We Need Another Christianity Thread

[quote]orion wrote:

The very idea of scientific inquiry is moot if you can immediately say “God done it that way”. [/quote]

QFT.

This is why you cannot teach a non-testable theory in a science classroom:

[i]Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of scienceâ??in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By “testable” we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictionsâ?? the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.

As a clear example of an untestable, unscientific, hypothesis that is perfectly consistent with empirical observations, consider solipsism. The so-called hypothesis of solipsism holds that all of reality is the product of your mind. What experiments could be performed, what observations could be made, that could demonstrate that solipsism is wrong? Even though it is logically consistent with the data, solipsism cannot be tested by independent researchers. Any and all evidence is consistent with solipsism. Solipsism is unscientific precisely because no possible evidence could stand in contradiction to its predictions. For those interested, a brief explication of the scientific method and scientific philosophy has been included, such as what is meant by “scientific evidence”, “falsification”, and “testability”. "[/i]

And yes, EXAMPLES OF ONE SPECIES EVOLVING INTO ANOTHER HAVE BEEN OBSERVED IN REAL LIFE:

[i]Speciation of numerous plants, both angiosperms and ferns (such as hemp nettle, primrose, radish and cabbage, and various fern species) has been seen via hybridization and polyploidization since the early 20th century. Several speciation events in plants have been observed that did not involve hybridization or polyploidization (such as maize and S. malheurensis).

Some of the most studied organisms in all of genetics are the Drosophila species, which are commonly known as fruitflies. Many Drosophila speciation events have been extensively documented since the seventies. Speciation in Drosophila has occurred by spatial separation, by habitat specialization in the same location, by change in courtship behavior, by disruptive natural selection, and by bottlenecking populations (founder-flush experiments), among other mechanisms.

Several speciation events have also been seen in laboratory populations of houseflies, gall former flies, apple maggot flies, flour beetles, Nereis acuminata (a worm), mosquitoes, and various other insects. Green algae and bacteria have been classified as speciated due to change from unicellularity to multicellularity and due to morphological changes from short rods to long rods, all the result of selection pressures.

Speciation has also been observed in mammals. Six instances of speciation in house mice on Madeira within the past 500 years have been the consequence of only geographic isolation, genetic drift, and chromosomal fusions. A single chromosomal fusion is the sole major genomic difference between humans and chimps, and some of these Madeiran mice have survived nine fusions in the past 500 years (Britton-Davidian et al. 2000).[/i]

More detail and many references are given in the Observed Instances of Speciation FAQ.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Olee, didn’t read your link or your most recent post. And I’m not going to do so. I’m not discussing specifics about origins here.

I was discussing how people’s opinions can vary and yours or Rahjah’s or mine may, in his opinions, “affect others.” I am actually still staying on topic to his original post that I responded to. That’s all I’m interested in at this point on this particular thread.[/quote]

So what is your process for figuring out whose opinion to follow? Is it because you like the person who said it? Do you just go with what’s said first?

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Olee, didn’t read your link or your most recent post. And I’m not going to do so. I’m not discussing specifics about origins here.[/quote]

And yet you comment on it. The point is that if you want your hokey psuedo-science taught, then you have to allow people to have access to alchemy 203 and homeopathics 101. But you already knew what the point was, you are just choosing to ignore it.

Dear Push, it is hard to get sharper when as a killerDIRK (dirk: a double sided knife used for assassinations, i.e. Hamlet) is surrounded by soo many spoons. I do thank you for your concern. I just hate having to dull myself down to post on some of these theads…

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

The very idea of scientific inquiry is moot if you can immediately say “God done it that way”. [/quote]

QFT.

This is why you cannot teach a non-testable theory in a science classroom:…
[/quote]

If you were to faithfully adhere to that position macro-evolution should not be taught in a science classroom.

(Don’t quote stuff about speciation. I have always supported the idea that speciation occurs. And talkorigins is such a lame go-to site for ya’ll. Try somewhere else once in awhile)

Again…I was discussing how we all have opinions that “affect others.” THAT was the point that you, Pat, Rajraj and various others insist on ignoring.[/quote]

How is macro evolution not testable?

Speciation IS macroevolution! It’s the definition of macro evolution:

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population

You CANNOT talk about evolution as separate from speciation. By definition, they are the very same thing.

You just admitted that you “believe” in evolution!

Vouchers and school choice. Let the locals decide.

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:<<< Tiribulus would say this means I am not only willfully ignorant, but that I hate God. And he can quote scripture that says so, I’m sure! >>>[/quote]Symptoms of spiritual death.

Ok, the ball is in your court. What do you believe and why? Well, that’s just another way of asking for an example of something you accept as being objectively certain. Maybe I haven’t given you a fair chance, but you’ve been a real disappointment up til now. Not because you lack intelligence, but because you lack focus and discipline. You have no self consciously held epistemology at all which is not unusual actually.

You said God makes perfect sense to you. Please elucidate.

Tirib - I think a few posts back you explained what the term “God” means to you. Two things:

It said god was invisible and formless (I think). Yet the bible mentions specific parts of Gods body.

Secondly, how do you know all that? Anything you experienced or felt could be met with “how you you know you experienced or felt that?”

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Tirib - I think a few posts back you explained what the term “God” means to you. Two things:

It said god was invisible and formless (I think). Yet the bible mentions specific parts of Gods body.

Secondly, how do you know all that? Anything you experienced or felt could be met with “how you you know you experienced or felt that?”[/quote]
I said on 09-11-2011, 06:03 PM

[quote]However, God Himself speaks in terms of time everywhere all over the bible for our sake since we are not equipped with His unique perspective of the eternal now. This is an example of the groovy theological term "anthropopathism. That is where God describes Himself in psychological, emotional or intellectual terms by which He purposely condescends to our level for the sake of our understanding. Similar to an “anthropomorphism” where He ascribes to Himself fictitious physical attributes for the same purpose. I.E., the hand of God, the eye of the Lord etc. [/quote] Your latter question strikes right at the heart of epistemology which is presently under discussion. Those long posts of mine pasted on the previous page are about exactly that.

Unless absolute certainty is found somewhere? Absolute uncertainty and hence utter futility is the inescapable result. Probability is an empty abstraction without a reference point SOMEWHERE in certainty. Absolute certainty is only possible for a being who absolutely controls absolutely everything. If not then an influence or object of knowledge external to Himself may cause a state or act of volition in Him that was previously unknown and thus uncertain, bringing certainty for Him and everybody else crashing down. The God propounded by the Westminster assembly IS that being which makes perfect sense because that IS the being revealed in the bible.

I access HIS certainty by faith which is itself His gift. Being a finite created being I am forced to concede, like Raw Finn, Oleena and especially Elder Forlife, that I will not ever have certainty of by or through myself. They however DO NOT live in a pragmatic state of uncertainty. They live every second of every day as if EVERYTHING that mattered was certain, which it is, but only because of the God I openly embrace and they rebelliously deny.

We all get our certainty from the same place because we are all created in His image and likeness though in our fallen state that image is swallowed up in sin and death. It still operates, though now in autonomous rebellion instead of adoring worship. The very powers of reason, logic and moral agency that ARE the image of God in us are now used in horrendous mutiny against the one who gave them to us. That is an eternal crime for which only eternal punishment is appropriate. All of the answers to the justice of that are in those previous long posts though I will go into more if need be.

Listen. I have no illusions that you are about to fall on your face in tearful repentance before your God having been subdued by His love, (though I would certainly rejoice with you if you did = ] ), but I’ve never seen you act like this. I don’t wannabe be , but I’m suspicious.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:<<< Tiribulus would say this means I am not only willfully ignorant, but that I hate God. And he can quote scripture that says so, I’m sure! >>>[/quote]Symptoms of spiritual death.

Ok, the ball is in your court. What do you believe and why? Well, that’s just another way of asking for an example of something you accept as being objectively certain. Maybe I haven’t given you a fair chance, but you’ve been a real disappointment up til now. Not because you lack intelligence, but because you lack focus and discipline. You have no self consciously held epistemology at all which is not unusual actually.

You said God makes perfect sense to you. Please elucidate.
[/quote]

My beliefs are another matter altogether.

The purpose of this thread has long since played out, and it went about as expected. I could have just written written the OP and left it at that, but I gave you something else to attack to see what y’all would do.

There is no point in discussing philosophy with you, because your mind (what’s left of it) is closed on the matter. You deal in revealed wisdom, and you’re here to preach, not to seek.

I could talk about my own studies, but I won’t with you because you’re not even remotely interested.

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:
My beliefs are another matter altogether.

[/quote]

Dude, you started this thread with a mocking diatribe aimed at believers. You are asserting that you don’t believe in God. That bears just as much upon the issues discussed here as others’ belief in God. And an examination of your beliefs would reveal that all the same questions you raised apply equally to you. How do you KNOW there isn’t a God? How do you know what you know? What evidence do you base your disbelief upon? And yes, you do need evidence because you are an atheist not an agnostic. You are making an assertion: that God does not exist. I would like to see you back up that assertion.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:
My beliefs are another matter altogether.

[/quote]

Dude, you started this thread with a mocking diatribe aimed at believers. You are asserting that you don’t believe in God. That bears just as much upon the issues discussed here as others’ belief in God. And an examination of your beliefs would reveal that all the same questions you raised apply equally to you. How do you KNOW there isn’t a God? How do you know what you know? What evidence do you base your disbelief upon? And yes, you do need evidence because you are an atheist not an agnostic. You are making an assertion: that God does not exist. I would like to see you back up that assertion.[/quote]

I believe Christianity might be a viable starting point on the path to enlightenment for some, but that was never the point of my post. Also I am no atheist, and did say so somewhere in here.

I wanted to see how they would react to reading about their own implied values and beliefs, that’s all.

As for Christians, they are the ones who are making the extraordinary claim that the bible is the word of a celestial dictator. My disbelief of THAT is quite simply based on how thin and incredulous the evidence is. What is more likely to you, a 2000 year old account of a man that rose from the grave being true(at a time and place where that was kind of commonplace occurrence apparently), or that the illiterate goat shaggers misunderstood what really happened?

I’ve had this bullshit preached to me all my life, and every time it comes down to taking incredible and unlikely events on faith. A fundamental christian like Greg makes the other christians uncomfortable, because they know he’s interpreting the scriptures correctly, and it doesn’t paint a very agreeable picture of God. Or for that matter the immoral teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:

I believe Christianity might be a viable starting point on the path to enlightenment for some, but that was never the point of my post.

[/quote]

Wasn’t the point of mine either.

Well then presumably you are either an adherent to another faith or you’re an agnostic. From the way you talk it sounds more like you’re an atheist who calls themselves an agnostic because technically they can’t prove God DOESN’T exist. For all intents and purposes you ARE an atheist; a disbeliever - at least everything you have said points to that.

Come off it. You wanted to stir up a little shit and show how clever you think you are. I’ve done the same thing myself in the past. Takes one to know one. If you really believe this

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:

I believe Christianity might be a viable starting point on the path to enlightenment for some, but that was never the point of my post.

[/quote]

then at the very least you should actually read the bible and perhaps read about things that might help you understand/interpret it - wisdom teaching, aphorisms, parables etc

The extent to which the bible is to be taken literally is something I am still trying to understand. One could give many arguments to explain things - would God have instructed bronze-age man on how the universe was created or would he use some sort of parable that he might more easily understand and take from it the essential truth/s that He is trying to convey?

Your OP and subsequent posts reveal you have very little biblical knowledge and what you do have is a caricature.

Well, as I said you don’t appear to have any sort of knowledge of the scriptures beyond a caricature.

And notwithstanding the fact that I was baptised into the ‘demonic church,’ I feel neither uncomfortable with Greg or his posts. But maybe I just haven’t read enough of them yet.

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:<<< My beliefs are another matter altogether.

The purpose of this thread has long since played out, and it went about as expected. I could have just written written the OP and left it at that, but I gave you something else to attack to see what y’all would do.

There is no point in discussing philosophy with you, because your mind (what’s left of it) is closed on the matter. You deal in revealed wisdom, and you’re here to preach, not to seek.

I could talk about my own studies, but I won’t with you because you’re not even remotely interested.

[/quote]Dr. Greg has not granted your request for early release, but if you wanna escape I’ll leave the window unlocked and look the other way. Oleena and Groo will probably have a car waitin for ya on the next block. Have a nice life and I’ll always be here for ya man =]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
FTR, I do believe:

Evolution should be taught in schools as well as creation.

DA/DT should not have been repealed.

But again that is beside the point.[/quote]

I am fine with creation being taught in schools as either history, religion or literature. The creation account is not scientific.[/quote]

And that is your opinion. I have mine. The next guy has his.
[/quote]

No.

That is the only opinion, unless you rape the definition of the word “science”.

You introduce the supernatural, in what form ever, boom, no longer science.

The very idea of scientific inquiry is moot if you can immediately say “God done it that way”. [/quote]

And THAT is your opinion.

And it is one of many of your opinions that are devastated on an almost daily basis here.

Joe, tell me all about Orrin Hatch again and the bills he has authored. And the Navajos.[/quote]

No.

That is the definition of science.

Period.

Also, I posted the vid, he laid it out quite clearly.