THE GISH - MAX AMARILLO DEBATE
Simply I
would be on a public platform debating evolutionists. Very early in its
history, however, people began to think it would be instructive to those
interested in the question of origins to witness debates between
well-informed creation scientists and evolution scientists. Since that time
over 300 debates between ICR scientists and evolutionists have been
conducted, as well as debates involving other creation scientists.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-275.htm
--
"The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of
discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it!'
My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan."
-Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the
director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University
of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize and was recently cited
as the third most quoted chemist in the world), U.S. News & World Report,
Dec. 23, 1991
Dave Oldridge
news:NZsJa.1050$D25....@news.uswest.net:
> None of us now on the ICR staff even thought before its founding that
> we would be on a public platform debating evolutionists. Very early in
> its history, however, people began to think it would be instructive to
> those interested in the question of origins to witness debates between
> well-informed creation scientists and evolution scientists. Since that
> time over 300 debates between ICR scientists and evolutionists have
> been conducted, as well as debates involving other creation
> scientists.
>
> http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-275.htm
Such debates are a waste of time for scientists. For one thing, the
rules ALWAYS favour the creationist, even at the best of times. And
that's because the creationist is under no compulsion to tell the truth.
I would only engage in such a public display if the creationist agreed to
my terms. That is, the first lie forfeits the debate and we then spend
the rest of the time on the state of his character (and immortal soul, if
necessary).
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
Simply I
that's because the evolutionist is under no compulsion to tell the truth.
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns93A2F12EBC22B...@142.77.1.194...
Harlequin
"Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in
news:H_tJa.1063$D25....@news.uswest.net:
> Such debates are a waste of time for scientists. For one thing, the
> rules ALWAYS favour the evolutionist, even at the best of times. And
> that's because the evolutionist is under no compulsion to tell the
> truth.
Did not this sort of thing cease to be funny or "witty" by
the second grade (if not before).
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
"...Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all
told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to
his or her opinion. Well, that's horsepuckey, of course. We are not
entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our _informed_ opinions.
Without research, without background, without understanding, it's
nothing. It's just bibble-babble...."
- Harlan Ellison
Ross Langerak
"Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in message
news:NZsJa.1050$D25....@news.uswest.net...
> None of us now on the ICR staff even thought before its founding
that we
> would be on a public platform debating evolutionists. Very early in
its
> history, however, people began to think it would be instructive to
those
> interested in the question of origins to witness debates between
> well-informed creation scientists and evolution scientists. Since
that time
> over 300 debates between ICR scientists and evolutionists have been
> conducted, as well as debates involving other creation scientists.
>
> http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-275.htm
>
JPG
<doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>"Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in
>news:NZsJa.1050$D25....@news.uswest.net:
>
>> None of us now on the ICR staff even thought before its founding that
>> we would be on a public platform debating evolutionists. Very early in
>> its history, however, people began to think it would be instructive to
>> those interested in the question of origins to witness debates between
>> well-informed creation scientists and evolution scientists. Since that
>> time over 300 debates between ICR scientists and evolutionists have
>> been conducted, as well as debates involving other creation
>> scientists.
>>
>> http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-275.htm
>
>Such debates are a waste of time for scientists. For one thing, the
>rules ALWAYS favour the creationist, even at the best of times. And
>that's because the creationist is under no compulsion to tell the truth.
Don't Gish and his cronies ensure that the audience is full of people
of their persuasion by targetting local baptist churches.
Also Gish et al are preachers and have the audience manipulation
powers that one would expect from the pulpit. Many scientists are
serious-minded individuals with limited oratory powers and don't come
over well in these types of debates.
JPG
Dave Oldridge
> Such debates are a waste of time for scientists. For one thing, the
> rules ALWAYS favour the evolutionist, even at the best of times. And
> that's because the evolutionist is under no compulsion to tell the
> truth.
God says you are going to the lake of fire for your habit of lying so much.
Do you think you can mock Him forever?
Dave Oldridge
news:Xns93A2E176832F3u...@68.12.19.6:
> [snip s.a.p. cross-post]
>
> "Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in
> news:H_tJa.1063$D25....@news.uswest.net:
>
>> Such debates are a waste of time for scientists. For one thing, the
>> rules ALWAYS favour the evolutionist, even at the best of times. And
>> that's because the evolutionist is under no compulsion to tell the
>> truth.
>
> Did not this sort of thing cease to be funny or "witty" by
> the second grade (if not before).
He never got past second grade. Probably homeschooled by members of the
"Morons for Jesus" movement. Actually they are NOT "for Jesus" at all,
though. That's just another of the lies.
Dave Oldridge
news:dipdfv43if92qep5p...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:41:11 +0000 (UTC), Dave Oldridge
> <doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>
>>"Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in
>>news:NZsJa.1050$D25....@news.uswest.net:
>>
>>> None of us now on the ICR staff even thought before its founding
>>> that we would be on a public platform debating evolutionists. Very
>>> early in its history, however, people began to think it would be
>>> instructive to those interested in the question of origins to
>>> witness debates between well-informed creation scientists and
>>> evolution scientists. Since that time over 300 debates between ICR
>>> scientists and evolutionists have been conducted, as well as debates
>>> involving other creation scientists.
>>>
>>> http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-275.htm
>>
>>Such debates are a waste of time for scientists. For one thing, the
>>rules ALWAYS favour the creationist, even at the best of times. And
>>that's because the creationist is under no compulsion to tell the
>>truth.
>
> Don't Gish and his cronies ensure that the audience is full of people
> of their persuasion by targetting local baptist churches.
Baptist or evangelical usually. And even if the debate is in some other
venue, they have the local churches organize and bus in a jeering
section.
> Also Gish et al are preachers and have the audience manipulation
> powers that one would expect from the pulpit. Many scientists are
> serious-minded individuals with limited oratory powers and don't come
> over well in these types of debates.
Yes, neither Gish nor Morris has ever made any real career of science.
And, of course, these people do not submit anything to real science
journals because they know that their junk would be rejected with a
complete list of reasons why. Oh, occasionally, they do get even a bad
piece of work published, like Gentry's original polonium halo paper, but
then the results are even worse than if it were rejected because it gets
taken apart hard.
Creationism is a religious dogma seeking a semblance of scientific
support. As such, it is bad religion and bad science.
Mike Dworetsky
"Harlequin" <use...@sdc.cox.net> wrote in message
news:Xns93A2E176832F3u...@68.12.19.6...
> [snip s.a.p. cross-post]
>
> "Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in
> news:H_tJa.1063$D25....@news.uswest.net:
>
> > Such debates are a waste of time for scientists. For one thing, the
> > rules ALWAYS favour the evolutionist, even at the best of times. And
> > that's because the evolutionist is under no compulsion to tell the
> > truth.
>
> Did not this sort of thing cease to be funny or "witty" by
> the second grade (if not before).
>
>
Yes, the "I'm not, but you are whatever you said about me,so there!" ploy is
usually completely worn out by the age of eight or nine.
I am gaining a clear impression of Simply's intellectual age (12) and
emotional age (7-8), any guesses on his physical age? I say "he" because it
is doubtful if any female of whatever age would use his tactics.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
William
Why is that bad religion?
William
Dave Oldridge
news:bd6ufs$2gf$1...@sparta.btinternet.com:
True...there is too much testosterone-induced behaviour there for most
females to accomplish!
Dave Oldridge
news:nraefv4g5il2ip1tk...@4ax.com:
Because it suborns sin in God's name? If it sought REAL scientific support
and rejected all false data and theories, I would not find fault with it,
but when an apologetic becomes driven by lies, slanders and sophistry, it
becomes heretical even if what it is trying to defend is true.
TomS
<nraefv4g5il2ip1tk...@4ax.com>, William stated..."
I cannot let this question pass.
It is bad religion ... let me restart ... It is bad *anything*
to seek a semblance of scientific support. Either do the science,
or be quiet about being "scientific".
It is precisely this sort of thing, "seeking the semblance of
scientific support" that gets so many people into deep trouble. And
I don't just mean that people end up believing that some silly things
are scientific. Although people *do* believe a lot of silly things.
But there are more troublesome consequences of tying one's
religious beliefs to some kind of pseudo-science. When it becomes
a matter of "believe as I do or you are anti-Christian, anti-God,
and anti-morality" ... then it gets past the silliness into
something frightening.
William
<TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>William stated..."
>>Dave Oldridge wrote:
>>
>>>Creationism is a religious dogma seeking a semblance of scientific
>>>support. As such, it is bad religion and bad science.
>>
>>Why is that bad religion?
>
>I cannot let this question pass.
It wasn't meant to be passed :)
>It is bad religion ... let me restart ... It is bad *anything*
>to seek a semblance of scientific support. Either do the science,
>or be quiet about being "scientific".
As per my post to D.O. The problem is that religion does 'theistic
science' which is ultimately at odds with science. Religion inherently
has to invoke supernatural explanations to what is observed in the
world. That is an anathema to science; the basic principles of science
reject all supernatural explanations. It is only a matter of degree
between the creationist's bad science (and it's pretty bad) and the
non-creationist theist's bad science - any appeal to the supernatural
is bad science. History is littered with this (eg, angry gods being
the cause of thunder).
However, invoking the supernatural to explain the world is not bad
religion.
[snip]
William
William
<doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>William <tal...@mail.clara.fs.net> wrote in
>> Dave Oldridge<doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Creationism is a religious dogma seeking a semblance of scientific
>>>support. As such, it is bad religion and bad science.
>>
>> Why is that bad religion?
>
>Because it suborns sin in God's name? If it sought REAL scientific support
>and rejected all false data and theories, I would not find fault with it,
>but when an apologetic becomes driven by lies, slanders and sophistry, it
>becomes heretical even if what it is trying to defend is true.
I was referring more to your 'as such' (ie religious dogma seeking a
semblance of scientific support). Creationism is an extreme example
but it is part of a spectrum. The blatant dishonesty of some some
creationists is deplorable but others simply claim supernatural
explanations that surplant what would be expected by a scientific
explanation - that's the nature of religion.
The problem is that religion does 'theistic' science which is
ultimately at odds with science. Religion inherently has to invoke
supernatural explanations to what is observed in the world. That is an
anathema to science; the basic principles of science reject all
supernatural explanations. It is only a matter of degree between the
creationist's bad science (and it's pretty bad) and the
non-creationist theist's bad science - any appeal to the supernatural
is bad science. History is littered with this (eg, angry gods being
the cause of thunder). However, invoking the supernatural to explain
the world is not bad religion.
William
Boikat
"William" <tal...@mail.clara.fs.net> wrote in message
news:nraefv4g5il2ip1tk...@4ax.com...
(Assuming YEC) Because in order to make it appear that Genesis is actual,
factual history, and that the earth is only 6,000 years old, proponants must
willfully ignore the evidence from nearly every branch os science which
contradicts the Geneisi account. Such willful ignorance is dishonest, and
dishonesty in the name of God is a bad thing.
Boikat
>
> William
>
Harlequin
[snip]
> Yes, neither Gish nor Morris has ever made any real career of science.
> And, of course, these people do not submit anything to real science
> journals because they know that their junk would be rejected with a
> complete list of reasons why. Oh, occasionally, they do get even a bad
> piece of work published, like Gentry's original polonium halo paper, but
> then the results are even worse than if it were rejected because it gets
> taken apart hard.
[snip]
Morris has never had a career in science though he has had
a career in engineering.
Gish _has_ had a career in science though he got out of
science three decades back and was never prestigious by
any measure.
Dave Oldridge
news:4gkefvo2ggib6o5sp...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:07:00 +0000 (UTC), Dave Oldridge
> <doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>
>>William <tal...@mail.clara.fs.net> wrote in
>>> Dave Oldridge<doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Creationism is a religious dogma seeking a semblance of scientific
>>>>support. As such, it is bad religion and bad science.
>>>
>>> Why is that bad religion?
>>
>>Because it suborns sin in God's name? If it sought REAL scientific
>>support and rejected all false data and theories, I would not find
>>fault with it, but when an apologetic becomes driven by lies, slanders
>>and sophistry, it becomes heretical even if what it is trying to
>>defend is true.
>
> I was referring more to your 'as such' (ie religious dogma seeking a
> semblance of scientific support). Creationism is an extreme example
> but it is part of a spectrum. The blatant dishonesty of some some
> creationists is deplorable but others simply claim supernatural
> explanations that surplant what would be expected by a scientific
> explanation - that's the nature of religion.
> The problem is that religion does 'theistic' science which is
> ultimately at odds with science. Religion inherently has to invoke
> supernatural explanations to what is observed in the world. That is an
Nope. Good religion does theology, not science. We appeal to science
when we are confronted with a claim of a special miracle, as science can
often show us where what's being claimed as a miracle is merely fraud or
some misunderstood natural phenomenon. But science sometimes just shakes
its collective head and admits that what's happening should not be
happening according to their best knowledge. Then the Church may examine
the rest of the evidence to see if it's worthwhile declaring a miracle.
> anathema to science; the basic principles of science reject all
> supernatural explanations. It is only a matter of degree between the
> creationist's bad science (and it's pretty bad) and the
> non-creationist theist's bad science - any appeal to the supernatural
> is bad science. History is littered with this (eg, angry gods being
> the cause of thunder). However, invoking the supernatural to explain
> the world is not bad religion.
Any appeal to the supernatural is not science at all. Where problems
arise is when theologues try to invoke the supernatural to explain the
natural, and then insist on it when they're shown to be wrong.
Simply I
>Sit down and give your mind a rest. You are not at all witty.You are simply
a .22 caliber intellect in a .357 Magnum world.Sort of like a mental midget
with the IQ of a fencepost
Simply I
"Boikat" <Boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:KGKJa.2191$QC5....@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com...
Oh little blind one...you ignore all of the contrary evidence in favor of a
young earth,radioisotope dating, magnetic field decay, oceanic salt,the
moon, and many other clocks, with emphasis on the geologic evidences for a
young earth. I feel more intellectually challenged and outwitted by a jar
of Marshmallow Fluff rather than by you.
Pithecanthropus erectus
"Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in message
news:IcOJa.355$Hs2.1...@news.uswest.net...
I have an idea - why don't you go get some and roll in it?
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.486 / Virus Database: 284 - Release Date: 5/29/03
Boikat
"Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in message
news:IcOJa.355$Hs2.1...@news.uswest.net...
The above is another example of why creationism is bad for Christianity.
The bafoon makes all kinds of noises about supposed problems with
"evolution", however, when it is presented with evidence and logic that
refutes it's claims, it is reduced to repeating the sam old lies again and
again, and again. All in the name of God.
Boikat
>
Ross Langerak
"Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in message
news:IcOJa.355$Hs2.1...@news.uswest.net...
Rather than just throwing insults, perhaps you could present a
coherent argument, or even some evidence. As it is, I have to assume
your references are to the same worn out creationist arguments that
have already been so thoroughly refuted. There is no geologic
evidence for a young Earth. Radiometric dating favors an old Earth.
The Earth's magnetic field oscillates, just as the magnetic field of
the Sun oscillates. The Moon is about as old as the Earth. Not only
is salt being added to the oceans, it is also being removed from the
oceans.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html
I'm just curious, how do you explain the fact that we can see light
from galaxies that are billions of light years away? Our nearest
galactic neighbor - the Andromeda Galaxy - is over two million light
years away. If the Universe is only 6000 years old, we should not be
able to see any galaxies. The first light from Andromeda would still
be about two million light years away.
Mike Dworetsky
news:IcOJa.355$Hs2.1...@news.uswest.net...
I'm afraid your lack of consistency (and lack of reading comprehension) is
showing very badly, kid. You just got through posting, when starting
another thread (A Short Summary Of Arguments Against Evolution [sic]), the
URL of a website that explicitly and implicitly (through links) supports the
Old Earth and Old Universe mainstream viewpoints on dating (though it also
tries unsuccessfully to put forth bogus creationist arguments of other
sorts, the most egregious being the 2LoT). Incidentally, the
And you posted the URL as evidence to support your views! So, are you an
Old Earth Creationist, or a Young Earth Creationist? Stop being
contradictory. Either you denounce the website you threw at us as apostate
or you support all its views.
Give us a specific statement of what age you personally believe in for the
Earth. You are allowed to cite a span of time or quote an error range, if
that is your preference, allowing for uncertainty in your calculations. I'm
going to make a rule that you must cite numbers that do not span more than
one order of magnitude.
The website you posted was:
http://www.frankcaw.com/science.html
Another rule is that if you answer with a stupid insult, it may not be
plagiarised.
Dave Oldridge
That's because you are intellectually numb. You definitely NOT a
halfwit. Any halfwit could beat you in a battle of wits.
So far the only thing you have shown any skill at all at is
overestimating your own capacity for honest debate. But then, I get a
strong impression that you are just another atheist troll, dropping
idiotic posts in these newsgroups in order to make Christians look bad.
It's not working. Even the other atheists see that you're nothing like
an actual Christian.
Dave Oldridge
BWAHAHAHA! I could probably spot you an idiot and STILL have a higher IQ
than yours. Do you know what a standard deviation is? Think five of
them.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
William
<doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>William <tal...@mail.clara.fs.net> wrote in
>
>> I was referring more to your 'as such' (ie religious dogma seeking a
>> semblance of scientific support). Creationism is an extreme example
>> but it is part of a spectrum. The blatant dishonesty of some some
>> creationists is deplorable but others simply claim supernatural
>> explanations that surplant what would be expected by a scientific
>> explanation - that's the nature of religion.
>
>> The problem is that religion does 'theistic' science which is
>> ultimately at odds with science. Religion inherently has to invoke
>> supernatural explanations to what is observed in the world. That is an
>
>Nope. Good religion does theology, not science.
Good religion does not do science? My dictionary definition of science
is "knowledge ascertained by observation and experiment". If religion
doesn't do that then it rules out a lot of what is purported to be
religion. Out goes the claim that the natural world shows evidence of
the Divine, or Satan or the Fall, or Intelligent Design or even
answers to prayer.
>We appeal to science
>when we are confronted with a claim of a special miracle, as science can
>often show us where what's being claimed as a miracle is merely fraud or
>some misunderstood natural phenomenon. But science sometimes just shakes
>its collective head and admits that what's happening should not be
>happening according to their best knowledge. Then the Church may examine
>the rest of the evidence to see if it's worthwhile declaring a miracle.
>
>> anathema to science; the basic principles of science reject all
>> supernatural explanations. It is only a matter of degree between the
>> creationist's bad science (and it's pretty bad) and the
>> non-creationist theist's bad science - any appeal to the supernatural
>> is bad science. History is littered with this (eg, angry gods being
>> the cause of thunder). However, invoking the supernatural to explain
>> the world is not bad religion.
>
>Any appeal to the supernatural is not science at all. Where problems
>arise is when theologues try to invoke the supernatural to explain the
>natural, and then insist on it when they're shown to be wrong.
I'm not sure whether you mean it is always wrong to invoke the
supernatural to explain the natural, or that it is wrong only when
shown that there is a natural explanation.
If the former, then theologues will be wrong to claim that the
observed natural state of the world (ie what is observed
scientifically) is in any way due to supernatural influences. eg, to
invoke God (and his attributes) and the influence of Satan as an
explanation of disease, pain and suffering; or to invoke God as an
explanation of why evolution took the course it did.
If the latter, then all theologues can do is (rather unscientifically)
offer supernatural explanations that fill in the (current) gaps in
scientific knowledge.
William
William
<Boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>"William" <tal...@mail.clara.fs.net> wrote
>> Dave Oldridge<doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >Creationism is a religious dogma seeking a semblance of scientific
>> >support. As such, it is bad religion and bad science.
>>
>> Why is that bad religion?
>
>(Assuming YEC) Because in order to make it appear that Genesis is actual,
>factual history, and that the earth is only 6,000 years old, proponants must
>willfully ignore the evidence from nearly every branch os science which
>contradicts the Geneisi account.
I was responding to the "as such", namely "religious dogma seeking a
semblance of scientific support." That may be bad science but why is
it bad religion? Religion has always claimed that revealed truths do
not require support from science - therefore religion can use science
when it suites and abandon it when it doesn't; YECs who abandon it as
soon as it looks like contradicting their revealed truths are just an
extreme example of this.
>Such willful ignorance is dishonest, and dishonesty in the name of
>God is a bad thing.
The problem is that these folk don't see it as ignorance or
dishonesty. To them, revealed Truths (the literal bible in the case of
the YEC) trump the science every time. They see that as 'good'
religion.
William
Dick C
>
> "Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in message
> news:IcOJa.355$Hs2.1...@news.uswest.net...
>> Oh little blind one...you ignore all of the contrary evidence in
>> favor of
> a
>> young earth,radioisotope dating, magnetic field decay, oceanic
>> salt,the moon, and many other clocks, with emphasis on the geologic
>> evidences for a young earth. I feel more intellectually challenged
>> and outwitted by a jar of Marshmallow Fluff rather than by you.
>
> The above is another example of why creationism is bad for
> Christianity. The bafoon makes all kinds of noises about supposed
> problems with "evolution", however, when it is presented with evidence
> and logic that refutes it's claims, it is reduced to repeating the sam
> old lies again and again, and again. All in the name of God.
I suspect that what we have here is just some junior high school
kid who, now that school is out and has too much time on his hands,
has discovered a site with stupid one liner jokes. So instead of
filling his time with worthwhile activities, he sits at home and
posts this. The stupid creationist claims are only to get people
to respond so he can post the childish insults that he copied from
somewhere. He is not interested in any discussion, he is not interested
in learning anything, he is only interested in his 12year old jokes.
--
Dick #1349
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
Andre Gide, French author and critic (1869-1951).
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@localnet.com
Dave Oldridge
news:foigfvg454c42gnch...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:47:38 +0000 (UTC), Dave Oldridge
> <doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>
>>William <tal...@mail.clara.fs.net> wrote in
>>
>>> I was referring more to your 'as such' (ie religious dogma seeking a
>>> semblance of scientific support). Creationism is an extreme example
>>> but it is part of a spectrum. The blatant dishonesty of some some
>>> creationists is deplorable but others simply claim supernatural
>>> explanations that surplant what would be expected by a scientific
>>> explanation - that's the nature of religion.
>>
>>> The problem is that religion does 'theistic' science which is
>>> ultimately at odds with science. Religion inherently has to invoke
>>> supernatural explanations to what is observed in the world. That is
>>> an
>>
>>Nope. Good religion does theology, not science.
>
> Good religion does not do science? My dictionary definition of science
> is "knowledge ascertained by observation and experiment". If religion
> doesn't do that then it rules out a lot of what is purported to be
> religion. Out goes the claim that the natural world shows evidence of
> the Divine, or Satan or the Fall, or Intelligent Design or even
> answers to prayer.
The natural world offers only circumstantial evidence. If it offered
really cogent evidence, then there would be no need for faith.
>>We appeal to science
>>when we are confronted with a claim of a special miracle, as science
>>can often show us where what's being claimed as a miracle is merely
>>fraud or some misunderstood natural phenomenon. But science sometimes
>>just shakes its collective head and admits that what's happening
>>should not be happening according to their best knowledge. Then the
>>Church may examine the rest of the evidence to see if it's worthwhile
>>declaring a miracle.
>>> anathema to science; the basic principles of science reject all
>>> supernatural explanations. It is only a matter of degree between the
>>> creationist's bad science (and it's pretty bad) and the
>>> non-creationist theist's bad science - any appeal to the
>>> supernatural is bad science. History is littered with this (eg,
>>> angry gods being the cause of thunder). However, invoking the
>>> supernatural to explain the world is not bad religion.
>>
>>Any appeal to the supernatural is not science at all. Where problems
>>arise is when theologues try to invoke the supernatural to explain the
>>natural, and then insist on it when they're shown to be wrong.
> I'm not sure whether you mean it is always wrong to invoke the
> supernatural to explain the natural, or that it is wrong only when
> shown that there is a natural explanation.
It is wrong to invoke special miracles when there is no shred of positive
evidence to support them. The Church has been burned on this one too
many times not to be literally skeptical of such claims.
> If the former, then theologues will be wrong to claim that the
> observed natural state of the world (ie what is observed
> scientifically) is in any way due to supernatural influences. eg, to
> invoke God (and his attributes) and the influence of Satan as an
> explanation of disease, pain and suffering; or to invoke God as an
> explanation of why evolution took the course it did.
And note that there is a big difference between supernatural influences
and special miracles. There can be NO event in the physical realm that
is actually outside God's providence. But that does not mean that every
event is a special miracle. Are you following me?
> If the latter, then all theologues can do is (rather unscientifically)
> offer supernatural explanations that fill in the (current) gaps in
> scientific knowledge.
Nope. God of the gaps is as heretical as young-earth creationism, though
it seems to be the darling ideology of the ID movement.
The big difference is that science works upwards from observed data and
logical inference to theories and explanations.
Theology works downwards from general principles, through logical
inference to explanations. When things are working right the
explanations on both sides of this dichotomy are not inconsistent with
one another. When either side goes astray, then things break down.
Boikat
That's true, but from the view of someone outside their particular
denomination the fact that they choose the Bible over reality means you have
to abandon reason and logic in order to be accepted by their particular
denomination, since they would probably want you to publicly renounce the
acceptance of evolution, for instance or, like the ICR, submit to a creed
where you pledge to ignore anything that contradicts Genesis as fact..
Boikat
>
> William
>
Simply I
>Logical inconsistancy number one! If you are going to get on someone's case
for 'prevertedness', show an iota (look it up) of intelligence and don't be
'prerverted' yourself. There are plenty of ways to insult people without
being 'preverted'; aren't there, you donkey-brained, foul-mouthed, asinine,
feebleminded, pig-fart of a totally lame-flame scrawler.
Oh, I hope I didn't confuse you there...let me clarify that... ya
scum-sucking nematode.
Boikat
"Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in message
news:Uh8Ka.109$bC6....@news.uswest.net...
And you wonder why i refer to you as a dick sucker?
Boikat
>
Simply I
longing to embrace one....sort of freudian in it's implications you are.I
will defend, to your death, my right to my opinion.
Boikat
"Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in message
Good. how about defending you opinion that there are no transitional
fossils by addressing the articles I provided links to, which discribes a
shitload of transitional species that have been found. Or is that too much
for you to handle?
Boikat
>
William
<doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>William <tal...@mail.clara.fs.net> wrote in
>>Dave Oldridge<doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>>>Nope. Good religion does theology, not science.
>>
>> Good religion does not do science? My dictionary definition of science
>> is "knowledge ascertained by observation and experiment". If religion
>> doesn't do that then it rules out a lot of what is purported to be
>> religion. Out goes the claim that the natural world shows evidence of
>> the Divine, or Satan or the Fall, or Intelligent Design or even
>> answers to prayer.
>
>The natural world offers only circumstantial evidence. If it offered
>really cogent evidence, then there would be no need for faith.
I don't see where that is relevant to the above. Does religion claim
that the natural world shows evidence for the Divine or not? If it
does it is doing science.
And it seems to me that the need for faith mitigates against informed
choices and informed choices are what makes choosing meaningful. Why
should faith be some kind of virtue?
[snip]
>>>Any appeal to the supernatural is not science at all. Where problems
>>>arise is when theologues try to invoke the supernatural to explain the
>>>natural, and then insist on it when they're shown to be wrong.
>
>> I'm not sure whether you mean it is always wrong to invoke the
>> supernatural to explain the natural, or that it is wrong only when
>> shown that there is a natural explanation.
>
>It is wrong to invoke special miracles when there is no shred of positive
>evidence to support them. The Church has been burned on this one too
>many times not to be literally skeptical of such claims.
I didn't say special miracles, I said invoking the supernatural to
explain the natural - eg, invoking the supernatural (God, Satan, the
Fall, some ultimate purpose) to explain the state of the natural world
we see today. Does religion (particularly the christian religion) do
this?
>> If the former, then theologues will be wrong to claim that the
>> observed natural state of the world (ie what is observed
>> scientifically) is in any way due to supernatural influences. eg, to
>> invoke God (and his attributes) and the influence of Satan as an
>> explanation of disease, pain and suffering; or to invoke God as an
>> explanation of why evolution took the course it did.
>
>And note that there is a big difference between supernatural influences
>and special miracles.
Maybe. But I am talking about supernatural influences.
>There can be NO event in the physical realm that
>is actually outside God's providence. But that does not mean that every
>event is a special miracle. Are you following me?
No. I am specifically not talking about special miracles; I am talking
about religion invoking the supernatural to explain natural phenomena
- any natural phenomena. That includes invoking the supernatural to
explain the course of natural evolution (God 'guiding' the process) or
invoking the supernatural to explain the existence of disease, pain
and suffering (Heaven, God, Satan, the Fall).
>> If the latter, then all theologues can do is (rather unscientifically)
>> offer supernatural explanations that fill in the (current) gaps in
>> scientific knowledge.
>
>Nope. God of the gaps is as heretical as young-earth creationism, though
>it seems to be the darling ideology of the ID movement.
So it would be wrong for religion to offer explanations for what
science cannot explain. But if science has explained it, what is there
left for religion to do other than add superfluous explanations (which
would be sliced off by the 'razor')?
>The big difference is that science works upwards from observed data and
>logical inference to theories and explanations.
>Theology works downwards from general principles, through logical
>inference to explanations.
And where do the general principles come from if you haven't worked
'up' to them from observed data? Maybe you just pull them out of the
air?
William
William
<Boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>"William" <tal...@mail.clara.fs.net> wrote
>
>> I was responding to the "as such", namely "religious dogma seeking a
>> semblance of scientific support." That may be bad science but why is
>> it bad religion? Religion has always claimed that revealed truths do
>> not require support from science - therefore religion can use science
>> when it suites and abandon it when it doesn't; YECs who abandon it as
>> soon as it looks like contradicting their revealed truths are just an
>> extreme example of this.
>>
>> >Such willful ignorance is dishonest, and dishonesty in the name of
>> >God is a bad thing.
>>
>> The problem is that these folk don't see it as ignorance or
>> dishonesty. To them, revealed Truths (the literal bible in the case of
>> the YEC) trump the science every time. They see that as 'good'
>> religion.
>
>That's true, but from the view of someone outside their particular
>denomination the fact that they choose the Bible over reality means you have
>to abandon reason and logic in order to be accepted by their particular
>denomination, since they would probably want you to publicly renounce the
>acceptance of evolution, for instance or, like the ICR, submit to a creed
>where you pledge to ignore anything that contradicts Genesis as fact..
That highlights the problem of claims about revealed truth. If it
hasn't been arrived at by means of evidence and reason it cannot be
challenged on the basis of evidence and reason.
William
Dave Oldridge
news:7gqifvgbhqp6cn7st...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 19:34:27 +0000 (UTC), Dave Oldridge
> <doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>
>>William <tal...@mail.clara.fs.net> wrote in
>>>Dave Oldridge<doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>>>>Nope. Good religion does theology, not science.
>>>
>>> Good religion does not do science? My dictionary definition of
>>> science is "knowledge ascertained by observation and experiment". If
>>> religion doesn't do that then it rules out a lot of what is
>>> purported to be religion. Out goes the claim that the natural world
>>> shows evidence of the Divine, or Satan or the Fall, or Intelligent
>>> Design or even answers to prayer.
>>
>>The natural world offers only circumstantial evidence. If it offered
>>really cogent evidence, then there would be no need for faith.
>
> I don't see where that is relevant to the above. Does religion claim
> that the natural world shows evidence for the Divine or not? If it
> does it is doing science.
I disagree. Circumstantial evidence is not scientific evidence.
> And it seems to me that the need for faith mitigates against informed
> choices and informed choices are what makes choosing meaningful. Why
> should faith be some kind of virtue?
> [snip]
Faith has nothing to do with blind belief and has no real problem with
doubts if they are reasonable.
>>>>Any appeal to the supernatural is not science at all. Where
>>>>problems arise is when theologues try to invoke the supernatural to
>>>>explain the natural, and then insist on it when they're shown to be
>>>>wrong.
>>> I'm not sure whether you mean it is always wrong to invoke the
>>> supernatural to explain the natural, or that it is wrong only when
>>> shown that there is a natural explanation.
>>It is wrong to invoke special miracles when there is no shred of
>>positive evidence to support them. The Church has been burned on this
>>one too many times not to be literally skeptical of such claims.
> I didn't say special miracles, I said invoking the supernatural to
> explain the natural - eg, invoking the supernatural (God, Satan, the
> Fall, some ultimate purpose) to explain the state of the natural world
> we see today. Does religion (particularly the christian religion) do
> this?
Ahhh, but the Church invokes the supernatural to explain EVERYTHING at
root. She does not, however, sanction claims of special miracles unless
accompanied by suitable evidence that the miracle is indeed outside the
natural order of things and is a true gift from God.
>>> If the former, then theologues will be wrong to claim that the
>>> observed natural state of the world (ie what is observed
>>> scientifically) is in any way due to supernatural influences. eg,
>>> to invoke God (and his attributes) and the influence of Satan as an
>>> explanation of disease, pain and suffering; or to invoke God as an
>>> explanation of why evolution took the course it did.
>>
>>And note that there is a big difference between supernatural
>>influences and special miracles.
>
> Maybe. But I am talking about supernatural influences.
Well, we can talk about them, but they are not readily testable, since
their causes are normally conscious entities whose intentions we are not
able to predict. Nor are they necessarily absent just because we cannot
see their mechanisms.
>>There can be NO event in the physical realm that
>>is actually outside God's providence. But that does not mean that
>>every event is a special miracle. Are you following me?
> No. I am specifically not talking about special miracles; I am talking
> about religion invoking the supernatural to explain natural phenomena
> - any natural phenomena. That includes invoking the supernatural to
> explain the course of natural evolution (God 'guiding' the process) or
> invoking the supernatural to explain the existence of disease, pain
> and suffering (Heaven, God, Satan, the Fall).
Well, that's what religion does. It's not science, though.
>>> If the latter, then all theologues can do is (rather
>>> unscientifically) offer supernatural explanations that fill in the
>>> (current) gaps in scientific knowledge.
>>Nope. God of the gaps is as heretical as young-earth creationism,
>>though it seems to be the darling ideology of the ID movement.
> So it would be wrong for religion to offer explanations for what
> science cannot explain. But if science has explained it, what is there
> left for religion to do other than add superfluous explanations (which
> would be sliced off by the 'razor')?
It would be wrong for religion to try to inject special miracles for what
science cannot explain. Whether science can explain something or not is
irrelevant to the statement that all things happen within God's
sovereignty, not outside of it.
>>The big difference is that science works upwards from observed data
>>and logical inference to theories and explanations.
>>Theology works downwards from general principles, through logical
>>inference to explanations.
>
> And where do the general principles come from if you haven't worked
> 'up' to them from observed data? Maybe you just pull them out of the
> air?
Revelation. Wherein lies a certain difficulty, in that it is not always
possible to know revelation from outright fraudulent claims. This can be
one reason for a special miracle to occur.
Simply I
other posts before jumping in and flaming me. Are you really that desperate
for attention still? It's truly pathetic how bitter you are still. You
should be kicked off of the www, for many reasons, mainly, that you are an
unbalanced psycho.
Boikat
"Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in message
>
> "Boikat" <Boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:Tw9Ka.9233$XR4....@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com...
> >
Please addres my reply to your squinkage in the "scientific roadblocks to
whale evolution" thread.
Boikat
>
Simply I
If you are too stuborn to accept that...well...that's your problem correct?
>
William
<doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>William <tal...@mail.clara.fs.net> wrote in
>>Dave Oldridge <doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>The natural world offers only circumstantial evidence. If it offered
>>>really cogent evidence, then there would be no need for faith.
>>
>> I don't see where that is relevant to the above. Does religion claim
>> that the natural world shows evidence for the Divine or not? If it
>> does it is doing science.
>
>I disagree. Circumstantial evidence is not scientific evidence.
Sufficiently strong circumstantial evidence is accepted as
scientifically significant. The only evidence for subterranean seas on
Jupiter's moon, Europa is circumstantial but scientists at JPL are
taking it very seriously.
However, if you are right, and nothing in the world around us reveals
any objective (scientific) evidence of supernatural influences then no
wonder religion is seen as all in the mind. Those who claim that evil
in the world is evidence of malevolent supernatural forces are simply
expressing a personal subjective view. Other, contradictory, personal
subjective views are just as valid.
>> And it seems to me that the need for faith mitigates against informed
>> choices and informed choices are what makes choosing meaningful. Why
>> should faith be some kind of virtue?
>
>Faith has nothing to do with blind belief and has no real problem with
>doubts if they are reasonable.
I don't think you can have it both ways. Either the evidence is real
and objective (scientific evidence) or it is not (blind faith). The
more evidence there is, and the better quality it is, the less the
need for any leaps of faith. And you have not said why faith should be
seen as some kind of virtue.
>>>>>Any appeal to the supernatural is not science at all. Where
>>>>>problems arise is when theologues try to invoke the supernatural to
>>>>>explain the natural, and then insist on it when they're shown to be
>>>>>wrong.
>
>>>> I'm not sure whether you mean it is always wrong to invoke the
>>>> supernatural to explain the natural, or that it is wrong only when
>>>> shown that there is a natural explanation.
>
>>>It is wrong to invoke special miracles when there is no shred of
>>>positive evidence to support them. The Church has been burned on this
>>>one too many times not to be literally skeptical of such claims.
>
>> I didn't say special miracles, I said invoking the supernatural to
>> explain the natural - eg, invoking the supernatural (God, Satan, the
>> Fall, some ultimate purpose) to explain the state of the natural world
>> we see today. Does religion (particularly the christian religion) do
>> this?
>
>Ahhh, but the Church invokes the supernatural to explain EVERYTHING at
>root.
Well, since science has not (yet) explained where everything comes
from then the Church invokes the God-of-the-Gaps argument - which I
think you said would be heretical.
>She does not, however, sanction claims of special miracles unless
>accompanied by suitable evidence that the miracle is indeed outside the
>natural order of things and is a true gift from God.
In other words, science has to accept such evidence as valid; or is it
not objective evidence at all and only exists as evidence in the head
of the faithful? If the latter then should that not be stated in any
proclamation of an alleged miracle?
[snip]
>>>The big difference is that science works upwards from observed data
>>>and logical inference to theories and explanations.
>>>Theology works downwards from general principles, through logical
>>>inference to explanations.
>>
>> And where do the general principles come from if you haven't worked
>> 'up' to them from observed data? Maybe you just pull them out of the
>> air?
>
>Revelation. Wherein lies a certain difficulty, in that it is not always
>possible to know revelation from outright fraudulent claims. This can be
>one reason for a special miracle to occur.
But if special miracles are only circumstantial evidence of the Divine
("The natural world offers only circumstantial evidence") there is
still no real way to determine which revelation is genuine and which
is mistaken or fraudulent. And there are an awful lot of claimed
revelations out there - many of them mutually contradictory.
And of course the problem with miracles is that they are only declared
as miracles retrospectively which must reduce their evidence value to
almost nil.
William
Dave Oldridge
news:3efb8145...@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:13:08 +0000 (UTC), Dave Oldridge
> <doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>
>>William <tal...@mail.clara.fs.net> wrote in
>>>Dave Oldridge <doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The natural world offers only circumstantial evidence. If it
>>>>offered really cogent evidence, then there would be no need for
>>>>faith.
>>>
>>> I don't see where that is relevant to the above. Does religion claim
>>> that the natural world shows evidence for the Divine or not? If it
>>> does it is doing science.
>>
>>I disagree. Circumstantial evidence is not scientific evidence.
>
> Sufficiently strong circumstantial evidence is accepted as
> scientifically significant. The only evidence for subterranean seas on
> Jupiter's moon, Europa is circumstantial but scientists at JPL are
> taking it very seriously.
>
> However, if you are right, and nothing in the world around us reveals
> any objective (scientific) evidence of supernatural influences then no
> wonder religion is seen as all in the mind. Those who claim that evil
> in the world is evidence of malevolent supernatural forces are simply
> expressing a personal subjective view. Other, contradictory, personal
> subjective views are just as valid.
And I would agree if it were not for the fact that I've seen these
malevolent forces take visible form and even been driven to take action
to deal with them.
>>> And it seems to me that the need for faith mitigates against
>>> informed choices and informed choices are what makes choosing
>>> meaningful. Why should faith be some kind of virtue?
>>Faith has nothing to do with blind belief and has no real problem with
>>doubts if they are reasonable.
> I don't think you can have it both ways. Either the evidence is real
> and objective (scientific evidence) or it is not (blind faith). The
You're still confusing faith with blind belief. Faith is knowing that
there IS a sensible answer even when the question is not known!
> more evidence there is, and the better quality it is, the less the
> need for any leaps of faith. And you have not said why faith should be
> seen as some kind of virtue.
In point of fact, faith determines a great deal of our reality. Much
more than we really understand at first blush. Jesus was not entirely
being metaphorical when He talked about moving mountains.
>>>>>>Any appeal to the supernatural is not science at all. Where
>>>>>>problems arise is when theologues try to invoke the supernatural
>>>>>>to explain the natural, and then insist on it when they're shown
>>>>>>to be wrong.
>>>>> I'm not sure whether you mean it is always wrong to invoke the
>>>>> supernatural to explain the natural, or that it is wrong only when
>>>>> shown that there is a natural explanation.
>>>>It is wrong to invoke special miracles when there is no shred of
>>>>positive evidence to support them. The Church has been burned on
>>>>this one too many times not to be literally skeptical of such
>>>>claims.
>>
>>> I didn't say special miracles, I said invoking the supernatural to
>>> explain the natural - eg, invoking the supernatural (God, Satan, the
>>> Fall, some ultimate purpose) to explain the state of the natural
>>> world we see today. Does religion (particularly the christian
>>> religion) do this?
>>
>>Ahhh, but the Church invokes the supernatural to explain EVERYTHING at
>>root.
>
> Well, since science has not (yet) explained where everything comes
> from then the Church invokes the God-of-the-Gaps argument - which I
> think you said would be heretical.
No, the Church goes MUCH further than God-of-the-gaps.
>>She does not, however, sanction claims of special miracles unless
>>accompanied by suitable evidence that the miracle is indeed outside
>>the natural order of things and is a true gift from God.
> In other words, science has to accept such evidence as valid; or is it
> not objective evidence at all and only exists as evidence in the head
> of the faithful? If the latter then should that not be stated in any
> proclamation of an alleged miracle?
> [snip]
No, the CHURCH will not accept a claim for a special miracle as valid
until science deems it outside the natural order of things according to
its best understanding.
>>>>The big difference is that science works upwards from observed data
>>>>and logical inference to theories and explanations.
>>>>Theology works downwards from general principles, through logical
>>>>inference to explanations.
>>>
>>> And where do the general principles come from if you haven't worked
>>> 'up' to them from observed data? Maybe you just pull them out of the
>>> air?
>>Revelation. Wherein lies a certain difficulty, in that it is not
>>always possible to know revelation from outright fraudulent claims.
>>This can be one reason for a special miracle to occur.
>
> But if special miracles are only circumstantial evidence of the Divine
> ("The natural world offers only circumstantial evidence") there is
> still no real way to determine which revelation is genuine and which
> is mistaken or fraudulent. And there are an awful lot of claimed
Yep....ultimately you have to wrestle with your own angel. But
revelations that are accompanied by special miracles are more apt to bear
fruit than revelations that just talk about them.
> revelations out there - many of them mutually contradictory.
> And of course the problem with miracles is that they are only declared
> as miracles retrospectively which must reduce their evidence value to
> almost nil.
Depends. When people whose word I trust tell me that a 35-lb. cancer has
vanished overnight, then I'm inclined to think this event is both real
and is evidence of something. No, I can't give you names and addresses,
but Agnes Sanford did the praying.
William
<doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>tal...@mail.clara.fs.net (William) wrote
>
>> Sufficiently strong circumstantial evidence is accepted as
>> scientifically significant. The only evidence for subterranean seas on
>> Jupiter's moon, Europa is circumstantial but scientists at JPL are
>> taking it very seriously.
>>
>> However, if you are right, and nothing in the world around us reveals
>> any objective (scientific) evidence of supernatural influences then no
>> wonder religion is seen as all in the mind. Those who claim that evil
>> in the world is evidence of malevolent supernatural forces are simply
>> expressing a personal subjective view. Other, contradictory, personal
>> subjective views are just as valid.
>
>And I would agree if it were not for the fact that I've seen these
>malevolent forces take visible form and even been driven to take action
>to deal with them.
Let's re-cap for a moment. You have stated that religion does
theology, not science.
In response to my point that religion claims that the natural world
shows evidence of Satan etc you stated that the natural world can only
provide circumstantial evidence which is not scientific evidence.
You are now claiming that it is a fact that there is direct visible
evidence of malevolent supernatural forces. Either you just pull that
'fact' out of the air or you are firmly in the area of science and
claiming direct objective evidence.
>>>> And it seems to me that the need for faith mitigates against
>>>> informed choices and informed choices are what makes choosing
>>>> meaningful. Why should faith be some kind of virtue?
>
>>>Faith has nothing to do with blind belief and has no real problem with
>>>doubts if they are reasonable.
>
>> I don't think you can have it both ways. Either the evidence is real
>> and objective (scientific evidence) or it is not (blind faith). The
>
>You're still confusing faith with blind belief. Faith is knowing that
>there IS a sensible answer even when the question is not known!
That's just meaningless. I'm not talking about answers to unknown
questions. If faith is based on sensible answers - ie, it is based on
reasoned and objective evidence - then it is not blind faith. And if
the evidence is strong enough then no leap of faith is required
thereby enabling the person to make a proper and fully informed
choice. That's all I have said. If religious claims are not based on
blind faith then they have to be supported by real evidence; but you
have said that they are only supported by non-scientific
circumstantial evidence.
[snip]
>>>> I didn't say special miracles, I said invoking the supernatural to
>>>> explain the natural - eg, invoking the supernatural (God, Satan, the
>>>> Fall, some ultimate purpose) to explain the state of the natural
>>>> world we see today. Does religion (particularly the christian
>>>> religion) do this?
>>>
>>>Ahhh, but the Church invokes the supernatural to explain
>>>EVERYTHING at root.
>>
>> Well, since science has not (yet) explained where everything comes
>> from then the Church invokes the God-of-the-Gaps argument - which I
>> think you said would be heretical.
>
>No, the Church goes MUCH further than God-of-the-gaps.
You mean it goes much further than just heretical?
>>>She does not, however, sanction claims of special miracles unless
>>>accompanied by suitable evidence that the miracle is indeed outside
>>>the natural order of things and is a true gift from God.
>
>> In other words, science has to accept such evidence as valid; or is it
>> not objective evidence at all and only exists as evidence in the head
>> of the faithful? If the latter then should that not be stated in any
>> proclamation of an alleged miracle?
>
>No, the CHURCH will not accept a claim for a special miracle as valid
>until science deems it outside the natural order of things according to
>its best understanding.
Sounds like more God-of-the-Gaps heresies. If science subsequently
understands and explains it then the 'gap' closes.
>> revelations out there - many of them mutually contradictory.
>> And of course the problem with miracles is that they are only declared
>> as miracles retrospectively which must reduce their evidence value to
>> almost nil.
>
>Depends. When people whose word I trust tell me that a 35-lb. cancer has
>vanished overnight, then I'm inclined to think this event is both real
>and is evidence of something.
But, according to you, not scientifically valid evidence of something
supernatural. And since a God-of-the-Gaps argument would be heretical
we have to abide by the default position that since science has not
yet explained it there is nothing we can say about it.
William
Tim Norfolk
>When people whose word I trust tell me that a 35-lb. cancer has
>vanished overnight, then I'm inclined to think this event is both real
>and is evidence of something. No, I can't give you names and addresses,
>but Agnes Sanford did the praying.
>
I'm sure that lots of people would like to see some evidence of such an event,
including the James Randi Educational Foundation.
Was there a loud "snap" as the person's skin shrank?
How in the world do people believe crap like this without hard evidence? My 7
year-old just might fall for it, but my 18 year-old would want to examine the
person. Perhaps followers of magic and miracles of this type are just in
arrested development.
While my employer is aware of some of my views, it is their fervent desire that
I never attribute those same views to them.
Dave Oldridge
news:3efc590...@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk:
Depends on what you define as "objective." A number of people also
sensed what I did, though as exorcist, I caught the worst of it full
force. But to call it "scientific evidence" I would have to be able to
reproduce the phenomenon and I'm not sure I could. I am sure I wouldn't
want to try--not for the reason of convincing some skeptic.
>>>>> And it seems to me that the need for faith mitigates against
>>>>> informed choices and informed choices are what makes choosing
>>>>> meaningful. Why should faith be some kind of virtue?
>>
>>>>Faith has nothing to do with blind belief and has no real problem
>>>>with doubts if they are reasonable.
>>
>>> I don't think you can have it both ways. Either the evidence is
>>> real and objective (scientific evidence) or it is not (blind faith).
>>> The
>>
>>You're still confusing faith with blind belief. Faith is knowing that
>>there IS a sensible answer even when the question is not known!
>
> That's just meaningless. I'm not talking about answers to unknown
> questions. If faith is based on sensible answers - ie, it is based on
> reasoned and objective evidence - then it is not blind faith. And if
> the evidence is strong enough then no leap of faith is required
> thereby enabling the person to make a proper and fully informed
> choice. That's all I have said. If religious claims are not based on
> blind faith then they have to be supported by real evidence; but you
> have said that they are only supported by non-scientific
> circumstantial evidence.
You're still confusing faith with blind belief. It's more like
suspension of disbelief.
>>> Well, since science has not (yet) explained where everything comes
>>> from then the Church invokes the God-of-the-Gaps argument - which I
>>> think you said would be heretical.
>>
>>No, the Church goes MUCH further than God-of-the-gaps.
>
> You mean it goes much further than just heretical?
The Church, by definition, can only be orthodox, not heterodox. Since
the Church and the ancient creeds agree that God's sovereignty is
universal, then it can hardly be said to be heterodox teaching.
>>>>She does not, however, sanction claims of special miracles unless
>>>>accompanied by suitable evidence that the miracle is indeed outside
>>>>the natural order of things and is a true gift from God.
>>
>>> In other words, science has to accept such evidence as valid; or is
>>> it not objective evidence at all and only exists as evidence in the
>>> head of the faithful? If the latter then should that not be stated
>>> in any proclamation of an alleged miracle?
>>
>>No, the CHURCH will not accept a claim for a special miracle as valid
>>until science deems it outside the natural order of things according
>>to its best understanding.
>
> Sounds like more God-of-the-Gaps heresies. If science subsequently
> understands and explains it then the 'gap' closes.
Nope....this only applies to special miracles, not routine ones like
those that occur daily in the mass.
>>> revelations out there - many of them mutually contradictory.
>>> And of course the problem with miracles is that they are only
>>> declared as miracles retrospectively which must reduce their
>>> evidence value to almost nil.
>>
>>Depends. When people whose word I trust tell me that a 35-lb. cancer
>>has vanished overnight, then I'm inclined to think this event is both
>>real and is evidence of something.
>
> But, according to you, not scientifically valid evidence of something
> supernatural. And since a God-of-the-Gaps argument would be heretical
> we have to abide by the default position that since science has not
> yet explained it there is nothing we can say about it.
Not reproducible, therefore not scientifically valid for the purpose of
forming theories. Certainly, though, it's well out of the range of
things science HAS theories to explain.
Dave Oldridge
news:20030627104801...@mb-m06.aol.com:
>>Dave Oldridge doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca wrote :
>
>
>
>>When people whose word I trust tell me that a 35-lb. cancer has
>>vanished overnight, then I'm inclined to think this event is both real
>>and is evidence of something. No, I can't give you names and
>>addresses, but Agnes Sanford did the praying.
>>
>
> I'm sure that lots of people would like to see some evidence of such
> an event, including the James Randi Educational Foundation.
>
> Was there a loud "snap" as the person's skin shrank?
I have no idea. I wasn't there.
> How in the world do people believe crap like this without hard
> evidence? My 7 year-old just might fall for it, but my 18 year-old
> would want to examine the person. Perhaps followers of magic and
> miracles of this type are just in arrested development.
According to my source, doctors DID examine the person. Perhaps people
whose prayers are really effective just don't cross your spiritual
barriers.
William
<doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>tal...@mail.clara.fs.net (William) wrote in
>
>> Let's re-cap for a moment. You have stated that religion does
>> theology, not science.
>> In response to my point that religion claims that the natural world
>> shows evidence of Satan etc you stated that the natural world can only
>> provide circumstantial evidence which is not scientific evidence.
>>
>> You are now claiming that it is a fact that there is direct visible
>> evidence of malevolent supernatural forces. Either you just pull that
>> 'fact' out of the air or you are firmly in the area of science and
>> claiming direct objective evidence.
>
>Depends on what you define as "objective."
Exterior to the mind - not subjective. In other words, evidence that
is independent of your mind and which is (or was) potentially
available to others. Only solipsists believe there is no evidence
exterior to the mind.
>A number of people also sensed what I did, though as exorcist,
>I caught the worst of it full force. But to call it "scientific evidence"
>I would have to be able to reproduce the phenomenon and I'm not
>sure I could. I am sure I wouldn't want to try--not for the reason
>of convincing some skeptic.
I thought that the purpose of miracles was to convince the skeptic?
(Matt 9:6, John 10:38, John 20:30-31)
[snip]
>>>> revelations out there - many of them mutually contradictory.
>>>> And of course the problem with miracles is that they are only
>>>> declared as miracles retrospectively which must reduce their
>>>> evidence value to almost nil.
>>>
>>>Depends. When people whose word I trust tell me that a 35-lb. cancer
>>>has vanished overnight, then I'm inclined to think this event is both
>>>real and is evidence of something.
>>
>> But, according to you, not scientifically valid evidence of something
>> supernatural. And since a God-of-the-Gaps argument would be heretical
>> we have to abide by the default position that since science has not
>> yet explained it there is nothing we can say about it.
>
>Not reproducible, therefore not scientifically valid for the purpose of
>forming theories. Certainly, though, it's well out of the range of
>things science HAS theories to explain.
Science is perfectly able to accept data that cannot be reproduced.
Forensic science builds a scientific case on the basis of evidence
left by an event in the past that cannot be reproduced. The bits it
cannot explain it leaves open - it would be completely inappropriate
to insert supernatural or magic explanations into these gaps in
knowledge. And, according to you, it would heretical. And (back to the
original point) it would also be heretical because it is using a
semblance of science to support a religious dogma. It would be bad
religion and bad science.
Or do you think it might be good religion (but bad science) to insert
supernatural explanations into observed phenomena?
William
Dave Oldridge
news:3efd7cb5...@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk:
For some miracles, this is true. But one rule of miracles is that you
don't get to call the shots. God does. Sometimes, if you're attentive,
you get invited to be there when He does one. Sometimes He just does it
and people are duly impressed.
But they are not reproducible results.
William
<doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>tal...@mail.clara.fs.net (William) wrote in
>
>> I thought that the purpose of miracles was to convince the skeptic?
>> (Matt 9:6, John 10:38, John 20:30-31)
>
>For some miracles, this is true. But one rule of miracles is that you
>don't get to call the shots.
Unless you are able to get together with one other believer, then ask
for anything you can agree on and it will be done.
>God does. Sometimes, if you're attentive,
>you get invited to be there when He does one. Sometimes He just does it
>and people are duly impressed.
>But they are not reproducible results.
Thanks for snipping the main point of my post. I take it, therefore,
that you concur that it might be good religion (but bad science) to
insert supernatural explanations into observed phenomena.
William
Dave Oldridge
text.blueyonder.co.uk:
Yep....science cannot insert "and then a miracle happens" into its
deliberations. But I can assure you one does happen every day on the
altars of the Church.
William
<doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>tal...@mail.clara.fs.net (William) wrote
>
>> Thanks for snipping the main point of my post. I take it, therefore,
>> that you concur that it might be good religion (but bad science) to
>> insert supernatural explanations into observed phenomena.
>
>Yep....science cannot insert "and then a miracle happens" into its
>deliberations. But I can assure you one does happen every day on the
>altars of the Church.
I guess creationists are not the only theists who twist stuff around
before responding.
William
Budikka
news:<NZsJa.1050$D25....@news.uswest.net>...
> None of us now on the ICR staff even thought before its founding that we
> would be on a public platform debating evolutionists. Very early in its
> history, however, people began to think it would be instructive to those
> interested in the question of origins to witness debates between
> well-informed creation scientists and evolution scientists. Since that time
> over 300 debates between ICR scientists and evolutionists have been
> conducted, as well as debates involving other creation scientists.
>
> http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-275.htm
Way to go ICR. They're a thrill-a-minute, aren't they?
Now instead of posting more of this kind of material, which makes no
case at all for creation, why don't you do one post - one post only -
which lists all the articles published in peer-reviewed mainstream
science journals which either refute evolution as a valid theory, or
establish creation as a valid alternative to evolution?
Personally I won't hold my breath.
Budikka
Dave Oldridge
text.blueyonder.co.uk:
It's not a special miracle, it's a routine one. But it's also not one
that science can test.
Simply I
"Budikka" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e1e30450.03062...@posting.google.com...
Slowly but surely with new discoveries creation is making leaps and bounds
in the scientific community]
wf...@ptnosm.com
wrote:
>[Beacuse they are run by atheists and are therefore biased to the core]
>Slowly but surely with new discoveries creation is making leaps and bounds
>in the scientific community]
>
>
and you know this how? how do you know the entire world's scientific
community is atheistic?
you're saying creationism is the theory of the future...and always
will be.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
Eric Gill
> [Beacuse they are run by atheists and are therefore biased to the
> core] Slowly but surely with new discoveries creation is making leaps
> and bounds in the scientific community]
If they are not publishing the results and doing actual science with 'em,
this "progress" is all in the minds of the Believers, Simp.
Weren't you going to show us where this is happening?
Philip Deitiker
<I...@Here.com> wrote:
>None of us now on the ICR staff even thought before its founding that we
>would be on a public platform debating evolutionists.
Yes but did they think that you would end up crossposting
pollution to Sci. groups in which the discussion of generic
evolution is expressly offtopic in the charter.
Quoting from our charter.
"
Discussions specific to human or primate evolution belong in
sci.anthropology.paleo; those on general evolutionary
principles and on the evolutionary histories of other taxa
in sci.bio.evolution or sci.bio.paleontology as appropriate.
"
..
..
..
"
*** talk.origins
Discussion of religious issues (and in particular of
"scientific" creationism) belongs in talk.origins; it is not
appropriate for sci.anthropology.paleo. It is envisaged
that there will be very few crossposts between the two
groups, and those that do occur will narrow followups to one
of the groups. Appropriate material for a
crosspost might be a request for information on a scientific
aspect of human evolution that happens to be important in
the context of a debate in talk.origins.
"
I don't see any discussion of human evolution in this
thread.
David Iain Grieg you fricken coward, either post this to
talk.origins or block the damn thread. This crap is
off-topic in our group, its creationism and this person is a
loon pure and simple.
> Very early in its
>history, however, people began to think it would be instructive to those
>interested in the question of origins to witness debates between
>well-informed creation scientists and evolution scientists. Since that time
>over 300 debates between ICR scientists and evolutionists have been
>conducted, as well as debates involving other creation scientists.
This is not on of them, this is crossposted pollution into
s.a.p.. If your god is an ethical god then you are bound by
the ethics of your god to stop polluting. Unless you wish to
post an question on the evolution of humans or anthropoid
apes then you crosspost into s.a.p. are unethical and you
are going to hell.
DNAPaleoAnth at att dot net
William
<doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>It's not a special miracle, it's a routine one. But it's also not one
>that science can test.
Dave, you are a complete enigma. On the topic of science and evolution
you are cogent and reasonable. You thrash the creationists for their
duplicity, evasion and irrational arguments. But the moment you move
to your own religion and religious dogma you suddenly behave in a very
similar manner and become impossible to reason with. I've looked back
over our recent exchanges and seen evasions, ignoring or snipping of
crucial points and responding to a twisted meaning of my points; in
other words just like creationists.
I guess I'm more puzzled than anything. Maybe thrashing creationists
is a sort of cathartic diversion. This is not meant to be a flame.
William
Dave Oldridge
text.blueyonder.co.uk:
Well, I think the problem here is that you ASSUME that I'm wrong about
the existence of God and your perceptions just go downhill from there.
You're not going to reason me into being an atheist. Can't be done.
I've seen too much. And I'm not TRYING to reason you out of it, so I
don't come across as the antagonist you're looking to lock horns with.
You may want to call that evasion, I just call it minding my own
business.
Besides, it's been my experience that people are NEVER "reasoned" into
salvation.
William
<doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>tal...@mail.clara.fs.net (William) wrote
>
>> Dave, you are a complete enigma. On the topic of science and evolution
>> you are cogent and reasonable. You thrash the creationists for their
>> duplicity, evasion and irrational arguments. But the moment you move
>> to your own religion and religious dogma you suddenly behave in a very
>> similar manner and become impossible to reason with. I've looked back
>> over our recent exchanges and seen evasions, ignoring or snipping of
>> crucial points and responding to a twisted meaning of my points; in
>> other words just like creationists.
>>
>> I guess I'm more puzzled than anything. Maybe thrashing creationists
>> is a sort of cathartic diversion. This is not meant to be a flame.
>
>Well, I think the problem here is that you ASSUME that I'm wrong about
>the existence of God and your perceptions just go downhill from there.
>You're not going to reason me into being an atheist.
>Can't be done. I've seen too much.
>And I'm not TRYING to reason you out of it, so I
>don't come across as the antagonist you're looking to lock horns with.
>You may want to call that evasion, I just call it minding my own
>business.
>Besides, it's been my experience that people are NEVER "reasoned" into
>salvation.
The above response fits very well with what I have said.
My point had been that there is a spectrum across theism where it
inherently has to invoke supernatural explanations to what is observed
in the natural world. This might be bad science (science rejects any
supernatural explanations of the world) but why should it be bad
religion if they all have to do it?
We have been all round the houses on this one.
But I have not said anything about the existence of God - we haven't
remotely discussed that. Irrelevancy #1
I've not tried to reason you into being an atheist. Irrelevancy #2
You have no need to try and reason me out of something you don't know
I'm in - and it has nothing to do with the point about good religion
and bad science. Irrelevancy #3
And has nothing to do with reasoning into or out of salvation.
Irrelevancy #4
The question of where it is wrong for creationists to invoke 'God did
it' and where it is right for other theists to do it is clearly a sore
point. What does surprise me is the vindictiveness with which each
side will attack the other (and anyone who dares ask the question).
Maybe it is the very fact of having to draw such a line that makes
them all so acutely defensive (and evasive).
William
Dick C
>> Now instead of posting more of this kind of material, which makes no
>> case at all for creation, why don't you do one post - one post only -
>> which lists all the articles published in peer-reviewed mainstream
>> science journals which either refute evolution as a valid theory, or
>> establish creation as a valid alternative to evolution?
>>
>> Personally I won't hold my breath.
>>
>> Budikka
> [Beacuse they are run by atheists and are therefore biased to the
> core] Slowly but surely with new discoveries creation is making leaps
> and bounds in the scientific community]
What discoveries? What discovery have creationists made, doing
creationism's version of science?
--
Dick #1349
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
Andre Gide, French author and critic (1869-1951).
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@localnet.com
Dave Oldridge
text.blueyonder.co.uk:
It's NOT necessarily bad religion to see a supernatural explanation in a
physical event. It IS bad religion to falsely misrepresent the physical
event itself in order to support some hypothesis about supernatural
events for which there is no physical evidence. You apparently do not
see this distinction because of your difficulty with all things
supernatural.
> We have been all round the houses on this one.
> But I have not said anything about the existence of God - we haven't
> remotely discussed that. Irrelevancy #1
But you have. You have danced around the question by using the term
"supernatural" but you're certainly thinking God.
> I've not tried to reason you into being an atheist. Irrelevancy #2
> You have no need to try and reason me out of something you don't know
> I'm in - and it has nothing to do with the point about good religion
> and bad science. Irrelevancy #3
> And has nothing to do with reasoning into or out of salvation.
> Irrelevancy #4
Then what ARE you yammering about?
> The question of where it is wrong for creationists to invoke 'God did
> it' and where it is right for other theists to do it is clearly a sore
> point. What does surprise me is the vindictiveness with which each
> side will attack the other (and anyone who dares ask the question).
> Maybe it is the very fact of having to draw such a line that makes
> them all so acutely defensive (and evasive).
It's really quite simple. The creationists are wrong to invoke "God did
it because X" when X is a scientific claim that is not true. Other
theists are quite within their rights to invoke "God did it because God
does everything ultimately and, even though X is wrong, that doesn't
prove God didn't do it."
There are essentially two contentions between the two camps within the
faith. The creationists contend that the text of Genesis 1-11 is literal
history, making a number of scientifically-testable claims based on that
contention and some speculations drawn from it. These are testable
claims about the age of the earth and the nature of the fossil record.
They are uniformly found to be in error when tested scientifically.
The other camp says that it's all right to interpret these passages in a
non-literal, figurative sense, in which case their apparent contradiction
with real, physical science is irrelevant. We do not call a poet a liar
when he writes that the sun's golden orb sank slowly into the western
sea. Nor do we necessarily claim that he's completely ignorant of the
fact that the sun is a star, not a ball of metal and that it doesn't sink
in the ocean but only appears to descend because of the earth's rotation.
It doesn't even cross our minds. But a certain segment of Christians,
so-called, have made a deity out of scripture. It MUST be literal and it
MUST be interpreted that way because it is God and for some reason their
god is not permitted the luxury of a metaphor or two...
So yes, this is a very serious theological difference of opinion.
William
<doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>tal...@mail.clara.fs.net (William) wrote
>
>> My point had been that there is a spectrum across theism where it
>> inherently has to invoke supernatural explanations to what is observed
>> in the natural world. This might be bad science (science rejects any
>> supernatural explanations of the world) but why should it be bad
>> religion if they all have to do it?
>
>It's NOT necessarily bad religion to see a supernatural explanation in a
>physical event.
I think I'd say it was essential to religion. Religion is revealed
truth - it's supernatural explanation ultimately trumps the natural
explanation if that contradicts dogma (faith over reason).
>It IS bad religion to falsely misrepresent the physical
>event itself in order to support some hypothesis about supernatural
>events for which there is no physical evidence.
It certainly looks pretty bad at the creationist extreme but that's
their received dogma. They state that if science reveals something
that contradicts their core dogma science must have got it wrong. So
does the Catholic Church. It has infallibly defined that the universe
was specially created out of nothing; therefore it has already made up
it's mind that if science shows differently it will abandon that
science. And it flatly rejects the theory of polygenism (that we are
descended from a pool of early human pairs rather than one pair) on
religious grounds and not scientific grounds; so it has already made
it clear it will abandon that science if polygenism is confirmed as a
scientific fact.
In the past it has done it in areas at least as spectacularly
unscientific as the creationists, which is possibly why it treads so
carefully today and gets so vindictive about the creationists. But it
plainly still has it's unchallengeable dogmas which will reject
science whenever there is a conflict.
>You apparently do not
>see this distinction because of your difficulty with all things
>supernatural.
What difficulty might that be? I think I can see a mind reading
exercise coming on.
>> We have been all round the houses on this one.
>> But I have not said anything about the existence of God - we haven't
>> remotely discussed that. Irrelevancy #1
>
>But you have. You have danced around the question by using the term
>"supernatural" but you're certainly thinking God.
Um, yes, supernatural does imply God. Please tell me where I have said
that God or the supernatural does not exist.
>> The question of where it is wrong for creationists to invoke 'God did
>> it' and where it is right for other theists to do it is clearly a sore
>> point. What does surprise me is the vindictiveness with which each
>> side will attack the other (and anyone who dares ask the question).
>> Maybe it is the very fact of having to draw such a line that makes
>> them all so acutely defensive (and evasive).
>
>It's really quite simple. The creationists are wrong to invoke "God did
>it because X" when X is a scientific claim that is not true.
Just like other theists, they see revealed Truth (with a capital T) as
primary truth and scientific truth as secondary truth and fallible.
Creationists are theists - they work according to religious terms.
When the chips are down they fall back on 'faith over reason'. They
just do it in a more spectacular and ridiculous way than many other
religious folk.
>Other
>theists are quite within their rights to invoke "God did it because God
>does everything ultimately and, even though X is wrong, that doesn't
>prove God didn't do it."
A bit like the idea that invisible angels help the planets round in
their orbits in an undetectable way. Science can't contradict the idea
but it is still a meaningless assertion. The ultimate fireproof
retreat.
>There are essentially two contentions between the two camps within the
>faith. The creationists contend that the text of Genesis 1-11 is literal
>history, making a number of scientifically-testable claims based on that
>contention and some speculations drawn from it. These are testable
>claims about the age of the earth and the nature of the fossil record.
>They are uniformly found to be in error when tested scientifically.
Not if they invoke their religious prerogative and claim that
according to revealed Truth the biblical account is literally true. If
there is a conflict then the science must be wrong or mistaken - no
contest. They are not lying; it is what they believe. What can you do
to challenge that? Tell them that reason is above Faith? Tell them
that there is a mountain of evidence to support the science? What if
science showed a mountain of evidence that the universe was not
specially created out of nothing? Or that we are descended from a
pool of early human pairs? Which would take precedence, the dogma or
the science?
>The other camp says that it's all right to interpret these passages in a
>non-literal, figurative sense, in which case their apparent contradiction
>with real, physical science is irrelevant. We do not call a poet a liar
>when he writes that the sun's golden orb sank slowly into the western
>sea. Nor do we necessarily claim that he's completely ignorant of the
>fact that the sun is a star, not a ball of metal and that it doesn't sink
>in the ocean but only appears to descend because of the earth's rotation.
>It doesn't even cross our minds. But a certain segment of Christians,
>so-called, have made a deity out of scripture. It MUST be literal and it
>MUST be interpreted that way because it is God and for some reason their
>god is not permitted the luxury of a metaphor or two...
That's their religious belief. They will happily weave a complex set
of supernatural interventions to 'explain' why the natural world was
different in the past. That way, just like you, they are being
truthful as they see it. They can even say it was all created last
Thursday with a built-in history. They have supernatural explanations
to invoke. It might gall you that they invoke them in that way but
tough - you are all in the same boat.
>So yes, this is a very serious theological difference of opinion.
But it is still just that. If you knock them out of the water you are
in danger of being knocked out yourself.
William
Dave Oldridge
news:3f005e42...@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk:
The Church is slow, but it's not stupid in these matters. I think you
will find that, in the future, if there does end up being a conflict that
the science will be what is found to be at fault.
Now it is common te refer to Galileo's problems as being indicative of
the Church's attitude towards science. But what got Galileo in trouble
was a nasty broadside satirizing the Pope for rejecting Copernican
cosmology, which had failed to meet several significant scientific tests
and which was still far worse than Ptolemaic cosmology at predicting what
would be seen in the sky.
>>You apparently do not
>>see this distinction because of your difficulty with all things
>>supernatural.
>
> What difficulty might that be? I think I can see a mind reading
> exercise coming on.
No, you just have a problem with the Church (or any religious
organization) dealing with supernatural matters that science cannot
really comment on. At least that seems to be the thrust of your
argument.
>>> We have been all round the houses on this one.
>>> But I have not said anything about the existence of God - we haven't
>>> remotely discussed that. Irrelevancy #1
>>
>>But you have. You have danced around the question by using the term
>>"supernatural" but you're certainly thinking God.
>
> Um, yes, supernatural does imply God. Please tell me where I have said
> that God or the supernatural does not exist.
You keep questioning the Church's action in using its own methodoly
(prayer and liturgy) to manipulate things in these areas.
>>> The question of where it is wrong for creationists to invoke 'God
>>> did it' and where it is right for other theists to do it is clearly
>>> a sore point. What does surprise me is the vindictiveness with
>>> which each side will attack the other (and anyone who dares ask the
>>> question). Maybe it is the very fact of having to draw such a line
>>> that makes them all so acutely defensive (and evasive).
>>It's really quite simple. The creationists are wrong to invoke "God
>>did it because X" when X is a scientific claim that is not true.
> Just like other theists, they see revealed Truth (with a capital T) as
> primary truth and scientific truth as secondary truth and fallible.
Scientific truth is always fallible. But that doesn't mean it's always
wrong. The point is, science should only be challenged on its own terms.
But you want to challenge religion on science's terms, not its own. If
it's wrong for religion to challenge science on religion's terms (i.e.
it's okay for me--as a priest--to teach morality to a scientist, but not
to tell him about the behaviour of electrons, except as a scientist).
> Creationists are theists - they work according to religious terms.
Creationists (at least the YEC variety and possibly some others) are
bibliolaters. Their real deity is a book (Gen 1-11 specifically) as
interpreted by Henry Morris and other similar heretics.
> When the chips are down they fall back on 'faith over reason'. They
> just do it in a more spectacular and ridiculous way than many other
> religious folk.
Other religious folk have some faith in reason and observation.
>>Other
>>theists are quite within their rights to invoke "God did it because
>>God does everything ultimately and, even though X is wrong, that
>>doesn't prove God didn't do it."
> A bit like the idea that invisible angels help the planets round in
> their orbits in an undetectable way. Science can't contradict the idea
> but it is still a meaningless assertion. The ultimate fireproof
> retreat.
>>There are essentially two contentions between the two camps within the
>>faith. The creationists contend that the text of Genesis 1-11 is
>>literal history, making a number of scientifically-testable claims
>>based on that contention and some speculations drawn from it. These
>>are testable claims about the age of the earth and the nature of the
>>fossil record. They are uniformly found to be in error when tested
>>scientifically.
> Not if they invoke their religious prerogative and claim that
> according to revealed Truth the biblical account is literally true. If
They don't HAVE a religious prerogative. Their "religious" prerogative
is based on "sola scriptura ad litteram." This doctrine is a combination
of two heresies and is not sustainable even by its own test of
correctness.
Luther needed an authority to replace that of the bishops against whom he
rebelled (violating his oaths). He found that in "sola scriptura," an
idea that had been broached by St. Augustine of Hippo in the 4th century,
but never seriously entertained by the Church in council. There are a
number of arguments against this doctrine, not the least of which is that
a doctrine that teaches that all doctrine must be based on scripture must
be based on scripture itself or it fails its own test of authenticity.
Sola scriptura is NOT taught in scripture. In fact you have to read
serious amounts of extra stuff into any passage to even come near
justifying it. The "ad litteram" version is even worse than what Luther
envisioned. It implies that scripture should be taken as literally as
possible (though I note that many of these literalists are much less
willing to take John 6 literally than they are Genesis 1-11).
> there is a conflict then the science must be wrong or mistaken - no
> contest. They are not lying; it is what they believe. What can you do
> to challenge that? Tell them that reason is above Faith? Tell them
I tell them what I tell anyone. That reason itself is a revelation from
God and therefore cannot be "against" faith.
> that there is a mountain of evidence to support the science? What if
> science showed a mountain of evidence that the universe was not
> specially created out of nothing? Or that we are descended from a
> pool of early human pairs? Which would take precedence, the dogma or
> the science?
Actually, pool or pair, the "Adam and Eve" story is about the human soul,
not the human corpus.
>>The other camp says that it's all right to interpret these passages in
>>a non-literal, figurative sense, in which case their apparent
>>contradiction with real, physical science is irrelevant. We do not
>>call a poet a liar when he writes that the sun's golden orb sank
>>slowly into the western sea. Nor do we necessarily claim that he's
>>completely ignorant of the fact that the sun is a star, not a ball of
>>metal and that it doesn't sink in the ocean but only appears to
>>descend because of the earth's rotation. It doesn't even cross our
>>minds. But a certain segment of Christians, so-called, have made a
>>deity out of scripture. It MUST be literal and it MUST be interpreted
>>that way because it is God and for some reason their god is not
>>permitted the luxury of a metaphor or two...
>
> That's their religious belief. They will happily weave a complex set
> of supernatural interventions to 'explain' why the natural world was
> different in the past. That way, just like you, they are being
> truthful as they see it. They can even say it was all created last
They may SEE it as truthful, but in order to see it that way, they must
deny that God has revealed any of Himself in the creation or that reason
is any kind of revelation.
> Thursday with a built-in history. They have supernatural explanations
> to invoke. It might gall you that they invoke them in that way but
> tough - you are all in the same boat.
No, we are NOT all in the same boat. I can see why you might WANT it to
be that way because then you could pretend to have sunk us all, if only
you succeed in sinking their leaky craft.
>>So yes, this is a very serious theological difference of opinion.
> But it is still just that. If you knock them out of the water you are
> in danger of being knocked out yourself.
By what? By science proving something utterly irrelevant?
Philip Deitiker
<doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>The Church is slow, but it's not stupid in these matters. I think you
>will find that, in the future, if there does end up being a conflict that
>the science will be what is found to be at fault.
If churches is anywhere as slow as you are in realizing you
are polluting s.a.p. and violating its charter, I would say
they are all doomed.
"
*** talk.origins
Discussion of religious issues (and in particular of
"scientific" creationism) belongs in talk.origins; it is not
appropriate for sci.anthropology.paleo.
"
William
<doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>tal...@mail.clara.fs.net (William) wrote in
>> In the past it has done it in areas at least as spectacularly
>> unscientific as the creationists, which is possibly why it treads so
>> carefully today and gets so vindictive about the creationists. But it
>> plainly still has it's unchallengeable dogmas which will reject
>> science whenever there is a conflict.
>
>The Church is slow, but it's not stupid in these matters. I think you
>will find that, in the future, if there does end up being a conflict that
>the science will be what is found to be at fault.
That's what the creationists think too.
>Now it is common te refer to Galileo's problems as being indicative of
>the Church's attitude towards science. But what got Galileo in trouble
>was a nasty broadside satirizing the Pope for rejecting Copernican
>cosmology, which had failed to meet several significant scientific tests
>and which was still far worse than Ptolemaic cosmology at predicting what
>would be seen in the sky.
The Church still rejected science in favour of it's religious beliefs.
Galileo's satirizing was the part that alienated him personally but
his ideas directly challenged Church teaching. He was condemned for
opposing Church teaching on matters of science.
>>>You apparently do not
>>>see this distinction because of your difficulty with all things
>>>supernatural.
>>
>> What difficulty might that be? I think I can see a mind reading
>> exercise coming on.
>
>No, you just have a problem with the Church (or any religious
>organization) dealing with supernatural matters that science cannot
>really comment on. At least that seems to be the thrust of your
>argument.
No. The thrust of what I am saying is that if you thash the
creationists you have to be careful you don't ultimately defend your
beliefs on the same grounds they defend theirs.
>> Just like other theists, they see revealed Truth (with a capital T) as
>> primary truth and scientific truth as secondary truth and fallible.
>
>Scientific truth is always fallible. But that doesn't mean it's always
>wrong. The point is, science should only be challenged on its own terms.
>But you want to challenge religion on science's terms, not its own.
>If it's wrong for religion to challenge science on religion's terms (i.e.
>it's okay for me--as a priest--to teach morality to a scientist, but not
>to tell him about the behaviour of electrons, except as a scientist).
Why should it be OK for a priest to teach morality to a scientist? A
scientist has his own morality. If you want to convert a scientist to
your religion and it's morals then that is a different thing.
>> Creationists are theists - they work according to religious terms.
>
>Creationists (at least the YEC variety and possibly some others) are
>bibliolaters. Their real deity is a book (Gen 1-11 specifically) as
>interpreted by Henry Morris and other similar heretics.
That's their authority. You have yours. Or don't you have one - are
your religious beliefs all your own? Not the Church, not Tradition or
the priest or the Pope? Not selected bits from these?
>> When the chips are down they fall back on 'faith over reason'. They
>> just do it in a more spectacular and ridiculous way than many other
>> religious folk.
>
>Other religious folk have some faith in reason and observation.
They all do until it challenges their core beliefs.
>> Not if they invoke their religious prerogative and claim that
>> according to revealed Truth the biblical account is literally true. If
>
>They don't HAVE a religious prerogative. Their "religious" prerogative
>is based on "sola scriptura ad litteram."
That is THEIR prerogative. What's yours?
>This doctrine is a combination of two heresies and is not sustainable
>even by its own test of correctness.
Heresies to you, not them.
>Luther needed an authority to replace that of the bishops against whom he
>rebelled (violating his oaths). He found that in "sola scriptura," an
>idea that had been broached by St. Augustine of Hippo in the 4th century,
>but never seriously entertained by the Church in council. There are a
>number of arguments against this doctrine, not the least of which is that
>a doctrine that teaches that all doctrine must be based on scripture must
>be based on scripture itself or it fails its own test of authenticity.
Not if it is a revealed Truth.
>Sola scriptura is NOT taught in scripture. In fact you have to read
>serious amounts of extra stuff into any passage to even come near
>justifying it. The "ad litteram" version is even worse than what Luther
>envisioned. It implies that scripture should be taken as literally as
>possible (though I note that many of these literalists are much less
>willing to take John 6 literally than they are Genesis 1-11).
They pick and choose. Do you take ANY of the bible literally? If so
why that bit and not another bit? And for the bits you don't take
literally do you take the intended MEANING literally? Or is there no
intended meaning? If you can't decide then who does? Has someone
decided on the basis of independent revelation? Does the Church
decide? Do you take the Church's teachings literally?
>> there is a conflict then the science must be wrong or mistaken - no
>> contest. They are not lying; it is what they believe. What can you do
>> to challenge that? Tell them that reason is above Faith? Tell them
>
>I tell them what I tell anyone. That reason itself is a revelation from
>God and therefore cannot be "against" faith.
If reason is a revelation then the Church's statement that Faith is
above reason makes no sense. Or is it OK for one revealed Truth to
compete with another one?
In any case, creationists claim their reasoning is from God; and they
reason that if their revealed Truths are right then the science about
origins must be wrong.
>> that there is a mountain of evidence to support the science? What if
>> science showed a mountain of evidence that the universe was not
>> specially created out of nothing? Or that we are descended from a
>> pool of early human pairs? Which would take precedence, the dogma or
>> the science?
>
>Actually, pool or pair, the "Adam and Eve" story is about the human soul,
>not the human corpus.
The Church is talking about human history on earth and human pairs.
>> Thursday with a built-in history. They have supernatural explanations
>> to invoke. It might gall you that they invoke them in that way but
>> tough - you are all in the same boat.
>
>No, we are NOT all in the same boat. I can see why you might WANT it to
>be that way because then you could pretend to have sunk us all, if only
>you succeed in sinking their leaky craft.
I'm trying to find where there is a qualitative difference between
your arguments and theirs; I haven't seen one yet. It just seems like
different dogmas and different degrees of invoking science, scripture
and Church tradition.
William
Dave Oldridge
news:3f03ee41...@news.freeserve.com:
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 01:36:54 +0000 (UTC), Dave Oldridge
> <doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>
>>tal...@mail.clara.fs.net (William) wrote in
>
>>> In the past it has done it in areas at least as spectacularly
>>> unscientific as the creationists, which is possibly why it treads so
>>> carefully today and gets so vindictive about the creationists. But
>>> it plainly still has it's unchallengeable dogmas which will reject
>>> science whenever there is a conflict.
>>
>>The Church is slow, but it's not stupid in these matters. I think you
>>will find that, in the future, if there does end up being a conflict
>>that the science will be what is found to be at fault.
>
> That's what the creationists think too.
No, it's what they spew for the general public, but the type of sophistry
and illogic they use, along with the outrageous distortions of fact show
that they place more faith in lies than in future scientific reversion to
their ideas.
>>Now it is common te refer to Galileo's problems as being indicative of
>>the Church's attitude towards science. But what got Galileo in
>>trouble was a nasty broadside satirizing the Pope for rejecting
>>Copernican cosmology, which had failed to meet several significant
>>scientific tests and which was still far worse than Ptolemaic
>>cosmology at predicting what would be seen in the sky.
>
> The Church still rejected science in favour of it's religious beliefs.
That's not EXACTLY true.
> Galileo's satirizing was the part that alienated him personally but
> his ideas directly challenged Church teaching. He was condemned for
> opposing Church teaching on matters of science.
Galileo was not exactly condemned either. His case was stayed and
finally settled in the late 20th century--in his favour.
>>>>You apparently do not
>>>>see this distinction because of your difficulty with all things
>>>>supernatural.
>>> What difficulty might that be? I think I can see a mind reading
>>> exercise coming on.
>>No, you just have a problem with the Church (or any religious
>>organization) dealing with supernatural matters that science cannot
>>really comment on. At least that seems to be the thrust of your
>>argument.
> No. The thrust of what I am saying is that if you thash the
> creationists you have to be careful you don't ultimately defend your
> beliefs on the same grounds they defend theirs.
I don't....or at least I try to stay away from outright conflicts between
my theology and scientific data. I certainly don't, as the creationists
do, rush about looking for a fight with it.
>>> Just like other theists, they see revealed Truth (with a capital T)
>>> as primary truth and scientific truth as secondary truth and
>>> fallible.
>>Scientific truth is always fallible. But that doesn't mean it's
>>always wrong. The point is, science should only be challenged on its
>>own terms. But you want to challenge religion on science's terms, not
>>its own. If it's wrong for religion to challenge science on religion's
>>terms (i.e. it's okay for me--as a priest--to teach morality to a
>>scientist, but not to tell him about the behaviour of electrons,
>>except as a scientist).
>
> Why should it be OK for a priest to teach morality to a scientist? A
> scientist has his own morality. If you want to convert a scientist to
> your religion and it's morals then that is a different thing.
Science isn't a religion (though some people around here seem to like the
idea of making it one) and I view moves to make it one in the same light
I view moves to making religion a science. But obviously a scientist who
is a member of a parish that I'm in charge of would be in for some moral
teachings.
>>> Creationists are theists - they work according to religious terms.
>>Creationists (at least the YEC variety and possibly some others) are
>>bibliolaters. Their real deity is a book (Gen 1-11 specifically) as
>>interpreted by Henry Morris and other similar heretics.
>
> That's their authority. You have yours. Or don't you have one - are
> your religious beliefs all your own? Not the Church, not Tradition or
> the priest or the Pope? Not selected bits from these?
Holy tradition does, of course define certain limits to our beliefs.
Those limits are largely framed in the ancient creeds.
>>> When the chips are down they fall back on 'faith over reason'. They
>>> just do it in a more spectacular and ridiculous way than many other
>>> religious folk.
>>Other religious folk have some faith in reason and observation.
> They all do until it challenges their core beliefs.
Yes, but why should it do so?
>>> Not if they invoke their religious prerogative and claim that
>>> according to revealed Truth the biblical account is literally true.
>>> If
>>
>>They don't HAVE a religious prerogative. Their "religious"
>>prerogative is based on "sola scriptura ad litteram."
>
> That is THEIR prerogative. What's yours?
>
>>This doctrine is a combination of two heresies and is not sustainable
>>even by its own test of correctness.
>
> Heresies to you, not them.
Who cares? They teach a DOCTRINE that says the Bible defines all valid
doctrine. The Bible does not define THAT doctrine. This is about as
logical as saying that there is some value of 2 for which 2 + 2 = 5.
Sure, they are entitled to their irrational belief. They are not
entitled to make it mandatory or force it on children in public schools.
>>Luther needed an authority to replace that of the bishops against whom
>>he rebelled (violating his oaths). He found that in "sola scriptura,"
>>an idea that had been broached by St. Augustine of Hippo in the 4th
>>century, but never seriously entertained by the Church in council.
>>There are a number of arguments against this doctrine, not the least
>>of which is that a doctrine that teaches that all doctrine must be
>>based on scripture must be based on scripture itself or it fails its
>>own test of authenticity.
>
> Not if it is a revealed Truth.
>
>>Sola scriptura is NOT taught in scripture. In fact you have to read
>>serious amounts of extra stuff into any passage to even come near
>>justifying it. The "ad litteram" version is even worse than what
>>Luther envisioned. It implies that scripture should be taken as
>>literally as possible (though I note that many of these literalists
>>are much less willing to take John 6 literally than they are Genesis
>>1-11).
>
> They pick and choose. Do you take ANY of the bible literally? If so
> why that bit and not another bit? And for the bits you don't take
Tradition, handed down from the authors.
> literally do you take the intended MEANING literally? Or is there no
> intended meaning? If you can't decide then who does? Has someone
> decided on the basis of independent revelation? Does the Church
> decide? Do you take the Church's teachings literally?
The Church USED to decide when it was still united enough to hold real
ecumenical councils that could render an opinion after much debate and
prayer. But various divisions have made that impossible, so we must
either rely on the traditions we have or find our own way. Ultimately,
though, Church or no, every individual must wrestle his own angel.
>>> there is a conflict then the science must be wrong or mistaken - no
>>> contest. They are not lying; it is what they believe. What can you
>>> do to challenge that? Tell them that reason is above Faith? Tell
>>> them
>>
>>I tell them what I tell anyone. That reason itself is a revelation
>>from God and therefore cannot be "against" faith.
>
> If reason is a revelation then the Church's statement that Faith is
> above reason makes no sense. Or is it OK for one revealed Truth to
> compete with another one?
Faith is above reason only because it provides certain premises for
reason to work with. Faith doesn't conflict with reason; it informs it.
> In any case, creationists claim their reasoning is from God; and they
> reason that if their revealed Truths are right then the science about
> origins must be wrong.
They rarely actually reason at all. Haven't you read their stuff? It's
mostly sophistry. Much of it is not even very effective sophistry.
>>> that there is a mountain of evidence to support the science? What
>>> if science showed a mountain of evidence that the universe was not
>>> specially created out of nothing? Or that we are descended from a
>>> pool of early human pairs? Which would take precedence, the dogma or
>>> the science?
>>
>>Actually, pool or pair, the "Adam and Eve" story is about the human
>>soul, not the human corpus.
>
> The Church is talking about human history on earth and human pairs.
>
>>> Thursday with a built-in history. They have supernatural
>>> explanations to invoke. It might gall you that they invoke them in
>>> that way but tough - you are all in the same boat.
>>
>>No, we are NOT all in the same boat. I can see why you might WANT it
>>to be that way because then you could pretend to have sunk us all, if
>>only you succeed in sinking their leaky craft.
>
> I'm trying to find where there is a qualitative difference between
> your arguments and theirs; I haven't seen one yet. It just seems like
> different dogmas and different degrees of invoking science, scripture
> and Church tradition.
I know. You seem blind in that part of the spectrum. But that's
probably because, deep down, you want ALL religion to be "wrong."
William
<doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>tal...@mail.clara.fs.net (William) wrote in
>>Dave Oldridge<doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>The Church is slow, but it's not stupid in these matters. I think you
>>>will find that, in the future, if there does end up being a conflict
>>>that the science will be what is found to be at fault.
>>
>> That's what the creationists think too.
>
>No, it's what they spew for the general public, but the type of sophistry
>and illogic they use, along with the outrageous distortions of fact show
>that they place more faith in lies than in future scientific reversion to
>their ideas.
I have to stand up for your christian brothers here. Not all
creationists are like that. Many honestly believe that the bible
should be taken literally - in the same way that you believe the
creeds and traditional church teaching should be taken literally. And
you both believe that if science ends up being in conflict with these
beliefs then science must be at fault. Demnonizing them doesn't help
you at all.
>> Galileo's satirizing was the part that alienated him personally but
>> his ideas directly challenged Church teaching. He was condemned for
>> opposing Church teaching on matters of science.
>
>Galileo was not exactly condemned either. His case was stayed and
>finally settled in the late 20th century--in his favour.
Ohhh yes. But at the time he was saved from the fate of others only
because of his high profile and connections.
And 'denounced' seems a pretty good equivalent to 'condemned'.
"It being the case that thou, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzio
Galilei, a Florentine, now aged 70, wast denounced in this Holy Office
in 1615:"
And:
" . . .of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and
contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center
of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that
the earth does move, and is not the center of the world; also, that an
opinion can be held and supported as probable, after it has been
declared and finally decreed contrary to the Holy Scripture . ."
doesn't seem too far removed from the approach that creationists have
to scripture and science. Would say about the Church of that day what
you say about creationists today?
>> Why should it be OK for a priest to teach morality to a scientist? A
>> scientist has his own morality. If you want to convert a scientist to
>> your religion and it's morals then that is a different thing.
>
>Science isn't a religion (though some people around here seem to like the
>idea of making it one) and I view moves to make it one in the same light
>I view moves to making religion a science. But obviously a scientist who
>is a member of a parish that I'm in charge of would be in for some moral
>teachings.
Is everyone in your parish a Catholic? If the scientist is not a
Catholic he might have his own moral teachings. He may well consider
them better than yours.
>>>Creationists (at least the YEC variety and possibly some others) are
>>>bibliolaters. Their real deity is a book (Gen 1-11 specifically) as
>>>interpreted by Henry Morris and other similar heretics.
>>
>> That's their authority. You have yours. Or don't you have one - are
>> your religious beliefs all your own? Not the Church, not Tradition or
>> the priest or the Pope? Not selected bits from these?
>
>Holy tradition does, of course define certain limits to our beliefs.
>Those limits are largely framed in the ancient creeds.
Are they your authority? If so do you take them literally or, if they
are symbolic or allegorical, do they have any literal meaning? Or do
they have no literal meaning and can be used as the reader sees fit?
You need to explain when taking things literally is right and when it
is wrong - or if it is never right to take anything literally.
>>>This doctrine is a combination of two heresies and is not sustainable
>>>even by its own test of correctness.
>>
>> Heresies to you, not them.
>
>Who cares? They teach a DOCTRINE that says the Bible defines all valid
>doctrine. The Bible does not define THAT doctrine. This is about as
>logical as saying that there is some value of 2 for which 2 + 2 = 5.
Does the authority (whatever it is - creeds, Church tradition) that
defines all the valid doctrines you hold, define that the authority
defines THAT doctrine?
>> They pick and choose. Do you take ANY of the bible literally? If so
>> why that bit and not another bit? And for the bits you don't take
>
>Tradition, handed down from the authors.
Please show the authority that defines that tradition be taken
literally. If it is revelation then, of course, you simply have a
competing authority to the christian fundamentalists who use the same
argument for taking the bible literally. The fact that their
literalism rejects more science than yours does (today) is just a
matter of degree and different revelation.
>> literally do you take the intended MEANING literally? Or is there no
>> intended meaning? If you can't decide then who does? Has someone
>> decided on the basis of independent revelation? Does the Church
>> decide? Do you take the Church's teachings literally?
>
>The Church USED to decide when it was still united enough to hold real
>ecumenical councils that could render an opinion after much debate and
>prayer.
Like, for instance, denouncing Galilio or burning heretics or issuing
indulgences.
>But various divisions have made that impossible, so we must
>either rely on the traditions we have or find our own way. Ultimately,
>though, Church or no, every individual must wrestle his own angel.
All 2000 sects, cults and denominations seem to do just that.
>> If reason is a revelation then the Church's statement that Faith is
>> above reason makes no sense. Or is it OK for one revealed Truth to
>> compete with another one?
>
>Faith is above reason only because it provides certain premises for
>reason to work with. Faith doesn't conflict with reason; it informs it.
So the creationist's faith informs his reason. Perhaps that explains
why his reason is so different from yours. But faith is everything.
>> I'm trying to find where there is a qualitative difference between
>> your arguments and theirs; I haven't seen one yet. It just seems like
>> different dogmas and different degrees of invoking science, scripture
>> and Church tradition.
>
>I know. You seem blind in that part of the spectrum. But that's
>probably because, deep down, you want ALL religion to be "wrong."
For someone who claims such revealed truth you get it so very wrong
when you tell me stuff about me I know so well. That should be enough
for me to distrust your judgement on things I cannot check.
William
Dave Oldridge
news:3f04bdf...@news.freeserve.com:
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 08:48:54 +0000 (UTC), Dave Oldridge
> <doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>
>>tal...@mail.clara.fs.net (William) wrote in
>>>Dave Oldridge<doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The Church is slow, but it's not stupid in these matters. I think
>>>>you will find that, in the future, if there does end up being a
>>>>conflict that the science will be what is found to be at fault.
>>>
>>> That's what the creationists think too.
>>
>>No, it's what they spew for the general public, but the type of
>>sophistry and illogic they use, along with the outrageous distortions
>>of fact show that they place more faith in lies than in future
>>scientific reversion to their ideas.
>
> I have to stand up for your christian brothers here. Not all
> creationists are like that. Many honestly believe that the bible
> should be taken literally - in the same way that you believe the
> creeds and traditional church teaching should be taken literally. And
> you both believe that if science ends up being in conflict with these
> beliefs then science must be at fault. Demnonizing them doesn't help
> you at all.
You are still missing the point. THEY lie about science. Even if I held
their belief, I would be constrained, like Kurt Wise, to admit that the
scientific evidence seemed to say otherwise and simply state my position
on faith. That's far different from what the creationists are doing.
>>> Galileo's satirizing was the part that alienated him personally but
>>> his ideas directly challenged Church teaching. He was condemned for
>>> opposing Church teaching on matters of science.
>>Galileo was not exactly condemned either. His case was stayed and
>>finally settled in the late 20th century--in his favour.
> Ohhh yes. But at the time he was saved from the fate of others only
> because of his high profile and connections.
> And 'denounced' seems a pretty good equivalent to 'condemned'.
> "It being the case that thou, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzio
> Galilei, a Florentine, now aged 70, wast denounced in this Holy Office
> in 1615:"
> And:
> " . . .of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and
> contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center
> of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that
> the earth does move, and is not the center of the world; also, that an
> opinion can be held and supported as probable, after it has been
> declared and finally decreed contrary to the Holy Scripture . ."
>
> doesn't seem too far removed from the approach that creationists have
> to scripture and science. Would say about the Church of that day what
> you say about creationists today?
OK, but then aren't the creationists of today being hypocritical when
they accept a heliocentric astronomy (if it really is false and contrary
to the Holy and Divine Scriptures 1 Chron 16:30)?
>>> Why should it be OK for a priest to teach morality to a scientist? A
>>> scientist has his own morality. If you want to convert a scientist
>>> to your religion and it's morals then that is a different thing.
>>Science isn't a religion (though some people around here seem to like
>>the idea of making it one) and I view moves to make it one in the same
>>light I view moves to making religion a science. But obviously a
>>scientist who is a member of a parish that I'm in charge of would be
>>in for some moral teachings.
> Is everyone in your parish a Catholic? If the scientist is not a
> Catholic he might have his own moral teachings. He may well consider
> them better than yours.
Then he wouldn't be in my parish. When I talk about a parish that I have
the care of, I mean the members of my own congregation (when I have one).
I expect them to take moral teaching from me. Not that I expect them to
be very good at it. :-)
>>>>Creationists (at least the YEC variety and possibly some others) are
>>>>bibliolaters. Their real deity is a book (Gen 1-11 specifically) as
>>>>interpreted by Henry Morris and other similar heretics.
>>> That's their authority. You have yours. Or don't you have one - are
>>> your religious beliefs all your own? Not the Church, not Tradition
>>> or the priest or the Pope? Not selected bits from these?
>>
>>Holy tradition does, of course define certain limits to our beliefs.
>>Those limits are largely framed in the ancient creeds.
>
> Are they your authority? If so do you take them literally or, if they
> are symbolic or allegorical, do they have any literal meaning? Or do
> they have no literal meaning and can be used as the reader sees fit?
> You need to explain when taking things literally is right and when it
> is wrong - or if it is never right to take anything literally.
It depends what you mean by literally. The creeds are worded very
carefully so as to be correct, even in the most literal sense of their
words. And I see no way that they can come into conflict with science
unless science develops a reliable time machine which, right now, is a
theoretical impossibility.
>>>>This doctrine is a combination of two heresies and is not
>>>>sustainable even by its own test of correctness.
>>>
>>> Heresies to you, not them.
>>Who cares? They teach a DOCTRINE that says the Bible defines all
>>valid doctrine. The Bible does not define THAT doctrine. This is
>>about as logical as saying that there is some value of 2 for which 2 +
>>2 = 5.
> Does the authority (whatever it is - creeds, Church tradition) that
> defines all the valid doctrines you hold, define that the authority
> defines THAT doctrine?
No, that authority was GIVEN to the Church by its founder who was (and
is) God the son, incarnate as Jesus Christ. Of course you have to take
THAT on faith (or not).
>>> They pick and choose. Do you take ANY of the bible literally? If so
>>> why that bit and not another bit? And for the bits you don't take
>>Tradition, handed down from the authors.
> Please show the authority that defines that tradition be taken
> literally. If it is revelation then, of course, you simply have a
What are you babbling about. We have traditions of interpretation. Some
call for literal, some call for figurative. And some don't call for
either but leave it to the reader. The Bible is not an absolute
authority for traditional Christianity. Until the 1850's the Church
never had such an absolute authority.
> competing authority to the christian fundamentalists who use the same
> argument for taking the bible literally. The fact that their
> literalism rejects more science than yours does (today) is just a
> matter of degree and different revelation.
>
>>> literally do you take the intended MEANING literally? Or is there no
>>> intended meaning? If you can't decide then who does? Has someone
>>> decided on the basis of independent revelation? Does the Church
>>> decide? Do you take the Church's teachings literally?
>>
>>The Church USED to decide when it was still united enough to hold real
>>ecumenical councils that could render an opinion after much debate and
>>prayer.
> Like, for instance, denouncing Galilio or burning heretics or issuing
> indulgences.
That all happened some 750 years later, in a branch of the Church
arguably in schism from the root.
>>But various divisions have made that impossible, so we must
>>either rely on the traditions we have or find our own way.
>>Ultimately, though, Church or no, every individual must wrestle his
>>own angel.
> All 2000 sects, cults and denominations seem to do just that.
Naw, most of them exist for the purpose of avoiding it.
>>> If reason is a revelation then the Church's statement that Faith is
>>> above reason makes no sense. Or is it OK for one revealed Truth to
>>> compete with another one?
>>Faith is above reason only because it provides certain premises for
>>reason to work with. Faith doesn't conflict with reason; it informs
>>it.
> So the creationist's faith informs his reason. Perhaps that explains
> why his reason is so different from yours. But faith is everything.
No, his faith is misplaced. That is he places his faith in telling lies
about science rather than in God.
>>> I'm trying to find where there is a qualitative difference between
>>> your arguments and theirs; I haven't seen one yet. It just seems
>>> like different dogmas and different degrees of invoking science,
>>> scripture and Church tradition.
>>I know. You seem blind in that part of the spectrum. But that's
>>probably because, deep down, you want ALL religion to be "wrong."
>
> For someone who claims such revealed truth you get it so very wrong
> when you tell me stuff about me I know so well. That should be enough
> for me to distrust your judgement on things I cannot check.
It's hard to tell what you're thinking if you won't say it outright.
> William
And how do I know I didn't hit the nail right on the head and you're just
denying it? I'm not ASKING you to accept my judgement anyway. You seem
to be just questioning it for the sake of starting something.
Be careful. You might get something.
William
<doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>tal...@mail.clara.fs.net (William) wrote in
>
>> Are they your authority? If so do you take them literally or, if they
>> are symbolic or allegorical, do they have any literal meaning? Or do
>> they have no literal meaning and can be used as the reader sees fit?
>> You need to explain when taking things literally is right and when it
>> is wrong - or if it is never right to take anything literally.
>
>It depends what you mean by literally. The creeds are worded very
>carefully so as to be correct, even in the most literal sense of their
>words. And I see no way that they can come into conflict with science
>unless science develops a reliable time machine which, right now, is a
>theoretical impossibility.
OK, we are getting somewhere now. You are a creeds literalist; the
creationists are biblical literalists. Clearly the bible says a lot
more than the creeds so the creationists are going to hit conflicts a
long time before you do. But I think you have also said you take the
traditional teaching of the Church literally. In a recent post you
stated " I think you will find that, in the future, if there does end
up being a conflict [Church and science] that the science will be what
is found to be at fault." That is a significant pre-judgment. Not too
dissimilar to the AnswersInGenesis statement of Faith: "By definition,
no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including
history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural
record."
Substitute "the Creeds" and "Tradition of Church teaching" for
"Scriptural record" and you have your basic position. Of course the
RC Church is treading very carefully in it's pronouncements about
science - it's still smarting from some of it's past pronouncements.
But (as mentioned) it still rejects - on theological grounds -
theories of the origin of the universe which contradict the Church
teaching that it was a special creation out of nothing. And it rejects
on - theological grounds - theories of the origins of man that
contradict the Church teaching that humans came from a single pair.
(And it is talking about real people).
>>>>>This doctrine is a combination of two heresies and is not
>>>>>sustainable even by its own test of correctness.
>>>>
>>>> Heresies to you, not them.
>
>>>Who cares? They teach a DOCTRINE that says the Bible defines all
>>>valid doctrine. The Bible does not define THAT doctrine. This is
>>>about as logical as saying that there is some value of 2 for which 2 +
>>>2 = 5.
>
>> Does the authority (whatever it is - creeds, Church tradition) that
>> defines all the valid doctrines you hold, define that the authority
>> defines THAT doctrine?
>
>No, that authority was GIVEN to the Church by its founder who was (and
>is) God the son, incarnate as Jesus Christ. Of course you have to take
>THAT on faith (or not).
You mean you have to take that part of the bible literally?
William
Dave Oldridge
text.blueyonder.co.uk:
Yes, but tradition changes. It changes glacially sometimes, but it is
capable of adapting to new knowledge. You have to differentiate between
core doctrine and custom.
> Substitute "the Creeds" and "Tradition of Church teaching" for
> "Scriptural record" and you have your basic position. Of course the
> RC Church is treading very carefully in it's pronouncements about
> science - it's still smarting from some of it's past pronouncements.
Yep.
> But (as mentioned) it still rejects - on theological grounds -
> theories of the origin of the universe which contradict the Church
> teaching that it was a special creation out of nothing. And it rejects
> on - theological grounds - theories of the origins of man that
> contradict the Church teaching that humans came from a single pair.
> (And it is talking about real people).
Mmmmph....I've not seen anyone really insist on this latter in the sense
of the corporeal ancestry of man being restricted to a single pair. And
the genetics is now standing against any such theory. The smallest
bottleneck is probably not smaller than about 2000 individuals since the
split with chimps.
>>>>>>This doctrine is a combination of two heresies and is not
>>>>>>sustainable even by its own test of correctness.
>>>>>
>>>>> Heresies to you, not them.
>>>>Who cares? They teach a DOCTRINE that says the Bible defines all
>>>>valid doctrine. The Bible does not define THAT doctrine. This is
>>>>about as logical as saying that there is some value of 2 for which 2
>>>>+ 2 = 5.
>>
>>> Does the authority (whatever it is - creeds, Church tradition) that
>>> defines all the valid doctrines you hold, define that the authority
>>> defines THAT doctrine?
>>
>>No, that authority was GIVEN to the Church by its founder who was (and
>>is) God the son, incarnate as Jesus Christ. Of course you have to take
>>THAT on faith (or not).
>
> You mean you have to take that part of the bible literally?
No, but as it happens, that part of the bible is literally true. :-)
Budikka
news:<JKsLa.1217$vF3.1...@news.uswest.net>...
[snipped preamble]
> > Now instead of posting more of this kind of material, which makes no
> > case at all for creation, why don't you do one post - one post only -
> > which lists all the articles published in peer-reviewed mainstream
> > science journals which either refute evolution as a valid theory, or
> > establish creation as a valid alternative to evolution?
> >
> > Personally I won't hold my breath.
> >
> > Budikka
> [Beacuse they are run by atheists and are therefore biased to the core]
> Slowly but surely with new discoveries creation is making leaps and bounds
> in the scientific community]
Okay, so you have evaded my request for evidence of creationist
publications by asserting that the journals in which they might
publish are biased atheist publications. This, of course, begs the
question as to how you can claim creationism is making leaps and
bounds in the science community if you have, as far as I can tell,
admitted that they publish nothing.
So let's forget my original challenge and let me present you with this
one instead: Where is your evidence that these publications are
atheist and biased as you claim?
(Can anyone feel a circular argument coming on?)
Budikka
Simply I
that evolution is propagated by university employees out to protect their
paychecks at all costs?
Would you like to see some verification on this?]
stew dean
Two things.
First square brackets are used to denote additions to existing text.
Secondly the 'vested interest' thing doesnt really apply. If evolution
is not 'correct' then the university teachers would teach something
else instead.
An yes I'd like to see some varification of this?
Stew Dean
TomS
<2b68957a.03070...@posting.google.com>, ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
stated..."
A few thoughts about this sort of thing.
Aside from the fact that it is an unsubstantiated slander and
ridiculous on the face of it.
It is a very dangerous tactic for a theist, to claim that all
of the scientists of the world are in an atheist conspiracy. That
tells us that the only way that one can be a scientist is to be
an atheist, doesn't it? If you are favorably impressed by the
results of science of the last hundred years or so, and you
think that this is all the product of this atheist conspiracy;
then would you want to join the conspiracy and be a productive
scientist?
Of course, there are plenty of scientists who are not
"university employees". They are employed by oil companies and
by pharmacutical companies, just to mention two obvious categories
where evolutionary biology is a tool for making money.
And, finally, of course, many "university employees" would be
only too happy to sacrifice a few bucks, if they could only
embarrass some of their "colleagues" by shooting down their cherished
theories.
Budikka
news:<AhtNa.1108$ds.6...@news.uswest.net>...
[snipped preamble]
> > > [Beacuse they are run by atheists and are therefore biased to the core]
> > > Slowly but surely with new discoveries creation is making leaps and
> bounds
> > > in the scientific community]
> >
> > Okay, so you have evaded my request for evidence of creationist
> > publications by asserting that the journals in which they might
> > publish are biased atheist publications. This, of course, begs the
> > question as to how you can claim creationism is making leaps and
> > bounds in the science community if you have, as far as I can tell,
> > admitted that they publish nothing.
> >
> > So let's forget my original challenge and let me present you with this
> > one instead: Where is your evidence that these publications are
> > atheist and biased as you claim?
> >
> > (Can anyone feel a circular argument coming on?)
> >
> > Budikka
> > [I see a square head on your neck coming off...Tell me,are you in denial
> that evolution is propagated by university employees out to protect their
> paychecks at all costs?
> Would you like to see some verification on this?]
I notice that once again you have avoided the question, so let me put
this second request that you have avoided to one side, and take you up
on your offer. Please do show me proof that evolution is propagated
by university employees out to protect their paychecks at all costs.
And if this is the case, perhaps you could enthrall me with an
explanation as to
why it is that employees of industry, such as the oil companies,
genetics labs, medical research companies, and so on, are in on it
with the university employees, since their research also supports
evolution.
And which university was it that Darwin was getting a paycheck from
which necessitated that he "invent" this whole lie to begin with?
Budikka
Simply I
[It is extremely difficult today for creationists to get Ph.D. degrees or to
secure and retain faculty positions in the major universlties.]
Similarly the major scientific societies and periodicals are controlled by
committed evolutionists. Students in science programs are exposed only to
evolution in their classes and textbooks and often their advancement after
graduation depends in part on conformity to the system. Under such
circumstances it is remarkable that thousands of scientists have become
creationists anyhow. One organization alone, the Creation Research Society,
has had well over 700 members who have postgraduate degrees. Even though the
modern scientists whose names are most familiar to the public are
evolutionists (Sagan, Gould, Leakey, etc.) there are nevertheless many
creation scientists today who hold equally important and demanding positions
in scientific research and development. In fact most working scientists are
apparently so deeply involved in their own projects that they don't even
think very much about the creation-evolution question. They have not taken
any public stand either as evolutionists or creationists and probably have
not studied the evidence enough to decide. Many are (like the writer was for
a number of years) evolutionists simply by default and conformity rather
than conviction. Of even greater significance than the fact that there are
thousands of scientists who have become creationists in modern times,
however, is the fact that most of the greatest scientists of the past
founding fathers of modern science creationists and, for that matter, even
Bible-believing Christians. One could go down the list of the names of the
great men who founded the various disciplines of modern science like Kepler,
Newton, Boyle, Pascal, Faraday, Pasteur, Maxwell, Kelvin and scores of
others of like calibre he would find a very large percentage of them to have
been men who believed the Bible to be the Word of God and the God of the
Bible to have created all things in the beginning. Somehow these beliefs
didn't deter them from understanding science! For brief biographical
testimonies of more than 60 of these great creationist scientists of the
past, see the book, Men of Science-Men of God (San Diego: Creation-Life
Publishers, 1982), 128 pp.
Budikka
news:<HU2Oa.187$mt5.1...@news.uswest.net>...
> [It is extremely difficult today for creationists to get Ph.D. degrees or to
> secure and retain faculty positions in the major universlties.]
This would seem to fly in the face of the fact that creationists
cannot help but flaunt their degrees as though this, in and of itself,
somehow proves their case. But your plain statement that this is the
case in no way proves that this is the case. Once again, where is
your evidence?
> Similarly the major scientific societies and periodicals are controlled by
> committed evolutionists.
What do you eman "controlled by"? Every scientist regardless of what
scientific endeavor they are attempting to publicise, has to go
through a peer-review before a paper can be published. Every
scientist - not just creationists.
> Students in science programs are exposed only to
> evolution in their classes and textbooks and often their advancement after
> graduation depends in part on conformity to the system.
Either that or making a major advance, which is precisely what
creationists are claiming to have made, yet nowhere do we see any
shred of scientific evidence making a positive case for creation. And
the reason evolution is taught is that it is the only scientifically
established theory which competently explains the diversity of life.
When and if creationists ever establish a science, with a supporting
theory beacked by evidence then this, too, will be taught. You cannot
expect to have a religious myth taught simply because you think it
ought to be.
> Under such
> circumstances it is remarkable that thousands of scientists have become
> creationists anyhow.
Isn't it though, with all the odds stacked against them? How could
this be possible if the field really was so tipped against them?
> In fact most working scientists are
> apparently so deeply involved in their own projects that they don't even
> think very much about the creation-evolution question. They have not taken
> any public stand either as evolutionists or creationists and probably have
> not studied the evidence enough to decide.
Yet committed evolutionists have somehow managed to "take over" all
science publications and are keeping out the papers they don;t want to
see.
I have read all this drivel you have posted here, and **ONCE AGAIN I
NOTE THAT YOU HAVE CAREFULLY AVOIDED DEALING WITH THE QUESTION**. Let
me remind you of what it was:
"Where is your evidence that these publications are atheist and biased
as you claim?"
So where is it? I didn't ask for sour grapes and whining. I didn't
ask for your excuses as to why creationists have no science. I asked
for your proof to support your claim that these publications are
atheist and biased. Now where is it?
> Of even greater significance than the fact that there are
> thousands of scientists who have become creationists in modern times,
Again, you present **YET ANOTHER** claim without a single shred of
support. Where is your evidence supporting this blather? Do you
understand what evidence is, because I have serious doubts that any
creationist even begins to understand what this means. Do you
understand the difference between evidence and whining? Between
evidence and opinion? Between evidence and blather? Between evidence
and side-stepping the issues? Because you have yet to offer anything
at all in your responses to me that convinces me that you do. **ONCE
AGAIN WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR WILD CLAIMS?**
> however, is the fact that most of the greatest scientists of the past
> founding fathers of modern science creationists and, for that matter, even
> Bible-believing Christians.
What an absurd statement this is to make. You are aware, are you not,
that evolution is a relatively recent science? That most everyone
back when Darwin wrote "Origin..." was a creationist by default? That
the geologic column was established by creationists, many of whom in
the process were forced to doubt the literal truth of the Biblical
creation story because it did not match the physical evidence that, by
your own standards, God Himself must have created?
Did the evolutionists whine like you are doing? No! What they did
was precisely what creationists are failing so dismally at now - at
finding and collating and presenting overwhelming evidence to support
their case. At establishing a rational theory to explain the
abundance of evidence. At getting evidence and theory published in
publications that definitely were, back then, controlled by
creationists. They didn't whine as you do. They didn't complain as
you do. They didn't blather sour grapes excuses as you do. They
didn't invent fictional conspiracies as you do. They did the work and
made their case and it was so overwhelming that it became the
standard.
Why are creationists not doing the same thing? More to the point, if
their case was so strong to begin with, why were they not able to fend
of the evolutionists when the creationists themselves were "in power"
- when they controlled everything, especially if the evolutionists had
such a pathetically inadequate case? Do you see now why your whining
gibberish makes no sense and in no way establishes a case for
creation, much less answers my questions.
Now when are you going to quit avoiding my questions and actually
answer some? Once again, where is your evidence that these
publications are atheist and biased as you claim? ANSWER THE
QUESTION.
Budikka - creationism is the science of lies, blather, strawmen, and
side-stepping issues