|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/08/2007 10:26:27 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by theSaj:
why do so many atheists feel the need to constantly attack religion and to try to create a false barrier precluding anyone with religious beliefs from science.
|
It's a clue about atheism. Atheism is actually a religion. |
Nonsense. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. That’s it. There are no other requirements for being an atheist.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2007 10:28:45 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by JBHale:
Originally posted by scalvert:
There was no "Theory of Cold Blooded Dinosaurs." That was a single hypothesis, not a theory, and although most scientists believed it based on available evidence at the time, a correction only helps to show which species led to others on the evolutionary family tree. If evolution weren't a fact of nature, we'd never be able to discern that dinosaurs were related to birds to make that correction in the first place! |
Speaking of which, I have yet to hear somebody on the creationist side explain why dinosaurs aren't in the Bible. It always seems to be a sore subject... |
Bottle-nosed dolphins and tse-tse flies are not in the Bible, either. Nor are giant squid, or duck-billed platypuses. Failure to find a particular type of animal mentioned is not logically sufficient to conclude that they did not exist at the time. |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 10:33:33 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I did not, nor did I intend to, reference the overall theory. I said that "generally accepted, proven facts" had been proven otherwise. Logically, if they had NOT been proven otherwise, they would still be "generally accepted" as "proven facts". I offered the change in what were "generally accepted, proven facts" about dinosaurs as evidence of that. |
Only scientific laws and scientific theories are "generally accepted, proven facts." Whether or not dinosaurs were cold-blooded falls into neither of those categories, so whether or not that particular hypothesis turned out to be true (and many dinosaurs probably WERE cold-blooded) is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 10:34:01 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by RonB:
Thirdly, the state of ( really ) being a Christian ( or not ) is not one subject to Papal decree. No man ( not even the Pope ) is capable of making that judgment. It is for God, and God ONLY, to judge. |
But yet, if I don't conform to a certain specific criteria in the eyes of those in charge of a Papal decree, they're ready to stand up and say that I'm NOT a Christian. |
So what? I could SAY that the sum of two and two is nineteen - but that doesn't make it so.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2007 10:46:31 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by RonB:
You are, in essence, conceding that scientists see no problem with permitting hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of school children to be taught, as FACT, that which they ( the scientists ) always maintain an option on to later decide that those "proven facts" are no longer "generally accepted". |
Yeah, what's your point?
You think that the church didn't go along with the basic premise that the world was flat for a long time? |
No, I don't think that.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
We learn. And we learn by being open-minded in the face of facts that disprove the previous commonly held theory/premise/law.
ETA: It's called growth and progress......perhaps the evolution of the species? |
Perhaps. And fwiw, I believe in evolution of the species ( micro-evolution ), just not in evolution between species ( macro-evolution ).
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
BTW, I *do* believe in God, but I don't believe I have the answers. |
Same here - except for the answer to the most important question - does God exist?
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
And Louis and Mary Leakey were childhood heroes of mine. |
Likewise.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I think God created evolution and then wiped any proof of His existence just to f*ck with us!......8>) |
While I don't think that God created (macro) evolution and then wiped any proof of His existence, I do believe that He allows those who do not believe to be confounded. He says so in Scripture.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
The longer I'm around, and the more I learn, the more I realize the depth and breadth of my ignorance about sooooooooo many things. It's kind of humbling. These days the easiest thing for me is to believe that I do not know, and I'm willing to learn. |
I'm with you, there.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Like PhotoShop, for instance......science, or a miracle? |
Perhaps a bit of both? Science and miracles are NOT mutually exclusive, you know. |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 10:47:11 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Bottle-nosed dolphins and tse-tse flies are not in the Bible, either. Nor are giant squid, or duck-billed platypuses. Failure to find a particular type of animal mentioned is not logically sufficient to conclude that they did not exist at the time. |
It's certainly understandable for human authors to be unaware of animals from distant locations, or to have no reason to include every single species. However it's not so understandable for an "historical" account of this planet, from its creation to present day, to omit entire classes of life that dominated the vast majority of that history. If every animal from creation was supposed to be saved on the Ark, I'd expect a couple of woolly mammoths or 100 ton Titanosaurs to warrant a mention. |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 10:50:50 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Thirdly, the state of ( really ) being a Christian ( or not ) is not one subject to Papal decree. |
Originally posted by RonB:
I could SAY that the sum of two and two is nineteen - but that doesn't make it so. |
Because it can be proven otherwise. Your first statement, however, cannot.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2007 10:54:25 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by RonB:
Thirdly, the state of ( really ) being a Christian ( or not ) is not one subject to Papal decree. No man ( not even the Pope ) is capable of making that judgment. It is for God, and God ONLY, to judge. |
But yet, if I don't conform to a certain specific criteria in the eyes of those in charge of a Papal decree, they're ready to stand up and say that I'm NOT a Christian. |
Originally posted by RonB:
So what? I could SAY that the sum of two and two is nineteen - but that doesn't make it so. |
But Ron, that is what it is about most religions that kept me away from the church. The premises of so much that to me was as far-fetched as two and two equalling nineteen with no provision for discussion, it was just "God's Law".
I'm sorry, but there are just too many horrible things that have been done in the name of God for me to buy the whole ticket lock, stock, and barrel.
And with my relationship with God as I know him, I don't have to swallow what someone else's interpretation is, I follow my faith and belief in God as I interpret his wishes for the way he wants me to live.
And to me that means NOT killing in His name, and a whole host of other things that have transpired down through the years that have turned out to be the hand of man, not God, in play.
So when someone tells me that yes, I'm a child of God, but less so than him because my hymnal doesn't match his, I think it's a crock. And I lose respect for that person. I would never presume to tell anyone the path that their relationship with any God of their beliefs should take. I'm trying on a daily basis to find my own way.
I'm pretty sure I have the right idea, but I'm also not arrogant enough to think that God's got a special memo pad just for me so I'm clear on it. Yet oh so many people have no compunction about forcing their beliefs on others and condemning them of they don't acquiesce.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2007 11:00:24 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Only scientific laws and scientific theories are "generally accepted, proven facts." Whether or not dinosaurs were cold-blooded falls into neither of those categories, so whether or not that particular hypothesis turned out to be true (and many dinosaurs probably WERE cold-blooded) is irrelevant. |
So, let me see if I understand what you are saying - The Theory of (macro) Evolution is a scientific theory, and is therefore "generally accepted, proven fact", but it is predicated upon a plethora of "hypotheses" that supposedly support the Theory at least some of which you say are irrelevant.
It seems to me that if A, and B, and C are all irrelevant hypotheses, no derivation based upon them can be 100% non-hypothetical. In fact, from a logical perspective, if ANY of the components is an irrelevant hypothesis, the derivation must contain a degree of irrelevance and hypotheticality, as well. Why is it, then, that I don't see this caveat listed whenever the Theory of Evolution is proffered? |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 11:03:40 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by RonB:
While I don't think that God created (macro) evolution and then wiped any proof of His existence, I do believe that He allows those who do not believe to be confounded. He says so in Scripture.
|
But I *do* believe, yet I'm still confounded.
That's why I have faith, and beliefs that come from my faith, yet I still learn from earthly lessons that have nothing to do with God 'cause it's just life.
Yes, I believe that God created things, but I also beleive that he's left us to be who we are and do what we'll do and the process *is* evolution, as evidenced by faith, religion, and the church for years.
You have to admit that religion has evolved as well as have the critters that run around on this planet.
And thank God for that!.......8>)
I don't know, from where I sit, it's just so hard to etch anything in stone because if we're smart and wise, keep our eyes and ears open, and actually learn from our mistakes, successes, and experiences, the only thing constant is change.
And that applies to science and religion. I just don't feel that they're mutually exclusive.
But.....I could be wrong!......8>)
|
|
|
|
11/08/2007 11:18:17 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
Bottle-nosed dolphins and tse-tse flies are not in the Bible, either. Nor are giant squid, or duck-billed platypuses. Failure to find a particular type of animal mentioned is not logically sufficient to conclude that they did not exist at the time. |
It's certainly understandable for human authors to be unaware of animals from distant locations, or to have no reason to include every single species. However it's not so understandable for an "historical" account of this planet, from its creation to present day, to omit entire classes of life that dominated the vast majority of that history. If every animal from creation was supposed to be saved on the Ark, I'd expect a couple of woolly mammoths or 100 ton Titanosaurs to warrant a mention. |
A rather unrealistic expectation.
The only specific animals mentioned in the Biblical account of the great flood and Noah's ark are the raven and the dove. Other than that, it's just generalizations - like "every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings".
No mention of specific animals, or even of specific classes of animals such as mammals or reptiles ( except for the above-mentioned raven and dove ). |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 11:27:56 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by ryand:
People didn't think that Noah's Ark was real yet in Turkey they have found a boat that is near the top of Mt. Ararat (the same spot mentioned in the Bible as the final resting spot of the ark) and it has the same dimensions as were layed out in the Bible. |
Actually, Ron Wyatt's "discovery" is not generally accepted. Even Answers In Genesis, a bastion of Creationism on the web, admits as much. A question, for anyone who considers "Noah's Ark" as literal history....where is the corresponding break in ancient Egyptian Chronology?
|
|
|
|
11/08/2007 01:21:57 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by RonB:
A rather unrealistic expectation.
The only specific animals mentioned in the Biblical account of the great flood and Noah's ark are the raven and the dove. Other than that, it's just generalizations - like "every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings".
No mention of specific animals, or even of specific classes of animals such as mammals or reptiles ( except for the above-mentioned raven and dove ). |
I think the problem is more with the story of:
God created the Earth.
God created man.
Man lived on and ruled the Earth ever since.
You seem to be implying that dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans, and were on Noah's ark. I think it's pretty safe to say Dinosaurs came AFTER the Earth was created and BEFORE man came to be.
The point is that the Bible skips over that part because people had no idea about dinosaurs or even archeology when they wrote it. It's that simple. |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 01:38:17 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by RonB:
My statement was not meant to be lacking in empathy, and just as with the hurrican, you could find any number of failings which exacerbated the situation, but the fall of man was still the root cause, as I see it. |
Then the last one-liner you'll use for every inexplicable occurrence of human suffering is, "The fall of man is to blame." It's still a convenient one-liner, ultimately lacking all empathy, and it reinforces the theist will to close-mindedness. |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 01:41:51 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
FWIW, the Theory of God's existence ( faith ) has never had to be "tweaked" to fit new evidence. |
No? So, I suppose the Aztec faithful who purposefully made children cry before they were torn apart in sacrifice to the god Tláloc were merely expressing this unchanging faith in god differently? Kind of like a multi-cultural pantheon that really only expresses faith in beautiful, different, diverse ways, huh? |
It is illogical to compare the Aztec view of gods with the Christian view of God. The Aztecs believed in hundreds of gods, not just one. |
No. You supposed that "faith" was a "theory of God's existence" that has never changed. This is the counter to that supposition. Their faith was as legitimate as yours, it carried their civilization for centuries, and was rooted in deeply held beliefs. There is nothing about the expression of their faith that makes it any less valid than yours. It matters not that it was based on needless suffering. (Incidentally, yours is too, after a fashion.)
|
|
|
|
11/08/2007 01:49:56 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Only scientific laws and scientific theories are "generally accepted, proven facts." Whether or not dinosaurs were cold-blooded falls into neither of those categories, so whether or not that particular hypothesis turned out to be true (and many dinosaurs probably WERE cold-blooded) is irrelevant. |
So, let me see if I understand what you are saying - The Theory of (macro) Evolution is a scientific theory, and is therefore "generally accepted, proven fact", but it is predicated upon a plethora of "hypotheses" that supposedly support the Theory at least some of which you say are irrelevant.
It seems to me that if A, and B, and C are all irrelevant hypotheses, no derivation based upon them can be 100% non-hypothetical. In fact, from a logical perspective, if ANY of the components is an irrelevant hypothesis, the derivation must contain a degree of irrelevance and hypotheticality, as well. Why is it, then, that I don't see this caveat listed whenever the Theory of Evolution is proffered? |
Sometimes I just have to shake my head in wonder. Incredibly, you're literally offering the discovery that some dinosaurs led to birds rather than mammals as proof that animals don't evolve. Hello? The theory is predicated on hypotheses that show certain animals led to others, and discoveries that clarify which animals they led to doesn't disprove the premise. In that regard, whether or not dinosaurs were warm blooded is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 02:09:17 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by scalvert:
It's certainly understandable for human authors to be unaware of animals from distant locations, or to have no reason to include every single species. However it's not so understandable for an "historical" account of this planet, from its creation to present day, to omit entire classes of life that dominated the vast majority of that history. If every animal from creation was supposed to be saved on the Ark, I'd expect a couple of woolly mammoths or 100 ton Titanosaurs to warrant a mention. |
A rather unrealistic expectation.
The only specific animals mentioned in the Biblical account of the great flood and Noah's ark are the raven and the dove. Other than that, it's just generalizations - like "every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings".
No mention of specific animals, or even of specific classes of animals such as mammals or reptiles ( except for the above-mentioned raven and dove ). |
Ah, so 100 ton dinosaurs (creatures that moves along the ground) WERE on the Ark alongside woolly mammoths, but simply weren't mentioned. That's priceless. :-) |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 02:14:57 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
FWIW, the Theory of God's existence ( faith ) has never had to be "tweaked" to fit new evidence. |
No? So, I suppose the Aztec faithful who purposefully made children cry before they were torn apart in sacrifice to the god Tláloc were merely expressing this unchanging faith in god differently? Kind of like a multi-cultural pantheon that really only expresses faith in beautiful, different, diverse ways, huh? |
It is illogical to compare the Aztec view of gods with the Christian view of God. The Aztecs believed in hundreds of gods, not just one. |
No. You supposed that "faith" was a "theory of God's existence" that has never changed. This is the counter to that supposition. Their faith was as legitimate as yours, it carried their civilization for centuries, and was rooted in deeply held beliefs. There is nothing about the expression of their faith that makes it any less valid than yours. It matters not that it was based on needless suffering. (Incidentally, yours is too, after a fashion.) |
You seem to have difficulty in understanding the difference between "God" ( Capital "G' - one God: omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent ) and "gods" ( lower case 'g' - multiple gods: not omniscient, not omnipotent, not omnipresent ). When I spoke of the theory of God's existence, it was with a captial "G" and singular, not lower-case 'g' and plural.
And who is it that is sufficiently wise enough to judge whether, in the end, the faith of the Aztecs was as legitimate, or as valid as mine?
Then, too, your arguments are illogical. For example, your argument that the faith of the Aztecs being rooted in deeply held beliefs and carrying their civilization for centuries gives it legitimacy and validity. The same could be said of slavery - rooted in deeply held beliefs and carrying civilizations for centuries. Does that mean that slavery should be considered as legitimate and and as valid as my belief that it is wrong? |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 02:23:58 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Only scientific laws and scientific theories are "generally accepted, proven facts." Whether or not dinosaurs were cold-blooded falls into neither of those categories, so whether or not that particular hypothesis turned out to be true (and many dinosaurs probably WERE cold-blooded) is irrelevant. |
So, let me see if I understand what you are saying - The Theory of (macro) Evolution is a scientific theory, and is therefore "generally accepted, proven fact", but it is predicated upon a plethora of "hypotheses" that supposedly support the Theory at least some of which you say are irrelevant.
It seems to me that if A, and B, and C are all irrelevant hypotheses, no derivation based upon them can be 100% non-hypothetical. In fact, from a logical perspective, if ANY of the components is an irrelevant hypothesis, the derivation must contain a degree of irrelevance and hypotheticality, as well. Why is it, then, that I don't see this caveat listed whenever the Theory of Evolution is proffered? |
Sometimes I just have to shake my head in wonder. Incredibly, you're literally offering the discovery that some dinosaurs led to birds rather than mammals as proof that animals don't evolve. Hello? The theory is predicated on hypotheses that show certain animals led to others, and discoveries that clarify which animals they led to doesn't disprove the premise. In that regard, whether or not dinosaurs were warm blooded is irrelevant. |
Not at all. I am claiming nothing about (macro) evolution either way. I am merely pointing out that theories predicated upon hypotheses are by nature unproven insofar as the hypotheses themselves are unproven. It's just logic. |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 02:24:12 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Does that mean that slavery should be considered as legitimate and and as valid as my belief that it is wrong? |
With so many specific passages condoning slavery in the Bible (which in itself had long been used as justification for its practice), I'm curious to know what led to your belief that it's wrong? |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 02:27:56 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by scalvert:
It's certainly understandable for human authors to be unaware of animals from distant locations, or to have no reason to include every single species. However it's not so understandable for an "historical" account of this planet, from its creation to present day, to omit entire classes of life that dominated the vast majority of that history. If every animal from creation was supposed to be saved on the Ark, I'd expect a couple of woolly mammoths or 100 ton Titanosaurs to warrant a mention. |
A rather unrealistic expectation.
The only specific animals mentioned in the Biblical account of the great flood and Noah's ark are the raven and the dove. Other than that, it's just generalizations - like "every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings".
No mention of specific animals, or even of specific classes of animals such as mammals or reptiles ( except for the above-mentioned raven and dove ). |
Ah, so 100 ton dinosaurs (creatures that moves along the ground) WERE on the Ark alongside woolly mammoths, but simply weren't mentioned. That's priceless. :-) |
If you say so.
Because, surely, I didn't. |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 02:29:58 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I am claiming nothing about (macro) evolution either way. I am merely pointing out that theories predicated upon hypotheses are by nature unproven insofar as the hypotheses themselves are unproven. It's just logic. |
You're dodging. You tried to dispel a theory using an hypothesis that isn't even a basis for that theory. You also make in plainly obvious that you still don't understand what a scientific theory is. |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 02:32:22 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by RonB:
You seem to have difficulty in understanding the difference between "God" ( Capital "G' - one God: omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent ) and "gods" ( lower case 'g' - multiple gods: not omniscient, not omnipotent, not omnipresent ). When I spoke of the theory of God's existence, it was with a captial "G" and singular, not lower-case 'g' and plural. |
No, I have no trouble with that at all. They're both as legitimate, historically valuable, and ulimately as devoid of relevance as the other.
Originally posted by RonB:
And who is it that is sufficiently wise enough to judge whether, in the end, the faith of the Aztecs was as legitimate, or as valid as mine? |
Yes. That was sort of my point.
Originally posted by RonB:
Then, too, your arguments are illogical. For example, your argument that the faith of the Aztecs being rooted in deeply held beliefs and carrying their civilization for centuries gives it legitimacy and validity. |
That's not what I said. I said the two beliefs were as legitimate as each other, with one not being less valid than the other. It is merely a historical fact that Aztecs had deeply held religious beliefs, and that their very civilization depended on them. In that context, it is irrelevant what those beliefs actually were.
Originally posted by RonB:
The same could be said of slavery - rooted in deeply held beliefs and carrying civilizations for centuries. Does that mean that slavery should be considered as legitimate and and as valid as my belief that it is wrong? |
See above. This conclusion is based on your misinterpretation of what I said. |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 02:44:11 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Scalvert:
Ah, so 100 ton dinosaurs (creatures that moves along the ground) WERE on the Ark alongside woolly mammoths, but simply weren't mentioned. That's priceless. :-) |
If you say so.
Because, surely, I didn't. |
Did I misunderstand or did you not answer the question? Where exactly do the dinosaurs fit in biblical accounts of history? If you say dinosaurs never existed or were some sort of unproven theory, I'm going to laugh myself into a coma. If you suggest that extinct 100 ton animals were kept on a wooden boat with humans during the worst storm in recorded history, it'll probably result in the same coma. If you claim that the vast majority of biodiversity that ever existed on this planet just popped into existence after humans, without a single historical mention of animals as impressive and unmistakable as an Apatosaur, and then became magically buried under hundreds of feet of rock much older than the earliest evidence of man... well, I'll try to contain my laughter, but the aforementioned coma still looms. Hopefully you have a better explanation. ;-) |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 02:52:15 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Ah, so 100 ton dinosaurs (creatures that moves along the ground) WERE on the Ark alongside woolly mammoths, but simply weren't mentioned. That's priceless. :-) |
Hey, scalvert,
have you ever wondered if the Brachiosaurus was a “clean” or “unclean” animal? Could you imagine seven pairs of those things on a barge? |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 12:45:33 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 12:45:33 PM EDT.
|
