We Believe In Dinosaurs

[Ophiolite]

Of course. There is no doubt that secular moral philosophy will not provide the kind of detailed restrictions on harmless personal pleasurable behavior, especially sexual behavior, that Christians deem to be the most important.

I think it was the Free Church of Scotland (Or the United Free Church of Scotland, or may be the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland) that was said by its critics to object to sexual intercourse on the grounds that it could lead to uncontrolled and unwarranted outbursts of dancing.

Edit: corrected a faulty attribution of the quote. (Apologies to OldWiseGuy.)

 

[Speedwell]

Most atheists say it this way ... "critically examining the evidence in nature.... the other is entirely based on one's own subjective interpretation of a translation of an unknown ancient author's short, vague poem (and ignoring the evidence in nature)"

the result is pretty much the same.

Which is why the creation/evolution debate is not about the existence of God, but about the Bible.

 

[Phil W]

Morality is a consequence of our evolutionary heritage as a social animal. Morality is that which is good for the individual and the group. The growth of culture and civilisation enabled the concept of group to expand to beyond the family and the tribe, to incorporate nations, religions, football teams, and - for some (most? many?) of us - all of humanity. Religion doesn't have that market cornered, regardless of any thoughts you may have on the matter.

Edit: I see Speedwell has said much the same thing.

I can't get behind morals that may or may not change "over the years".
If murder or slavery is bad in the 1200's, it is still bad in the 2100's.
How can it evolve?
Love and hate are set in stone, and won't evolve.

 

[Phil W]

No. The German people were led to act contrary to their nature by a persuasive demagogue.

So "natures" cannot really be trusted.
They are easily "bent".

 

[Ophiolite]

I can't get behind morals that may or may not change "over the years".

Personal incredulity doesn't carry a lot of weight in philosophical arguments.

If murder or slavery is bad in the 1200's, it is still bad in the 2100's.

But slavery wasn't bad in the 1200s, as far as many societies were concerned. Murder, of course, is a legal term. If we strip it of its legal accoutrements, then some would claim that capital punishment is a form of murder and certainly immoral. That is a point of dispute globally today.

How can it evolve?

When I spoke of its evolution I was speaking primarily of the root instincts and behavioural patterns that developed as we became human on the savannas and forests of Africa. But of course there is also the evolution of specifics that you have raised in your post. Now as to the mechanism of either I can speak at greater length if you wish, but the key point is that they demonstrably have evolved and thus the mechanism is secondary.

Love and hate are set in stone, and won't evolve.

Perhaps, but who we love and how we love and why we love may change. And - hopefully - what we do with our hate will be controlled and constrained by that evolution in our capacity for love. If such changes are not possible, we may be in for a bleak future, but I am an optimist, so I think you are likely wrong.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I think it was the Free Church of Scotland (Or the United Free Church of Scotland, or may be the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland) that was said by its critics to object to sexual intercourse on the grounds that it could lead to uncontrolled and unwarranted outbursts of dancing.

To be clear, Speedwell posted the comment you responded to here.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I think it was the Free Church of Scotland (Or the United Free Church of Scotland, or may be the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland) that was said by its critics to object to sexual intercourse on the grounds that it could lead to uncontrolled and unwarranted outbursts of dancing.

I think it was the Southern Baptists.

 

[Ophiolite]

To be clear, Speedwell posted the comment you responded to here.

I knew that.
I don't know why you think it is relevant.

I think it was the Southern Baptists.

The story is apocryphal. In Scotland it is told of The Free Church, or ancillary denomination.
A horse never walked into a bar for a beer, but the bartender did ask "Why the long face?"

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I knew that.
I don't know why you think it is relevant.

Because I wouldn't say such a thing. Why attribute it to me?

 

[Ophiolite]

Because I wouldn't say such a thing. Why attribute it to me?

How weird! My apologies. I am at a loss to understand how that happened. Some form of operator error on my part. Since I knew it was Speedwell's comment I never noticed it was attributed to you, didn't consider that it could have been attributed to you and was consequently confused by your entirely appropriate (and very restrained, in the circumstances) questioning.

Right, I have now corrected it. It was preceded by an earlier quote of yours and the start of a response from me that I had abandoned. The forum software seems to have interpreted the misplaced italic indicators in my response, keeping your identifier, but deleting your quoted post, my abandoned reply and Speedwell's identifier. Even weirder than I imagined. For the record, here is what I edited out my post to restore the correct attribution:

[QUOTE="OldWiseGuy, post: 74775698, member: 139156]The driving force behind secular morality is law and fear[/QUOTE]Balderdash.

Again, my apologies and thank you for your forbearance.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How weird! My apologies. I am at a loss to understand how that happened. Some form of operator error on my part. Since I knew it was Speedwell's comment I never noticed it was attributed to you, didn't consider that it could have been attributed to you and was consequently confused by your entirely appropriate (and very restrained, in the circumstances) questioning.

Right, I have now corrected it. It was preceded by an earlier quote of yours and the start of a response from me that I had abandoned. The forum software seems to have interpreted the misplaced italic indicators in my response, keeping your identifier, but deleting your quoted post, my abandoned reply and Speedwell's identifier. Even weirder than I imagined. For the record, here is what I edited out my post to restore the correct attribution:



Again, my apologies and thank you for your forbearance.

Thanks. You are a true gentleman.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I saw this video on TV just recently,

Stream WE BELIEVE IN DINOSAURS on PBS

Thanks for the note. Just watched it. Really well put together. I was impressed by how much footage they had going through the planning and construction.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Thanks for the note. Just watched it. Really well put together. I was impressed by how much footage they had going through the planning and construction.

Interesting. However if the ark had been constructed as described in the bible few would visit it. So authenticity had to be sacrificed for a more glitzy appearance. Which, to the trained eye, utterly defeats the whole project.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Interesting. However if the ark had been constructed as described in the bible few would visit it. So authenticity had to be sacrificed for a more glitzy appearance. Which, to the trained eye, utterly defeats the whole project.

It is certainly a monument to inaccuracy.

 

[Job 33:6]

It is certainly a monument to inaccuracy.

Calling the ark museum a monument to inaccuracy is really a kind way of putting it.

A monument to ignorance, lies and deception might be a bit more accurate. Bless their crazed souls.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You call it false evidence, but I don't.
His reasons will surely be revealed to the faithful eventually.
Wouldn't you like to be there when it is explained?

The GMIMW (God Moves In Mysterious Ways) defence is entirely unconvincing. There is surely a choice to make, for those that believe that God created the Earth - do they accept the demonstrable physical evidence inherent in that creation and treat the fantastical creation stories written by men who claimed to be inspired by God as metaphors, or do they take the fantastical creation stories literally and treat the demonstrable physical evidence inherent in the actual creation as some mysterious deception or red-herring?

Two obvious interpretations come to mind - the creator has given people the choice between believing the demonstrable physical evidence inherent in his creation or the fantastical stories written by men about it. Alternatively, the creator is a mischievous and deceptive Loki character (or worse), deliberately sowing confusion and division.

 

[Ophiolite]

The GMIMW (God Moves In Mysterious Ways) defence is entirely unconvincing. There is surely a choice to make, for those that believe that God created the Earth - do they accept the demonstrable physical evidence inherent in that creation and treat the fantastical creation stories written by men who claimed to be inspired by God as metaphors, or do they take the fantastical creation stories literally and treat the demonstrable physical evidence inherent in the actual creation as some mysterious deception or red-herring?

Two obvious interpretations come to mind - the creator has given people the choice between believing the demonstrable physical evidence inherent in his creation or the fantastical stories written by men about it. Alternatively, the creator is a mischievous and deceptive Loki character (or worse), deliberately sowing confusion and division.

Nailed it! On the other hand you and I and many others have pointed this out in various ways in many threads but we might as well have posted in Old Norse with 124 bit encryption for all the good it did.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Nailed it! On the other hand you and I and many others have pointed this out in various ways in many threads but we might as well have posted in Old Norse with 124 bit encryption for all the good it did.

Sadly true - which goes to show that religious belief is almost as resilient in the face of rational argument as conspiracy theories or flat-Earth beliefs

 

[Phil W]

The GMIMW (God Moves In Mysterious Ways) defence is entirely unconvincing. There is surely a choice to make, for those that believe that God created the Earth - do they accept the demonstrable physical evidence inherent in that creation and treat the fantastical creation stories written by men who claimed to be inspired by God as metaphors, or do they take the fantastical creation stories literally and treat the demonstrable physical evidence inherent in the actual creation as some mysterious deception or red-herring?

Two obvious interpretations come to mind - the creator has given people the choice between believing the demonstrable physical evidence inherent in his creation or the fantastical stories written by men about it. Alternatively, the creator is a mischievous and deceptive Loki character (or worse), deliberately sowing confusion and division.

I'll believe what is written, and let others believe the fantastical stories that they evolved from apes and fish and protoplasm.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I'll believe what is written, and let others believe the fantastical stories that they evolved from apes and fish and protoplasm.

The scientific account is also written, and the evidence that supports it is very believable.

Fantastical stories is something that I would associate more with talking serpents and such.