To atheists: a museum analogy regarding Creationism

[xianghua]

Actually you are kinda wrong.

oops. i actually meant to claim that snowflake can evolve naturally when a living thing cant.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Truth isn't 'original', of course, but totally independent of any individual. I bet you agree. A proposition that is 'true' (the best way or solution known) is true objectively in that it works better than any alternative. It's truth is not dependent on source even slightly. I bet you agree on all of that.

Yes. Which is why "testing" that idea, only says something about the idea - not about christianity.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

no. actually only several parts of the flagellum are similar to other system called ttss. even a car and an airplane shared a lots of parts. but they cant evolve from each other even if they were able to reproduce

If cars and aeroplanes did reproduce, then it could very well be possible that they shared a common ancestor.

because it's a motor. and as far as we know any motor is evidence for design.

Well, to go two wrongs in two attempts, you've done well. We know the bacterial flagellum is a naturally occurring feature evolved from a number of precursory evolutionary steps as already pointed out here. Your sustained ignorance on the matter doesn't change the facts.

Yes. The real question is rather simply Does God exist, not whether physics and chemistry work, thus biochemistry and evolution and all that ensues from physics.

I discovered then tested Christ's instructions on how to live by trying them--

"Love your neighbor as yourself"

This is something that can be tested. One can try it and find out how it works, using Christ's guideline on how, His how-to:

"So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you"

One can test these by doing them to see how they work out.

If you really do love, then you are doing it. And can get results. Test it at least on 3 or more, and see for yourself the outcome.

So, this reciprocal consideration (or ethic of reciprocity, if you will) existed and was prevalent in many societies around the world well before it was attributed to Christ. That it's a great way to live doesn't indicate either way about the existence of Christ or that he ever came up with this saying in the first place. in the Hindu religious texts of Mahabharata and Bhagavad-Gita, a religion which existed well before any of the abrahamic religions began, Karma and Dharma are based on exactly this concept. Even Confucius was attributed with teachings observing this around 6th century BCE. It is a great way to societal health but not sure why its success or otherwise is something you want to attribute to Christ before all of the other earlier renditions of it that are evident...

oops. i actually meant to claim that snowflake can evolve naturally when a living thing cant.

Great! Correcting a wrong with another wrong! That's Three from Three @xianghua! You double down on that ignorance there now, won't you...!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Good grief man, you're like a broken record.

As Mark Twain said, "To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail".

He thinks he's found a hammer (although it's actually a monkey-wrench).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And you know that how?

Message from God?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A friend of mine brought this up: saying that the universe and all the life on the Earth arose from randomness without a designer is like saying that when you go into an art museum and see all the paintings, you say "Oh, I don't think people made all these beautiful prices of artwork, I think paint cans just exploded to make them".

How would you respond to this?

I'd say it's a great example of ignorance in action.

 

[xianghua]

If cars and aeroplanes did reproduce, then it could very well be possible that they shared a common ancestor.

and you may also belive that they evolved without a designer?

and about the flagellum: you are simply wrong:

https://evolutionnews.org/2006/04/do_car_engines_run_on_lugnuts/

so the ignorance isnt from my side.

 

[Speedwell]

and you may also belive that they evolved without a designer?

and about the flagellum: you are simply wrong:

https://evolutionnews.org/2006/04/do_car_engines_run_on_lugnuts/

so the ignorance isnt from my side.

Be careful; Evolution News is what the President calls "fake news." ID is a fraud, the creation of a group of militant Calvinists called the Discovery Institute. It was concocted to be a Trojan Horse, what the Discovery Institute calls a "wedge," for inserting biblical creationism in the public schools as a means of indoctrination for the totalitarian theocracy they want to impose on the rest of us. I don't know what your religion is, but no decent Christian should have anything to do with them.

 

[Halbhh]

Yes. Which is why "testing" that idea, only says something about the idea - not about christianity.

Indeed, so what would it mean if one person got everything correct, found all the best ideas? I compared ideas across a wide range of diverse famous individuals and their best ideas, which is very unusual, but that was what I wanted to do. That's how I got more and more interested in Jesus of Nazareth, as my understanding became wider and deeper. It's an unusual way, but when you ask about objective tests, that was my approach -- how well does it work? Does the set of ideas all work? How well? I doubt many could take this approach, and it took me at least 20 years, and I liked reading and comparing, just as what I like to do. This is all only strongly suggestive. In the end, once one has the urge or courage and take a leap of faith finally to try to find out if God is there, and "seek me with all of your heart" as He said.

He's the One Who said: "Love your neighbor as yourself".

 

[Halbhh]

.... That it's a great way to live doesn't indicate either way about the existence of Christ or that he ever came up with this saying in the first place. in the Hindu religious texts of Mahabharata and Bhagavad-Gita, a religion which existed well before any of the abrahamic religions began....

Right, I was pointing out to someone earlier that truth isn't about who 'originated' it, as if it would not exist except that it was made up. Instead truth (the best solution or understanding available) is fully independent of all and every person, and preexists their realization, and doesn't depend on an 'originator' at all, etc.

Instead of being created by someone, a truth like this one:

"So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you, for this sums up the law"
as the insight into the way to live that is the best way in terms of results and quality of life....

Is timeless, and we ought to expect people trying to find truth to find versions of it, over and over and over.

Various versions, some better than others.

In contrast, a less good idea would just appear here and there only, and fade out.

A true idea will last and last, over centuries and eventually over millennia even.

Since obviously then truth already exists before a deeply wise man says it, instead we want to know if the way He says it helps us.

Find out if Jesus of Nazareth can teach you. He said more than just 5 or 10 true things, you'll discover, if you read through the accounts.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

and you may also belive that they evolved without a designer?

and about the flagellum: you are simply wrong:

https://evolutionnews.org/2006/04/do_car_engines_run_on_lugnuts/

so the ignorance isnt from my side.

I'll have to go out on a limb and say it is. Reading through that article, and the full article at Discovery Institute, great swathes of "I Don't Like It!" pops out. The article of course completely leaves out ALL of the evidence and facts that shows Behe was dishonest in the proposal of his "Irreducible Complexity" idea. Same with the blood clotting cascade in mammals, etc. The Discovery Institute ignoring all the facts is not at all surprising of course, perhaps as has already been suggested you should study all of the evidence on a given topic, not just a finely crafted blinkered view of what supports your presupposed conclusions.

Right, I was pointing out to someone earlier that truth isn't about who 'originated' it, as if it would not exist except that it was made up. Instead truth (the best solution or understanding available) is fully independent of all and every person, and preexists their realization, and doesn't depend on an 'originator' at all, etc.

Instead of being created by someone, a truth like this one:

"So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you, for this sums up the law"
as the insight into the way to live that is the best way in terms of results and quality of life....

Is timeless, and we ought to expect people trying to find truth to find versions of it, over and over and over.

Various versions, some better than others.

In contrast, a less good idea would just appear here and there only, and fade out.

A true idea will last and last, over centuries and eventually over millennia even.

Since obviously then truth already exists before a deeply wise man says it, instead we want to know if the way He says it helps us.

Find out if Jesus of Nazareth can teach you. He said more than just 5 or 10 true things, you'll discover, if you read through the accounts.

I'm sure there are a few things attributed to Jesus that are true and have lasted over centuries and even a millennia or two, or even three & more, as are the words attributed to Confucius, and the Hindus, and even Islam too for that matter. I wouldn't follow any of them either though, and I'm sure you wouldn't follow them either - so why have you picked that particular one to accept as being true and not all these others?

A side note, Jesus was also attributed to saying a number of not-so-good/smart things too, such as not washing your hands before eating despite the jewish commandments demanding it, drinking poisons and handling venomous snakes are of no consequence, don't save or otherwise plan for the future, mustard seeds are the smallest seeds and they grow into "trees", etc. is it just the good things you've centered on to get to your conclusion?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Indeed

So why propose it as being a test for christianity?

, so what would it mean if one person got everything correct, found all the best ideas?

That that person was correct about the ideas that have been evaluated and verified. It wouldn't say anything about whatever else that person said (or is claimed to have said).

Also: kind of funny (and telling) how this ONE example you gave, suddenly turned into "EVERYTHING correct" and "ALL the best ideas".

I compared ideas across a wide range of diverse famous individuals and their best ideas, which is very unusual, but that was what I wanted to do. That's how I got more and more interested in Jesus of Nazareth, as my understanding became wider and deeper. It's an unusual way, but when you ask about objective tests, that was my approach -- how well does it work?

None of those tests are objective. It concerns subjective evaluations about subjective ideas.

Does the set of ideas all work? How well? I doubt many could take this approach, and it took me at least 20 years, and I liked reading and comparing, just as what I like to do. This is all only strongly suggestive

I think it's all strongly subjective.
I also know it is fallacious to then draw a conclusion like "since this guy was right about A, B and C, it's safe to assume he was also right about everything else"

For example... Newton was arguably one of the most intelligent humans to ever walk this earth. Like Tyson said once: the guy basically invented calculus in only a couple of months, practically on a dare.

But the work that he became so immensly famous and got all that respect for, is really only a very small part of his other work in for example Alchemy. The guy wrote more about alchemy then anything else. That's what he spend the bulk of his time on, actually. And as I'm sure you know very well: alchemy is nonsense. And the fact that a brilliant dude like Newton was so into that, doesn't mean anything.

In the end, once one has the urge or courage and take a leap of faith finally to try to find out if God is there, and "seek me with all of your heart" as He said.

Funny. I'ld say that doing the exact opposite, is what requires courage.
To courageously face reality and NOT simply settle for whatever "feels" or "sounds" good.
Admitting ignorance when actually being ignorant, is what requires courage.
To face reality even if you don't like it, is what requires courage.

He's the One Who said: "Love your neighbor as yourself".

He's claime to have said it in some book. And it's not so much "said it" as it is "repeated it".
The golden rule was already written down in Egypt millenia before that.

And plenty of cultures around the world deviced similar "rules", without ever having even heared about abrahamic religions.

Clearly, one doesn't need the christian god to say this, to stumble upon it or come up with it by yourself.

 

[Halbhh]

kind of funny (and telling) how this ONE example you gave, suddenly turned into "EVERYTHING correct" and "ALL the best ideas".

You ought to take that as a suggestion about a possibility to investigate. Don't just be prideful.

For example, check out the wording of versions of the golden rule, a repeating idea in all cultures (just as any truth should be).... Are some versions rather better than other versions? Just one of a dozen questions to consider along the way, to me. I'm more interested in the end in finding the wisest, in order to begin to test their other ideas that are unfamiliar.

"Possibly the earliest affirmation of the maxim of reciprocity, reflecting the ancient Egyptian goddess Ma'at, appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BC): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do."[12][13] This proverb embodies the do ut des principle.[14] A Late Period (c. 664–323 BC) papyrus contains an early negative affirmation of the Golden Rule: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another." -- Wiki

Now, these, though interesting, and a lot better than nothing, aren't the same to me as this --

"So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you"

These 3 are not the same, and would lead to different choices in some situations.

For example "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another." would not cause a certain Samaritan to do this:

25On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

26“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27He answered, “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’c ; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’d ”

28“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

29But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35The next day he took out two denariie and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

 

[AirPo]

You ought to take that as a suggestion about a possibility to investigate. Don't just be prideful.

Thinking "my suggestion is a possibility to investigate" is quite prideful in itself.

 

[Halbhh]

Thinking "my suggestion is a possibility to investigate" is quite prideful in itself.

I think all people can make mistakes, and its just normal to have only partial information with some errors.

 

[AirPo]

Have you reflected upon the comment I quoted?

 

[Halbhh]

Have you reflected upon the comment I quoted?

Yes, its humble when said to me.

If someone said "I suggest you learn more of The Tao" -- my attitude in response is OK, which chapter(s) please?

See, I expect to always learn. I'm always hoping to learn.

 

[AirPo]

Yes, its humble when said to me.

Oh, well now I feel sorry I was so snarky about it.

 

[Halbhh]

Oh, well now I feel sorry I was so snarky about it.

I also reconsidered too, that sometimes that kind of wording " suggest you should" is in recent years too often used in an unfriendly post, so that then I should avoid that particular wording to avoid that possible impression different than I meant.

 

[AirPo]

I also reconsidered too, that sometimes that kind of wording " suggest you should" is in recent years too often used in an unfriendly post, so that then I should avoid that particular wording to avoid that possible impression different than I meant.

It does have a condescending tone.