A Wild Surmise on Creationism
Steven J.
the sort of ideas put forth in Dan Brown's _The Da Vinci Code_. The
article also applies this thesis to a number of other theories about
secret meanings and codes in various works of art.
<http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5332>
The author suggests that such ideas appeal simultaneously to vanity
and laziness: vanity, because one suddenly can see oneself as one of
an elite who has seen through the delusions of the blinkered (or
perhaps I should say "unwashed") masses, and laziness, because instead
of actually bothering to study and understand the techniques,
conventions, and cultural context of Renaissance painting, one can
simply learn a few supposed Gnostic symbols in Leonardo's paintings.
Since he's writing for _First Things_, the author cannot be expected
to extend this analysis to creationism and intelligent design, yet the
comparison cries out to be made. The creationist imagines that he is
one of the few who have seen what 99+% of the biologists who have ever
lived have somehow failed to note (that evolution violates the Second
Law of Thermodynamics, or that it is impossible for unguided processes
to produce specified complex information, or that there are no
transitional fossils, or whatever "fact" he hangs his case on). He
may (as posters noting the eternally-imminent demise of evolutionary
theory have remarked) see himself as part of the vanguard of a
scientific revolution. And the beauty of it is that he doesn't need
to actually learn any biology; all those tedious details of hundreds
of transitional fossils, or anatomical or biochemical homologies, can
be neglected in favor of a few supposedly intractable problems or
quote mines that are supposed to destroy evolutionism.
Of course, there are other, probably more important reasons people are
creationists, but perhaps we should eschew monocausal explanations and
consider the importance of sheer vanity and laziness.
-- Steven J.
Blazin...@b.mail.sonic.net
has the real truth, some esoteric or arcane insight, information that
is not shared by all.
I used to know a guy who, when he got into his car, would put the
shoulder belt on under his arm. Someone told him that the shoulder
strap can hurt your neck in a crash. "Most people don't know that,"
he'd say. A friend of mine uses only premium gas in her car because,
she says, the saleman told her that regular gas is dirtier and will
eventually gunk up her engine. I tell her that (1) the only
difference is in knock resistance and (2) cars that need premium gas
are required to have that posted somewhere on the instrument panel and
also near the gas filler. Think she believes me?
There's nothing people are so sure about as religion! The word
'believe' means something completely different to them, it's as if
they've been chosen for some privileged insight into the real nature
of the universe and the rest of us are just too dumb to get it. I
never thought of it as vanity, but I guess in a way it is.
Kermit
Many folk tales, myths, paintings, etc. *did have codes and symbols
and allegories built into them. But as this article points out, later
interpretation can come to exactly opposite conclusions. Finding the
hidden meaning in symbols is a search for meaning in Rorschach
inkblots, without being aware of the psychological test nature of it
all. And often we look for meaning where there was one intended.
Umberto Eco did "The Da Vinci Code" first, and he did it better, with
the excellent mystery "In the Name of the Rose". And his "Foucault's
Pendulum" clearly expressed what he thought of people who played these
games with too much confidence.
Yes, it is the height of arrogance to assume that one can see an
obvious truth in a body of knowledge that is as complex as science,
when one isn't grounded in even a freshman's level of knowledge. I was
raised biblical fundamentalist, and they pride themselves on "just
reading the bible, they don't interpret it".
Of course we can't stub our toe on a rock without interpreting it to
some degree. It was clear to me by age of 12 or so that they were
interpreting it regularly and enthusiastically.
"I say to you, not one iota of the law shall change until Heaven and
Earth have passed away." And yet they say the old Jewish law does not
apply to them.
"It is easier for a camel to go thru the eye of a needle than a rich
man to enter the Kingdom of God." Oh, ahem, by "Eye of the Needle" he
referred to the east gate of Jerusalem, which was small, and required
that the camel be packed really tightly; he didn't *really mean it
like it sounds...
Etc. They explain away anything they find inconvenient - including the
need for study to learn science. Reality is a social construct for
them. It has to be; it's the only way they will live forever.
Kermit
Perplexed in Peoria
<Blazin...@b.mail.sonic.net> wrote in message news:uvu7035v9tj8co6mn...@4ax.com...
Well, of course it is vanity. But regardless of how much insanity
there is in Scripture, there is some wisdom there as well.
For example, it is written in Matthew:
7:3. And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye;
and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye?
7:4. Or how sayest thou to thy brother:
Let me cast the mote out of thy eye;
and behold a beam is in thy own eye?
7:5. Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thy own eye,
and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote
out of thy brother's eye.
Loose paraphrase: Atheists and evolutionists in t.o. are not immune
to vanity.
noctiluca
No doubt they exert influence. Noting my own tendencies in the
direction of vanity and laziness I find it easy to believe that they
contribute significantly to creationism. But I think we can extend the
First Things author's point to offer an even broader perspective.
The key concept to me is in the phrase "see oneself as one of an
elite." Without the "elite," - i.e., those who know what we do not
know, those who are doing things we don't understand, those who may
have an advantage we don't have - there would be no vanity in the easy
answer because there would be no reversal of advantage (and I think
it's also useful in this context to see "laziness" as just greater
efficiency, thus an advantage regained through less wasted effort).
I don't want to go too evo-psyche on this, especially since I don't
have much confidence in that way of thinking, but my real point is
that this is about *fear*. With increasing specialization in
scientific disciplines, with increasing depth and breadth of detailed
understanding, science gets further away from the layman and the life
he leads. The growing disdain for the "academic elite" is, to me, a
reflection of the innate understanding we all have that knowledge is
power, and therefore advantage, and there are some that have more than
others.
Knowing how overwhelmed I sometimes feel in the face of all that I
don't know and would like to, I find it easy to imagine a sort of
subjective strain of worry over ignorance and inability running
through the contemporary ethos. Estrangement from science has become a
powerful motivator of distrust of science, and it's easy for me to see
how that might translate into the vanity and laziness of opting for
easier, counter-"elite" answers. Add to this the relief and elation
that occurs when initial feelings of ignorance ("Does everyone but me
know this?") are assuaged as like minds are encountered and you've got
a recipe for a movement.
Of course throwing in a little fundamentalism helps too.
RLC
> -- Steven J.
loua...@yahoo.com
> Umberto Eco did "The Da Vinci Code" first, and he did it better, with
> the excellent mystery "In the Name of the Rose". And his "Foucault's
> Pendulum" clearly expressed what he thought of people who played these
> games with too much confidence.
"The Illuminatus Trilogy" also had elements of DVC in it. Along with
sex, drugs, rock n' roll, and the five-gunman theory of the JFK
assassination.
gregwrld
Still enjoy preaching? Buy a church...
gregwrld
CreateThis
Why would anybody go to that expense when the Church of the Eternal
Congregation is available for free right here? You couldn't drive
these parishioners out of their pews with a bomb scare.
CT
Perplexed in Peoria
"gregwrld" <GCze...@msn.com> wrote in message news:1174667683.8...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Ok, I seek donations, so that I may buy a church and do good work. ;-)
I wonder how many people got into the ministry game by doing something like
this on a whim, and then discovered that it actually worked?
Blazin...@b.mail.sonic.net
<jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Well, of course it is vanity. But regardless of how much insanity
>there is in Scripture, there is some wisdom there as well.
>
>For example, it is written in Matthew:
>7:3. And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye;
> and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye?
>7:4. Or how sayest thou to thy brother:
> Let me cast the mote out of thy eye;
> and behold a beam is in thy own eye?
>7:5. Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thy own eye,
> and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote
> out of thy brother's eye.
I wish more Christians could take this passage to heart! 8^) Jesus
-hated- hypocrisy.
>Loose paraphrase: Atheists and evolutionists in t.o. are not immune
>to vanity.
Certainly not. I said it was -human nature-.
Blazin...@a.mail.sonic.net
>Still enjoy preaching? Buy a church...
Don't Christians have the same freedom of speech as anyone else?
bi...@juno.com
> There's nothing people are so sure about as religion! The word
> 'believe' means something completely different to them, it's as if
> they've been chosen for some privileged insight into the real nature
> of the universe and the rest of us are just too dumb to get it. I
> never thought of it as vanity, but I guess in a way it is.
Atheism lies open to this exact same charge. When you consider that
throughout history, well over 99 percent of all people have believed
in some sort of God, the atheists are definitely the ones who think
they have obtained a privileged insight that every one else was too
dumb to get.
Is that vanity? Pehaps.
Ray Martinez
You are aware that Brown's book is fiction - are you not? His thesis
is age-old (Jesus was a normal and mortal human being). Do you know
any details of Brown's "fictional" book"? How about the Last Supper
painting which gave a clue to this "fact" in that John the Apostle
"looked female in the face"; hence he was some sort of first century
drag queen, or straight out male impersonator. All "deduced" from a
masterpiece. Steven: who are what type or kind of person might invent
these kind of things about St. John and the Lord Jesus Christ?
Remember that Brown is writing fiction, or rather he states that claim
right off the bat. Why would Brown want to say this? The answer is
obvious, otherwise he would not be allowed to publish. The point is
that Brown is not writing fiction (regardless of what he claims) he is
pushing an old theory refurbished; created by nonbelievers or
atheists.
It is atheists who have made this insulting caricature of Last
Supper.
Your Creationism connection is flimsy at best. You should have omitted
the Brown stuff and made your stale and predictable points about your
rival.
Ray
Mark VandeWettering
Atheism isn't an insight. It's just the honest admission that we have
no evidence to suggest that the God exists. There is nothing privileged
or insightful about this.
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
1. Brown's work is fiction, not a thesis.
2. Brown's work does not say that Jesus wasn't the son of God.
> Do you know any details of Brown's "fictional" book"? How about the
> Last Supper painting which gave a clue to this "fact" in that John the
> Apostle "looked female in the face"; hence he was some sort of first
> century drag queen, or straight out male impersonator.
You obviously haven't read the book either. The book (through the fictional
personage of Leigh Teabing) suggests that the figure at the right hand of
Jesus in Da Vinci's Last Supper was not the apostle John, but is in fact
Mary Magdalene. If you actually look at the painting, it's hard not to see
the fact that indeed, this figure looks very feminine.
> All "deduced" from a masterpiece.
> Steven: who are what type or kind of person might invent
> these kind of things about St. John and the Lord Jesus Christ?
The idea that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus wasn't invented by
Brown.
> Remember that Brown is writing fiction, or rather he states that claim
> right off the bat. Why would Brown want to say this? The answer is
> obvious, otherwise he would not be allowed to publish.
Not allowed by whom?
Greg G.
Of course it's fiction. The modern characters and events are made up.
> Do you know
> any details of Brown's "fictional" book"? How about the Last Supper
> painting which gave a clue to this "fact" in that John the Apostle
> "looked female in the face"; hence he was some sort of first century
> drag queen, or straight out male impersonator. All "deduced" from a
> masterpiece. Steven: who are what type or kind of person might invent
> these kind of things about St. John and the Lord Jesus Christ?
>
> Remember that Brown is writing fiction, or rather he states that claim
> right off the bat.
Nobody thinks it is non-fiction. You act like it was an intellectual
feat to figure that out.
> Why would Brown want to say this? The answer is
> obvious, otherwise he would not be allowed to publish. The point is
> that Brown is not writing fiction (regardless of what he claims) he is
> pushing an old theory refurbished; created by nonbelievers or
> atheists.
>
> It is atheists who have made this insulting caricature of Last
> Supper.
Atheists? The theories have myths about miracle healings. Atheists
would have made those up. It is obviously theists. Please apologize to
all atheists for making that false accusation.
>
> Your Creationism connection is flimsy at best. You should have omitted
> the Brown stuff and made your stale and predictable points about your
> rival.
Rival? It is not a competition. Steven is providing illumination for
all.
Predictable? That whooshing was his point going over your head.
His point is that Da Vinci Code believers would rather not put forth
the effort to learn the details of art and history so they accept an
easier to understand package of misconceptions. Creationists are the
same way with science instead of art and history. It would be hard to
imagine a fundy believing the theories put forth in the Da Vinci Code.
What kind of idiot would think anyone would equate fundies with
DVCers?
--
Greg G.
(A)bort (R)etry (T)hermonuclear Re-education
Harvest Dancer
> Jesus was a normal and mortal human being
You really think so?
> Creationism ... is flimsy at best.
Not even then. It's worthless.
Jason Harvestdancer
Steven J.
depends on the assumption that the "Mary Magdalene was the Holy Grail"
idea on which the plot turns is, in fact, false. Third, the book's
thesis is that the apostle shown leaning on Christ's breast is, in
fact, a female (Mary Magdalene, supposedly Jesus' wife), and not a
female impersonator). Fourth, what is (in the book) "deduced from a
masterpiece" is the view of the master who painted it (i.e. that Mary
Magdalene was the Holy Grail and that her and Jesus' biological
lineage had continued at least until Leonardo's day). Also there was
something about sacred sex in there, and how Gnosticism was the true
original Christianity. But I'm not advocating any of those ideas,
please note.
>
> Remember that Brown is writing fiction, or rather he states that claim
> right off the bat. Why would Brown want to say this? The answer is
> obvious, otherwise he would not be allowed to publish. The point is
> that Brown is not writing fiction (regardless of what he claims) he is
> pushing an old theory refurbished; created by nonbelievers or
> atheists.
>
sorts, and all Brown claims is that all the details about art works
and rituals are correct (there are critics who say he is wrong even
about this), not that his interpretation of them is correct. There
*are* nonfiction books advancing the same thesis (most notably Michael
Baigent's _Holy Blood, Holy Grail_). It was, in its day, rather
heavily criticized, but Baigent was allowed to publish it. Are you
now alleging that atheist opinions are censored in the American
press? That is an unusual thing for you to suggest; are you not
feeling well?
>
> It is atheists who have made this insulting caricature of Last
> Supper.
>
you are correct, but I doubt you have evidence commensurate with your
certitude.
>
> Your Creationism connection is flimsy at best. You should have omitted
> the Brown stuff and made your stale and predictable points about your
> rival.
>
Don't you feel I should give proper credit and context for the
arguments I borrow and turn to my own use?
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
Shane
Poor Ray, his inability to read for comprehension comes to the fore yet
again and leaves him looking foolish.
One wonder how Ray can read this paragraph--"I came across this article
at _First Things_ on why people embraced the sort of ideas put forth in
Dan Brown's _The Da Vinci Code_. The article also applies this thesis
to a number of other theories about secret meanings and codes in various
works of art."--and apparently see only these 5 words--"Dan Brown's _The
Da Vinci Code_."
Note how Ray missed that the article only used TDVC as an example of
what he was actually talking about, and how it was quite plainly stated
that the point was about a whole class of similar theories.
I wonder if creationism causes the inability to comprehend, or if it is
the inability to comprehend that leads to creationism?
Steven J.
wrote:
> On Mar 23, 7:32 pm, "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Jesus was a normal and mortal human being
>
> You really think so?
>
money on in Ray's case -- he does believe that. Since at least the
time the monophysite heresy was put down, Christian orthodoxy has
insisted that Jesus Christ was as fully human -- as normal and mortal
-- as you or I or Ray, while simultaneously being as fully divine as
the Father or the Holy Spirit.
>
> > Creationism ... is flimsy at best.
>
> Not even then. It's worthless.
>
Dawkins makes off evolution? I wouldn't be surprised if he did,
although I suppose that's not quite the sort of "worth" you had in
mind.
>
> Jason Harvestdancer
-- Steven J.
Steven J.
> It just seems to be to be part of human nature to want to believe one
> has the real truth, some esoteric or arcane insight, information that
> is not shared by all.
>
> I used to know a guy who, when he got into his car, would put the
> shoulder belt on under his arm. Someone told him that the shoulder
> strap can hurt your neck in a crash. "Most people don't know that,"
> he'd say. A friend of mine uses only premium gas in her car because,
> she says, the saleman told her that regular gas is dirtier and will
> eventually gunk up her engine. I tell her that (1) the only
> difference is in knock resistance and (2) cars that need premium gas
> are required to have that posted somewhere on the instrument panel and
> also near the gas filler. Think she believes me?
>
>
> There's nothing people are so sure about as religion! The word
> 'believe' means something completely different to them, it's as if
> they've been chosen for some privileged insight into the real nature
> of the universe and the rest of us are just too dumb to get it. I
> never thought of it as vanity, but I guess in a way it is.
>
from a different point of view, on people being sure about religion.
In response to Richard Weinberg's statement that science has both
progressed due to, and contributed to, the decline in religious
certitude in the last few centuries, Swaim makes two points. The
first ignores the possibility of positive feedback, and asserts that
if science benefitted from a previously-existing loss of certitude
(e.g. the outcome of the "wars of religion"), it couldn't be the cause
of such a loss, and vice-versa. But the second is interesting: if one
looks at church history from New Testament times on, "lack of
certitude" seems to be a constant feature (if not necessarily at a
constant level). Revelation complains about Christian congregations
that tolerate heretics. Throughout Church history, there were
recurrent complaints that outward observance masked inward
indifference or unbelief; the most famously dogmatic Christians were
famous in part because they took their Christianity so much more
seriously than most Christians did. Swaim notes even sermons of
churchmen like Jonathan Swift often contained no mention of central
Christian dogmas like the resurrection.
At least you should note that there are both different ways of being
religious, and different degrees of religious certitude. Even at the
level of creationism, think of Ken Ham's frustration at the number of
creationists out there who don't think the age of the Earth is
important (or his frustration, if he ever thinks about it, of the
number of church libraries with copies of AiG books next to books by
OEC Hugh Ross. People who post arguments for creationism are (or at
least appear to be -- perhaps their posts are exercises in reaction
formation) certain of their version of creationism, but they are not
necessarily typical even of creationists in general.
-- Steven J.
stew dean
Ray, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make but I can assure
you you've missed the interesting point Steven has pointed out - that
there are some who like a conspiracy theory that creates a cultural
'us and them' world. It could be new age mysticism, creationism, 911
conspiracy, man not landing on the moon, or global warming being a
myth - anything that a person believes because that's what they
believe despite the evidence, simply because it makes them feel
important to believe. When ego rules the intellect that's when these
kinds of mistakes happen.
> Remember that Brown is writing fiction, or rather he states that claim
> right off the bat.
And it's not very good fiction BUT it's based upon a book that claims
to be factual that echos the book.
> It is atheists who have made this insulting caricature of Last
> Supper.
Right on cue you do a 'them' figure pointing exercise. Athiests are
not a group of people; they are not a uniform bunch of people with the
same cultural values. In your case they are the Illuminati to many
peoples conspiracy theory.
> Your Creationism connection is flimsy at best. You should have omitted
> the Brown stuff and made your stale and predictable points about your
> rival.
The point is about the psychology of belief. You only need to look at
the rise of new age beliefs in Europe to see that people, left to
their own devices, will be proudly dumb and ignorant. I feel that
kids should be taught critical thinking and the difference between
objective and subjective in school as too many people, and I'm
including you in this one, can't tell the difference and can't see it
when you point out the basic psychology behind their mistakes.
Stew Dean
Frank J
Excellent point.
Today alone I have made at least 2 posts (not counting this one)
complaining about the ususl "monocausal explanation" (i.e. "they're
just fundamentalists") for denying evolution. Somewhere between the
"top" of the anti-evolution "food chain," where I'm pretty sure that
they know that evolution is the only explanation that works (& doesn't
rule out God), and the "bottom," where they simply have not given much
thought beyond the media caricature and feel-good sound bites, the
"vanity + laziness" explanation probably dominates. The ID strategy in
particular, seeks to exploit those traits.
While the "First Things" author is likely under the delusion - or
pretends to be - that "vanity + laziness" is somehow restricted to
"the left," the fact is that it not.
Blazin...@b.mail.sonic.net
<wett...@attbi.com> wrote:
>Atheism isn't an insight. It's just the honest admission that we have
>no evidence to suggest that the God exists. There is nothing privileged
>or insightful about this.
That attitude is sometimes called 'weak atheism', as opposed to
'strong atheism', the belief that there is no God.
But I would rather call it 'agnosticism', because it's not the same as
atheism. I would put myself in that category, believing that nobody
really knows, nobody -can- know.
Blazin...@b.mail.sonic.net
>Atheism lies open to this exact same charge. When you consider that
>throughout history, well over 99 percent of all people have believed
>in some sort of God, the atheists are definitely the ones who think
>they have obtained a privileged insight that every one else was too
>dumb to get.
>
>Is that vanity? Pehaps.
There is something in what you say. There -are- people who believe
that God simply does not exist and that one can only believe in God
through self-deception.
OTOH, don't delude yourself to think that -anyone- who doesn't believe
in God is in this category. If someone asks you to prove that God
exists, and you offer him a proof that works for you but he doesn't
find it acceptable, that doesn't make him an atheist, and it doesn't
raise his skepticism to the level of faith.
Yes, most people have believed in 'some sort of God' but I think this
is just part of human nature, that we seem to have a need to believe
in a higher power. People believe because they -choose- to believe,
or because it is ingrained in their culture and they are brought up in
a belief. And their beliefs are astonishingly (or appallingly,
depending on your perspective) diverse. So to take the position that
one doesn't think anyone really can know for sure, I think that's very
reasonable.
Ray Martinez
You have misunderstood two things. (1) Steven J. is a Darwinist
engaged in attempted opponent bashing and (2) Creationists do not
misunderstand Science - they disagree with Darwinian interpretations
of scientific evidence concerning biology.
Ray
> --
> Greg G.
>
> (A)bort (R)etry (T)hermonuclear Re-education- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
snex
if creationists dont misunderstand science, why do they say things
like "if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"
Ray Martinez
40 percent of the U.S. population is Creationist.
40 percent of the U.S. population is Evolutionist.
These percentages equate to tens of millions of persons for each
group.
No one could be expected to account for the erroneous beliefs of any
persons in such a large group. For example: why do some evolutionists
believe in astrology and horoscopes? or that apes somehow became human
over time? or the Christian Deity is not responsible for the
appearance of design seen in nature, yet most evolutionists are
"Christian" supposedly. It's to hard to believe that Christ was
Divinely Resurrected but the sames Father is not manifest in nature or
special creation miracles are not true too.
Ray
>
>
>
>
> > Ray
>
> > > --
> > > Greg G.
>
> > > (A)bort (R)etry (T)hermonuclear Re-education- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
John Wilkins
Amen, brother!
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
wf3h
Ray Martinez wrote:
> You have misunderstood two things. (1) Steven J. is a Darwinist
> engaged in attempted opponent bashing and (2) Creationists do not
> misunderstand Science - they disagree with Darwinian interpretations
> of scientific evidence concerning biology.
>
interesting comment in that creationists are intellectual parasites,
doing no research of their own, and are limited to criticizing the
work of biologists worldwide, none of whom are creationists.
stew dean
> Creationists do not
> misunderstand Science - they disagree with Darwinian interpretations
> of scientific evidence concerning biology.
Evolution is science, not philosophy or opinion. Evolution is one of
the most debated, attacked, proven yet misunderstood theory going. Our
current understanding of evolution is vastly more solid that Darwin's
ideas.
So far each argument you have had against evolution is based upon two
things, 1) Mythical evil Darwinists, (what ever a Darwinist is) 2)
Incorrect facts or misunderstanding common knowledge.
Modern science was born largely form religious academics, mostly
because that's where the money was. There still are many Christian
scientists that accept the theory of evolution without question and
use their knowledge in line with their Christian beliefs.
Stew Dean
stew dean
> On Mar 24, 12:07 pm, "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 24, 1:59 pm, "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > You have misunderstood two things. (1) Steven J. is a Darwinist
> > > engaged in attempted opponent bashing and (2) Creationists do not
> > > misunderstand Science - they disagree with Darwinian interpretations
> > > of scientific evidence concerning biology.
>
> > if creationists dont misunderstand science, why do they say things
> > like "if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"
>
> 40 percent of the U.S. population is Creationist.
>
> 40 percent of the U.S. population is Evolutionist
I honestly don't think those are real figures.
>
> These percentages equate to tens of millions of persons for each
> group
>
> No one could be expected to account for the erroneous beliefs of any
> persons in such a large group. For example: why do some evolutionists
> believe in astrology and horoscopes?
Why do some evolutionist believe in god? Each person's beliefs are
different, science doesnt change with belief.
>or that apes somehow became human
> over time?
Humans are apes. We evolved from an earlier primate. The process is
well understood and there's enough genetic information to support the
theory on that alone, thanks to the work of a well known monk.
> or the Christian Deity is not responsible for the
> appearance of design seen in nature, yet most evolutionists are
> "Christian" supposedly.
At the moment there is no objective evidence for intelligent design in
nature. There have been a few people working using the scientific
method to find a working hypothesis that can be turned into a theory.
So far there has been no science, as in there's been no hypothesis
that works. Irreducible complexity as a concept, for example, is
fairly null and void in that any thing that can grow in nature can be
evolved.
> It's to hard to believe that Christ was
> Divinely Resurrected but the sames Father is not manifest in nature or
> special creation miracles are not true too.
Funny, I have been told by another Christian that evolution is how god
creates. I know it doesnt say this in the bible but then it doesnt say
much about any scientific concept. No round earth, no basic chemistry
or even atoms, no gravity either.
Stew Dean
Free Lunch
"stew dean" <stew...@gmail.com> wrote in
<1174771136.6...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>:
>On 24 Mar, 19:25, "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 24, 12:07 pm, "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 24, 1:59 pm, "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> > > You have misunderstood two things. (1) Steven J. is a Darwinist
>> > > engaged in attempted opponent bashing and (2) Creationists do not
>> > > misunderstand Science - they disagree with Darwinian interpretations
>> > > of scientific evidence concerning biology.
>>
>> > if creationists dont misunderstand science, why do they say things
>> > like "if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"
>>
>> 40 percent of the U.S. population is Creationist.
>>
>> 40 percent of the U.S. population is Evolutionist
>
>I honestly don't think those are real figures.
They're Ray's figures, they're every bit as real as Noah's Flood.
...
Free Lunch
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1174762790....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
...
>You have misunderstood two things. (1) Steven J. is a Darwinist
>engaged in attempted opponent bashing and (2) Creationists do not
>misunderstand Science - they disagree with Darwinian interpretations
>of scientific evidence concerning biology.
You are wrong as usual. Creationists fall into two, nonexclusive
categories: those who are ignorant, those who are liars. There is
absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support any of the anti-science
creationism that you or your fellow-travellers claim here.
You have demonstrated a sufficient ignorance of science and indifference
to knowledge that your erroneous claims about them can only be
considered intentional lies.
...
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174762790....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
sni
>> Predictable? That whooshing was his point going over your head.
>>
>> His point is that Da Vinci Code believers would rather not put forth
>> the effort to learn the details of art and history so they accept an
>> easier to understand package of misconceptions. Creationists are the
>> same way with science instead of art and history. It would be hard to
>> imagine a fundy believing the theories put forth in the Da Vinci Code.
>> What kind of idiot would think anyone would equate fundies with
>> DVCers?
>>
>
> You have misunderstood two things. (1) Steven J. is a Darwinist
> engaged in attempted opponent bashing
A falsehood.
>and (2) Creationists do not
> misunderstand Science - they disagree with Darwinian interpretations
> of scientific evidence concerning biology.
Another lie. Creationists, at least ones who operate the major Creationist
organzations ignore or deny the evidence that contradicts their beliefs.
Creationists do not disagree with the "interpetations" they disagree with
the evidence that proves they are wrong. The rest of the people who deny
evolution are just ignorant of the facts.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
sniip
>> if creationists dont misunderstand science, why do they say things
>> like "if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"
>>
>
> 40 percent of the U.S. population is Creationist.
>
> 40 percent of the U.S. population is Evolutionist.
Even if we were to accept Ray's made up numbers, the fact remains, among
scientists, the people who actually are familar with the evidence, the
percentages are 95+% accept evolution.
>
> These percentages equate to tens of millions of persons for each
> group.
The vast majority of those who hold Creationist beliefs are ignorant of the
evidence for evolution, and don't understand what the theory states.
>
> No one could be expected to account for the erroneous beliefs of any
> persons in such a large group. For example: why do some evolutionists
> believe in astrology and horoscopes?
For the same reason that some scientists carry a rabbit's foot. Few, if
any people who accept the evidence for evolution view astrology as anything
but amusement.
> or that apes somehow became human
> over time?
That's because the evidence clearly shows that humans are apes, and there is
a process by which populations of organisms change over time.
> or the Christian Deity is not responsible for the
> appearance of design seen in nature,
Because there is no evidence that the Christian Deity is responsible for the
appearance of design (which is not accepted by all people anyway). Natural
processes produce the appearance of design, so there is no reason to appeal
to a supernatural being to explain it.
> yet most evolutionists are
> "Christian" supposedly.
Yes, many people who accept the science of evolution, also have faith in
God, and practice the teachings of Christ. That fact soundly refutes Ray's
claim that evolution is "atheist philosophy".
> It's to hard to believe that Christ was
> Divinely Resurrected
Which is why a Christian takes this on faith.
> but the sames Father is not manifest in nature or
> special creation miracles are not true too.
Of course, the idea that God is "manifest in nature" is a religious belief,
not a scientific concept. The evidence we have contradicts the creation
stories in the Bible, and since there is no reason why God could not use
natural processes as his means of creation, appealing to "special creation
miracles" to explain the evidence is not necessary, or reasonable.
God did not give us intellect, and then punish people for using it. The
evidence of how life operates, and how life evolved does not remove the role
of God in nature.
DJT
Greg G.
I know a lot of creationists and they do not understand science. Some
are uneducated and misinformed by their religion while some are
somewhat educated but deliberately dense about key issues. In every
case, they are reading creationist literature to get their science,
which tends to be wrong. They have been claiming that Evolution would
be overthrown in five years, but haven't you noticed how it is their
"Revealed Truth" that keeps changing? Did you notice how the only
support Intelligent Design got was from creationists? They know they
are wrong but won't admit it.
Creationists rejected the "different interpretations of the evidence"
crap a few years ago for "the evidence doesn't mean anything". They
kept twisting the evidence every way they could, but couldn't come up
with a plausible story, usually because of internal contradictions. We
see creationists groups pointing out how silly other creationist
arguments are.
We have been asking for a Creationist Theory to explain the evidence
for years, but none has been proposed. Instead, all we get are
bloviators trying to refute evolution.
>
> Ray
--
Greg G.
Ever lock your coat-hanger in your car?
Therion Ware
Wilkins) wrote:
><Blazin...@b.mail.sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:50:04 -0500, Mark VandeWettering
>> <wett...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Atheism isn't an insight. It's just the honest admission that we have
>> >no evidence to suggest that the God exists. There is nothing privileged
>> >or insightful about this.
>>
>> That attitude is sometimes called 'weak atheism', as opposed to
>> 'strong atheism', the belief that there is no God.
>>
>> But I would rather call it 'agnosticism', because it's not the same as
>> atheism. I would put myself in that category, believing that nobody
>> really knows, nobody -can- know.
>
>Amen, brother!
I would have thought part of the problem is that the term "God" tends
to be badly defined and means different things to different people,
from the old man in the sky through to Spinozian pantheism,
That said, IMO atheists tend to be "strong" with respect to some God
concepts (say Gods posited with contradictory characteristics), "weak"
with respect to others (where no evidence is offered to support the
proposition), and agnostic with respect to others (where the
proposition is in principle untestable or incoherent).
--
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
attrib: Pauline Réage.
http://www.city-of-dis.com/p_q.asp?I1=69597&I2=69121
The begining...
snex
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
<snip>
>
> Of course, the idea that God is "manifest in nature" is a religious belief,
> not a scientific concept. The evidence we have contradicts the creation
> stories in the Bible, and since there is no reason why God could not use
> natural processes as his means of creation, appealing to "special creation
> miracles" to explain the evidence is not necessary, or reasonable.
>
> God did not give us intellect, and then punish people for using it. The
> evidence of how life operates, and how life evolved does not remove the role
> of God in nature.
what does your intellect tell you about whether or not dead people can
get up 3 days later? will god punish you for admitting that this
applies to jesus?
>
> DJT
Tiny Bulcher
> On 24 Mar 2007 11:59:50 -0700, in talk.origins
> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> <1174762790....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
>
> ...
>
>> You have misunderstood two things. (1) Steven J. is a Darwinist
>> engaged in attempted opponent bashing and (2) Creationists do not
>> misunderstand Science - they disagree with Darwinian interpretations
>> of scientific evidence concerning biology.
>
> You are wrong as usual. Creationists fall into two, nonexclusive
> categories: those who are ignorant, those who are liars.
I'd add two more categories, equally nonexclusive: those who are loonies,
and those who are stupid. Ray is in all four.
DJT
My intellect tells me that such an event is unlikely. My faith tells
me that with God it's possible.
> will god punish you for admitting that this
> applies to jesus?
No, I don't believe that God will punish me for having faith than an
unlikely event could have happened.
DJT
snex
> On Mar 25, 10:14 am, "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 24, 7:55 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > <snip>
>
> > > Of course, the idea that God is "manifest in nature" is a religious belief,
> > > not a scientific concept. The evidence we have contradicts the creation
> > > stories in the Bible, and since there is no reason why God could not use
> > > natural processes as his means of creation, appealing to "special creation
> > > miracles" to explain the evidence is not necessary, or reasonable.
>
> > > God did not give us intellect, and then punish people for using it. The
> > > evidence of how life operates, and how life evolved does not remove the role
> > > of God in nature.
>
> > what does your intellect tell you about whether or not dead people can
> > get up 3 days later?
>
> My intellect tells me that such an event is unlikely. My faith tells
> me that with God it's possible.
but your faith doesnt tell you that god can create the world in 6
days?
>
> > will god punish you for admitting that this
> > applies to jesus?
>
> No, I don't believe that God will punish me for having faith than an
> unlikely event could have happened.
then why do you also not accept the creation story of genesis? it is
also an unlikely event, and its source is the same as that of the
resurrection.
you are being inconsistent.
>
> DJT
Wakboth
> On Mar 25, 9:21 am, "DJT" <mousede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 25, 10:14 am, "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 24, 7:55 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > Of course, the idea that God is "manifest in nature" is a religious belief,
> > > > not a scientific concept. The evidence we have contradicts the creation
> > > > stories in the Bible, and since there is no reason why God could not use
> > > > natural processes as his means of creation, appealing to "special creation
> > > > miracles" to explain the evidence is not necessary, or reasonable.
>
> > > > God did not give us intellect, and then punish people for using it. The
> > > > evidence of how life operates, and how life evolved does not remove the role
> > > > of God in nature.
>
> > > what does your intellect tell you about whether or not dead people can
> > > get up 3 days later?
>
> > My intellect tells me that such an event is unlikely. My faith tells
> > me that with God it's possible.
>
> but your faith doesnt tell you that god can create the world in 6
> days?
Here's my: of course an omnipotent God could create the world in six
days, six thousand years ago; that's not the point. The point is that
the evidence contradicts this take, leaving you with three choices:
1) Consider God an unnecessary hypothesis (the atheist solution).
2) Take Genesis as a mythological narrative with theological and
spiritual, not literalistic historical or scientific meaning (the
solution of the majority of Christians).
3) Deny the evidence (the creationist solution).
> > > will god punish you for admitting that this
> > > applies to jesus?
>
> > No, I don't believe that God will punish me for having faith than an
> > unlikely event could have happened.
>
> then why do you also not accept the creation story of genesis? it is
> also an unlikely event, and its source is the same as that of the
> resurrection.
Because, as unlikely as the bodily resurrection of a dead man is, it
is a (near-)unique event, which can't be expeted to have left behind
evidence that could be studied. Whether resurrection happened or not,
it is outside the purview of science to study, at least now.
A six-day creation, six thousand years ago, would leave behind such
evidence; it has not been found, and indeed, the evidence is clearly
against such a thing. Thus, either the evidence is false (in which
case all of our science will collapse), or it is faked (in which case
the God in question is malicious, capricious or both), or that the
story is not literally true.
> you are being inconsistent.
No, I'd say you're not thinking the matter thorough.
-- Wakboth
snex
the point of faith is that evidence is irrelevant and unnecessary.
>
> > > > will god punish you for admitting that this
> > > > applies to jesus?
>
> > > No, I don't believe that God will punish me for having faith than an
> > > unlikely event could have happened.
>
> > then why do you also not accept the creation story of genesis? it is
> > also an unlikely event, and its source is the same as that of the
> > resurrection.
>
> Because, as unlikely as the bodily resurrection of a dead man is, it
> is a (near-)unique event, which can't be expeted to have left behind
> evidence that could be studied. Whether resurrection happened or not,
> it is outside the purview of science to study, at least now.
nonsense. science has studied millions (billions?) of dead human
beings. not ONE of them has ever gotten up to walk around, and all
currently known science would prohibit such a thing.
>
> A six-day creation, six thousand years ago, would leave behind such
> evidence; it has not been found, and indeed, the evidence is clearly
> against such a thing. Thus, either the evidence is false (in which
> case all of our science will collapse), or it is faked (in which case
> the God in question is malicious, capricious or both), or that the
> story is not literally true.
why would a 6-day creation, six thousand years ago leave behind
evidence? are you saying an omnipotent god couldnt create the world in
6 days and not leave evidence? besides, he *did* leave evidence,
according to creationists. he told moses and moses wrote down what he
was told. does tweedy accuse moses of lying?
>
> > you are being inconsistent.
>
> No, I'd say you're not thinking the matter thorough.
id say you are failing to think through what it means to accept
propositions on faith alone.
>
> -- Wakboth
DJT
> On Mar 25, 9:21 am, "DJT" <mousede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 25, 10:14 am, "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 24, 7:55 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > Of course, the idea that God is "manifest in nature" is a religious belief,
> > > > not a scientific concept. The evidence we have contradicts the creation
> > > > stories in the Bible, and since there is no reason why God could not use
> > > > natural processes as his means of creation, appealing to "special creation
> > > > miracles" to explain the evidence is not necessary, or reasonable.
>
> > > > God did not give us intellect, and then punish people for using it. The
> > > > evidence of how life operates, and how life evolved does not remove the role
> > > > of God in nature.
>
> > > what does your intellect tell you about whether or not dead people can
> > > get up 3 days later?
>
> > My intellect tells me that such an event is unlikely. My faith tells
> > me that with God it's possible.
>
> but your faith doesnt tell you that god can create the world in 6
> days?
While it's certanly a possibility, the evidence we have suggests
otherwise. I choose to accept the evidence of natural events, and
believe that is how God created. The Genesis stories were never
written to be taken as scientific fact, so there is no reason I have
to accept the 6, 24 hr day creation timetable as anything but legend.
>
>
>
> > > will god punish you for admitting that this
> > > applies to jesus?
>
> > No, I don't believe that God will punish me for having faith than an
> > unlikely event could have happened.
>
> then why do you also not accept the creation story of genesis?
Because the Creation stories (there are at least two) in Genesis
doesn't fit the evidence we have of how I believe God created the
world. I could believe the Creation stories in spite of the
evidence, but I choose not to.
> it is
> also an unlikely event, and its source is the same as that of the
> resurrection.
Quite true, however there is no evidence that suggests that God did
not raise Jesus.
>
> you are being inconsistent.
I'm sorry you see it that way. I happen to see it as a matter of
choice.
DJT
snex
the resurrection stories were never written to be taken as scientific
fact either, yet you still do so despite the fact that the evidence
suggests that resurrections cannot happen.
>
>
>
> > > > will god punish you for admitting that this
> > > > applies to jesus?
>
> > > No, I don't believe that God will punish me for having faith than an
> > > unlikely event could have happened.
>
> > then why do you also not accept the creation story of genesis?
>
> Because the Creation stories (there are at least two) in Genesis
> doesn't fit the evidence we have of how I believe God created the
> world. I could believe the Creation stories in spite of the
> evidence, but I choose not to.
the resurrection stories (there 4 and they all contradict each other)
dont fit the evidence of how human bodies work.
>
> > it is
> > also an unlikely event, and its source is the same as that of the
> > resurrection.
>
> Quite true, however there is no evidence that suggests that God did
> not raise Jesus.
there is no evidence that suggests that god did not create the world
in 6 days 6 thousand years ago, as long as faith is allowed to be on
the table. any evidence you present does *not* disprove the idea that
god simply made it that way.
>
>
>
> > you are being inconsistent.
>
> I'm sorry you see it that way. I happen to see it as a matter of
> choice.
you are choosing to be inconsistent.
>
> DJT
DJT
snip
> > While it's certanly a possibility, the evidence we have suggests
> > otherwise. I choose to accept the evidence of natural events, and
> > believe that is how God created. The Genesis stories were never
> > written to be taken as scientific fact, so there is no reason I have
> > to accept the 6, 24 hr day creation timetable as anything but legend.
>
> the resurrection stories were never written to be taken as scientific
> fact either,
Quite correct, which is why I don't consider them to be scientific
fact.
>yet you still do so despite the fact that the evidence
> suggests that resurrections cannot happen.
You are assuming that I accept the resurrection as a scientific fact.
I don't. It's a matter of faith.
snip
> > Because the Creation stories (there are at least two) in Genesis
> > doesn't fit the evidence we have of how I believe God created the
> > world. I could believe the Creation stories in spite of the
> > evidence, but I choose not to.
>
> the resurrection stories (there 4 and they all contradict each other)
> dont fit the evidence of how human bodies work.
Again, I quite agree. However since what I believe in this matter is
not open to scientific falsification, that's not an issue.
>
>
>
> > > it is
> > > also an unlikely event, and its source is the same as that of the
> > > resurrection.
>
> > Quite true, however there is no evidence that suggests that God did
> > not raise Jesus.
>
> there is no evidence that suggests that god did not create the world
> in 6 days 6 thousand years ago, as long as faith is allowed to be on
> the table.
Quite right. I have no problem with someone who wishes to believe
that, as long as they don't insist that it be taught as science in
public school classrooms.
> any evidence you present does *not* disprove the idea that
> god simply made it that way.
Right, which is why it's not compatiable with teaching in a science
class.
>
>
>
> > > you are being inconsistent.
>
> > I'm sorry you see it that way. I happen to see it as a matter of
> > choice.
>
> you are choosing to be inconsistent.
Absolutely, which is my right.
DJT
Free Lunch
"snex" <sn...@comcast.net> wrote in
<1174832892....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
You might recall that there is no specific evidence that proves the
Jesus story wrong, though there is no evidence to support it, either. On
the other hand, the evidence shows that Young Earth Creationism and
other forms of anti-science creationism are wrong. The only form of
creationism that can possibly be valid is theistic evolution.
>you are being inconsistent.
DJT
snipping
Allow me to answer this, and I will gracefully bow out of this
conversation
>
> why would a 6-day creation, six thousand years ago leave behind
> evidence? are you saying an omnipotent god couldnt create the world in
> 6 days and not leave evidence? besides, he *did* leave evidence,
> according to creationists. he told moses and moses wrote down what he
> was told. does tweedy accuse moses of lying?
My opinion is that Moses, if he existed at all, most likely was
writing down the oral traditions of his culture. There is no issue
of "lying" as the material was never meant to be taken literally in
the sense we would today.
DJT
snex
> On Mar 25, 11:47 am, "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> snip
>
> > > While it's certanly a possibility, the evidence we have suggests
> > > otherwise. I choose to accept the evidence of natural events, and
> > > believe that is how God created. The Genesis stories were never
> > > written to be taken as scientific fact, so there is no reason I have
> > > to accept the 6, 24 hr day creation timetable as anything but legend.
>
> > the resurrection stories were never written to be taken as scientific
> > fact either,
>
> Quite correct, which is why I don't consider them to be scientific
> fact.
you claim that they *happened.*
>
> >yet you still do so despite the fact that the evidence
> > suggests that resurrections cannot happen.
>
> You are assuming that I accept the resurrection as a scientific fact.
> I don't. It's a matter of faith.
you claim that it *happened.* that would make it a scientific fact, as
all events that have actually *happened* are scientific facts.
>
> snip
>
> > > Because the Creation stories (there are at least two) in Genesis
> > > doesn't fit the evidence we have of how I believe God created the
> > > world. I could believe the Creation stories in spite of the
> > > evidence, but I choose not to.
>
> > the resurrection stories (there 4 and they all contradict each other)
> > dont fit the evidence of how human bodies work.
>
> Again, I quite agree. However since what I believe in this matter is
> not open to scientific falsification, that's not an issue.
you state that you dont believe in the genesis creation stories
because the EVIDENCE is against them.
you now state that even though the EVIDENCE is also against the
resurrection, you still persist in believing in it.
you are either lying when you state that you disbelieve genesis
because of evidence, or you are guilty of the special pleading fallacy
with respect to the resurrection. either way, your position is bunk.
>
>
>
> > > > it is
> > > > also an unlikely event, and its source is the same as that of the
> > > > resurrection.
>
> > > Quite true, however there is no evidence that suggests that God did
> > > not raise Jesus.
>
> > there is no evidence that suggests that god did not create the world
> > in 6 days 6 thousand years ago, as long as faith is allowed to be on
> > the table.
>
> Quite right. I have no problem with someone who wishes to believe
> that, as long as they don't insist that it be taught as science in
> public school classrooms.
why dont *you* believe it? god's word declares it to be the case, and
you have already decided that evidence doesnt matter when god's word
makes declarations about events in the past. are you calling god a
liar?
>
> > any evidence you present does *not* disprove the idea that
> > god simply made it that way.
>
> Right, which is why it's not compatiable with teaching in a science
> class.
did the resurrection actually happen? if so, what is the justification
for keeping it out of science (or history) class? shouldnt we teach
children events that actually happened?
>
>
>
> > > > you are being inconsistent.
>
> > > I'm sorry you see it that way. I happen to see it as a matter of
> > > choice.
>
> > you are choosing to be inconsistent.
>
> Absolutely, which is my right.
completely irrelevant. you have plenty of rights that you never
exercise because you would be a fool to do so. you are a fool to
exercise your right to be inconsistent.
>
> DJT
snex
> On 25 Mar 2007 07:28:12 -0700, in talk.origins
> <1174832892.909358.86...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
the evidence only disproves creationism to be wrong if faith is not
allowed. tweedy thinks faith is allowed.
>
> >you are being inconsistent.
snex
why did moses write 6 days? from where did he get this figure? if the
culture, and not god, from where did they get it?
>
> DJT
TomS
<1174838650....@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, DJT stated..."
There are citations of earlier sources. Most relevant to your point
may be Numbers 21:27, "they that speak in proverbs".
--
---Tom S.
"...when men have a real explanation they explain it, eagerly and copiously and
in common speech, as Huxley freely gave it when he thought he had it."
GK Chesterton, Doubts About Darwinism (1920)
snex
> "On 25 Mar 2007 09:04:10 -0700, in article
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 25, 11:34 am, "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >snipping
>
> >Allow me to answer this, and I will gracefully bow out of this
> >conversation
>
> >> why would a 6-day creation, six thousand years ago leave behind
> >> evidence? are you saying an omnipotent god couldnt create the world in
> >> 6 days and not leave evidence? besides, he *did* leave evidence,
> >> according to creationists. he told moses and moses wrote down what he
> >> was told. does tweedy accuse moses of lying?
>
> >My opinion is that Moses, if he existed at all, most likely was
> >writing down the oral traditions of his culture. There is no issue
> >of "lying" as the material was never meant to be taken literally in
> >the sense we would today.
>
> There are citations of earlier sources. Most relevant to your point
> may be Numbers 21:27, "they that speak in proverbs".
is quote mining the bible a sin?
Blazin...@b.mail.sonic.net
<autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
>I would have thought part of the problem is that the term "God" tends
>to be badly defined and means different things to different people,
>from the old man in the sky through to Spinozian pantheism,
Yes, I can go along with that. There are theists, deists,
polytheists, monotheists, etc., right down to atheists, who are not
theists at all.
>That said, IMO atheists tend to be "strong" with respect to some God
>concepts (say Gods posited with contradictory characteristics), "weak"
>with respect to others (where no evidence is offered to support the
>proposition), and agnostic with respect to others (where the
>proposition is in principle untestable or incoherent).
I don't know if there is an official atheist position. Churches have
centralized, empowered authorities to determine positions and tenets
of faith, but there is no such agency for atheists. I've personally
met and talked with atheists and agnostics who believe a wide range of
things.
Free Lunch
"snex" <sn...@comcast.net> wrote in
<1174836861.2...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
That may be, but making statements of faith that are contrary to the
evidence is foolish and dishonest.
Free Lunch
"snex" <sn...@comcast.net> wrote in
<1174839252.0...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
Since when does he say that faith can be used to trump observed reality?
TomS
<1174840101.3...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, snex stated..."
>
>On Mar 25, 11:21 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> "On 25 Mar 2007 09:04:10 -0700, in article
>> <1174838650.790696.31...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, DJT stated..."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Mar 25, 11:34 am, "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >snipping
>>
>> >Allow me to answer this, and I will gracefully bow out of this
>> >conversation
>>
>> >> why would a 6-day creation, six thousand years ago leave behind
>> >> evidence? are you saying an omnipotent god couldnt create the world in
>> >> 6 days and not leave evidence? besides, he *did* leave evidence,
>> >> according to creationists. he told moses and moses wrote down what he
>> >> was told. does tweedy accuse moses of lying?
>>
>> >My opinion is that Moses, if he existed at all, most likely was
>> >writing down the oral traditions of his culture. There is no issue
>> >of "lying" as the material was never meant to be taken literally in
>> >the sense we would today.
>>
>> There are citations of earlier sources. Most relevant to your point
>> may be Numbers 21:27, "they that speak in proverbs".
>
>is quote mining the bible a sin?
If it is, there are a lot of people in trouble.
You wouldn't be suggesting that I was quote-mining, would you?
Ernest Major
<sn...@comcast.net> writes
"literal" interpretation of Genesis, unless you resort to omphalism and
worse, has implications for what is observable in the current world; the
same is not the case for the resurrection.
--
alias Ernest Major
snex
> "On 25 Mar 2007 09:28:21 -0700, in article
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 25, 11:21 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> "On 25 Mar 2007 09:04:10 -0700, in article
> >> <1174838650.790696.31...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, DJT stated..."
>
> >> >On Mar 25, 11:34 am, "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >snipping
>
> >> >Allow me to answer this, and I will gracefully bow out of this
> >> >conversation
>
> >> >> why would a 6-day creation, six thousand years ago leave behind
> >> >> evidence? are you saying an omnipotent god couldnt create the world in
> >> >> 6 days and not leave evidence? besides, he *did* leave evidence,
> >> >> according to creationists. he told moses and moses wrote down what he
> >> >> was told. does tweedy accuse moses of lying?
>
> >> >My opinion is that Moses, if he existed at all, most likely was
> >> >writing down the oral traditions of his culture. There is no issue
> >> >of "lying" as the material was never meant to be taken literally in
> >> >the sense we would today.
>
> >> There are citations of earlier sources. Most relevant to your point
> >> may be Numbers 21:27, "they that speak in proverbs".
>
> >is quote mining the bible a sin?
>
> If it is, there are a lot of people in trouble.
>
> You wouldn't be suggesting that I was quote-mining, would you?
in the verse you cite, moses is giving the poems spurned by the
history, not citing the poems for his history lesson earlier in the
chapter.
snex
> On 25 Mar 2007 08:34:21 -0700, in talk.origins
> <1174836861.270827.259...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
you mean like claiming a dead man can get up after 3 days?
<snip>
snex
> On 25 Mar 2007 09:14:12 -0700, in talk.origins
> <1174839252.059646.212...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
have you ever observed a dead man getting up 3 days later? tweedy
thinks it can happen.
snex
> In message <1174832892.909358.86...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, snex
> <s...@comcast.net> writes
the same is very much the case for the resurrection. if one man 2000
years ago can violate all of known science, then all of known science
is just as shaky as it would be in the case of omphalism. any
scientific experiment you perform *cannot* avoid such a god tinkering
with the results.
> --
> alias Ernest Major
Free Lunch
"snex" <sn...@comcast.net> wrote in
<1174846784.1...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
Three days? Certainly the gospels don't say that.
If you read the story, you know that the supposed death was at most 39
hours, from about 3 pm on Friday to first light (say 6 am) on Sunday
when Jesus was said to have been gone from the tomb already. I'm not a
believer, but as the story is told, it is certainly possible that the
one being crucified was taken down from the cross before he was actually
dead.
Free Lunch
"snex" <sn...@comcast.net> wrote in
<1174846822.5...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
Aside from the timeline problem and the very real possibility that the
person taken down as described wasn't actually dead, the defined miracle
of Jesus doesn't have specific, direct evidence against it. The stories
of the creation, flood and Babel all do.
Wakboth
> On Mar 25, 10:21 am, "Wakboth" <Wakboth2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On 25 maalis, 17:28, "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > but your faith doesnt tell you that god can create the world in 6
> > > days?
>
> > Here's my: of course an omnipotent God could create the world in six
> > days, six thousand years ago; that's not the point. The point is that
> > the evidence contradicts this take, leaving you with three choices:
> > 1) Consider God an unnecessary hypothesis (the atheist solution).
> > 2) Take Genesis as a mythological narrative with theological and
> > spiritual, not literalistic historical or scientific meaning (the
> > solution of the majority of Christians).
> > 3) Deny the evidence (the creationist solution).
>
> the point of faith is that evidence is irrelevant and unnecessary.
You have in previous discussions on this group shown that you have no
understanding of faith, and are not willing to try to understand it.
> > > then why do you also not accept the creation story of genesis? it is
> > > also an unlikely event, and its source is the same as that of the
> > > resurrection.
>
> > Because, as unlikely as the bodily resurrection of a dead man is, it
> > is a (near-)unique event, which can't be expeted to have left behind
> > evidence that could be studied. Whether resurrection happened or not,
> > it is outside the purview of science to study, at least now.
>
> nonsense. science has studied millions (billions?) of dead human
> beings. not ONE of them has ever gotten up to walk around, and all
> currently known science would prohibit such a thing.
Are you saying that it is in principle impossible to reanimate a dead
person, entirely via naturalistic means? (And if you assume God, you
open up the possibility of an extra- or supernatural intervention,
which is by definition outside the field of science).
> > A six-day creation, six thousand years ago, would leave behind such
> > evidence; it has not been found, and indeed, the evidence is clearly
> > against such a thing. Thus, either the evidence is false (in which
> > case all of our science will collapse), or it is faked (in which case
> > the God in question is malicious, capricious or both), or that the
> > story is not literally true.
>
> why would a 6-day creation, six thousand years ago leave behind
> evidence?
It would leave behind the world, which would by itself be evidence. To
be honest, I'm getting more and more certain that you're arguing in
bad faith, here and elsewhere.
> are you saying an omnipotent god couldnt create the world in
> 6 days and not leave evidence? besides, he *did* leave evidence,
> according to creationists. he told moses and moses wrote down what he
> was told.
"Men wrote the Bible; God wrote the rocks."
> > > you are being inconsistent.
>
> > No, I'd say you're not thinking the matter thorough.
>
> id say you are failing to think through what it means to accept
> propositions on faith alone.
You could say that, but you would be wrong. You seem to be stuck in
the exact same black-and-white mentality as the most narrowly
hidebound fundamentalist; either everything is one thing, or the
other; there is never room for nuance or multiple possible meanings,
and everything must be measured with the same yardstick.
-- Wakboth
Free Lunch
"snex" <sn...@comcast.net> wrote in
<1174846918....@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
But, of course, there is absolutely no evidence that this happened or
that any gods exist at all. Faith is a completely different kettle of
fish.
snex
> On 25 Mar 2007 11:19:44 -0700, in talk.origins
> <1174846784.171672.226...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
thats funny, in matthew 27:63, jesus is reported as saying he will
rise again after 3 days. did he lie?
Free Lunch
"snex" <sn...@comcast.net> wrote in
<1174848026....@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
Make of it what you will. The time lines are fairly clear.
snex
> On 25 maalis, 18:34, "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote:> On Mar 25, 10:21 am, "Wakboth" <Wakboth2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 25 maalis, 17:28, "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > but your faith doesnt tell you that god can create the world in 6
> > > > days?
>
> > > Here's my: of course an omnipotent God could create the world in six
> > > days, six thousand years ago; that's not the point. The point is that
> > > the evidence contradicts this take, leaving you with three choices:
> > > 1) Consider God an unnecessary hypothesis (the atheist solution).
> > > 2) Take Genesis as a mythological narrative with theological and
> > > spiritual, not literalistic historical or scientific meaning (the
> > > solution of the majority of Christians).
> > > 3) Deny the evidence (the creationist solution).
>
> > the point of faith is that evidence is irrelevant and unnecessary.
>
> You have in previous discussions on this group shown that you have no
> understanding of faith, and are not willing to try to understand it.
i have asked several times for somebody to tell me how faith is
supposed to work and how they can ensure any answers it gives are
accurate. i never get an answer!
nobody ever goes beyond "i have faith that X is true" no matter how
much evidence indicates that X is false. this indicates to me that
"faith" is just an excuse to go on believing that which we know aint
so.
feel free to prove me wrong by stating how faith is supposed to work
and how you can ensure any answers it gives are accurate.
>
> > > > then why do you also not accept the creation story of genesis? it is
> > > > also an unlikely event, and its source is the same as that of the
> > > > resurrection.
>
> > > Because, as unlikely as the bodily resurrection of a dead man is, it
> > > is a (near-)unique event, which can't be expeted to have left behind
> > > evidence that could be studied. Whether resurrection happened or not,
> > > it is outside the purview of science to study, at least now.
>
> > nonsense. science has studied millions (billions?) of dead human
> > beings. not ONE of them has ever gotten up to walk around, and all
> > currently known science would prohibit such a thing.
>
> Are you saying that it is in principle impossible to reanimate a dead
> person, entirely via naturalistic means? (And if you assume God, you
> open up the possibility of an extra- or supernatural intervention,
> which is by definition outside the field of science).
even if it is possible, people 2000 years ago would not have had the
technology to do so.
>
> > > A six-day creation, six thousand years ago, would leave behind such
> > > evidence; it has not been found, and indeed, the evidence is clearly
> > > against such a thing. Thus, either the evidence is false (in which
> > > case all of our science will collapse), or it is faked (in which case
> > > the God in question is malicious, capricious or both), or that the
> > > story is not literally true.
>
> > why would a 6-day creation, six thousand years ago leave behind
> > evidence?
>
> It would leave behind the world, which would by itself be evidence. To
> be honest, I'm getting more and more certain that you're arguing in
> bad faith, here and elsewhere.
so since the world exists, it is evidence that it was created in 6
days? this doesnt make any sense.
>
> > are you saying an omnipotent god couldnt create the world in
> > 6 days and not leave evidence? besides, he *did* leave evidence,
> > according to creationists. he told moses and moses wrote down what he
> > was told.
>
> "Men wrote the Bible; God wrote the rocks."
tweedy is the one claiming the bible is inaccurate when dealing with
rocks, but accurate when dealing with resurrections. im willing to
look at the evidence for each story of the bible individually, without
any bias towards it being true or false. in order to do that honestly,
however, i have no choice but to use methodological naturalism.
>
> > > > you are being inconsistent.
>
> > > No, I'd say you're not thinking the matter thorough.
>
> > id say you are failing to think through what it means to accept
> > propositions on faith alone.
>
> You could say that, but you would be wrong. You seem to be stuck in
> the exact same black-and-white mentality as the most narrowly
> hidebound fundamentalist; either everything is one thing, or the
> other; there is never room for nuance or multiple possible meanings,
> and everything must be measured with the same yardstick.
why didnt anybody know about the "nuance" or "multiple possible
meanings" of genesis until science proved a literal interpretation was
false?
likewise, why didnt anybody know that the bible was actually
consistent with heliocentrism until copernicus laid the issue to rest?
>
> -- Wakboth
snex
> On 25 Mar 2007 11:20:22 -0700, in talk.origins
> <1174846822.577270.267...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
if science only dealt in "specific direct evidence" then evolution
would be out the door as well. are you prepared to make this sacrifice
to avoid critisizing tweedy? why is it so important to you that
tweedy's views not be critisized?
snex
> On 25 Mar 2007 11:21:58 -0700, in talk.origins
> <1174846918.537813.37...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
then why is tweedy asserting that it did? why do you not call him on
this obvious bullshit?
<snip>
snex
> On 25 Mar 2007 11:40:26 -0700, in talk.origins
> <1174848026.854970.28...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
failure to answer the question noted.
Free Lunch
"snex" <sn...@comcast.net> wrote in
<1174848773....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
As far as I'm concerned, almost none of the stories found in the
Christian Bible can be confirmed by independent means. It strikes me
that the 'three day' claim is less a problem of inconsistency than
understanding on our part, but I don't know or care very much. I have no
evidence that Jesus said anything attributed to him. Do you?
Free Lunch
"snex" <sn...@comcast.net> wrote in
<1174848492.9...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
Hogwash. You cannot be that ignorant about science in general or
evolution in particular.
>are you prepared to make this sacrifice
>to avoid critisizing tweedy? why is it so important to you that
>tweedy's views not be critisized?
I see no reason to take your side in this particular discussion. You
have the rare ability to lie about science and religion with equal
fervor. Why would I care what you say or how you misrepresent what has
been happening?
Free Lunch
"snex" <sn...@comcast.net> wrote in
<1174848581....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
He doesn't lie about his religious beliefs nor does he falsely claim
that his religious faith is factually true just because he believes it.
I see no reason to attack his faith during a discussion of science, when
he clearly supports science.
Why are you such a jerk?
snex
> On 25 Mar 2007 11:52:53 -0700, in talk.origins
> <1174848773.363433.18...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
no, but tweedy claims that the bible depicts his life fairly
accurately, and you are defending tweedy.
snex
> On 25 Mar 2007 11:48:12 -0700, in talk.origins
> <1174848492.928131.198...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
show me the "specific direct evidence" that the earth is 4.5 billion
years old. not indirect evidence, direct evidence.
>
> >are you prepared to make this sacrifice
> >to avoid critisizing tweedy? why is it so important to you that
> >tweedy's views not be critisized?
>
> I see no reason to take your side in this particular discussion. You
> have the rare ability to lie about science and religion with equal
> fervor. Why would I care what you say or how you misrepresent what has
> been happening?
show me a lie stated by me.
TomS
<1174846741.7...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, snex stated..."
It is a reference to an earlier source. Without agreeing to or disputing
your interpretation.
snex
> "On 25 Mar 2007 11:19:01 -0700, in article
my "interpretation" uses the context of the entire chapter. now,
whether moses was simply pulling the story out of his behind and
basing it on the poems or not is another matter. he (or the author)
clearly wants us to believe that they are giving the actual events,
and then telling us that the poems were based on those events.
snex
> On 25 Mar 2007 11:49:41 -0700, in talk.origins
> <1174848581.611168.11...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
what is the difference between saying "i believe X is true" and saying
"X is true?" im not interested in pointless semantic differences, i
want to know the functional difference between the two assertions.
and i dont see what "faith" has to do with anything. i am attacking
his claims that are wrong or inconsistent. just because he labels them
"faith" is not a free pass to make those claims without critisism.
>
> Why are you such a jerk?
why is tweedy such a jerk to ray?
TomS
<1174924502.9...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, snex stated..."
Since reading your earlier reply, I decided to check my
reading of the text in context, which is roughly all of
chapter 21 of Numbers, with a couple of reputable
commentaries. The closest to your interpretation is one
which says that the poetry introduced by "they that
speak in proverbs" is about another case, which is being
quoted to establish the prior status of this particular
enemy and to compare the victory over them with the
victory by them. None of the commentaries seem to say
that this poetry is being quoted as a false report of
the events ("spurned").
In this chapter, there are other citations of sources.
Verse 14 mentions "the book of the wars of the Lord"; and
verse 17, "Israel sang this song". It is all quite
consistent, that the author was familiar with relevant
lore, whether written or oral, and used it to enhance
his narrative.
snex
> "On 26 Mar 2007 08:55:03 -0700, in article
i didnt say anything about false reports. i said the events inspired
the poetry.
>
> In this chapter, there are other citations of sources.
> Verse 14 mentions "the book of the wars of the Lord"; and
> verse 17, "Israel sang this song". It is all quite
> consistent, that the author was familiar with relevant
> lore, whether written or oral, and used it to enhance
> his narrative.
these are not citations of sources, they are mentions of things that
used the events described as sources.
if i am writing a history book, and i have a passage that says:
"and the mariner was forced to wear the albatross around his neck,
which is why the famous poem says '...'"
i am not using the poem as a citation. i am giving you the history,
and then explaining that that same history is where the poem came
from.
the only thing you could argue is that im just making it up and trying
to one-up the poet by saying i have the scoop on the real events. this
may be (and in fact probably is) the issue with the passage in
numbers. but the issue is not where he *really* got the story, but
rather what his intent is in writing it.
snex
> "On 26 Mar 2007 08:55:03 -0700, in article
i didnt say anything about false reports. i said the events inspired
the poetry.
>
> In this chapter, there are other citations of sources.
> Verse 14 mentions "the book of the wars of the Lord"; and
> verse 17, "Israel sang this song". It is all quite
> consistent, that the author was familiar with relevant
> lore, whether written or oral, and used it to enhance
> his narrative.
these are not citations of sources, they are mentions of things that
used the events described as sources.
if i am writing a history book, and i have a passage that says:
"and the mariner was forced to wear the albatross around his neck,
which is why the famous poem says '...'"
i am not using the poem as a citation. i am giving you the history,
and then explaining that that same history is where the poem came
from.
the only thing you could argue is that im just making it up and trying
to one-up the poet by saying i have the scoop on the real events. this
may be (and in fact probably is) the issue with the passage in
numbers. but the issue is not where he *really* got the story, but
rather what his intent is in writing it.
>
TomS
<1174928803.8...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, snex stated..."
As I understand what you are saying, it is that these
quotations do not necessarily represent the sources of
the author's information about the events.
I will allow that.
Free Lunch
"snex" <sn...@comcast.net> wrote in
<1174924659.6...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
>On Mar 25, 2:19 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On 25 Mar 2007 11:49:41 -0700, in talk.origins
>> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> <1174848581.611168.11...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>
>> >then why is tweedy asserting that it did? why do you not call him on
>> >this obvious bullshit?
>>
>> He doesn't lie about his religious beliefs nor does he falsely claim
>> that his religious faith is factually true just because he believes it.
>> I see no reason to attack his faith during a discussion of science, when
>> he clearly supports science.
>
>what is the difference between saying "i believe X is true" and saying
>"X is true?" im not interested in pointless semantic differences, i
>want to know the functional difference between the two assertions.
It depends on the context. If I rely on faith alone, then it is correct
to state "I believe ...". If there is evidence, then "... is true" is
generally acceptable as a shorthand for "the evidence shows that ... is
true".
>and i dont see what "faith" has to do with anything. i am attacking
>his claims that are wrong or inconsistent. just because he labels them
>"faith" is not a free pass to make those claims without critisism.
It's not a free pass, but if your opponent is careful not to overclaim,
there is no reason for you to overclaim in the criticism, either.
>> Why are you such a jerk?
>
>why is tweedy such a jerk to ray?
Ray has earned every bit of it.
snex
> On 26 Mar 2007 08:57:39 -0700, in talk.origins
> <1174924659.682106.267...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
> >On Mar 25, 2:19 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On 25 Mar 2007 11:49:41 -0700, in talk.origins
> >> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in
> >> <1174848581.611168.11...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
>
> ...
>
> >> >then why is tweedy asserting that it did? why do you not call him on
> >> >this obvious bullshit?
>
> >> He doesn't lie about his religious beliefs nor does he falsely claim
> >> that his religious faith is factually true just because he believes it.
> >> I see no reason to attack his faith during a discussion of science, when
> >> he clearly supports science.
>
> >what is the difference between saying "i believe X is true" and saying
> >"X is true?" im not interested in pointless semantic differences, i
> >want to know the functional difference between the two assertions.
>
> It depends on the context. If I rely on faith alone, then it is correct
> to state "I believe ...". If there is evidence, then "... is true" is
> generally acceptable as a shorthand for "the evidence shows that ... is
> true".
so you dont believe in gravity?
>
> >and i dont see what "faith" has to do with anything. i am attacking
> >his claims that are wrong or inconsistent. just because he labels them
> >"faith" is not a free pass to make those claims without critisism.
>
> It's not a free pass, but if your opponent is careful not to overclaim,
> there is no reason for you to overclaim in the criticism, either.
tweedy claims that the resurrection is an actual historical event. do
you think the critisism he would draw from a thesis defense board for
trying to present this claim as his doctoral thesis in history would
be more or less severe than mine?
>
> >> Why are you such a jerk?
>
> >why is tweedy such a jerk to ray?
>
> Ray has earned every bit of it.
that tweedy lies less than ray does not make him honest.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>It is atheists who have made this insulting caricature of Last
>Supper.
How can you "caricature" something that never happened?
--
Bob.
Free Lunch
"snex" <sn...@comcast.net> wrote in
<1174950466.7...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
>On Mar 26, 5:53 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On 26 Mar 2007 08:57:39 -0700, in talk.origins
>> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> <1174924659.682106.267...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Mar 25, 2:19 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> On 25 Mar 2007 11:49:41 -0700, in talk.origins
>> >> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> >> <1174848581.611168.11...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >> >then why is tweedy asserting that it did? why do you not call him on
>> >> >this obvious bullshit?
>>
>> >> He doesn't lie about his religious beliefs nor does he falsely claim
>> >> that his religious faith is factually true just because he believes it.
>> >> I see no reason to attack his faith during a discussion of science, when
>> >> he clearly supports science.
>>
>> >what is the difference between saying "i believe X is true" and saying
>> >"X is true?" im not interested in pointless semantic differences, i
>> >want to know the functional difference between the two assertions.
>>
>> It depends on the context. If I rely on faith alone, then it is correct
>> to state "I believe ...". If there is evidence, then "... is true" is
>> generally acceptable as a shorthand for "the evidence shows that ... is
>> true".
>
>so you dont believe in gravity?
Why would I need to? The evidence shows that gravity exists.
>> >and i dont see what "faith" has to do with anything. i am attacking
>> >his claims that are wrong or inconsistent. just because he labels them
>> >"faith" is not a free pass to make those claims without critisism.
>>
>> It's not a free pass, but if your opponent is careful not to overclaim,
>> there is no reason for you to overclaim in the criticism, either.
>
>tweedy claims that the resurrection is an actual historical event. do
>you think the critisism he would draw from a thesis defense board for
>trying to present this claim as his doctoral thesis in history would
>be more or less severe than mine?
Really? Where did he claim that there was any historical support for it?
>> >> Why are you such a jerk?
>>
>> >why is tweedy such a jerk to ray?
>>
>> Ray has earned every bit of it.
>
>that tweedy lies less than ray does not make him honest.
Whatever.
snex
> On 26 Mar 2007 16:07:46 -0700, in talk.origins
> <1174950466.735002.278...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
> >On Mar 26, 5:53 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On 26 Mar 2007 08:57:39 -0700, in talk.origins
> >> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in
> >> <1174924659.682106.267...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> >On Mar 25, 2:19 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> >> On 25 Mar 2007 11:49:41 -0700, in talk.origins
> >> >> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in
> >> >> <1174848581.611168.11...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> ...
>
> >> >> >then why is tweedy asserting that it did? why do you not call him on
> >> >> >this obvious bullshit?
>
> >> >> He doesn't lie about his religious beliefs nor does he falsely claim
> >> >> that his religious faith is factually true just because he believes it.
> >> >> I see no reason to attack his faith during a discussion of science, when
> >> >> he clearly supports science.
>
> >> >what is the difference between saying "i believe X is true" and saying
> >> >"X is true?" im not interested in pointless semantic differences, i
> >> >want to know the functional difference between the two assertions.
>
> >> It depends on the context. If I rely on faith alone, then it is correct
> >> to state "I believe ...". If there is evidence, then "... is true" is
> >> generally acceptable as a shorthand for "the evidence shows that ... is
> >> true".
>
> >so you dont believe in gravity?
>
> Why would I need to? The evidence shows that gravity exists.
the question was DO you. if not, what do you believe about gravity?
>
> >> >and i dont see what "faith" has to do with anything. i am attacking
> >> >his claims that are wrong or inconsistent. just because he labels them
> >> >"faith" is not a free pass to make those claims without critisism.
>
> >> It's not a free pass, but if your opponent is careful not to overclaim,
> >> there is no reason for you to overclaim in the criticism, either.
>
> >tweedy claims that the resurrection is an actual historical event. do
> >you think the critisism he would draw from a thesis defense board for
> >trying to present this claim as his doctoral thesis in history would
> >be more or less severe than mine?
>
> Really? Where did he claim that there was any historical support for it?
i didnt claim that he claimed to have any. but dont you think its
rather stupid to believe in historical events for which there is no
evidence? what if i decide to believe that jesus was a child rapist?
do you have any evidence that he wasnt?
Free Lunch
"snex" <sn...@comcast.net> wrote in
<1174952824.3...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>:
Feel free to play games with the differing meanings of the word
_believe_.
er...@swva.net
> On Mar 25, 11:04 am, "DJT" <mousede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 25, 11:34 am, "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > snipping
>
> > Allow me to answer this, and I will gracefully bow out of this
> > conversation
>
> > > why would a 6-day creation, six thousand years ago leave behind
> > > evidence? are you saying an omnipotent god couldnt create the world in
> > > 6 days and not leave evidence? besides, he *did* leave evidence,
> > > according to creationists. he told moses and moses wrote down what he
> > > was told. does tweedy accuse moses of lying?
>
> > My opinion is that Moses, if he existed at all, most likely was
> > writing down the oral traditions of his culture. There is no issue
> > of "lying" as the material was never meant to be taken literally in
> > the sense we would today.
>
> culture, and not god, from where did they get it?
>
>
>
> > DJT
Well, do you think Moses actually wrote 6 days? Current scholarship
considers the whole "Moses wrote it all" to be a legend.
Also, why is it important to you (snex) that those of us who are
Christian and pro-science ditch our religion?
Eric Root
snex
> On 26 Mar 2007 16:47:04 -0700, in talk.origins
> <1174952824.336549.236...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>:
im not the one doing that. tweedy and you are. why cant you answer a
simple question? do you believe in gravity? if not, what do you
believe about it?
er...@swva.net
> On Mar 25, 11:01 am, "DJT" <mousede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
(snip)
>
> > Quite right. I have no problem with someone who wishes to believe
> > that, as long as they don't insist that it be taught as science in
> > public school classrooms.
>
> why dont *you* believe it?
Why is that any of your business?
> god's word declares it to be the case,
Funny that you insist that the Bible is God's word, but don't
capitalize God, which is, after all, a proper noun.
> and
> you have already decided that evidence doesnt matter when god's word
> makes declarations about events in the past.
No, he said that the evidence is _against_ a six-day recent creation,
and the resurrection is not overtly ruled out, only highly improbable.
> are you calling god a
> liar?
!?!? Only fundamentalists say, "are you calling God a liar?" Anyway,
a non-literalist has no problem with the Bible varying in truth value
from one part to another, just as other documents do. An encyclopedia
is still very valuable, even though it has errors in it.
>
>
>
> > > any evidence you present does *not* disprove the idea that
> > > god simply made it that way.
>
> > Right, which is why it's not compatiable with teaching in a science
> > class.
>
> did the resurrection actually happen?
Who knows? I certainly wasn't there, and no verification procedures
were in place that are acceptable to modern minds.
> if so, what is the justification
> for keeping it out of science (or history) class?
How about, because it's not scientifically verifiable?
> shouldnt we teach
> children events that actually happened?
Only if we can be reasonably sure they actually happened. Not if they
are actually very unlikely, but they just appeal to us
personally/"feel right" spiritually.
>
>
>
> > > > > you are being inconsistent.
>
> > > > I'm sorry you see it that way. I happen to see it as a matter of
> > > > choice.
>
> > > you are choosing to be inconsistent.
>
> > Absolutely, which is my right.
>
> completely irrelevant. you have plenty of rights that you never
> exercise because you would be a fool to do so. you are a fool to
> exercise your right to be inconsistent.
Maybe so, but you are also a fool to get so worked up over something
that's none of your business. I'm with Dana on this.
>
>
>
> > DJT
Eric Root
snex
if its none of my business, dana shouldnt be announcing it on public
fora. why do you think his kooky assertions should go unchallenged?
>
>
>
> > > DJT
>
> Eric Root