| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
stonebeard 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
 Posted: December 02 2009 at 17:48 |
At this point, I actually think it's valid to respond to Creationist jabbing about "Show me intermediates!" and such and such questioning with a simple "Go to a museum," or "read a book about it."
Frankly, evolution is really easy to explain in very general terms, but you seriously have to have the equivalent of a minor in biology or anthropology to sufficiently explain it with examples and thoroughly. Not many people can do that. Creationists have the easy road. They don't use evidence. They don't have to cite sources (except Genesis) and they don't have to prove anything. They're the critical ones. I don't need to try to prove evolution to weak minds: after biology and anthropology classes, it's sunk into me and makes way too much sense not to be true. Creationists tend to pigeonhole themselves into ignorance and somehow become incapable of appreciating the universe as something a billion times more luminous and awe-inspiring than as if it were poof-ed into existence over a few days.
I'm not so much angry at Creationists, so long as they have no influence ouside of their church (absolutely NO presence in the science classroom, whatsoever, outside of private schools/universities).
I do pity them a whole lot, though.
|
|
|
 |
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: December 02 2009 at 17:54 |
 p0mt3 wrote:
Negoba wrote:
Pretend I am a Vedantist (a subset of Hinduism). I'm not, but it will make my posts make more sense.
Vedanta is based on two simple propositions:
- Human nature is divine.
- The aim of human life is to realize that human nature is divine.
The goal of Vedanta is a state of self-realization or cosmic consciousness. Historically and currently, it is assumed that this state can be experienced by anyone, but it cannot be adequately conveyed in language. |
. . . but we're not talking about something that can be experienced by anyone, we're talking about a small group of churches who claim to have this ability that nobody else can prove.
Maybe I'm being too specific, and have missed your point entirely.
I mean, I like the idea of reality being a matter of percaption, and I've even written about stuff like that in my lyrics. That one lyric I showed you a whille back telling of how a man slowly begins to realize that he is in fact not a man but existence itself, therefore he sees and hears everything all the time.
On a basic level, reality being a matter of perception is quite true. I know I've experienced that many times in my own life, but when it raises to the point where it becomes more and more obscure, that's just a whole play area for charlotteans and racket-runners to roam around in. Can you blame me for wanting more proof?
|
I'm not actually defending fundamentalism. I'm attacking those who I perceive have just transferred their faith to what they call science. In fact, their understanding of the Universe is quite limited. And in fact, the world's religions have other truths to teach in the places science does not go. The New Atheists seem to have an agenda to do away with religion completely. That bothers me.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: December 02 2009 at 18:08 |
Epignosis wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ whatever you said about miracles is not really relevant to the point I was making. And as for "kill all homosexuals": The bible says that. Of course I picked a statement which I know few Christians are taking literally today. But that's also exactly why it's such a good example of cherry picking. |
Gee Mike...I also eat pork and wear clothes of two different kinds of fabric. That isn't cherry-picking. It's understanding that Old Testament law was done away with in favor of a new covenant (a very common understanding)...regardless I (as a Gentile) was never bound by the Mosaic law in the first place...because God never made that covenant with Gentiles, but with Hebrews.
|
Duuno if this was responded to because damn this thread has words and stuff.
The problem is why you would make a Covenant, with moral commands, that won't be absolutely true, or good.
I can't buy the argument that ancient peoples needed a "stepping stone" morality. If God really wanted to, he could have endowed them with reason, spoken in more than parable, vague metaphors, smoke and mirrors, and given real true good reasoning. And we'd be so far ahead now morally if he did.
But this stepping stone morality doesn't make sense to me coming from a Creator that is supposed to be eternal, amongst other things.
|
|
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: December 02 2009 at 18:11 |
|
The eternal question, why are we so complex as we are? and why aren't we more God-like?
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Kestrel
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 18 2008
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline
Points: 512
|
Posted: December 02 2009 at 19:05 |
Negoba wrote:
I'm not actually defending fundamentalism. I'm attacking those who I perceive have just transferred their faith to what they call science. In fact, their understanding of the Universe is quite limited. |
Huh? What faith do we put in science? And any scientist would gladly tell you that our understanding of the Universe is quite limited - that's why there are still scientists!
| And in fact, the world's religions have other truths to teach in the places science does not go. The New Atheists seem to have an agenda to do away with religion completely. That bothers me. |
I've seen this said so many times and I have yet to actually be shown these "other truths." Can you tell me some? And yes, some "New Atheists" do want to get rid of religion. Not sure what is wrong with that.
Negoba wrote:
The eternal question, why are we so complex as we are? and why aren't we more God-like? |
These "why" questions are mostly nonsensical if you want anything beyond evolution.
Edited by Kestrel - December 02 2009 at 19:07
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Online
Points: 32524
|
Posted: December 02 2009 at 19:47 |
stonebeard wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ whatever you said about miracles is not really relevant to the point I was making. And as for "kill all homosexuals": The bible says that. Of course I picked a statement which I know few Christians are taking literally today. But that's also exactly why it's such a good example of cherry picking. |
Gee Mike...I also eat pork and wear clothes of two different kinds of fabric. That isn't cherry-picking. It's understanding that Old Testament law was done away with in favor of a new covenant (a very common understanding)...regardless I (as a Gentile) was never bound by the Mosaic law in the first place...because God never made that covenant with Gentiles, but with Hebrews.
|
Duuno if this was responded to because damn this thread has words and stuff.
The problem is why you would make a Covenant, with moral commands, that won't be absolutely true, or good.
I can't buy the argument that ancient peoples needed a "stepping stone" morality. If God really wanted to, he could have endowed them with reason, spoken in more than parable, vague metaphors, smoke and mirrors, and given real true good reasoning. And we'd be so far ahead now morally if he did.
But this stepping stone morality doesn't make sense to me coming from a Creator that is supposed to be eternal, amongst other things. |
And you are telling God what He should be? That's rich!
Anyway, it is incorrect to assume that God made a covenant with the Hebrews to instill moral character in them (that is really an incidental aspect of the covenant). If you want to know why, figure out why God commanded even their diets (or to do no work on the Sabbath day). It's so much deeper than than morals...and it's rather profound. 
But of course, everyone has an assumption of what God must be, and if God doesn't fit that mold, He can't exist.
Also, I made this in the SR:
Epignosis wrote:
Here are the precepts of religious / science threads on Prog Archives:
1: Everyone is right.
2: Everyone has a false conception about what everyone else is right about.
Corollary 2.1: Everyone will vehemently argue against the false conception that everyone else is right about.
Corollary 2.2: Everyone who clarifies what he is right about will be accused of being inconsistent.
3: Everyone who has not had the good sense to quit posting will inevitably be called a troll.
4: Everyone will assure everyone else that he is an expert on a particular related or non-related subject.
Corollary 4.1: Everyone will call bullsh*t on everyone else's claiming expertise.
Secondary Corollary 4.1.1: Someone will demonstrate that someone is not
an expert in a given field because the latter made a typo or used a
slightly incorrect word that in no way affects the argument at hand.
5. Slartibartfast will make a completely irreverent and corny joke.
6. Everyone will post waves of videos / links to books/ excerpts / Wikipedia articles supporting their arguments.
Corollary 6.1: Everyone ignores everyone else's videos / links to books
/ excerpts/ Wikipedia articles in accordance with the tl;dr theory.
7.
Some well-meaning yet misguided peacekeeper will step in and remind
everyone that this is a prog rock site where we all come to get away
from the horrors of real life, and that it's all about the music man.
Corollary 7.1: Everyone will go into prog polls for a time to argue
about how amazing / terrible Rush / Dream Theater / Porcupine Tree are.
Secondary Corollary 7.1.1: Neil Peart is not the uberdrummer.
8.
A newbie will join weeks later and post his own insignificant opinion,
thereby summoning the foul thread from the depths of the forum, in turn
summoning the combatants back to its wretched existence.
Corollary 8.1: If no one has responded within 20 minutes, the newbie will "bump" the thread.
9. Everyone will rehash everything he has said.
10: Everyone is an idiot.
And finally:
11: Tony R. will get bored and post a picture of the Terminator just before locking the thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: December 02 2009 at 20:26 |
Kestrel wrote:
Huh? What faith do we put in science?
You have faith that this way of thinking will give you the answers to questions regarding the Universe. And it does, but not all of them. It is not designed to do so.
And any scientist would gladly tell you that our understanding of the Universe is quite limited - that's why there are still scientists!
Most real scientists will admit this for their particular field. Most of the atheists who put their faith in science are not scientists (interesting converse to a previous argument). Far too few admit to the limits of the scientific method in general.
I've seen this said so many times and I have yet to actually be shown these "other truths." Can you tell me some?
As long as you remain limited to a scientific / objectivist perspective, you will not be able to perceive these truths. But I'll try anyway. Religions work best in helping an individual, subject self find their place in the Universe. Much meditation regards fine tuning your perception, your ability to discern self from other. It's about direct experience of the here and now, trying to shed the filters of our expectations and teaching. In that way the goal is like science, except for the individual subject rather than the group objective point of view. And these are ancient traditions, some non-theist, which predate "New Age" by millenia.
And yes, some "New Atheists" do want to get rid of religion. Not sure what is wrong with that.
They do not understand what they're trying to get rid of. They deny the good and exaggerate the evil that is done in the name of religion, most often by persons who themselves had very little understanding of the religions whose banners they flew.
These "why" questions are mostly nonsensical if you want anything beyond evolution.
Of course they are. but I do want something beyond evolution. I work in a field completely dependent on science but where science leaves major gaps and will always. It forces me to think a little bigger.
|
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 01:18 |
Negoba wrote:
The eternal question, why are we so complex as we are? |
Because natural selection caused us to evolve that way, over literally billions of years.
Negoba wrote:
and why aren't we more God-like? |
Because we are not designed by a God or God-like being. If there was a God and if he created us in his own image, why do we look like apes, why is our DNA almost identical (like 99%, depending on the method used for comparison) to that of some other apes (and also identical to various degrees to the DNA of other, entirely different looking animals), and why do our bodies work like those of apes and other animals?
Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 03 2009 at 01:19
|
|
AmbianceMan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 30 2009
Location: Dayton, OH
Status: Offline
Points: 113
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 01:52 |
stonebeard wrote:
At this point, I actually think it's valid to respond to Creationist jabbing about "Show me intermediates!" and such and such questioning with a simple "Go to a museum," or "read a book about it."
Frankly, evolution is really easy to explain in very general terms, but you seriously have to have the equivalent of a minor in biology or anthropology to sufficiently explain it with examples and thoroughly. Not many people can do that. Creationists have the easy road. They don't use evidence. They don't have to cite sources (except Genesis) and they don't have to prove anything. They're the critical ones. I don't need to try to prove evolution to weak minds: after biology and anthropology classes, it's sunk into me and makes way too much sense not to be true. Creationists tend to pigeonhole themselves into ignorance and somehow become incapable of appreciating the universe as something a billion times more luminous and awe-inspiring than as if it were poof-ed into existence over a few days.
I'm not so much angry at Creationists, so long as they have no influence ouside of their church (absolutely NO presence in the science classroom, whatsoever, outside of private schools/universities).
I do pity them a whole lot, though. |
You do realize that very, very many people with very high educations are creationists also, right? There are former evolutionary scientists out there who claim creationism, so saying that the "more educated" people are evolutionists is hogwash. And you also basically said that people with higher educations figure it out for you, and you accept it. I could use the same argument for creationism.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 02:01 |
|
^ "very many" ... can you name any prominent examples? And he didn't "basically say that people with higher educations figure it out for him" - all he said was that it takes detailed knowledge in a scientific area in order to give detailed examples. And the difference between examples for evolution and examples for creation are that those for evolution are based on evidence. There is no need to trust the person making the claim, since you can go out there and verify the claim.
Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 03 2009 at 02:01
|
|
AmbianceMan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 30 2009
Location: Dayton, OH
Status: Offline
Points: 113
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 02:06 |
You're operating under the assumption that the Bible is true. Let's look at things my way for a bit, shall we?
Let's just say that the Bible isn't true. Now . . . it clearly isn't truly spreading any good news about anything real, and instead is giving false hope. So if not to spread truth, what other purpose would there be for the Bible to be written?
Well . . . the Bible states that you yourself are not worthy of saving from a horrible, eternal demise, but if you admit that you are worth nothing and throw your entire life over to a higher being, you will be saved. You must believe that Jesus in the son of God, and that he died for your sins. Now, rather than God doing the loving thing and welcoming us all into heaven, he only accepts those who aknowledge him as supreme and powerful and real. In order to believe this, you must also believe that it is okay to mutilate little boy's genitals, that homosexuals are evil sinners and will not inherit the kingdom of heave, that you should follow God's orders regardless of what they ask of you, etc.
This makes absolutely no sense. Everyone here knows that this is not true, and it's not what the bible says. If you're going to use something like this, then quote where you found it. I have read it multiple times. I also spent most of my life NOT believing the bible, so I see the argument from both sides. You should really learn more about the bible if you are going to say something outlandish and claim that it's in the bible. It is true that homosexuality is said to be a sin, but so are thousands of other things, and believe me I've done a lot of sinning in my life. One sin is not worse than any other as far as God is concerned, either you have sinned (even once) OR you have sinned and been forgiven according to what the bible says. So I can't pass judgement on anyone else's sin. This isn't what I think r want to be true, I'm just telling you what it says.Now, Imagine that the Church is just another component to this hoax. Wouldn't it be very convenient for people to believe that they are doing God's will by paying the church money, following the church leader's guidance, and so forth? Modern day churches don't typically operate under the concept of tithing and such nowadays, and only accept money as an 'offering'. Still, churches don't have to pay taxes, and are allowed to get away with a lot of dangerous, harmful actions all under the banner of 'freedom of religion'. Ever heard of The Family?
I don't see a problem with this. Churches have to pay for the building, pay the people who spend full time involved with church functions (this is also known as a job), electric, water, etc. etc. Where do you suggest they get this money? Sure you can point out where money has been embezzled or mishandled, but this happens EVERYWHERE else too. Just because someone walks into a church building, it doesn't make them "holy". Churches send doctors, nurses, construction teams throughout the world. It's not cheap.
Now, obviously not all churches these days are like that, as in modern times most of them have had to adapt to what is considered acceptible these days, but basically what I'm saying is that if Christianity is false, wouldn't control be the next obvious reason for the Bible to be written? Control is a good reason for anything to be made up.
Or money, like Al Gores global warming agenda. It used to be global cooling, then a warming trend was recognized so the global cooling peeps changed to global warming. Now they have discovered that the temperature is on the decline again, and that the number of polar bears is increasing. Pretty soon we are going to be talking about global cooling again. Money is a great motivator. How much money has he made on this? Hundreds of millions. Would you give it up if you were making that kind of money?
More recent 'religions' such as Scientology prove that people will follow just about any doctrine if they personally believe it to be true. The only reason Scientology or Mormonism are more widely known to be false is because the people who made them up are well-known and can be read up on. Christianity escaped that scrutiny because whoever made it up did so in a time when not everything was on record.
So Christianity may not equal the church to you, but the agendas may have once been the same.
|
Being skeptical is a very good thing by the way, and I can tell that you are.
Edited by AmbianceMan - December 03 2009 at 02:12
|
|
Kestrel
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 18 2008
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline
Points: 512
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 02:11 |
AmbianceMan wrote:
You do realize that very, very many people with very high educations are creationists also, right? There are former evolutionary scientists out there who claim creationism, so saying that the "more educated" people are evolutionists is hogwash. And you also basically said that people with higher educations figure it out for you, and you accept it. I could use the same argument for creationism. |
That is completely false. 
|
|
AmbianceMan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 30 2009
Location: Dayton, OH
Status: Offline
Points: 113
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 02:18 |
Kestrel wrote:
AmbianceMan wrote:
You do realize that very, very many people with very high educations are creationists also, right? There are former evolutionary scientists out there who claim creationism, so saying that the "more educated" people are evolutionists is hogwash. And you also basically said that people with higher educations figure it out for you, and you accept it. I could use the same argument for creationism. |
That is completely false.
|
So 11% of all people with a post graduate degree do not believe in evolution? And how many people would you say that is? I say it would be many.
|
|
AmbianceMan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 30 2009
Location: Dayton, OH
Status: Offline
Points: 113
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 02:22 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ "very many" ... can you name any prominent examples? And he didn't "basically say that people with higher educations figure it out for him" - all he said was that it takes detailed knowledge in a scientific area in order to give detailed examples. And the difference between examples for evolution and examples for creation are that those for evolution are based on evidence. There is no need to trust the person making the claim, since you can go out there and verify the claim. |
Here is a very prominent name: Ken Ham. You will probably dismiss him right away because he doesn't agree with you but he delves into genetics, carbon dating. He has a book called The Answers Book..I think that's the name of it. Very smart man. There are many, many others, even working for NASA and other highly technical fields.
You may come to realize that a lot of that "evidence" has been processed or manipulated to fit a certain mold.
Edited by AmbianceMan - December 03 2009 at 02:25
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 02:24 |
AmbianceMan wrote:
Kestrel wrote:
AmbianceMan wrote:
You do realize that very, very many people with very high educations are creationists also, right? There are former evolutionary scientists out there who claim creationism, so saying that the "more educated" people are evolutionists is hogwash. And you also basically said that people with higher educations figure it out for you, and you accept it. I could use the same argument for creationism. |
That is completely false.
|
So 11% of all people with a post graduate degree do not believe in evolution? And how many people would you say that is? I say it would be many. |
I love how you completely missed his point entirely.
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 02:26 |
AmbianceMan wrote:
| Well . . . the Bible states that you yourself are not worthy of saving from a horrible, eternal demise, but if you admit that you are worth nothing and throw your entire life over to a higher being, you will be saved. You must believe that Jesus in the son of God, and that he died for your sins. Now, rather than God doing the loving thing and welcoming us all into heaven, he only accepts those who aknowledge him as supreme and powerful and real. In order to believe this, you must also believe that it is okay to mutilate little boy's genitals, that homosexuals are evil sinners and will not inherit the kingdom of heave, that you should follow God's orders regardless of what they ask of you, etc.
This makes absolutely no sense. Everyone here knows that this is not true, and it's not what the bible says. If you're going to use something like this, then quote where you found it. I have read it multiple times. I also spent most of my life NOT believing the bible, so I see the argument from both sides. You should really learn more about the bible if you are going to say something outlandish and claim that it's in the bible. It is true that homosexuality is said to be a sin, but so are thousands of other things, and believe me I've done a lot of sinning in my life. One sin is not worse than any other as far as God is concerned, either you have sinned (even once) OR you have sinned and been forgiven according to what the bible says. So I can't pass judgement on anyone else's sin. This isn't what I think r want to be true, I'm just telling you what it says.
|
Being skeptical is a very good thing by the way, and I can tell that you are. |
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?
Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor
revilers, swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.''I Corinthians 6:9-10
Edited by p0mt3 - December 03 2009 at 02:26
|
|
Kestrel
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 18 2008
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline
Points: 512
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 02:31 |
AmbianceMan wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ "very many" ... can you name any prominent examples? And he didn't "basically say that people with higher educations figure it out for him" - all he said was that it takes detailed knowledge in a scientific area in order to give detailed examples. And the difference between examples for evolution and examples for creation are that those for evolution are based on evidence. There is no need to trust the person making the claim, since you can go out there and verify the claim. |
Here is a very prominent name: Ken Ham. You will probably dismiss him right away because he doesn't agree with you but he delves into genetics, carbon dating. He has a book called The Answers Book..I think that's the name of it. Very smart man. There are many, many others, even working for NASA and other highly technical fields.
You may come to realize that a lot of that "evidence" has been processed or manipulated to fit a certain mold. |
Sorry. Ken Ham is a complete and utter idiot. He's a young earth creationist and believes humans co-existed with dinosaurs. Find another person, please.
|
|
AmbianceMan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 30 2009
Location: Dayton, OH
Status: Offline
Points: 113
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 02:34 |
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.''
I Corinthians 6:9-10
|
That's well and good, but I think you missed the part where I agreed with you.
I've done some things on that list. I have stolen before. I've had too much too drink (fairly recently I might add). So I'm no better than a homosexual and I'm not judging them.
I was referring to the part where you said it's ok to cut off genials.
Edited by AmbianceMan - December 03 2009 at 02:41
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 02:40 |
|
^ I'm with the meek.... if it's okay with you guys.
|
|
What?
|
|
AmbianceMan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 30 2009
Location: Dayton, OH
Status: Offline
Points: 113
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 02:41 |
Sorry. Ken Ham is a complete and utter idiot. He's a young earth creationist and believes humans co-existed with dinosaurs. Find another person, please.
|
Interesting story. He once took a rock that had been created in 3 hours by a recent volcano to scientists to date it. They came back with something like 10,000,000 years. Everything you read about him is going to be skewed by the way. People hate this guy. That's probably why I decided to read some of his stuff. Seriously check out his answers book. It WILL be thought provoking.
By the way ^ I'm with the cheesemakers.... Trivia: what movie is that from? Easy one...
Edited by AmbianceMan - December 03 2009 at 02:43
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Evolution vs. Creationism