledge through inductive reasoning, which is why science is always inherently falsifiable.

 

[Inan3]

It is divinely inspired by The absolute authority (God).

Science may not be but scientists may very well be.

The Bible tells us that Adam and Eve were created in Gods image, I accept that.

I do not accept that evolution is the conclusion of science I am however told that it is the conclusion of most(?) scientists.

FoeHammer.

You know what I find wonderful. Is the fact that I don't even know you, nor have I ever been to where you have been or heard the same people you have heard and ALL your answers were EXACTLY the answers I would have given. Proof again that God is real and the scriptures are true.

Eph 4:4 [There is] one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all.

 

[Aron-Ra]

You know what I find wonderful. Is the fact that I don't even know you, nor have I ever been to where you have been or heard the same people you have heard and ALL your answers were EXACTLY the answers I would have given. Proof again that God is real and the scriptures are true.

Well of course it can't really prove that. But it does prove what I've said all along; that it isn't possible to defend creationism either scientifically or honestly.

 

[Inan3]

I haven't seen a more incorrect history of these events, well ever.

1. Madilyn Murray O'Hare did not "single handedly" remove prayers from the American public school system.
2. O'Hare didn't even go "single handedly" before the Supreme Court, her case was consolidated with Abington v. Schempp which was the case the SCOTUS decided.
3. There were plenty of precidents including Cantwell v. Connecticut, Everson v. Board of Education and Engle v. Vitale (all of which are on the Abington v. Schempp Wiki link).

My point was that it was atheists who first started the attack against Christianity not the other way around as Aron-Ra had stated.

 

[Inan3]

Well of course it can't really prove that. But it does prove what I've said all along; that it isn't possible to defend creationism either scientifically or honestly.

Well it surely is evidence. Neither is it possible to prove evolution.

 

[Nathan45]

You know what I find wonderful. Is the fact that I don't even know you, nor have I ever been to where you have been or heard the same people you have heard and ALL your answers were EXACTLY the answers I would have given. Proof again that God is real and the scriptures are true.

Eph 4:4 [There is] one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all.

It's great how the scientific posters have to jump through hoops to provide evidence, but for creationism, apparently this is all the proof creationism needs.

Eitherway, I don't know a lot about christian sects, but he's got a "baptist" icon and you've got a "word of faith", so I wonder what else you agree on?

Or would I be wrong to assume that because there are 10,000+ christian sects, they don't actually all agree on everything?

 

[Nathan45]

Well it surely is evidence. Neither is it possible to prove evolution.

the word "Proof" as you use it has been defined out of existence. Use any other definition and evolution was proven long ago.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Well it surely is evidence. Neither is it possible to prove evolution.

Whether it's even possible to "prove" anything is entirely besides the point.

Evolution is a useful, applied science. Creationism is not. Doesn't that tell you anything?

 

[MoonLancer]

My point was that it was atheists who first started the attack against Christianity not the other way around as Aron-Ra had stated.

Your right. It started with the First amendment though.

its also more of a diast thing.

at least thats how i see it.

 

[atomweaver]

I haven't seen a more incorrect history of these events, well ever.

1. Madilyn Murray O'Hare did not "single handedly" remove prayers from the American public school system.
2. O'Hare didn't even go "single handedly" before the Supreme Court, her case was consolidated with Abington v. Schempp which was the case the SCOTUS decided.
3. There were plenty of precidents including Cantwell v. Connecticut, Everson v. Board of Education and Engle v. Vitale (all of which are on the Abington v. Schempp Wiki link).

My point was that it was atheists who first started the attack against Christianity not the other way around as Aron-Ra had stated.

... Uh oh. Since you didn't click the link and read, here's the most relevant tidbit; Schempp was a Unitarian. He sued for removal of mandatory Bible readings, because he disagreed with the interpretations that were passed along with them, and didn't like having other Christian sects using public school to reinforce their scriptural interpretations at the expense of his children... O'Hare got the big press, because she was the kitten-eating atheist, but there is a strong element of freedom of religion in the decision to leave public schools as neutral ground... I don't think the Supreme Court looked forward to the prospect of various Protestant sects turning public schools into their presonal scriptural warzone...

 

[Nathan Poe]

... Uh oh. Since you didn't click the link and read, here's the most relevant tidbit; Schempp was a Unitarian. He sued for removal of mandatory Bible readings, because he disagreed with the interpretations that were passed along with them, and didn't like having other Christian sects using public school to reinforce their scriptural interpretations at the expense of his children... O'Hare got the big press, because she was the kitten-eating atheist, but there is a strong element of freedom of religion in the decision to leave public schools as neutral ground... I don't think the Supreme Court looked forward to the prospect of various Protestant sects turning public schools into their presonal scriptural warzone...

Meaning, for those of you keeping score at home, that it was Christians who first started the attack against other Christians -- as it usually goes.

 

[USincognito]

My point was that it was atheists who first started the attack against Christianity not the other way around as Aron-Ra had stated.

... Uh oh. Since you didn't click the link and read, here's the most relevant tidbit; Schempp was a Unitarian. He sued for removal of mandatory Bible readings, because he disagreed with the interpretations that were passed along with them, and didn't like having other Christian sects using public school to reinforce their scriptural interpretations at the expense of his children... O'Hare got the big press, because she was the kitten-eating atheist, but there is a strong element of freedom of religion in the decision to leave public schools as neutral ground... I don't think the Supreme Court looked forward to the prospect of various Protestant sects turning public schools into their presonal scriptural warzone...

Meaning, for those of you keeping score at home, that it was Christians who first started the attack against other Christians -- as it usually goes.

Schempp - Unitarian.
Newton Cantwell - Jehovah's Witness.
Doe1 and Doe2 in Santa Fe ISD - Mormon and Catholic
Arch Everson while suing on first amendment grounds was more concerned about tax support for religion than more esoteric issues of what constitutes "establishment."