Evolution, Science, Faith - Lightning rod

POSTED BY: leadb
UPDATED: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 17:27
VIEWED: 31211
PAGE 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

LEADB

Saturday, June 2, 2007 8:59 PM

This discussion started over in the Ron Paul candidacy thread:

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=28977

And we hijacked it a bit; so, I'm hoping to draw some of that discussion over here, and leave the poor folk over yonder to discuss Ron Paul.

----

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
posted by Leadb- 'The Natural World is what God created, we are merely learning it's way.'
we agree on this. what im objecting to is other scientists telling me there is no evidence for a Creator. im asking how it is they know that?

Hmm, ok. That is a hard distinction to make. IMHO, most scientist will say the -science- aspect does not provide evidence for a Creator, and I tend toward agreeing with that FWIW. I'm not clear that anyone here was claiming that the science provides evidence which counter indicates God exists; though I do believe a few have indicated God is not 'necessary' for our world to be as it; which I also tend to agree with. I just happen to think there is a prime Initiator; it bothers me not in a least wit that some folks think there is not.

So are you saying you feel the natural 'laws' science is exploring is evidence of the existence of God? If so, we likely disagree on that point, though I'd be happy to discuss the distinction.

Regarding the other items, if I had projected an incorrect position onto you, I appologize.

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

CAUSAL

Saturday, June 2, 2007 9:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
posted by Leadb- 'The Natural World is what God created, we are merely learning it's way.'
we agree on this. what im objecting to is other scientists telling me there is no evidence for a Creator. im asking how it is they know that?

Trouble here: the evidentiary standards of the scientists are such that nothing could possibly be advanced which would qualify as evidence of God's existence, because a key presupposition of the scientific method is naturalism (basically, that no matter what the phenomenon, that phenomenon has a natural expalantion). Gee, no wonder they haven't found any evidence of God's existence. On their view, such evidence is impossible. In addition to this, of course, is Bertrand Russell's famous quote: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

SERGEANTX

Saturday, June 2, 2007 10:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
... On their view, such evidence is impossible.

I don't think this is necessarily true. I'm a fairly content materialist, yet I believe in the existence of gods. The thing to understand is that gods, in general, aren't material entities, so there's no point in looking for evidence of them in direct material terms. Evidence for the existence of gods is all around us, its just not extoplasm or anything physical.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

DAVESHAYNE

Saturday, June 2, 2007 10:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
In addition to this, of course, is Bertrand Russell's famous quote: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of presence either.

David

"Not completely as well as the series of Firefly..." - From a review of Serenity at amazon.de

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, June 2, 2007 10:12 PM

Science is the realm that wants to know how the universe works. Religion is the realm that wants to know what created it in the first place. The two do _not_ overlap.

Basically, there is two DIFFERENT problem domains, with two DIFFERENT solution spaces.

Problems only occur when people don't realize this.

Hell, even the Pope said evolution does _not_ interfere with creationism. And the Catholics aren't exactly not stubborn when it comes to these things. This is something that shouldn't be ignored.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

LEADB

Saturday, June 2, 2007 10:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
... On their view, such evidence is impossible.
I don't think this is necessarily true. I'm a fairly content materialist, yet I believe in the existence of gods. The thing to understand is that gods, in general, aren't material entities, so there's no point in looking for evidence of them in direct material terms. Evidence for the existence of gods is all around us, its just not extoplasm or anything physical.

SergeantX

Is the evidence you speak of evidence that a 'scientist' would accept? Keep in mind the 'their' is a reference to scientists'. If so, perhaps if you cited an instance of the sort of evidence you believe exists that scientists would recognize?

CAUSAL

Saturday, June 2, 2007 11:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by daveshayne:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
In addition to this, of course, is Bertrand Russell's famous quote: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of presence either.

Dave,

You've missed my point spectacularly. I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort. I was, to the contrary, pointing out that the standard material reductionist line, "There's no evidence for God" isn't at all meaningful, both because I don't think there ever could be anything like "scientific evidence" given the presuppositions of the methodological naturalism, and given that, as Bertrand Russell pointed out, the absence of evidence of something doesn't constitute evidence that that thing is not there.

Why do you jump to the conclusion that I'm arguing that an absence of evidence is evidence of presence? If you want, we can drag out arguments for the existence of God, but that is totally beyond the scope of my original post.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CAUSAL

Saturday, June 2, 2007 11:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Science is the realm that wants to know how the universe works. Religion is the realm that wants to know what created it in the first place. The two do _not_ overlap.

Basically, there is two DIFFERENT problem domains, with two DIFFERENT solution spaces.

Problems only occur when people don't realize this.

Hell, even the Pope said evolution does _not_ interfere with creationism. And the Catholics aren't exactly not stubborn when it comes to these things. This is something that shouldn't be ignored.

Amen! Tell it, brother!

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CAUSAL

Saturday, June 2, 2007 11:18 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I don't think this is necessarily true. I'm a fairly content materialist, yet I believe in the existence of gods. The thing to understand is that gods, in general, aren't material entities, so there's no point in looking for evidence of them in direct material terms. Evidence for the existence of gods is all around us, its just not extoplasm or anything physical.

Is the evidence you speak of evidence that a 'scientist' would accept? Keep in mind the 'their' is a reference to scientists'. If so, perhaps if you cited an instance of the sort of evidence you believe exists that scientists would recognize?

See, that's the whole thing. "Evidence a scientist would accept" is going to be evidence of a very specific sort. It's going to involve empirical observation, falsifiability, and all that other good stuff. And I'm just really skeptical about whether we'll ever have that type of evidence for God's existence. What complicates that is that methodological naturalism would seem to check any attempt to present scientific evidence of God, because they'd be busy looking for the natural (and not the supernatural) cause of the phenomenon.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

DAVESHAYNE

Saturday, June 2, 2007 11:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by daveshayne:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
In addition to this, of course, is Bertrand Russell's famous quote: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of presence either.

Dave,

You've missed my point spectacularly.

Not really. Merely pointing out the natural corollary to the line you quoted.

David

"Not completely as well as the series of Firefly..." - From a review of Serenity at amazon.de

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, June 2, 2007 11:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

Amen! Tell it, brother!

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

they'd be busy looking for the natural (and not the supernatural) cause of the phenomenon.

You're presupposing that God isn't natural. Are you sure about that?

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

SERGEANTX

Sunday, June 3, 2007 12:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Is the evidence you speak of evidence that a 'scientist' would accept? Keep in mind the 'their' is a reference to scientists'. If so, perhaps if you cited an instance of the sort of evidence you believe exists that scientists would recognize?

I think so. I don't want to be coy, so I'll say up front that I'm not coming at this from a typical religious point of view.

I've come to see religion much differently than I once did. I'm now convinced that gods are very real entities. They exist in the minds and wills of all of their followers.

That probably sounds like cop-out and not at all like real 'belief', but think about it. What I'm getting at is much different than saying that god is imaginary. I'm saying that religious concepts like 'god' are entities in their own right. To the extent that believers maintain a cohesive understanding of their god, that god exists and effects its will upon the world through the actions of its followers. These gods have evolved efficient means of reproduction and react negatively to attempts to remove them from their hosts. They're very much living entities.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

ANTIMASON

Sunday, June 3, 2007 12:51 AM

Quote:
posted by SigmaNunki- Hell, even the Pope said evolution does _not_ interfere with creationism. And the Catholics aren't exactly not stubborn when it comes to these things. This is something that shouldn't be ignored.

i politely disagree with that, the two are in fact not at all compatible(from a christians standpoint). the various theories of evolution can exist within the scope of ID, but not Creationism. the most obvious contradiction is that Moses himself wrote that seven days was a significant period of time because God created everything in six days, and rested on the seventh, thereby establishing our 'week'. God created man in his likeness, and gave us dominion over all the species of earth. it never says we came from primates. certainly we all share the same design(er), and material componants.. but we do not share a common ancestor. beyond that, evolution could not account for our fall from Eden, or our future redemption at the coming of the Lord.

the Catholic church is not a credible source to me, for many reasons.. but i recently read a book written in 1884 entintled "the Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan", and it listed an entire page of doctrines completely invented by the Roman church(a few hundred ATLEAST). its an incredible history, which in the end is not favorable to Gods message. and i apologize, i am not criticizing catholics per se but the institution surrounding them

CAUSAL

Sunday, June 3, 2007 1:00 AM

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by daveshayne:
Dave,

You've missed my point spectacularly.

Not really. Merely pointing out the natural corollary to the line you quoted.

But you're reacting to a claim I never made. There seem to be two directions to go with the no-evidence thing. One way would be to say, (1) "Ah ha! There's absolutely no evidence that there is a God!" The other seems to be, (2) "Ah ha! There's no evidence that there is no God!" I happen to believe that both those statements are more-or-less correct, as far as any scientific standard of evidence goes. But it's bad reasoning to say, from (1) "Therefore, there's no God!" And you're right, it's also bad reasoning to say, from (2) "Therefore, there must be a God!" But I want to point out that I wasn't saying that. That's why I reacted the way I did.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CAUSAL

Sunday, June 3, 2007 1:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
i politely disagree with that, the two are in fact not at all compatible(from a christians standpoint). the various theories of evolution can exist within the scope of ID, but not Creationism. the most obvious contradiction is that Moses himself wrote that seven days was a significant period of time because God created everything in six days, and rested on the seventh, thereby establishing our 'week'. God created man in his likeness, and gave us dominion over all the species of earth. it never says we came from primates. certainly we all share the same design(er), and material componants.. but we do not share a common ancestor. beyond that, evolution could not account for our fall from Eden, or our future redemption at the coming of the Lord.

But all of this is predicated on a concrete-literal interpretation of the Bible. Any good Hebrew lexicon will tell that there are at least three literal definitions for the word we translate "day." So you could still have a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account and not be a young Earth creationist. My point is that the Bible can be interpreted in a number of different ways, not just yours. As far as I can tell, the Genesis account is more about the "who" of creation than the "how." It seems to be much more a way of saying, "God's god and humans aren't" than a detailed account of origins.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CAUSAL

Sunday, June 3, 2007 1:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
What I'm getting at is much different than saying that god is imaginary. I'm saying that religious concepts like 'god' are entities in their own right. To the extent that believers maintain a cohesive understanding of their god, that god exists and effects its will upon the world through the actions of its followers. These gods have evolved efficient means of reproduction and react negatively to attempts to remove them from their hosts. They're very much living entities.

Like Batman!

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

SIGMANUNKI

Sunday, June 3, 2007 1:08 AM

@Antimason:

You're assuming a literal interpretation of the bible which given historical facts is fallacious. If you don't want to believe me, then read pretty much anything by Bishop John Shelby Spong (ret.). Though I'd recommend 'Why Christianity Must Change or Die'.

I'd also politely ask you not to arrogantly assume that you speak for the Christian standpoint as a whole, as when one looks around there are... many Christians that don't seen things the same way that you do.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

CAUSAL

Sunday, June 3, 2007 1:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
they'd be busy looking for the natural (and not the supernatural) cause of the phenomenon.

You're presupposing that God isn't natural. Are you sure about that?

Well...hmmm...

I suppose what I'm presupposing that God isn't "natural" in the same sense as a rock is natural or the law of gravitation is natural. Basically, I'm proposing that God is non-natural in the sense that he's non-material. I don't think there's a way to put God under a microscope or into a beaker. And since the standard of scientific evidence is limited to that which is empirically observable, I don't think that there can be that sort of evidence, because I take God not to be empirically observable.

The other X-factor, of course, is methodological naturalism. Suppose Jones has suffered from blindness from birth. He's really sick of it, but his doctor says, "No dice--you're stuck with being blind." Jones, not a man to take "no" for an answer, goes to see Smith, a faith healer. Smith rubs a little mud on Jones' eyes, invokes the Holy Spirit, slaps Jones in the head, and bang! Jones can see. Now, a good scientific thinker is going to want to look at the mud, and see if there's anything special in it. He's going to want to know if perhaps the bonk on the head helped. Maybe all the hollering and singing did something, or maybe he had something weird for lunch. In short, the good scientific thinker will look everywhere but God for an answer for the fact that Jones can see. The reason for this seems to be that good scientific thinkers presuppose that no matter what the phenomenon, that phenomenon has a natural explanation. Hell, suppose that there is a God. Suppose further that it was God that healed Jones. The good scientific thinker doesn't even have that as a category in his thinking--how could he ever find "evidence" for God's existence?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

LEADB

Sunday, June 3, 2007 1:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
posted by SigmaNunki- Hell, even the Pope said evolution does _not_ interfere with creationism. And the Catholics aren't exactly not stubborn when it comes to these things. This is something that shouldn't be ignored.

i politely disagree with that, the two are in fact not at all compatible(from a christians standpoint). the various theories of evolution can exist within the scope of ID, but not Creationism. the most obvious contradiction is that Moses himself wrote that seven days was a significant period of time because God created everything in six days, and rested on the seventh, thereby establishing our 'week'. God created man in his likeness, and gave us dominion over all the species of earth. it never says we came from primates. certainly we all share the same design(er), and material componants.. but we do not share a common ancestor. beyond that, evolution could not account for our fall from Eden, or our future redemption at the coming of the Lord.

the Catholic church is not a credible source to me, for many reasons.. but i recently read a book written in 1884 entintled "the Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan", and it listed an entire page of doctrines completely invented by the Roman church(a few hundred ATLEAST). its an incredible history, which in the end is not favorable to Gods message. and i apologize, i am not criticizing catholics per se but the institution surrounding them

First, it is important to keep terms straight.
-posted by SigmaNunki- Hell, even the Pope said evolution does _not_ interfere with creationism.-

From Wiki:
Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a supernatural deity or deities (typically God), whose existence is presupposed.[1] Biblical creationism is the belief in literal interpretations of the book of Genesis.[2] The term strict creationism is sometimes used to avoid confusion with the more general concept of creation held by those whose faith accommodates theistic evolution.[3] Creation in this context refers to the specific supernatural act of creation.

Is it safe to say that Antimason is referencing "Biblical creationism", while the Catholic church is coming from 'theistic evolution'?

I will observe I've discussed with many clerics from a few different denominations over the years, Methodist and Presbyterian for the most part, and neither has a 'church position' that evolution as taught in most schools either denies God nor is 'against the bible', as neither church requires a literal interpretation of the Bible. Lump them in with the Catholics, that's a pretty large pool of Christians that are comfortable with the Creation story as a parable. Thus I question your use of 'from a christians standpoint'; it would be helpful if you would identify the Christian sect you feel this standpoint is accurate for.

This phrase catches my eye "our future redemption at the coming of the Lord. " That's new to me; how does redemption key into/off of evolution?

LEADB

Sunday, June 3, 2007 1:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Is the evidence you speak of evidence that a 'scientist' would accept? Keep in mind the 'their' is a reference to scientists'. If so, perhaps if you cited an instance of the sort of evidence you believe exists that scientists would recognize?

I think so. I don't want to be coy, so I'll say up front that I'm not coming at this from a typical religious point of view.

I've come to see religion much differently than I once did. I'm now convinced that gods are very real entities. They exist in the minds and wills of all of their followers.

Nope, not conventional. Toyed with that myself for a while, but it didn't take. I put god out as an entity 'out side of space and time' as we understand it.

Quote:

That probably sounds like cop-out and not at all like real 'belief', but think about it. What I'm getting at is much different than saying that god is imaginary. I'm saying that religious concepts like 'god' are entities in their own right. To the extent that believers maintain a cohesive understanding of their god, that god exists and effects its will upon the world through the actions of its followers. These gods have evolved efficient means of reproduction and react negatively to attempts to remove them from their hosts. They're very much living entities.

SergeantX

Now, keep in mind I'm not saying you are wrong; but the question was 'evidence a scientist would accept'. You said yes, but I would say based on your description, 'no'. How to clarify... ok... keep in mind I might be taking liberties with your position, and this is just an example. You indicate that they 'react negatively to attempts to remove'; for the moment, lets suppose that it is -possible- to remove them. If we can weigh someone before and after the removal of the god, and nothing else is changed, would the hosts' weight change? If yes, then that is evidence that a scientist would likely accept. If no, then likely not. Now, that's not to say that the removal did not occur; but it would mean then the god is massless. This might lead a scientist to inspect for waveforms (since that which exists as waveforms is massless); I know, this is stretching, but I'm trying to give a possible ideas for such evidence types.

Keep in mind that much of what passes for faith (mine included, I mean nothing negative here) in our deities is simply beyond the realm of what is capable of producing evidence at a level a scientist can 'work with'; it doesn't make it inaccurate, it simply means we cannot use scientific principles to assess it.

LEADB

Sunday, June 3, 2007 1:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Hell, suppose that there is a God. Suppose further that it was God that healed Jones. The good scientific thinker doesn't even have that as a category in his thinking--how could he ever find "evidence" for God's existence?

I was 'with' you up to that part. I am not sure that a 'good scientific thinker' -always- does not have such a category, for instance the Catholic Church has investigators they send to examine miracles; and I am very confident these folks are good scientific thinkers; but they are prepared to classify as miracles those things which science cannot explain. Or have I missed a key point? (I will agree that if you have a firmly atheistic scientist investigating, he clearly would not have such a category; but not all scientists are atheist (I'll even speculate that most are not).)

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

CAUSAL

Sunday, June 3, 2007 2:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I was 'with' you up to that part. I am not sure that a 'good scientific thinker' -always- does not have such a category, for instance the Catholic Church has investigators they send to examine miracles; and I am very confident these folks are good scientific thinkers; but they are prepared to classify as miracles those things which science cannot explain. Or have I missed a key point? (I will agree that if you have a firmly atheistic scientist investigating, he clearly would not have such a category; but not all scientists are atheist (I'll even speculate that most are not).

Well...I think you may be right. Actually, I'll say I think you are right. I suppose that I'm jaded from the parry and thrust of debate, where things are more divisive, and the positions look clearer. It's that damned real world stuff, I hate, where things aren't as neat as theory can make them! I guess the main thing, though is the methodological naturalism part. If one really buys completely into it, then there's no question science can't answer. Of course, being that I'm on the campus, I do know a few guys in the hard sciences who also believe that there's a god. I'd like to know how one could go about their science looking for natural explanations whilst also making room for god and miracles. (Seriously, if anyone on the boards is a religious believer and a scientist, I'd love to hear your thoughts.)

Also, I know I owe you an email, Lead. I'll try to pick that up so we can get back into our conversation.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

DAVESHAYNE

Sunday, June 3, 2007 2:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by daveshayne:
Dave,

You've missed my point spectacularly.

Not really. Merely pointing out the natural corollary to the line you quoted.

But you're reacting to a claim I never made.

No, just pointing out the alternative interpretation that you seem to have glossed over.

David

"Not completely as well as the series of Firefly..." - From a review of Serenity at amazon.de

CAUSAL

Sunday, June 3, 2007 2:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by daveshayne:
No, just pointing out the alternative interpretation that you seem to have glossed over.

I'm just trying to figure out why you think I'm "glossing over" anything. I think that maybe you expect someone who says, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" to make the same bad leap in judgment that that first guy did. Unfortunately for you, I'm not that guy. I would, however, really like to know why you insist on accusing me of making bad inferences or glossing over stuff. Warning against someone against making an illogical argument is not the same thing as committing a logical error myself. So why do you insist on accusing me of "glossing over" things?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

SIGMANUNKI

Sunday, June 3, 2007 3:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

And since the standard of scientific evidence is limited to that which is empirically observable, I don't think that there can be that sort of evidence, because I take God not to be empirically observable.

Not sure if you're understanding of the scientific methods are up to date; we've gotten a bit beyond beakers and microscopes. I'll make an attempt to correct what I /think/ is misunderstood.

I'm not sure that you fully understand what an observable really is. For instance, a particle is an irreducible representation of the Poincare group. They are _not_ little balls bumping around.

Basically, just because something has been said to have been observed, does _not_ mean that we can actually see it. It only means that we can /detect/ it.

Science also doesn't need something to be observable to think that something exists. Take black-holes for instance. We can't see them, but we can detect there existence indirectly. There is many other examples of this type of thing as well.

But, I'm going to have to say, that it is _not_ Science's objective to find God. So, given that scientists aren't looking, how would they have verified or falsified God's existence.

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

The reason for this seems to be that good scientific thinkers presuppose that no matter what the phenomenon, that phenomenon has a natural explanation.

Historically speaking, things that have been thought to be acts of God have been proven to have a natural explanation. Given this fact, it is prudent to assume that everything has a natural explanation. Just because we can't prove it today, doesn't mean that this isn't true. And again, given history, the true answer is typically just around the corner.

But, on the flip-side, is it really reasonable to assume that when some "faith healer" apparently heals someone that it was God that did it? Especially since I can't recall even one instance where a "faith healer" wasn't discredited.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FREDGIBLET

Sunday, June 3, 2007 3:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
The First Amendment prohibits the promotion of a religion by the government, teaching a religion in public schools is the government promoting a religion.

until as recently as the 1960s, we still had bible study and prayer in schools.

Relevance? Just because it happened doesn't make it Constitutional.

Quote:
wasnt curriculum, it was being practiced freely, as the first amendment grants.

Granted (no pun intended).

Quote:
regarding the first amendment, we should accept that the pilgrims were escaping religious persecution from the catholic church,

Certainly, we should also accept that it wasn't the pilgrims who set up the American government, and we should also accept that people who were persecuted for their religion shouldn't be interested in persecuting others (though people aren't perfect).

Quote:
thats why we have a bill of rights and constitution, because we actually had moral and ethical standards, and absolutes, that we believed were divinely granted to each person, as a sovereign being.

As Fremd pointed out, saying that the founders were strongly religious is theistic revisionism, the writing was somewhat couched in religious terminology, but that doesn't actually mean anything, if Lavey wrote the Satanic Bible using religious terminology that wouldn't make it any less atheistic.

Quote:
Quote:
The only way around it is to teach all religions which would take an enormous amount of time away from actually learning useful things.

except that America was a christian nation from its founding

No, America was a nation where religion and government were purposely separated to prevent religious persecution. America was a country of Christians (for the most part) but the government was never intended to be a theological organization.

Quote:
Quote:
People tried repeatedly to confirm the stories of the Bible using science, they all failed.

archeological evidence constantly confirms the bibles accuracy.

It confirms some of the historical aspects (i.e. Jesus did exist), however it completely fails to show the supernatural aspect: the Egyptians have no record of the plagues, there is no evidence for a global flood (and a great deal of evidence against), there is huge amounts of evidence for things happening that have no mention in the Bible (how many Velociraptors show up in the Bible?). Did you know that the people who laid the groundwork for Darwin's work were looking for evidence of Creation? They didn't find it, they found evolution.

Quote:
as far as our origins, you cant prove that we came from apes

Fossil, morphological, biochemical and genetic evidence make a pretty damn compelling case.

Quote:
any more then i can that God created us UNIQUELY among his creatures(but actually, i think the circumstantial evidence is in my favor)

What evidence would that be?

Quote:
Quote:
Explanation please? At what point is religion necessary to the continuance of the government?

im not advocating a "religion", as much as a worldview that includes transcendant laws established by a higher power.

Last I checked higher powers and transcendental laws were the exclusive domain of religion, thus you are advocating religion. Unless that is you can give a non-religious source of transcendental laws and higher powers.

Quote:
as far as our constitutional republic, the reason for this is clear as day. take a look at the democratic party: they have no platform, because they do not have a uniform set of principles.

Clear as mud you mean. What relevance does the lack of uniformity of the Democratic party have?

Quote:
as an atheist, what DO you believe? what IS your moral code? its completely relative to your own personal opinion!

So is yours, moral judgments from different religions have different outcomes, many times different factions inside a single religion, u

YINYANG

Sunday, June 3, 2007 4:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I'd like to know how one could go about their science looking for natural explanations whilst also making room for god and miracles.

I consider myself neither a scientist nor religious, but I believe the term is "compartmentalization." The two ideas are separated somehow - perhaps by their understanding that science's methods are only applicable to a materialist world - either with or without realizing that the two ideas seem to be at odds. I think it helps if religion doesn't permeate their whole lives to the same extent as, say, a fundamentalist who wants Harry Potter banned.

My biology teacher was a great example of that. Science was so exciting for him, and I think he was a Presbyterian, or at least a Protestant of some sort.

And, although it isn't possible to scientifically prove/disprove the existence of a deity in general, certain specific ones can be shown to be bizarre, illogical, or laughable (Scientology, anyone?).

For example, this is something I found to be interesting:

http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/29/part-1-my-day-outside-the-creati
on-museum/#comment-35048

Quote:
Quote:
Now that’s something I don’t understand, myself, as someone who is not an atheist. If God is said to be “all powerful, all knowing, eternal and infinite” the such a God could include the attributes of a “personal God” but such a God would also have to include infintely more than that.

The philosophical argument there tends to go that personality is defined by limitations and god is defined by lack of limitations and therefore god cannot have personal attributes. I can’t explain it very well since I don’t believe it and have never heard anyone explain it well myself, but Smith goes into it in Atheism: The Case… if you’re interested in it.

The scientific argument, however, is quite a bit stronger. The only reason that science would be unable to disprove an aspect of god is if that aspect were to lie completely outside of reality and to have [no] interaction with reality. Thus, by claiming that science cannot disprove the existence of your god, you are claiming that the god is not a part of this universe and does not interact with this universe through miracles, answered prayers, writing holy books, etc. If you have a personal god, it must be doing at least one of these things, and so is interacting with the universe, and so is scientifically testable.

Unfortunately, it's difficult to make any progress with "God works in mysterious ways" counter-arguments, which is why science tends to leave this stuff alone in the first place.

SERGEANTX

Sunday, June 3, 2007 5:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
You said yes, but I would say based on your description, 'no'.

I think it depends on how you're defining gods. I'm taking them as literal artifacts of human history. There's clearly something there, even if it's a simple as a shared concept. But I think it's a good deal more powerful than just an idea.

Quote:
If we can weigh someone before and after the removal of the god, and nothing else is changed, would the hosts' weight change? If yes, then that is evidence that a scientist would likely accept...

That's really not the sort of thing I'm talking about. When I say god is real it's more like saying that a computer program is real. The program is massless - your hard drive won't weigh any less after it's deleted. But it's still a real entity with identifiable characteristics and real effects on the world. Think of god as sophisticated 'program' that has evolved to propagate it's existence through human minds.

As a point of reference, I came to this idea after reading several books on human consciousness. The theories that intrigued me the most were those that posit the human soul (or 'self', or whatever you refer to when you say 'I') to be be, essentially, a specific type of information laden pattern in a human brain. In other words, you an I are real in the same way that I'm claiming gods are.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

ANTIMASON

Sunday, June 3, 2007 7:56 AM

to say i interpret the bible "literally" is deceptive. there is no way you could interpret Revelations or the book of Daniel, or the book of Enoch literally. but the message throughout is clear that you cant just pick and choose what you want to believe, and what fits in comfortably to your current understanding... because it does have a consistent message, and certain things are very specific for a reason. also, people assume the evidence refutes young earth Creationism, and ive heard some pretty good arguments in its favor. so dont assume references like "a thousand years is like a day to the lord", and vice versa contradict a literal interpretation.. because that is quite a different context then "on the first day" God created...

LEADB

Sunday, June 3, 2007 10:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I was 'with' you up to that part. I am not sure that a 'good scientific thinker' -always- does not have such a category, for instance the Catholic Church has investigators they send to examine miracles; and I am very confident these folks are good scientific thinkers; but they are prepared to classify as miracles those things which science cannot explain. Or have I missed a key point? (I will agree that if you have a firmly atheistic scientist investigating, he clearly would not have such a category; but not all scientists are atheist (I'll even speculate that most are not).

Well...I think you may be right. Actually, I'll say I think you are right. I suppose that I'm jaded from the parry and thrust of debate, where things are more divisive, and the positions look clearer. It's that damned real world stuff, I hate, where things aren't as neat as theory can make them! I guess the main thing, though is the methodological naturalism part. If one really buys completely into it, then there's no question science can't answer. Of course, being that I'm on the campus, I do know a few guys in the hard sciences who also believe that there's a god. I'd like to know how one could go about their science looking for natural explanations whilst also making room for god and miracles. (Seriously, if anyone on the boards is a religious believer and a scientist, I'd love to hear your thoughts.)

Heh, the funny thing is after further pondering, I decided you were right after all. I think in this case the 'technically correct' response from a scientist would be something like... 'Observation does not yield at this time to suitable scientific explanation' after which the person might consider himself free to speculate, in essence 'stepping out of' his 'scientist role'. I think what 'triggered' my initial response is the difference between a 'scientist' and a 'scientific thinker'. A thinker is a person; and people do the darnedest things; whereas scientist is a role, which a person can step out of as 'needed' (but should be clear when doing so as to avoid confusing the issue).

Quote:

Also, I know I owe you an email, Lead. I'll try to pick that up so we can get back into our conversation.

np. thx for letting me know the bit bucket hasn't grabbed it ;-)

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

LEADB

Sunday, June 3, 2007 10:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
to say i interpret the bible "literally" is deceptive. there is no way you could interpret Revelations or the book of Daniel, or the book of Enoch literally. but the message throughout is clear that you cant just pick and choose what you want to believe, and what fits in comfortably to your current understanding... because it does have a consistent message, and certain things are very specific for a reason. also, people assume the evidence refutes young earth Creationism, and ive heard some pretty good arguments in its favor. so dont assume references like "a thousand years is like a day to the lord", and vice versa contradict a literal interpretation.. because that is quite a different context then "on the first day" God created...

Thanks for taking the time to explain your position; it's clearer to me than before. I think our points of difference of position will be driven by 'the message throughout is clear'; to which I will say it may be to you, but that even Christians (as per Wiki definition) will disagree on which those 'clear' elements are.

LEADB

Sunday, June 3, 2007 10:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Think of god as sophisticated 'program' that has evolved to propagate it's existence through human minds.

As a point of reference, I came to this idea after reading several books on human consciousness. The theories that intrigued me the most were those that posit the human soul (or 'self', or whatever you refer to when you say 'I') to be be, essentially, a specific type of information laden pattern in a human brain. In other words, you an I are real in the same way that I'm claiming gods are.

Ok, I think I understand where you are coming from on the 'cognitive explanation' of the basis for your position. I believe that such a position, even if accurate (again, I'd be saying this for my own faith position as well), is not one well suited for providing scientific evidence in the tradition of the scientific method. I could be wrong, all it takes is one bright person with the right 'ah ha' moment to turn such an assumption upside down.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, June 3, 2007 11:17 AM

I forget who said it, but I like to use it when I can.

" ( The study of ) Evolution does not demand or deny the existance of God " )

So much is said in that one sentence, and I totally agree. Though I'm a non believer when it comes to God, I still can appreciate anyone trying to discover HIS glory through HIS works. I don't see why there is so much hatred by some fundies when it comes to the topic of evolution.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

LEADB

Sunday, June 3, 2007 1:03 PM

I'd replace 'hatred' with 'anger' (though I suppose it probably does get to that at times).

There's at least two schools of Fundamentalist teaching directly threatened by evolution; both driven by a literal (or at least 'more literal' than most) interpretation of the Bible.

1: Creationism; which basically dictates that God created the world 'as is', and evolution does not fit well into that unless you start taking some steps down the road of accepting the story as allegory.

2: Young Earth; which basically states the world is only 10,000 years old. This ties into an interpretation of the genealogy presented in the bible, plus a tie into 'known history' where that genealogy leaves off. Assuming the 7 day creation story is literally true + that time span, it gives you about 10,000 years, give or take a couple thousand years. Obviously, a theory of evolution, or any of the generally accepted astronomically based age assessments of the visible universe, you are going to run into significant contradictions.

Any time a basic belief like this is 'threatened' you will get a strong reaction, you may get either anger or perhaps even hate. At the very least, a highly probable 'intense statement of disagreement'.

Note: I do not subscribe to either position above; and if I've misstated either, am quite open to correction.

CAUSAL

Sunday, June 3, 2007 2:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
Quote:
Now that’s something I don’t understand, myself, as someone who is not an atheist. If God is said to be “all powerful, all knowing, eternal and infinite” the such a God could include the attributes of a “personal God” but such a God would also have to include infintely more than that.

The philosophical argument there tends to go that personality is defined by limitations and god is defined by lack of limitations and therefore god cannot have personal attributes. I can’t explain it very well since I don’t believe it and have never heard anyone explain it well myself, but Smith goes into it in Atheism: The Case… if you’re interested in it.

The trouble with this counter argument against God's being a personal God is that there's an equivocation being made. When a religious believer says that God is a personal God, he means that it is possible to have a personal relationship with that God. Something in his religion makes it such that he can enter God's presence (prayer, meditation, whatever it is). But the counterargument doesn't deal with that aspect of being "personal." The counterargument takes "personal" to mean "having a personality." But that's nothing more than equivocation. By introducing a defintion of "personal" that doesn't appear in the original theistic position, the counter-argument fails, since it doesn't address the original position in virtue of the fact that it commits the fallacy of equivocation.

Quote:
Quote:
The scientific argument, however, is quite a bit stronger. The only reason that science would be unable to disprove an aspect of god is if that aspect were to lie completely outside of reality and to have [ no ] interaction with reality. Thus, by claiming that science cannot disprove the existence of your god, you are claiming that the god is not a part of this universe and does not interact with this universe through miracles, answered prayers, writing holy books, etc. If you have a personal god, it must be doing at least one of these things, and so is interacting with the universe, and so is scientifically testable.

From my perspective, that doesn't seem to be a very strong argument at all. When this guy claims that "The only reason that science would be unable to disprove an aspect of god is if that aspect were to lie completely outside of reality and to have [no] interaction with reality" he seems to making two claims that are in serious need of justification. First he seems to be claiming that science can access all of reality. And that if that's the case, but it can't access God, then God's not real. But why should I accept the claim that science can access all of reality? This argument merely assumes that that's the case, and leaves it at that. But this is a huge claim that needs some justification. Science can't give an account of what my subjective experience of tasting cherry ice cream is like, for instance. This individual could talk about the chemical properties of the stuff, the way the chemicals interact with the tongue, the nerve impulses that move from my mouth to my brain, the neuron firings in my brain as a result of those nerve impulses--but he still would not have described what it's like for me to taste cherry ice cream (for more on the inaccessibility of subjectivity, see Nagel's What Is It Like To Be A Bat?). I think the argument fails solely on those grounds alone. The second claim that seems to be involved is an epistemological claim that builds off the idea that science has access to all of reality. This individual seems to be making the implicit claim that science is the only means for truly knowing anything. This, I fear, is mere epistemological empiricism. In another thread I traced the history of this sort of idea from its roots in the philosophical movement called Logical Positivism. Logical Positivism failed, though, because its central belief (that only scientifically verifiable/deniable beliefs count as k

CAUSAL

Sunday, June 3, 2007 2:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
to say i interpret the bible "literally" is deceptive. there is no way you could interpret Revelations or the book of Daniel, or the book of Enoch literally. but the message throughout is clear that you cant just pick and choose what you want to believe, and what fits in comfortably to your current understanding... because it does have a consistent message, and certain things are very specific for a reason. also, people assume the evidence refutes young earth Creationism, and ive heard some pretty good arguments in its favor. so dont assume references like "a thousand years is like a day to the lord", and vice versa contradict a literal interpretation.. because that is quite a different context then "on the first day" God created...

Yes, but the Hebrew word yom (which is interpreted "day" in English translations) can mean (1) a 24-hour period; (2) the 12-hour period of daylight; or (3) a long but finite period of time (see Gen 2:4). Who's to say that definition (3) isn't the correct interpretation? You demand that we interpret Genesis 1 in a concrete-literal fashion, but it's not at all clear that that's the way we should interpret it. St Augustine, for example, thought God created the earth fully formed in one infinitely brief moment. Why demand your own young-earth interpretation as if that's the only possible interpretation?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CAUSAL

Sunday, June 3, 2007 2:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I'd replace 'hatred' with 'anger' (though I suppose it probably does get to that at times).

There's at least two schools of Fundamentalist teaching directly threatened by evolution; both driven by a literal (or at least 'more literal' than most) interpretation of the Bible.

1: Creationism; which basically dictates that God created the world 'as is', and evolution does not fit well into that unless you start taking some steps down the road of accepting the story as allegory.

2: Young Earth; which basically states the world is only 10,000 years old. This ties into an interpretation of the genealogy presented in the bible, plus a tie into 'known history' where that genealogy leaves off. Assuming the 7 day creation story is literally true + that time span, it gives you about 10,000 years, give or take a couple thousand years. Obviously, a theory of evolution, or any of the generally accepted astronomically based age assessments of the visible universe, you are going to run into significant contradictions.

Any time a basic belief like this is 'threatened' you will get a strong reaction, you may get either anger or perhaps even hate. At the very least, a highly probable 'intense statement of disagreement'.

Note: I do not subscribe to either position above; and if I've misstated either, am quite open to correction.

I think you're mostly correct here, Lead. I'd just like to offer a couple of refinements.

As far as "creationism" goes, it's true to say that some creationists think that God created the world "as is." But that's not the full extent of creationist thought. Creationism in its most general sense is the belief that God is the creator of the universe. Period. Now, there are all kinds of creationism. Young Earth creationism (YEC) is the 10,000 year old earth version. Old Earth creationism (OEC, the one I subscribe to) doesn't deny scientific findings of an old universe, but does insist that God created the universe, first supernaturally with the Big Bang (heck, even my atheist Metaphysics professor said--on numerous occasions--that all mathematical models break down when applied to the Big Bang) and then via natural means to get us to where we are today. There's even a creationist account called the Framework View that takes no position on the age of the earth, but views the Genesis days as two parallel triads (1st and 4th days, 2nd and 5th days, 3rd and 6th days). My point, I guess is that YEC can't be conflated with Creationism in general.

The history of YEC is pretty interesting. It's actually only about 50 years old. The publication in the mid-1960s of The Genesis Flood first started fundamentalists thinking that perhaps we could account for the data of geologists by some other means and still maintain the young earth account. That got wrapped into other efforts (the "dating" of biblical events based on Bible geneaologies) and before you know it, YEC is born. For anyone who's interested, I'd recommend The Genesis Debate (ed. David Hagopian) to see the arguments of YEC, OEC and Framework. To get a clear explanation of the OEC position (as well as a fascinating history of YEC) I recommend A Matter of Days by Hugh Ross.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

LEADB

Sunday, June 3, 2007 3:18 PM

Causal,
Thanks for clarifying on those points. I'll try to remember the term "Young Earth Creationism" for that particular point. One of the problems is it is all too easy to get tied up to the 'short form' of the term.

Ok,just burned my brain out.
Wiki provides some interesting variations of the theme:
YEC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_earth_creationism

OEC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism
(which then has 2 variants)

and Theistic evolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

Each sufficiently different to really need it's own name to keep the discussions straight.

(My travel plans for today have been reschedule one day out; so I have a day 'free to ponder things')

LEADB

Sunday, June 3, 2007 3:42 PM

Ok, if I'm reading Wiki right... two variants on OEC:
Gap Creationism - would still be likely "put off" by 'biological' evolution?

Progressive Creationism - would likely be "ok" with 'biological' evolution, though would likely see a 'hand of God' in 'directing' it?

Not that Wiki is guaranteed right.

ANTIMASON

Sunday, June 3, 2007 6:36 PM

Quote:
posted by Casual- Yes, but the Hebrew word yom (which is interpreted "day" in English translations) can mean (1) a 24-hour period; (2) the 12-hour period of daylight; or (3) a long but finite period of time (see Gen 2:4). Who's to say that definition (3) isn't the correct interpretation?

it may very well be. so may the other two though.. i try to give all equal play. the majority of people, minus many (well intentioned) fundmentalists, completely disregard the literal possibilities, which i feel is a mistake.

Quote:
You demand that we interpret Genesis 1 in a concrete-literal fashion, but it's not at all clear that that's the way we should interpret it. St Augustine, for example, thought God created the earth fully formed in one infinitely brief moment. Why demand your own young-earth interpretation as if that's the only possible interpretation?

im not demanding, im asking people to consider all ID(or creationist)possibilites somewhat equally. in my mind i am completely open, i just like to present the 'other side', which doesnt always receive focus

ANTIMASON

Sunday, June 3, 2007 6:42 PM

FredGiblet and Frem- i encourage you guys to watch this houir long video entitled 'founding fathers: deists or christians'. it definitely shows another side of colonial America that proves to be inseparable from our system of government

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4613995330489978540&q=foundin
g+fathers+christians+or+deists

RUE

Sunday, June 3, 2007 7:54 PM

Re miracles:

I just wanted to point out that while there is a very small chance of the improbable happening, there is a chance. And someone has to be on the tail of the bell curve. In the great Lotto of life, that's why you'll find people who 'beat the odds'.

LEADB

Sunday, June 3, 2007 9:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
im asking people to consider all ID(or creationist)possibilites somewhat equally. in my mind i am completely open, i just like to present the 'other side', which doesnt always receive focus

It was interesting, but I'm still inclined to put ID in the classification of 'religion' Vs 'science'.

SERGEANTX

Sunday, June 3, 2007 10:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I believe that such a position, even if accurate (again, I'd be saying this for my own faith position as well), is not one well suited for providing scientific evidence in the tradition of the scientific method.

I think it's a mistake to assume that science can only address phenomena that have direct material existence. I don't think most scientists would limit themselves in this way, certainly not mathematicians in any case :).

There are plenty of examples to things that are real and can be studied, but don't rely on material existence. I mentioned computer programs, but lots of other things are real despite their immaterial nature. A story, for example, is real regardless of it's medium. The ideas and information of the story are merely patterns of symbols.

I'm looking at gods as sophisticated examples of memes, self-propagating 'programs' that exist in any medium that can maintain them. This understanding satisfies most of the observable effects of religion and gods and makes a lot more sense than dismissing the idea of gods out-of-hand because they can't be measured easily.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

LEADB

Sunday, June 3, 2007 10:56 PM

SergeantX,
If you can come up with an approach you believe would produce scientific evidence, I'm all ears. Otherwise, while I recognize the potential validity of your position, I personally am at a loss on how to suggest a course of scientific inquiry into the matter. This easily could simply be my lack on the more esoteric side of science.

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

SERGEANTX

Sunday, June 3, 2007 11:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
If you can come up with an approach you believe would produce scientific evidence, I'm all ears.

Do you 'believe' in prime numbers? They can be studied, notions about them can be hypothesized and proved or disproved. But is there any evidence, evidence of the kind you're demanding for gods, of their existence? It's seems you're fixating on gods as material entities and rejecting them altogether if their material existence can't be shown. If that's the case, I'd have to agree - we won't find ectoplasm or any other kind of 'godstuff' that we can study under a microscope. I don't, however, think that means the topic is out of bounds for scientific inquiry.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

LEADB

Monday, June 4, 2007 12:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
If you can come up with an approach you believe would produce scientific evidence, I'm all ears.

Do you 'believe' in prime numbers? They can be studied, notions about them can be hypothesized and proved or disproved. But is there any evidence, evidence of the kind you're demanding for gods, of their existence? It's seems you're fixating on gods as material entities and rejecting them altogether if their material existence can't be shown. If that's the case, I'd have to agree - we won't find ectoplasm or any other kind of 'godstuff' that we can study under a microscope. I don't, however, think that means the topic is out of bounds for scientific inquiry.

SergeantX

The English language is a bit vague for this type of discussion. Math is a defined construct. We define a prime number as that number for which there are no factors other than themselves or one. It's completely arbitrary a definition which has been made up to explain a set of numbers which have a particular use. For which I will now say the following, I cannot provide scientific evidence that prime numbers exist.

However, I never contended that god (or gods, or goddess or goddesses) does not exist. I merely indicated that the scientific method (and I see no problem with the definition here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
) does not well apply to the gathering of evidence of the existence of either prime numbers or god(s, et al). I think the funny thing here is, once we sort out our difference; it will not be as much a difference in belief about religion as it is a difference in our understanding of the bounds of scientific inquiry.

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

SERGEANTX

Monday, June 4, 2007 12:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I think the funny thing here is, once we sort out our difference; it will not be as much a difference in belief about religion as it is a difference in our understanding of the bounds of scientific inquiry.

Perhaps. The thing is we do scientific inquiry on prime numbers. I think there's a tendency to avoid serious study of religious phenomena because we know so precious little about it, in part because it's been neglected for so long.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

LEADB

Monday, June 4, 2007 2:24 AM

That's where we disagree, then. I would say computer scientists use prime numbers for encryption purposes, for instance; and they may have other uses, but they are a mathematical artifact. I believe if you asked a scientist to support that prime numbers are real via the scientific method, he would not be able to. That does not make them less real, or for that matter, less useful.

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

REAVERMAN

Monday, June 4, 2007 4:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
im not demanding, im asking people to consider all ID(or creationist)possibilites somewhat equally.

And therin lies the problem. Creationists are going at this from the wrong angle. Creationism is all well and good if you want to believe in that sort of thing, but as it deals with the supernatural, it is not the equal of science. Now, weather you believe Creationism/ID are superior to, or inferior to Evolution is your business. But they are most definitely not equal, because they are based on entirely different principles.

Evolution is based on observation/experimentation (basically, tangible, testable things) like all science. Creationism/ID, however are based on opinion (the opinion that things are too complicated to have come about naturally), and faith. There is nothing wrong with faith, but it is seperate from science, and should be kept that way.

[img]

[/img]

"I refuse to submit,
To the god you say is kind.
I know what's right, and it is time,
It's time to fight, and free our minds!

Our spirits were forged in snow and ice,
To bend like steel forged over fire.
We were not made to bend like reed,
Or to turn the other cheek!"

- from the song "Thousand Years of Opression" by Amon Amarth

ANTIMASON

Monday, June 4, 2007 9:55 PM

ive heard the argument before, and i just disagree.. no matter how many times it is restated and re-worded. what youre saying, in essence, is that there is no evidence to suggest design. i would argue that ID scientists reach some different conclusions, many times using the same data. and they are not biblical Creationists, by their own acknowledgment. they have their own indications of design, which is intriguing if anyone cares to do some objective research. personally i dont ignore the philosophical ramifications, that seems to be a mistake logically, since what we perceive to be reality is probably a lot more complicated. in the end, its a matter of whether or not we recognize what we are seeing or not, and i think youd agree

Quote:
Creationism is all well and good if you want to believe in that sort of thing, but as it deals with the supernatural, it is not the equal of science.

thats a presupposition though. there are a lot of scientists in the ID camp who allow for these possibilities, since there are still unanswered questions that 'could', as far as we know, go beyond the realm of observable science. but obsevable science has good evidence of design. we dont have an explanation for how universal laws are formed, or how complex information, or hardware, is established prior to the micro-evolutionary stage; which the eventual pattern itself couldnt answer. i just expect more to the process, but again thats just my perspective on it, my philosophy. but this is why atheistic evolution is equal to its own religion: it would be these same people advocating complete exclusion of traditional religious law from government, when the two are vitally inseparable

REAVERMAN

Monday, June 4, 2007 10:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
ive heard the argument before, and i just disagree.. no matter how many times it is restated and re-worded. what youre saying, in essence, is that there is no evidence to suggest design. i would argue that ID scientists reach some different conclusions, many times using the same data. and they are not biblical Creationists, by their own acknowledgment. they have their own indications of design, which is intriguing if anyone cares to do some objective research. personally i dont ignore the philosophical ramifications, that seems to be a mistake logically, since what we perceive to be reality is probably a lot more complicated. in the end, its a matter of whether or not we recognize what we are seeing or not, and i think youd agree

Not Biblical Creationists? The only differences between ID "Scientists" and creationists are that 1) ID adherents are non-specific enough about the nature of the "Designer", that it isn't necesarily a "God" doing the creating... Just someone with the right prerequisites for the job. And 2) They attempt to make it look like they are being scientific by looking through microscopes and saying, "Hmmmm... That is crazy-complex... Hey, look, I found some evidence!"

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't care if people want to teach ID in school as a philisophical elective. Hell, go ahead and throw traditional creationist dogma in there too, if you want. But my entire point was not to say that Creationism/ID are wrong... Just that they are two seperate things from scientific study.

ID, no matter how you dress it up, is more a matter of opinion than solid, tangible evidence. And that is as it should be because ID is a personal Philisophical theory that deals with miraculous and godlike acts. And until science advances to the point of being able to observe the creation of the universe, ID will remain a non-scientific theory.

[img]

[/img]

"I refuse to submit,
To the god you say is kind.
I know what's right, and it is time,
It's time to fight, and free our minds!

Our spirits were forged in snow and ice,
To bend like steel forged over fire.
We were not made to bend like reed,
Or to turn the other cheek!"

- from the song "Thousand Years of Opression" by Amon Amarth

FREDGIBLET

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 7:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
they have their own indications of design, which is intriguing if anyone cares to do some objective research.

Are you talking about specified complexity? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity if the criticism on that page isn't enough then try here: http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/

EDIT: Objective research is indeed a good idea

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 7:31 PM

Quote:
Moses himself wrote that seven days was a significant period of time because God created everything in six days, and rested on the seventh, thereby establishing our 'week'.

I thought that was a Sumerian invention.
---------------------------

WHY does The Economist appear every seventh day? The answer is because we, like you, still regulate our lives by a septimal law that Mesopotamian star-gazers framed, and local warlords imposed, more than 40 centuries ago. Our weekdays and weekends and weeks off, our dress-down Fridays, hectic Saturday nights, Sundays sacred or profane, and Monday-morning blues all have their origin in something that happened around 2350BC.

To the Sumerians, ultimately, we owe not only the week but also the 60-minute hour Sargon I, King of Akkad, having conquered Ur and the other cities of Sumeria, then instituted a seven-day week, the first to be recorded. Ur was probably using weeks, less formally, long before Sargon came marching in. The Sumerians were great innovators in matters of time. It is to them, ultimately, that we owe not only the week but also the 60-minute hour. Such things came easily to people who based their maths not on a decimal system but on a sexagesimal one.

Why were these clever chaps, who went for 60 because it is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20 and 30, fascinated by stubbornly indivisible seven? In ancient Egypt and ancient China, “weeks” of ten days were long in use—much more understandable, as people have ten fingers to count on, not seven. (And yet you have to wonder, if the Pharaohs' long week was intended to drive their workforce harder, whether it provoked the Exodus?) Above all, why should the Sumerian system have not merely endured but become an almost universal conqueror? Ur's posterity now sways regions Sargon never knew. Its lead has been slavishly followed by Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Hindus ancient and modern, Muslims and most of the present inhabitants of Europe and the Americas. Even China surrendered a good thousand years ago. The year, the day and (not quite so obviously) the month are natural divisions of time. The week is an oddity. The moon's four phases are a near miss, but still a misfit, for weeks. You will be in trouble (like H.G. Wells's “The Man Who Could Work Miracles”) if you try to make the moon perform every 28 days, instead of its usual 29½ and a bit.

The Sumerians had a better reason for their septimalism. They worshipped seven gods whom they could see in the sky. Reverently, they named the days of their week for these seven heavenly bodies. So do most of us today. Greeks, Slavs, and many Jews and Muslims, although loyal to Ur's seven-day week, have shaken off its planet-gods; but a great majority of Christians and of Hindus, and virtually all “unbelievers”, still pay their respects daily to the Sumerian seven— under changed names, of course. For the Sumerians themselves, seven was a very special number. They conceived of a seven-branched Tree of Life, and of seven heavens, that were passed to Babylon and symbolised there in seven-tiered ziggurats, or hanging gardens. Sumeria's Gilgamesh epic describes the rite of passage through which Enkidu the ape-man became human, thanks to the obliging Shamhat: While the two of them together were making love, He forgot the wild where he was born. For seven days and seven nights Enkidu was erect and coupled with Shamhat. In spite of all that, Ur's seventh day was not holy. On the contrary, it represented danger and darkness. It was risky to do anything at such a time. So it became a day of rest.

Ever since the time when Abraham trekked westward from Ur, Mesopotamian influences had helped to form Hebrew traditions. The Jews got the story of the Flood from Sumeria. They got the seven-day-week idea early enough to use it in the account of the Creation given in Genesis. But there may have been some garbling in the transmission. The Sumerians would not have depicted the Creator as just sitting back, satisfied, on the seventh day; to them, he would s

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 7:38 PM

Quote:
I'm saying that religious concepts like 'god' are entities in their own right. To the extent that believers maintain a cohesive understanding of their god, that god exists and effects its will upon the world through the actions of its followers. These gods have evolved efficient means of reproduction and react negatively to attempts to remove them from their hosts. They're very much living entities.

You're speaking of memes then?

Quote:
meme A unit of cultural information that represents a basic idea that can be transferred from one individual to another, and subjected to MUTATION, CROSSOVER, and ADAPTATION.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 7:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You're speaking of memes then?

Yup, pretty much. But in a very specific context. Uber-memes maybe?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 7:45 PM

double post

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 8:07 PM

Or, in the case of the seven-day week: Ur-memes!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

ANTIMASON

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 8:19 PM

Quote:
posted by Signym- The Jews got the story of the Flood from Sumeria. They got the seven-day-week idea early enough to use it in the account of the Creation given in Genesis.

that really depends on how you look at it... i know thats the secular view anyways. i dont happen to believe these were just 'stories', so i take a more collective view of these global "myths". to begin, the flood story is almost universal, so that certainly wasnt restricted to a single geographical location.. apparently this was widely reported. the difference between the Sumerians, and Abraham and the early Israelites, is that they didnt worship the Ananaki as gods, they worshipped the Creator of everything. the sumerian gods virtually overlay with the fallen angels of the bible; no contradiction, just told from the perspective of Yahwehs followers, instead of Enki or Enlil. the Sumerians may have been the first to worship the wrong gods, but it doesnt neccessarily mean they first established those beliefs. Abraham and the Israelites didnt plaguerize this history, they merely told it from the perspective of the eternal Creator, rather then imperfect fallen entities. if you read the book of Jasher(i believe), Abraham makes it clear that this was his reason for leaving Ur

RUE

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 8:24 PM

Oh dear - SignyM, if PJ reads this it'll be all over.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 8:35 PM

So you're saying that the Sumerians took the notion of a seven-day week from the Hebrews? (who worshipped Elohim BTW not Yaweh.)

Or are you saying that BOTH of these religions refer to the same event, which is the creation? (Which means that you do not think evolution occurred because there is no way a creation myth can survive intact starting with one-celled organisms.)

Although come to think of it, if humans were not created until AFTER everything else, how did we "learn" about it? You have to make a lot of suppositions about that part, which is not detailed in the Bible.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FREDGIBLET

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 9:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
to begin, the flood story is almost universal

And yet there is very little overlap in the stories, the number of survivors, the length of time, the cause, all different, almost like they were talking about large numbers of local floods instead of one global flood...

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 9:32 PM

And... I gotta admit my knowledge of the Bible is pretty sketchy, but... didn't everyone die in the Biblical flood? Except Noah and his family, of course. So whence came all the non-believers?

OOC, did Noah take fishes on-board? What about whales? Mosquitoes? Did he feed the lions with the rabbits, which prolly bred like...er, well... bunnies?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FREDGIBLET

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 11:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And... I gotta admit my knowledge of the Bible is pretty sketchy, but... didn't everyone die in the Biblical flood? Except Noah and his family, of course. So whence came all the non-believers?

They were tempted by Satan in the guise of Mohammed, Buddha, whoever it was that wrote the Bhagavad Gita(sp?), and Charles Darwin of course.

Quote:
OOC, did Noah take fishes on-board? What about whales? Mosquitoes? Did he feed the lions with the rabbits, which prolly bred like...er, well... bunnies?

There's some fun stuff in here: http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html

ANTIMASON

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 2:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So you're saying that the Sumerians took the notion of a seven-day week from the Hebrews?

what do you mean by "notion" exactly(is this in dispute)? God established the "week"(month year and Zodiac), and the Sumerians record themselves that they were taught this knowledge by their 'gods'. i would say corrupted however, since the bible says in Genesis 6 that the fallen angels left their domain, the heavens, to interfere with mankind. this interference is what prefaced the flood in both cultures, but for different reasons. the sumerians were punished because they were too noisy, Noah records it as an indifference to morality

Quote:
Or are you saying that BOTH of these religions refer to the same event, which is the creation?

the differences in the stories i believe can be attributed to perspective, and which culture is telling the story. the difference is, the Sumerian gods didnt create the universe, they are clearly finite.

Quote:
(Which means that you do not think evolution occurred because there is no way a creation myth can survive intact starting with one-celled organisms.)

i believe we were created uniquely, yes. i dont disagree that a species is programmed to evolve within its archetype though

Quote:
Although come to think of it, if humans were not created until AFTER everything else, how did we "learn" about it? You have to make a lot of suppositions about that part, which is not detailed in the Bible.

this is why i dont discount global 'god' myths, i think they all tell a similar story. what separates the abrahamic beliefs is the acknowledgement of the Creator of everything, and a prophesied messiah sent to redeem mankind. and thats where christianity becomes relevant to me, because i do believe Jesus was the Son of God

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 2:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
i dont disagree that a species is programmed to evolve within its archetype though

I keep hearing this argument coming out of the ID movement. What does it mean? If you're acknowledging the process of evolution, how do you make a distinction between evolving 'within' or 'outside' of its archetype? How does evolution recognize this boundary?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FREDGIBLET

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 3:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
i dont disagree that a species is programmed to evolve within its archetype though

I keep hearing this argument coming out of the ID movement. What does it mean?

It means that they can't deny that evolution happens but they want to limit the damage that that admission requires by pretending that there's a barrier to speciation (the development of new species).

Quote:
If you're acknowledging the process of evolution, how do you make a distinction between evolving 'within' or 'outside' of its archetype?

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_1.html
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH350.html
They believe that animals can be classified into groups called "kinds" which are immutable, a creature from one "kind" cannot become part of a different "kind". "Kind" has a different definition depending on who you are talking to but is usually somewhere around the species level, thus they believe that macroevolution (the development of new species) is impossible. Of course since macroevolution has been observed:
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910_1.html
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
that argument kind of falls apart.

Quote:
How does evolution recognize this boundary?

There is no such boundary.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 3:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
what do you mean by "notion" exactly(is this in dispute)? God established the "week"(month year and Zodiac), and the Sumerians record themselves that they were taught this knowledge by their 'gods'.

Some say the seven day week originated with the Sumerians; other say with the Hebrews. But most of this is supposition, because we don’t really know for certain when or where the seven day week originated, and it’s possible that it pre-dates any of these cultures. As far as history goes (and my knowledge of it), the earliest known implementation of a seven day week was by Sargon the Great of Akkad in c. 24th c. BCE, who was not Sumerian, but did conquer Sumer. The Akkadians were Semitic, which means they were related to the Hebrews not the Sumerians. Now the assumption is that the Sumerians were using the seven-day week prior to that, which could the case, but history is what is it is, and what we know is that it was the Semitic culture, not the Sumerian one, that came up with the seven day week.

There is also a common argument that the biblical flood is retelling of a Sumerian story. Personally, I doubt this too. There’s too much difference between the two stories, for me to believe that they are the same story although they may have even influenced one another. They may be portraying the same event, but I don’t think one is a copy of the other.

As far as evolution goes, it’s entirely possible that a creator did create the current set of species through some progressive process or set in motion some initial conditions that would ultimately produce the current species through what we now recognize as evolution. There’s no inherent conflict between these two ideas. And while speciation has been said to have occurred by evolutionists, there has never been a scientific record of any speciation occurring on the level that macroevolution requires, nor do evolutionists contend that such a record could possible exist since it would require, according to evolution theory, prohibitively long time periods.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 4:09 AM

Whichever. I have a hard time caring about this issue lately. It only becomes a problem when we start voting on what we are going to teach our children. I don't feel education should be a government institution, so the point is moot from my point of view.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

ANTIMASON

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 6:11 AM

Quote:
fredgiblet- It means that they can't deny that evolution happens but they want to limit the damage that that admission requires by pretending that there's a barrier to speciation (the development of new species).

pretend lol? wheres your fossil evidence? if the process of evolution accounts for the existence of all life, it should be conclusive by now in the fossil record. but i dont see that, i see specific archetypes, with little to no deviance. show me any missing links of a species, at any point between its current status and its alleged microbial stages? thats a few hundred million years worth of evolution, so where is it? at this moment in history, it sounds more like certain people "pretending" to know millions of years of speculative biology

KANEMAN

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 2:56 PM

"I, Pencil" is written in the first person from the point of view of an Eberhard Faber pencil. The pencil details the complexity of its own creation, listing its components (cedar, lacquer, graphite, ferrule, factice, pumice, wax, glue) and the numerous people involved, down to the sweeper in the factory and the lighthouse keeper guiding the shipment into port.

"There is a fact still more astounding: the absence of a master mind, of anyone dictating or forcibly directing these countless actions which bring me into being. No trace of such a person can be found. Instead, we find the Invisible Hand at work."

"Since only God can make a tree, I insist that only God could make me. Man can no more direct these millions of know-hows to bring me into being than he can put molecules together to create a tree."

"The lesson I have to teach is this: Leave all creative energies uninhibited. Merely organize society to act in harmony with this lesson. Let society's legal apparatus remove all obstacles the best it can. Permit these creative know-hows freely to flow. Have faith that free men and women will respond to the Invisible Hand. This faith will be confirmed." -wikipedia

LEADB

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 3:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Whichever. I have a hard time caring about this issue lately. It only becomes a problem when we start voting on what we are going to teach our children. I don't feel education should be a government institution, so the point is moot from my point of view.

Just curious; would you simply abolish public education?

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 5:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Just curious; would you simply abolish public education?

Pretty much. Beyond a basic competency in civics, the government has no business dictating how we educate our children.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

REAVERMAN

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 6:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
pretend lol? wheres your fossil evidence? if the process of evolution accounts for the existence of all life, it should be conclusive by now in the fossil record. but i dont see that, i see specific archetypes, with little to no deviance. show me any missing links of a species, at any point between its current status and its alleged microbial stages? thats a few hundred million years worth of evolution, so where is it? at this moment in history, it sounds more like certain people "pretending" to know millions of years of speculative biology

Where's the fossil evidence? Well, look at Blue whales. To this day, they have vestigial bone structures designed for legs (not fins), present in no creature that has been an exclusively sea-borne creature for the last few hundred million years. The farther back in the fossil record for blue whales you go, the larger and more practical these bones get, until you get to a point when they are essentially enourmous mamilian salamanders. Whales went from being massive land-borne creatures, to being exclusively sea-based animals.

[img]

[/img]

"I refuse to submit,
To the god you say is kind.
I know what's right, and it is time,
It's time to fight, and free our minds!

Our spirits were forged in snow and ice,
To bend like steel forged over fire.
We were not made to bend like reed,
Or to turn the other cheek!"

- from the song "Thousand Years of Opression" by Amon Amarth

RUE

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 6:45 PM

Antimason, FredG

"And yet there is very little overlap in the stories, the number of survivors, the length of time, the cause, all different, almost like they were talking about large numbers of local floods instead of one global flood..."

So far as I know the Australian Aborigines and Native Americans have no flood myth, nor do the Mahabharata or Ramayana (two basic texts of Hinduism). Tao as a philosophy doesn't have creation myths so there is no flood mentioned.

There is some thought that the small piece of land separating the Mediterranean Sea and the area that is now the Black sea was at some point breached, and the Mediterranean poured in, leading to 'flood' myths in the cultures of the area.

FREDGIBLET

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 6:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
fredgiblet- It means that they can't deny that evolution happens but they want to limit the damage that that admission requires by pretending that there's a barrier to speciation (the development of new species).

pretend lol? wheres your fossil evidence? if the process of evolution accounts for the existence of all life, it should be conclusive by now in the fossil record.

1. Fossils don't form on command, fossilization is quite rare. The example I heard was of the passenger pigeon, there used to be millions if not billions of passenger pigeons just a couple centuries ago, now they are extinct, try and find a fossil passenger pigeon.
2. That being said there are millions of fossils, all fitting into a nested hierarchy exactly as common descent predicts.
3. You want a perfect, smooth continuum of fossils, that's not what exists because it's not what should exist, the speed and direction of evolution is not uniform and hasn't been expected to be uniform for a very long time. Evolution causes species to adapt to their environment, once a certain level of adaptation is achieved it becomes more expensive then it is worth to continue adapting and a sort of evolutionary stasis is achieved. When a shift in environment or a novel mutation occurs that breaks the stasis evolution will cause the species to adapt rapidly to the new environment before returning to stasis. Most fossils will be found in the stasis plateaus rather then the change periods since the vast majority of creatures will have been born and died during the stasis instead of the period of rapid change.
4. The fossil record is conclusive enough for some of the most skeptical people in the world, scientists. Your inability to accept this due to dogmatism is not a fault of lack of evidence, if we had the fossils of every creature that ever lived you would still simply say "not good enough", or pick a new complaint without admitting error.

Quote:
but i dont see that, i see specific archetypes, with little to no deviance.

Let's take the example of cats and dogs. Why aren't cats evolving into dog-like creatures? Because it would counter productive. Cats are ambush hunters, dogs are endurance hunters, changing between the two would require a large amount of alteration to the body structures. This would be detrimental in the short term as it would make them worse ambush hunters while they still fail as endurance hunters, and then if they made it to the point where they were functional endurance hunters they have to compete with dogs who have already specialized as endurance hunters. At no point during the change it is advantageous so it doesn't happen. If it became advantageous it would happen (assuming that cats survived long enough to adapt). You are saying that since changes like that DON'T happen that they CAN'T which isn't true, the only barrier to a change like that is lack of benefit. In other words you are pretending that there is a barrier where none exists.

Quote:
show me any missing links of a species, at any point between its current status and its alleged microbial stages?

Once again you want a smooth gradual fossil record, such a record only exists in a perfect world, in the real world fossilization is rare, finding fossils isn't easy, digging them up isn't easy, classifying them sometimes isn't easy. But we do have several well documented transitions, such as the transition of whales from land animals to sea animals (I'd call that an "archetype" switch).

Quote:
thats a few hundred million years worth of evolution, so where is it?

The vast majority of it was destroyed before it had the chance to fossilize, most of what did fossilize is still buried, much of what's been dug up is sitting in drawers waiting to be looked at by paleontologists, some of what has been looked at by paleontologists is too fragmented to come to a conclusion. However, the fossil record is constantly being improved, and every new fossil f

RUE

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 6:51 PM

AntiMason,
I KNOW we've had this discussion before and I went to great lengths to find a website that details the transition fossil record of land animal to whale. If I find it now will you promise to look at it and never bring this point up again? I don't want to waste my time in a futile effort.

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
pretend lol? wheres your fossil evidence? if the process of evolution accounts for the existence of all life, it should be conclusive by now in the fossil record. but i dont see that, i see specific archetypes, with little to no deviance. show me any missing links of a species, at any point between its current status and its alleged microbial stages? thats a few hundred million years worth of evolution, so where is it? at this moment in history, it sounds more like certain people "pretending" to know millions of years of speculative biology

REAVERMAN

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 7:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
...the government has no business dictating how we educate our children.
B]

Unless you are teaching your children to be terrorists or dangerous fanatics. In that case, the government, as the representative body for every citizen, has every right to intervene. The best solution would probably be exiling the parents as undesirables, and if the children choose to stay, allow them to live with a normal foster family with similar, if less radical beliefs as their parents to ease the transition.

Personally, if we could find a decent justification, I would advocate exiling fanatics now. If you would be willing to kill non-combatants for a personal belief, then you shouldn't be allowed to live in our country.

[img] [/img]

"I refuse to submit,
To the god you say is kind.
I know what's right, and it is time,
It's time to fight, and free our minds!

Our spirits were forged in snow and ice,
To bend like steel forged over fire.
We were not made to bend like reed,
Or to turn the other cheek!"

- from the song "Thousand Years of Opression" by Amon Amarth

RUE

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 7:20 PM

"I would advocate exiling fanatics now."

In the name of moderation ? It seems counterproductive.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 7:25 PM

Quote:
this is why i dont discount global 'god' myths, i think they all tell a similar story. what separates the abrahamic beliefs is the acknowledgement of the Creator of everything, and a prophesied messiah sent to redeem mankind. and thats where christianity becomes relevant to me, because i do believe Jesus was the Son of God

Wha...? That in no way answers my question. If god, or gods, or God, created everything else first, and THEN man, how did humans (I don't care where) come to know about something that happened BEFORE humanity was even on the scene? Did the gods, or god, or God tell them about it shortly afterwards? And if you believe it was the "one true God" that created everyone- heathens included- what happened to "the story" that it should have changed so much? Or do you believe that God kept yakking with the Hebrews long after He stopped yakking with the others, and kept his "chosen people" on the correct path and let everyone else go hang?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 7:28 PM

Quote:
There is some thought that the small piece of land separating the Mediterranean Sea and the area that is now the Black sea was at some point breached, and the Mediterranean poured in, leading to 'flood' myths in the cultures of the area.

Oh pshaw! That's too much like history! It MUST have been a miracle!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 7:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Reaverman:
Unless you are teaching your children to be terrorists or dangerous fanatics.

Sure, makes sense.

Quote:
Personally, if we could find a decent justification, I would advocate exiling fanatics now.

That's a pretty extreme position. Are you sure that's what you want?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

LEADB

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 7:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Just curious; would you simply abolish public education?
Pretty much. Beyond a basic competency in civics, the government has no business dictating how we educate our children.

K. I tend to believe that it is important to require a decent education to be provided to children, even if a parent would neglect it. What would do for/with the occaision where a parent is 'too involved' with their drug use or other problems to concern themselves with the nature of their child's education, or even if it gets one?

On the contrary point, I have no objection to folks having some discression to have public school funding applied to various private school tuition options.

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

LEADB

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 7:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Reaverman:
Personally, if we could find a decent justification, I would advocate exiling fanatics now. If you would be willing to kill non-combatants for a personal belief, then you shouldn't be allowed to live in our country.

I believe if this is setup, I get to be on the panel decides who is and is not a fanatic. And I've discussed this with the other panelists, and we have determined you will not be on the panel. Now, are you -still- sure this is a good idea?

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 8:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I tend to believe that it is important to require a decent education to be provided to children, even if a parent would neglect it.

Which leads me to ask, who decides what a 'decent education' is? How do you keep that decision from becoming political? In other words, how can you avoid the issue that's at the core of the ID debate?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

REAVERMAN

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 8:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
[That's a pretty extreme position. Are you sure that's what you want?

If it would work, then yeah. But seeing as how no one would ever be able to agree on exactly what a fanatic is, and no one would be able to tell if someone was one unless they said or did something to indicate their fanatical leanings, It really wouldn't work right.

But, hey, a guy can dream, right?

[img]

[/img]

"I refuse to submit,
To the god you say is kind.
I know what's right, and it is time,
It's time to fight, and free our minds!

Our spirits were forged in snow and ice,
To bend like steel forged over fire.
We were not made to bend like reed,
Or to turn the other cheek!"

- from the song "Thousand Years of Opression" by Amon Amarth

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 10:54 PM

On the Deluge:
The deluge that inspired the biblical flood is thought to be a catastrophic sill collapse of the Black Sea. This is interesting because it suggests that Semitic peoples ranged as far as the Caucasus or that a Caucasian people migrated south and influenced Semitic peoples. So Noah might not have been a Hebrew, but someone from the Caucasus. It’s also interesting how the Bible history necessarily restarts after the Flood, suggesting that all of Genesis before the Flood could have been a product of a non-Semitic Caucus people or that the Semitic or some proto-Semitic people originated in the Caucasus or somewhere around the Black Sea and migrated to the Middle East following the deluge. Sort of like the Hurrian migration of the c. 3rd century. All speculation, but interesting.

However the Sumerian flood is probably a different deluge that occurred when the Mesopotamian flatlands flooded as a result of abrupt climate change about 8500 years ago, resulting in the modern day Persian Gulf. Persian Gulf was once dry land about 15000 year ago, and when the climate suddenly warmed over a period of decades ice melt flooded the then extant Persian Basin. Although this was not a catastrophic event like the sill collapse in the Black Sea, it likely occurred over about 50 years, which is plenty short enough for whole cities living in the Persian Basin to have watched their homes submerge. Sumerian culture was in the region before the Semitic culture and the Sumerian language is an isolate. The Sumerians, therefore, are the original Persian Gulf culture that probably existed in some form even before the Persian Gulf did, so it makes sense that they would have been the ones to record the event.

On Education:
Frankly, I’ve never really been a real big fan of public schools. They’re too susceptible to the political fad of the day, and frankly, they tend to suck, as far as education goes, particularly those in inner cities. My preference has always been for a voucher system that allows parents to send their children to private or public schools depending on the parent’s desires.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RUE

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 11:23 PM

With vouchers schools will have to compete for students. You might think this is not a bad thing, but in sports-dominated areas, it might mean athletics over academics; in conservative areas it might mean faith-based science. TALK ABOUT CATERING.

And on a personal note, if YOUR school stressed athletics and taught faith-based science, would you have gotten as far as you have?

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 11:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And on a personal note, if YOUR school stressed athletics and taught faith-based science, would you have gotten as far as you have?

Private schools already compete for students, and most of them are not full of jocks and alter boys, rather they tend to produce a more highly educated student. And the high school I went to was an inner city school. The education I got in high school was essentially worthless.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

REAVERMAN

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 11:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
On Education:
My preference has always been for a voucher system that allows parents to send their children to private or public schools depending on the parent’s desires.

But if private schools are going to be a common option, you would need government regulation to an extent. I have been to a private school in Mexico, where there is no enforced regulations on private schools. Keep in mind, the school, Westhill Institute, is American owned and run, and caters to children of wealthy foreign executives, and kids whose parents work at a foreign Embassy in Mexico City. However, despite the massive amounts of money they rake in (12,000 dollars a year per student; there are about 700 students), the buildings are falling apart, most of the teachers are terrible, and the equipment issued is dilapidated at best. Why? Because there is nobody telling the owners of the school that they need to spend money on actually making it a decent school. So the owner simply takes the majority of the money not spent on employee salaries for herself, and the students end up with classroom conditions that are appalling by the standards of even the most cash-strapped U.S. public schools.

So, unless you get rid of schools altogether in favor of home-schooling (which brings up a whole other bag of problems), you would need government interference to help your kids get a decent education.

[img]

[/img]

"I refuse to submit,
To the god you say is kind.
I know what's right, and it is time,
It's time to fight, and free our minds!

Our spirits were forged in snow and ice,
To bend like steel forged over fire.
We were not made to bend like reed,
Or to turn the other cheek!"

- from the song "Thousand Years of Opression" by Amon Amarth

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 11:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Reaverman:
But if private schools are going to be a common option, you would need government regulation to an extent. I have been to a private school in Mexico, where there is no enforced regulations on private schools. Keep in mind, the school, Westhill Institute, is American owned and run, and caters to children of wealthy foreign executives, and kids whose parents work at a foreign Embassy in Mexico City. However, despite the massive amounts of money they rake in (12,000 dollars a year per student; there are about 700 students), the buildings are falling apart, most of the teachers are terrible, and the equipment issued is dilapidated at best. Why? Because there is nobody telling the owners of the school that they need to spend money on actually making it a decent school. So the owner simply takes the majority of the money not spent on employee salaries for herself, and the students end up with classroom conditions that are appalling by the standards of even the most cash-strapped U.S. public schools.

Well, that’s sad for you, but that’s not the typical private school in the US. And I don’t know what you define as “government interference,” but most private schools in the US operate with little or no government policies. As far as government policies are concerned, I’ve never advocated for the complete elimination of government policies.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RUE

Thursday, June 7, 2007 12:12 AM

"Private schools already compete for students, and most of them are not full of jocks and alter boys"

There are a few well-known elite academic private schools, and then there are a number of religious ones (not necessarily Catholic).

"And the high school I went to was an inner city school. The education I got in high school was essentially worthless."

Did it get you into college? If it did then it did well by you.

SERGEANTX

Thursday, June 7, 2007 12:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Reaverman:
But if private schools are going to be a common option, you would need government regulation to an extent.

I don't buy this at all. The notion that the government has a more pressing interest in the education of my children than I do is particularly offensive. It reminds me of a bumper sticker a friend of mine had (which was obviously a jab at James Dobson). It read "Focus on your own damned family."

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SERGEANTX

Thursday, June 7, 2007 12:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Did it get you into college? If it did then it did well by you.

My kids both dropped out in junior high, and they're both in college.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Thursday, June 7, 2007 12:15 AM

Then they got enough by that time. It must have been very efficient ! What a great school system !

REAVERMAN

Thursday, June 7, 2007 3:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I don't buy this at all. The notion that the government has a more pressing interest in the education of my children than I do is particularly offensive.

I'm sure that notion is offensive to a lot of people, but the sad fact is, the vast majority of parents are nowhere near qualified to teach a child, even their own (now, not knowing you very well, I can't say if this applies to you or not, though judging by what you said about your kids dropping out of middle school and still making it to college, I think its safe to assume that you are one of the few who can do a decent job of it). I met a twenty-eight year old woman once who was taken out of school by her mother when she was nine, and homescholed from then on. At twenty-eight, she had the intelligence level of a ten-year-old (granted, her mother was a psychotic Jehovah's Witness who believed any science beyond the medieval level was Satan's work, but she illustrates the extreme of how bad homeschooling can be).

If every parent on the planet simultaneously started homescholing their kids, within three to four generations, we could be back to the early industrial revolution in terms of technological advancement, because there wouldn't be enough parents that were specialists to maintain our level of technology. And even if there were, all we would do is freeze our society as it is. Parents would only be able to train their kids in-depth on the subjects that they know about in-depth. There would be no more social mobility. Now, you could fix this problem by seeking out the specialists in fields that your kids are interested in and have THEM teach your kids... But wait, don't they call that, *gasp* public education!?

I say that if you want to homeschool your kids, you should have to prove to a college that you can teach up to college level. If you can't, well, too bad. Children shouldn't be denied a proper education because of the ignorance of their families.

[img]

[/img]

"I refuse to submit,
To the god you say is kind.
I know what's right, and it is time,
It's time to fight, and free our minds!

Our spirits were forged in snow and ice,
To bend like steel forged over fire.
We were not made to bend like reed,
Or to turn the other cheek!"

- from the song "Thousand Years of Opression" by Amon Amarth

LEADB

Thursday, June 7, 2007 3:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I tend to believe that it is important to require a decent education to be provided to children, even if a parent would neglect it.
Which leads me to ask, who decides what a 'decent education' is? How do you keep that decision from becoming political? In other words, how can you avoid the issue that's at the core of the ID debate?

I don't know about where you live, but a parent around here doesn't like what is taught in the public schools (and thus cares enough to act), they can either homeschool or private. In fact, my daughter was homeschooled for a year (not a deemed lack in the school system per se, but it was not meeting her needs for various reasons (long story)). So, to be frank, if you feel that your local school district, using parent input, is unable to provide a decent education, then don't put up with it, do what you feel is right. In the mean time, I'd have to guess the public schools are either meeting most of the needs most of the time; however, I will grant that some districts are in serious trouble. As far as ID goes, if you want to teach your kid religion, teach him religion. If 'standard evolution' isn't your cup of tea, then pull your kid from the public schools.

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

SERGEANTX

Thursday, June 7, 2007 4:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Reaverman:
I'm sure that notion is offensive to a lot of people, but the sad fact is, the vast majority of parents are nowhere near qualified to teach a child, even their own (now, not knowing you very well, I can't say if this applies to you or not...

I can say it's none of your business.

Nothing personal, but this is just the kind of attitude toward government that I'll always fight. The "we know what's best for you" philosophy of government is diametrically opposed to tolerant, free societies, and its at the core of the excesses of government in general. It drives a foreign policy that transmits the same message to the rest of the world: We know what's best, do as we say.

Why not just let people decide for themselves what course to take? Is that really so scary?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

ROCKETJOCK

Thursday, June 7, 2007 5:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:

I think in this case the 'technically correct' response from a scientist would be something like... 'Observation does not yield at this time to suitable scientific explanation' after which the person might consider himself free to speculate, in essence 'stepping out of' his 'scientist role'.

Exactly. That mindset, unfortunately, is one that most of the creationism and ID defenders I've encountered simply don't comprehend. And that, eventually, leads to the postulation of "The God of the gaps" fallacy, i.e. "If science can't explain phenomenon "X", that means God must exist to cause it."

A hundred and fifty years ago one argument against evolution was that science had no explanation for how the sun could have had fuel enough to burn for the timescales required. Proof positive of science's inferiority to faith!

In another century or two, "Science can't explain how the big bang came to be, so God must have made the Universe" may seem just as provincial an argument.

Just for the record, I'm not an atheist. But I don't believe God (or The Gods)wants faith to be the opponent of reason.

"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn

BROWNCOATSANDINISTA

Thursday, June 7, 2007 5:23 AM

Using Lack of evidence for one phenomena as evidence for another when the two don't have a direct relationship is just bad science. By the same logic that "Because Science can't explain X, God causes X." then the Decline of Pirates, the Flying Spaghetti Monster's divine beings, is the cause for the world's ills is just as valid. I don't think anyone here is going to correlate global warming with a lack of real-life Jack Sparrows, but if you step back one will often realise they are the same argument with slightly different details.

The problem with comparing Religion to Science is they are two fundamentally different ways of answering the why question. Religion answers it with faith in the unknowable, whereas Science answers it with comprehension of the empirically provable, acknowledging that with even one valid but contradictory experiment or phenomena all of it may need rewriting. To prove God would be to destroy her/him/it/them/insert personal version of supreme deity here, which I think is a concept which was nailed on the head by Douglas Adams. If one proves god, then they eliminate the need for faith, and if one eliminates faith, they remove the need for religion. Science on the other hand, cannot exist without proof. It builds upon and edits itself, and relies fundamentally upon empirical, repeatable, independant confirmation of fact. Therefore one cannot prove religion in terms of science and science cannot be proven in terms of religion.

"I'm not going to say Serenity is the greatest SciFi movie ever; oh wait yes I am." - Orson Scott Card

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE