Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
421

Part 5

Raj refutes Brother Chris’ explanation of what constitutes evidence

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Faith is the acceptance of something as true without evidence. I’d say that hardly trumps reason, if at all.
It wouldn’t surprise me if there were people of faith and reason.
[/quote]
Not without evidence, witnesses are considered evidence after all.[/quote]
The gospels werent written by first hand accounts. None of the gospels are authored by the people they are named after.[/quote]

422

Part 6

Another good point from Neuromancer

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Hebrews 11:1 (KJV) - “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” : “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”(NASB) : “Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not.” (DRB)

For those who take the bible seriously. Faith IS that. Trib’s extrapolation from the previous page:[quote]“Faith is the epistemological basis upon which we persist in living our lives in practical certainty (2+2=4 and all the vaaaast scientific implications that depend upon the fact that it does) despite the fact that IN OURSELVES we have utterly NO objectively certain reason to do so.”[/quote]
[/quote]

At this point, it seems clear to me that when it comes to the discussion of faith, the word gets abused and misused most of the time. Having faith that if you jump off a building will result in you falling isn’t the same as having faith in the theory of God, as in the first instance there are examples, and evidence to draw upon, and in the second there is none.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I am a dogmatist. I am not open or broad minded in any way. I state my convictions from a standpoint of unwavering certainty. It may sound that way at times, but I do not intend to condescend to you. I got in very late… again. I apologize. I got a short post done for TigerTime and I MUST get some sleep.[/quote]

And that is where you derail as far as any further discussion of epistemology goes, I’m afraid. It just becomes a proseletyzing platform for YOUR particliarular view of faith, what it entails, etc, etc. Even to the point where you lambaste and demonize supposedly ‘fellow’ Christians to such a degree that it’s frankly quite distasteful.Never mind room for any discussion with others on a philosophical level, which whether you like it or not , is still very possible (and enjoyable both to read and to participate in) with the Catholics and other religious people on this forum. [/quote]

You admitted to not being open-minded then accept a compliment from Fletch where he “praised” your open-mindedness. You’re so full of shit Tiribulus(not you Fletch).

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]swhole milk wrote:
Not going to read 25 pages, but, is it the belief of the theistic in this thread, Christians in particular, that God is: all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful?

If not, which is the caveat and why? [/quote]

The 25 pages if your really interested in this type of thing would be worth it to read. Actually a lot of productive discussion and not the normal ‘I’m right, your wrong’ type of arguments. There’s a ton that has to be established before that question comes into play.[/quote]Very good indeed Fletch =] Don’t take this the wrong way but I’m prouda ya. You have quite rightly spoken here.
[/quote]Thanks. I’ve learned so much in the past couple of months thanks to bright people like you. It’s really hard to find people who a) are even willing to touch the subject with a 10ft pole b/c of it’s potentially divisive effect and b)have the intellect and possibly the most important c) an open inquisitive mind.[/quote]Well that’s very gracious and gratifying my friend. Thank you. You warm this old fundamentalist heart.
[/quote]

423

Part 7

Some more good points from Raj

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

When people believe things that you don’t you deem them fools because they believe in stupid things “for no good reason”. When people don’t believe the things you do you deem them fools because they are in denial and can’t question there own beliefs. It’s kinda funny, but I’ve noticed before that you agnostic/atheists are often more viscous in your accusations of heresy than the Christians I’ve dealt with - it’s just never compared like that [/quote]

I’m not all that interested in continuing this discussion but I feel obligated to answer this.

It is foolish but doesn’t necessarily make someone a fool. Being religious doesn’t mean you walk around having no understanding of reality. You simply cease critical thinking in this very aspect of your life because the beliefs are sacred and shouldn’t be touched.

Smart people fall for stupid stuff all the time. You’re familiar with the Nigerian prince email scams? Well there was a special on 60 minutes on it where doctors, lawyers and other highly educated people sent money to these swindlers. So no, you are not a fool for falling for something foolish.

I really like Ken Miller’s work on evolution for instance and he is a Catholic.[/quote]

424

Part 8

Essentially, everything you say always seems to derive from the bible being a source of (ultimate) truth. And it isn’t. You’re unable to provide evidence for this, and any/every time someone calls you on it you deflect the question.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Headhunter has seen this dialog. That’s why he WILL NOT bite even when I use cheap ego bashing tactics on him. He knows he CANNOT win. On his declared basis and yours, a tautological stalemate, in other words uncertainty, is the best you can hope for. If you decide to step up here? Read that document http://gregnmary.gotdns.com/dox/Brother_Greg_refromed_apologetic.pdf It will give you a fair head start if you read it carefully and assume nothing except that I may actually not be an imbecile. I expect that you’ll be intractably arrogant, dogmatic and dismissive. Just like you’ll say I am. I’m used to it. [/quote]

I began to go through your document, then right away I saw that you start from the presupposition of the bible being correct without having ever provided evidence for it.

This is the last time I’ll ever respond to you Tiribulus, as this is not a discussion like previously stated

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
And that is where you derail as far as any further discussion of epistemology goes, I’m afraid. It just becomes a proseletyzing platform for YOUR particular view of faith, what it entails, etc, etc. Even to the point where you lambaste and demonize supposedly ‘fellow’ Christians to such a degree that it’s frankly quite distasteful.Never mind room for any discussion with others on a philosophical level, which whether you like it or not , is still very possible (and enjoyable both to read and to participate in) with the Catholics and other religious people on this forum. [/quote]

425

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
MattyG35, I hate to break this to you…originally thought again look to God for guidance.[/quote]
There is nothing that is taught in the bible that can’t be taught without the bible, it’s become vestigial.

Actually that does have to do with the God they claim to represent. It discredits them fully and they shouldn’t be listened to because of this.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21. I know that’s the old testament but it’s still in your bible and you choose to not follow it. God really mellowed out when he sent his son to be brutally murdered.
[/quote]

I love it when people pull all these bible quotes from these atheist websites to make a case against. So tell me since you are a scholar on the matter, what is the purpose, history, audience and context of this passage as it relates to the rest of Deuteronomy? The Pentateuch and then the greater Bible as a whole?
Do you know why that’s in there? Do you know what purpose it was trying to serve?[/quote]

You seem to know more about it than me, so why don’t you tell me, because I’m taking it at face value.[/quote]

Well then, that’s the problem isn’t it? You’re taking at face value with out understanding the passage in context and purpose.
Deuteronomy is a part of the law books of the bible. These books have several functions, they serve as a rule of law for a group of messed up lawless, wild people with a stubborn streak. To understand the audience we are talking about, you have to understand, that God had to tell these people several times not to have sex with their livestock. He had to expressedly tell them not to eat vultures and buzzards. These aren’t well educated middle-class Americans we’re talking about here. These texts also were functioning as a de facto constitution for a nation, and finally, it’s also a religious text. But yes, with those people at that time, the rules were rigid in order to scare them strait. In these same texts, where God was lenient, the people took advantage and went way to far. So when given an inch, they took a yard.
The rigidity of the texts for those people at that time, saved more lives then were taken by harsh punishments. The punishments weren’t doled out just because it was prescribed, there was a fair hearing after all required.
The behaviour condemned by the text from 21rst century perspective is far less detrimental then it was then.

426

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
MattyG35, I hate to break this to you…originally thought again look to God for guidance.[/quote]
There is nothing that is taught in the bible that can’t be taught without the bible, it’s become vestigial.

Actually that does have to do with the God they claim to represent. It discredits them fully and they shouldn’t be listened to because of this.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21. I know that’s the old testament but it’s still in your bible and you choose to not follow it. God really mellowed out when he sent his son to be brutally murdered.
[/quote]

  1. That’s your opinion not fact. [/quote]

No, that is a fact. You have plenty of good people in the world that don’t follow the bible.
[/quote]

What makes a person “good”?[/quote]

Not doing unnecessary harm to others comes to mind.
[/quote]

That is a component of morality.

427

[quote]Alex Good wrote:
I;m firmly in the “I don’t know” camp. Evolution seems likely, so that probably happened. As for an omnipotent being who can’t be seen or heard, we can’t know and therefore I don’t. I’m not saying a god doesn’t exist, I’m just saying I don’t know.[/quote]

Evolution existing or not existing has nothing to do with whether or not God exists. God can exist in either circumstance. What speaks to God’s existence, is existence itself.

428

[quote]Matty:
Not doing unnecessary harm to others comes to mind.

pat wrote:
That is a component of morality. [/quote]

For him, not harming others unnecessarily has nothing to do with being ‘morally good.’ Or, that the other has an inherent right not to be harmed, which he is morally obligated to acknowledge. It’s simply too risky. For him, at least.

429

Hi, I was just driving by and read this thread with interest. This is the newest publicized research in the field of evolutionary genetics. In case you are interested and haven’t seen it yet.

430

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:Hi, I was just driving by and read this thread with interest. This is the newest publicized research in the field of evolutionary genetics. In case you are interested and haven’t seen it yet. The Denisova Genome and Guys Banging Rocks - Scientific American Blog Network Denisovan Genome - Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology [/quote]Fascinating, but I missed the part where they account for the existence of life producing and or sustaining bio information in the first place. An example of and mechanism by which this information not only increases, but does so in an upward and beneficial fashion even once would be cool too. A straight face while telling me that this happened 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to the 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 power times, just for a sparrow, over millions of years and then how ever many times for the rest of the zillions of species of living organisms on this planet would be a most impressive statement of faith indeed. Psalm 2:4 [quote]He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord scoffs at them.[/quote]A bit out of context, but still applies. Nice to see ya again btw.

431

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:Hi, I was just driving by and read this thread with interest. This is the newest publicized research in the field of evolutionary genetics. In case you are interested and haven’t seen it yet. The Denisova Genome and Guys Banging Rocks - Scientific American Blog Network Denisovan Genome - Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology [/quote]Fascinating, but I missed the part where they account for the existence of life producing bio information in the first place. An example of and mechanism by which this information not only increases, but does so in an upward and beneficial fashion even once would be cool too. A straight face while telling me that this happened 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to the 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 power times, just for a sparrow, over millions of years and then how ever many times for the rest of the zillions of species of living organisms on this planet would be a most impressive statement of faith indeed. Psalm 2:4 [quote]He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord scoffs at them.[/quote]A bit out of context, but still applies.
[/quote]

Hi, Tirib. You are not really interested in those articles, we know that. The author in Scientfic american stands for his writings, I chose it bcause it’s in english and it’s fresh. Your expectation that they account for the existence of life producing bio information is a bit over the top.

As a side note, there has been a misconception in this thread that nobody has corrected, and that is that one-celled organisms would somehow evolve into multiple-celled organisms. They don’t, cells take different forms and tasks, but they stay cells. Cells together form more compex lifeforms, and that in itself is amazing, why and how did they do that? It gives room for all kind of speculation.

432

Thank you =] How bout the question of whether they do it at all? Where do I find a demonstration of the random ascending complexity of bio information required for even bacteria to exist to say nothing of the human brain? Could you link me to that please?

433

I don’t see any logical inconsistency in this statement :

“Sometime between 5700 and 10 000 years ago, an omnipotent God created a 13 billions years old Universe containing a 4,5 billions years old planet named Earth and inhabited by an adult man called Adam.
The whole process took Him six 24-hours days.”

I don’t have any empirical evidence against it either.

434

[quote]kamui wrote:
I don’t see any logical inconsistency in this statement :

“Sometime between 5700 and 10 000 years ago, an omnipotent God created a 13 billions years old Universe containing a 4,5 billions years old planet named Earth and inhabited by an adult man called Adam.
The whole process took Him six 24-hours days.”

I don’t have any empirical evidence against it either.

[/quote]

History classes, to be fair, must include stories about the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. How do we know that those beings aren’t historical? No one knows. The people who wrote those stories long ago are trustworthy though.

435

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Thank you =] How bout the question of whether they do it at all? Where do I find a demonstration of the random ascending complexity of bio information required for even bacteria to exist to say nothing of the human brain? Could you link me to that please?[/quote]

You are supposed to find it as fossils in different strata. That is, if you accept that your everyday notion of cause and effect spans across aeons. I could add God as a cause, but I would have to know what I mean by it. What god? You are convinced about the Abrahamic God, and the evidence is in the Bible, take it, as you do, or leave it. Personal revelations help, without a doubt.

436

kaaleppi, this will have to suffice for you for the moment too.

[quote]kamui wrote:
I don’t see any logical inconsistency in this statement :

“Sometime between 5700 and 10 000 years ago, an omnipotent God created a 13 billions years old Universe containing a 4,5 billions years old planet named Earth and inhabited by an adult man called Adam.
The whole process took Him six 24-hours days.”

I don’t have any empirical evidence against it either.
[/quote]
And the Kamuinator pops in to add his usual pearls of wisdom (I mean that BTW). As for your above statement? Neither do I see any logical inconsistency in it or evidence against it. Once you have an omnipotent God who is capable of simply commanding light, matter and time to exist from absolutely nothing, what you here posit is a yawn inducing triviality LOL!!! I promise. His producing a fully formed universe, sporting all the vaaaast wonders we see AND the entire immaterial world which we cannot, simply goes without saying.

Where is that link now? The one where bio information, which existence and operation of we get no explanation for, both increases and ascends in complexity zillions and zillions and zillions and zillions and zillions and zillions and zillions of times over millions of years? I say my God, for whom such a task, while mind numbing to us critters of His, is all in six days work and that only because he decided He wanted it to take that long. I heard of a little girl who upon hearing the creation account read, asked in sincere puzzlement “what took Him so long?” OH HALLELUJAH !!! LOL!! As a little child. I’ll be waiting for that link.

437

[quote]kamui wrote:
I don’t see any logical inconsistency in this statement :

"Sometime between 5700 and 10 000 years ago, an omnipotent God created a 13 billions years old Universe containing a 4,5 billions years old planet…
[/quote]

Then the scientific view of the earth’s age is correct.

438

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Hi, I was just driving by and read this thread with interest. This is the newest publicized research in the field of evolutionary genetics. In case you are interested and haven’t seen it yet.

http://www.eva.mpg.de/denisova[/quote]

An interesting turn of phrase from the first article …

“This may mean that male Denisovans introduced their DNA into female modern humans, diluting the number of X chromosomes, perhaps by either voluntary admixture (romance) or legitimate rape, as has happened in other populations”

439

[quote]groo wrote:

An interesting turn of phrase from the first article …

“This may mean that male Denisovans introduced their DNA into female modern humans, diluting the number of X chromosomes, perhaps by either voluntary admixture (romance) or legitimate rape, as has happened in other populations”
[/quote]

Yeah, I wondered about what on earth that could mean, but then I remembered reading some american politician blurting out something like that not long time ago.

440

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
kaaleppi, this will have to suffice for you for the moment too.

[quote]kamui wrote:
I don’t see any logical inconsistency in this statement :

“Sometime between 5700 and 10 000 years ago, an omnipotent God created a 13 billions years old Universe containing a 4,5 billions years old planet named Earth and inhabited by an adult man called Adam.
The whole process took Him six 24-hours days.”

I don’t have any empirical evidence against it either.
[/quote]
[/quote]

That’s fine, but I wasn’t challenging you in the first place.