The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

I also 'accept' the 'theory of evolution' in so far as it explains the minor changes in phenotype observed to be brought about by natural selection on pre-existing genetic diversity.

... and here is the Magisterial (i.e. definitive) teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on the matter (emphasis mine):-

Quote:-
Magisterial Teaching on Creation

Both the Council of Trent and Vatican Council I taught that no one is permitted to interpret Sacred Scripture “contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.” In the words of Fr. Victor Warkulwiz:

The Fathers and Doctors of the Church unanimously agreed that Genesis 1-11 is an inerrant literal historical account of the beginning of the world and the human species as related by the prophet Moses under divine inspiration. This does not mean that they agreed on every point in its interpretation, but their differences were accidental and not essential. Pope Leo XIII, following St. Augustine, affirmed the Catholic rule for interpreting Sacred Scripture, “not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires.”

For the first five centuries of the Church, all of the Fathers believed and proclaimed:

that God created the different kinds of living things instantly and immediately

That Adam was created from the dust of the earth and Eve from his side

that God ceased to create new kinds of creatures after the creation of Adam

that the Original Sin of Adam shattered the perfect harmony of the first-created world and brought human death, deformity, and disease into the world.

This patristic teaching on creation was implicit in the words of the Nicene Creed, “I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.” Not until the Middle Ages when the Albigensian heresy denied the divine creation of the material universe did an Ecumenical Council elaborate on the first article of the creed in the following words:

God…creator of all visible and invisible things of the spiritual and of the corporal who by his own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal namely angelic and mundane and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body.

I find nothing that I'm not in agreement with above ... except that I believe that Creation took six days ... and wasn't instantaneous.

What is your source for that? Do you realise that a lot of the bits you highlighted were prefaced by a sentence stating that it was for the first 5 centuries of the church? Not that quote mining should come across as particularly surprising from a creationist.

J C wrote: »

... so using your definition all atheists are 'extremists' because they happen to be a 'minority viewpoint' in Ireland. Is that what you believe?

I'd question your claim that the viewpoint is truly in the minority for a start, and I would say that agreeing with scientific consensus is far from an extremist viewpoint. Claiming the world is less than 10,000 years old and we all popped into existance over the course of a week, on the other hand.......

How does it work against my argument, if as you say, some Atheists didn't comply with their legal obligations to fill in the Census correctly?

Because it is likely a large amount of atheists just put down catholic on the census to keep mammy happy. It's kind of like when children ask you if santa is real. You know he isn't, but saying it to their face would just be mean

... so having a minority opinion is now both 'extreme' and 'crazy' ... so are the 0.09% minority of self-identifying Atheists in Ireland also 'extreme' and 'crazy,' in your opinion?
... or are such unfounded terms of abuse reserved only for Theists with whom you have a difference of opinion?

You're twisting my words. Having an minority opinion could be classed as extreme, yes, as it is at the opposite end of the spectrum to what logic dictates. The crazy part, that was reserved for creationists.

It isn't abuse either, drop the pity act. I have difference of opinion with plenty of theists, I certainly don't abuse them. Not all the time at least.

EoghanIRL

J C wrote: »

I agree with you that peer pressure can affect how people describe themselves ... but this cuts both ways ... and I'm sure that some Roman Catholics, who still believe in God, may have put down 'no religion' as a protest against the abuses that have come to light within their Church in recent times - so the people within the 'no religion' cohort are certainly not all Atheists without the conviction to explicitly state that they are Atheists.


Its not any more 'extreme' than believing in God ... its just at the opposite end of the faith spectrum to Theists.

If you asked the average Roman Catholic if they thought that God exists, do you think they would say He didn't?
Does this answer mean that all Atheists are 'extreme' in their views because the 'average catholic' doesn't share their views on God's existence?
... because that is what you are explicitly stating about Creationists ... using of what the 'average catholic' believes as the 'yardstick' for measuring levels of 'extremism'.

... so Eoghan, we're either both 'extremists' for not believing everything that the 'average catholic' believes ... or we simply have a difference of opinion on matters of faith. I'm going with the latter view ... and if you believe that you are an 'extremist' ... because the 'average catholic' doesn't share your outlook on matters of faith then I'll accept your word on it.:)

The age of the earth and believing in God aren't the same thing however .
Your views differ from the average catholic.

We will never agree Jc . The argument is going around in circles . I believe that your views are extremist and you don't . It's as simple as that really .

However I would like to say that you said not to paint all Christians with the same brush . That I was using the average catholic as a yard stick .
Would you prefer me to compare you with the minority Christian ? I don't think so seeing the track record .

J C

EoghanIRL wrote: »

The age of the earth and believing in God aren't the same thing however .
Your views differ from the average catholic.[/B]

... and your views also differ from the 'average catholic' (much more radically than mine actually, given your lack of belief in God and Christianity) ... but does that make either of us 'extreme' in our views?

I think not ... what do you think?

EoghanIRL wrote: »

We will never agree Jc . The argument is going around in circles . I believe that your views are extremist and you don't . It's as simple as that really .

We don't have to agree Eoghan ... but unfounded name-calling shouldn't be engaged in by you.

EoghanIRL wrote: »

However I would like to say that you said not to paint all Christians with the same brush . That I was using the average catholic as a yard stick .
Would you prefer me to compare you with the minority Christian ? I don't think so seeing the track record .

I don't wish to be 'measured' by any subjective comparator ... I'm a liberal moderate Christian who happens to think that God Created everything quite recently ... based on very good objective evidence IMO ... and I bear nothing but love for my fellow man (irrespective of his/her worldview). This doesn't make me an 'extremist' in any sense of the current usage of this word.

Quote:-
extremist
noun
1.a person who goes to extremes, especially in political matters.
I have only ever debated this on a theological and scientific basis (on the boards).
I'm not out in the streets shouting about it or engaging in any threatening or abusive behaviour. I'm civilly debating and giving my point of view on where we have all come from ... and where we are going

2.a supporter or advocate of extreme doctrines or practices.
I am a liberal moderate non-judgmental Christian, who supports mainstream Christian doctrine and practices.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

... and your views also differ from the 'average catholic' (much more radically than mine actually, given your lack of belief in God and Christianity) ... but does that make either of us 'extreme' in our views?
[/B]I think not ... what do you think?

Your comparison doesn't make sense. Your views differ quite radically from the average christian. Therefore, you are an extreme christian. Of course an atheist is going to have differing views from the average christian. You would have to compare their views to that of the average atheist (and good luck with that) to make an accurate comparison.

We don't have to agree ... but unfounded name-calling shouldn't be engaged in by you.

It's neither unfounded or name calling.

I don't wish to be 'measured' by any subjective comparator ... I'm a liberal moderate Christian who happens to think that God Created everything quite recently ... based on very good objective evidence IMO ... and I bear nothing but love for my fellow man (irrespective of his/her worldview). This doesn't make me an 'extremist' in any sense of the current usage of this word.

What you said basically equates to 'I'm a liberal moderate christian except I'm not'.

Quote:-
extremist
noun
1.a person who goes to extremes, especially in political matters.
I have only ever debated this on a theological and scientific basis

It says especially in political matters. You certainly go to extremes in your theological beliefs. I won't say you do the same scientifically, since most of what you claim isn't even in the same universe as science.

2.a supporter or advocate of extreme doctrines or practices.
adjective
I am a liberal moderate non-judgmental Christian, who supports mainstream Christian doctrine and practices.

Nope, your views are far from mainstream christian, and you support the indoctrination of people rather than the teaching of science. I'd say that's extreme by the definition you just gave.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Your comparison doesn't make sense. Your views differ quite radically from the average christian. Therefore, you are an extreme christian. Of course an atheist is going to have differing views from the average christian. You would have to compare their views to that of the average atheist (and good luck with that) to make an accurate comparison.

I am a Saved Christian ... who loves everybody ... that doesn't make me an extremist in any sense of the word.

... and your continued determination to call me deeply prejudicial and unfounded names is quite deplorable ... and it is indicative that it is you that is 'extreme' and quite intolerant of diversity of opinion ... and not me.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

What you said basically equates to 'I'm a liberal moderate christian except I'm not'.

How is my belief in the recent Creation of all things by God incompatible with me being a liberal moderate compasionate Christian ... and where has any of my postings denied this?

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It says especially in political matters. You certainly go to extremes in your theological beliefs. I won't say you do the same scientifically, since most of what you claim isn't even in the same universe as science.

I am fully in line with the Creeds of all of the mainstream churches ... this indicates that you believe that the mainstream churches are 'extreme' ... and perhaps you do.
... but this doesn't make them nor me extreme.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Nope, your views are far from mainstream christian, and you support the indoctrination of people rather than the teaching of science. I'd say that's extreme by the definition you just gave.

I fully support the teaching of science (including evolution) ... and indeed I'm a working conventional scientist myself.
All churches have faith education programs for their members ... you guys routinely call this 'indoctrination', sometimes calling for it to be banned by law in relation to Christian children ... but such statements only serve to illustrate your gross intolerance of genuine pluralism and diversity.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

I am a Saved Christian ... who loves everybody ... that doesn't make me a extremist in any sense of the word.

Yes, it does. Perhaps you should read some of the previous posts in this thread again. Or consult a dictionary.

... and your continued determination to call me deeply prejudicial and unfounded names is quite deplorable ... and it is indicative that it is you that is 'extreme' and quite intolerant of diversity of opinion ... and not me.

Can you just for once actually reply to points being raised instead of playing the victim? I don't have any issue to you having a different opinion than I do, you're entitled to believe whatever you like. I do have an issue with you presenting that opinion as science, however.

How is my belief in the recent Creation of all things by God incompatible with me being a liberal moderate compasionate Christian ... and where has any of my postings denied this?

Because moderate christians do not believe said recent creation actually happened.

I am fully in line with the Creeds of all of the mainstream churches ... this indicates that you believe that the mainstream churches are extreme ... and perhaps you do.
... but this doesn't make them nor me extreme.

More deflection. I don't think the mainstream churches are extreme. I also don't think they take the bible as literally as you do. When I call you an extremist, I don't mean you are violent, spiteful, hatemongering or anything like that. I am simply stating that your views are at odds with those of the majority.

I fully support the teaching of science (including evolution) ... and indeed I'm a working conventional scientist myself.
All churches have faith education programs for their members ... you guys routinely call this 'indoctrination' ... but such bigoted statements only serve to illustrate your intolerance of genuine pluralism and diversity.

If you support the teaching of science, and are a scientist yourself, why do you insist on taking the side of those who campaign against it. Keep the religion to the churches, and the science to the science classrooms, thanks.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
I am a Saved Christian ... who loves everybody ... that doesn't make me a extremist in any sense of the word.

Doctor Jimbob
Yes, it does. Perhaps you should read some of the previous posts in this thread again. Or consult a dictionary.

What can I say, when words are not enough?

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Can you just for once actually reply to points being raised instead of playing the victim? I don't have any issue to you having a different opinion than I do, you're entitled to believe whatever you like. I do have an issue with you presenting that opinion as science, however.

I'm no victim ... and I will defend my good name. You guys think that if ye throw enough unfounded muck at me ... the casual reader will begin to believe it.
The fact that ye continuously do this, says a lot about the difference of approach of you, as an Atheist and me, as a Christian.
I am always respectful of you guys ... and all ye can do in return is call me all the unfounded names ye can think up.
So parents watching can decide which type of behaviour they would like their children to follow ... and use this as a guide to choose between Christian and Atheist run schools.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Because moderate christians do not believe said recent creation actually happened.

I'm a moderate Christian and I believe it ... and I know thousands of other moderate Christians who also believe it.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

More deflection. I don't think the mainstream churches are extreme. I also don't think they take the bible as literally as you do. When I call you an extremist, I don't mean you are violent, spiteful, hatemongering or anything like that. I am simply stating that your views are at odds with those of the majority.

... so, as your Atheist views are at odds with the majority ... are you an extremist then?

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

If you support the teaching of science, and are a scientist yourself, why do you insist on taking the side of those who campaign against it. Keep the religion to the churches, and the science to the science classrooms, thanks.

If you are conflating the prime article of Atheistic Dogma ... that pondkind spontaneously evolved into Man ... with science, then you may have a point.
... and even then, I have no problem whatsoever with it being taught as the Atheist version of the story of our 'origins'.
If it is conventional operative science that you are talking about ... the kind that finds cures for cancer and produces better cars, then you have no point ... as I fully support it.
... and why should religion be confined to the churches if the competing ideas of atheism and materialism are to be given free-reign in the classroom?

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

What is your source for that? Do you realise that a lot of the bits you highlighted were prefaced by a sentence stating that it was for the first 5 centuries of the church?

...and all still binding on this Church where tradition reigns supreme.:)

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'd question your claim that the (Atheist) viewpoint is truly in the minority for a start, and I would say that agreeing with scientific consensus is far from an extremist viewpoint.

Because it is likely a large amount of atheists just put down catholic on the census to keep mammy happy. It's kind of like when children ask you if santa is real. You know he isn't, but saying it to their face would just be mean

These Catholic mammies must be very powerful people ... do Atheists do everything their mammies ask them to do ... or is it just ticking boxes on the census in the privacy of their own bedrooms, where the mammy has an overwhelming influence?:)

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You're twisting my words. Having an minority opinion could be classed as extreme, yes, as it is at the opposite end of the spectrum to what logic dictates. The crazy part, that was reserved for creationists.

I see ... such unfounded terms of abuse are reserved only for a sub-set of Theists with whom you have a difference of opinion?

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It isn't abuse either, drop the pity act. I have difference of opinion with plenty of theists, I certainly don't abuse them. Not all the time at least.

Name calling is abuse ... and you shouldn't abuse anybody, Theist or otherwise ... any time.

Lets all be friends ... you don't believe in God ... I do ... this shouldn't prevent us being friends ... and having a good debate ... and maybe a friendly pint some day.

You're not 'extreme' and neither am I ... we just have a difference of opinion on the 'God Question'.:)

Please stop making statements like 'you are extreme because your views are in a minority' ... which apart from being logically incorrect ... can only 'backfire' on yourselves, as a minority also.

EoghanIRL

All the different religions have gods . Each religion believes that their god is the one true god . However they all have different beliefs .
Everyone can't be right .
Doesn't this make you think that it's all a bit makey-uppy?

Absolam

EoghanIRL wrote: »

All the different religions have gods . Each religion believes that their god is the one true god . However they all have different beliefs . Everyone can't be right .Doesn't this make you think that it's all a bit makey-uppy?

Surely only the ones that are wrong are makey-uppy? The ones that are right are probably fine.

obplayer

Absolam wrote: »

Surely only the ones that are wrong are makey-uppy? The ones that are right are probably fine.

And how do we decide which ones are right? They all make ludicrous claims with absolutely no evidence to support them.

Absolam

obplayer wrote: »

And how do we decide which ones are right? They all make ludicrous claims with absolutely no evidence to support them.

I should think (this being A&A) the majority of posters have already decided that none are right? Those decisions don't and won't impact on JCs point of view and visa versa, so it hardly seems relevant (particularly to a discussion in Atheism & Agnosticism) which religion may appear to be more or less makey-uppy.
Which religions (or religious povs) appear to be more or less extreme, or extremist, might at least be in the ballpark of the current discussion.

obplayer

Absolam wrote: »

I should think (this being A&A) the majority of posters have already decided that none are right? Those decisions don't and won't impact on JCs point of view and visa versa, so it hardly seems relevant (particularly to a discussion in Atheism & Agnosticism) which religion may appear to be more or less makey-uppy.
Which religions (or religious povs) appear to be more or less extreme, or extremist, might at least be in the ballpark of the current discussion.

What I am asking is why J C thinks his religion is more likely than, say, Thors? And indeed why your belief is more believable than that of Scientology?

Absolam

obplayer wrote: »

What I am asking is why J C thinks his religion is more likely than, say, Thors? And indeed why your belief is more believable than that of Scientology?

Why? It obviously makes no difference to your opinion of each of these religions (since you've set out the premise that all religions have absolutely no evidence to support their ludicrous claims, there is patently nothing JC can say to convince you his religion is more likely than, say, Thors), nor does it make any difference to JCs opinions of each of these religions (he already knows there is only one true God and seems unlikely to be convinced otherwise), nor does it make a difference to how extreme, or extremist, any of them are compared to either each other or to atheism; their extremity seems unlikely to be linked to their relative believability.

Vivisectus

J C wrote: »

I also 'accept' the 'theory of evolution' in so far as it explains the minor changes in phenotype observed to be brought about by natural selection on pre-existing genetic diversity.

... and here is the Magisterial (i.e. definitive) teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on the matter (emphasis mine):-

Quote:-
Magisterial Teaching on Creation

Both the Council of Trent and Vatican Council I taught that no one is permitted to interpret Sacred Scripture “contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.” In the words of Fr. Victor Warkulwiz:

The Fathers and Doctors of the Church unanimously agreed that Genesis 1-11 is an inerrant literal historical account of the beginning of the world and the human species as related by the prophet Moses under divine inspiration. This does not mean that they agreed on every point in its interpretation, but their differences were accidental and not essential. Pope Leo XIII, following St. Augustine, affirmed the Catholic rule for interpreting Sacred Scripture, “not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires.”

For the first five centuries of the Church, all of the Fathers believed and proclaimed:

that God created the different kinds of living things instantly and immediately

That Adam was created from the dust of the earth and Eve from his side

that God ceased to create new kinds of creatures after the creation of Adam

that the Original Sin of Adam shattered the perfect harmony of the first-created world and brought human death, deformity, and disease into the world.

This patristic teaching on creation was implicit in the words of the Nicene Creed, “I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.” Not until the Middle Ages when the Albigensian heresy denied the divine creation of the material universe did an Ecumenical Council elaborate on the first article of the creed in the following words:

God…creator of all visible and invisible things of the spiritual and of the corporal who by his own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal namely angelic and mundane and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body.

I find nothing that I'm not in agreement with above ... except that I believe that Creation took six days ... and wasn't instantaneous.

I do not think you represent the current Catholic position very well here. The congregation for the doctrine of the faith has in fact stated that they defer to science where the age of the earth, the universe, and the validity of the fossil record is concerned. The RCC's official stance, at the moment, is that the earth is old, that all life has a common ancestor that they evolved from, and that this evolution was guided by God. However, they stress that they merely follow the scientific consensus in this as it is not a question that can be answered by theology.

The creation story in genesis is considered allegorical in nature, representing a spiritual rather than a physical kind of truth.

Benedict XVI put it like this:

The clay became man at the moment in which a being for the first time was capable of forming, however dimly, the thought of "God". The first Thou that—however stammeringly—was said by human lips to God marks the moment in which the spirit arose in the world. Here the Rubicon of anthropogenesis was crossed. For it is not the use of weapons or fire, not new methods of cruelty or of useful activity, that constitute man, but rather his ability to be immediately in relation to God. This holds fast to the doctrine of the special creation of man ... herein ... lies the reason why the moment of anthropogenesis cannot possibly be determined by paleontology: anthropogenesis is the rise of the spirit, which cannot be excavated with a shovel. The theory of evolution does not invalidate the faith, nor does it corroborate it. But it does challenge the faith to understand itself more profoundly and thus to help man to understand himself and to become increasingly what he is: the being who is supposed to say Thou to God in eternity.

J C

EoghanIRL wrote: »

All the different religions have gods . Each religion believes that their god is the one true god . However they all have different beliefs .
Everyone can't be right .
Doesn't this make you think that it's all a bit makey-uppy?

Everyone can't be right on the details ... but they are all correct that there is a God.

I believe that the judaeo-Christian God is the One ... and that Jesus Christ died to Save me.
You may say that I could be wrong ... but I have seen no other description of God by any other religion that 'rings true' for me.

J C

Vivisectus wrote: »

I do not think you represent the current Catholic position very well here. The congregation for the doctrine of the faith has in fact stated that they defer to science where the age of the earth, the universe, and the validity of the fossil record is concerned. The RCC's official stance, at the moment, is that the earth is old, that all life has a common ancestor that they evolved from, and that this evolution was guided by God. However, they stress that they merely follow the scientific consensus in this as it is not a question that can be answered by theology.

It's not the first time the Roman Catholic Church 'deferred to science' only to have very 'red faces' when the conventional scientific opinion turned out to be wrong. It was the conventionally accepted geocentric model of the Universe that they condemned Galileo for questioning. This model served as the predominant cosmological system in many ancient civilizations such as ancient Greece including the systems of Aristotle and Ptolemy. The Roman Catholic Church sided with the pagan Greeks against Galileo ... and they look like making the same mistake again by siding with the Atheistic model of 'origins' ... although, in fairness, I note they are quite circumspect in their support of evolution as "they stress that they merely follow the scientific consensus in this as it is not a question that can be answered by theology."

Vivisectus wrote: »

The creation story in genesis is considered allegorical in nature, representing a spiritual rather than a physical kind of truth.

The Roman Catholic Church is a Church bound by tradition ... and all of the Fathers of the Church proclaimed that Adam and Eve were literal persons who were the directly Created first man and woman from whom all mankind is descended.
The congregation for the doctrine of the faith can 'defer to science' all they like ... but unless and until they decide to abandon the Nicene and Apostles Creeds ... the Roman Catholic Church remains firmly a Creationist Church that still requires all of it's members (including the Pope) to proclaim God as Creator / Maker of Heaven and Earth and all things visible and invisible.
... and not a mention of evolution (theistic or otherwise) anywhere in it.:)

Vivisectus wrote: »

Benedict XVI put it like this:
The clay became man at the moment in which a being for the first time was capable of forming, however dimly, the thought of "God". The first Thou that—however stammeringly—was said by human lips to God marks the moment in which the spirit arose in the world. Here the Rubicon of anthropogenesis was crossed. For it is not the use of weapons or fire, not new methods of cruelty or of useful activity, that constitute man, but rather his ability to be immediately in relation to God. This holds fast to the doctrine of the special creation of man ... herein ... lies the reason why the moment of anthropogenesis cannot possibly be determined by paleontology: anthropogenesis is the rise of the spirit, which cannot be excavated with a shovel. The theory of evolution does not invalidate the faith, nor does it corroborate it. But it does challenge the faith to understand itself more profoundly and thus to help man to understand himself and to become increasingly what he is: the being who is supposed to say Thou to God in eternity.

If you can work out exactly what he is saying there, you're a better man than me!!!

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

But you're absolutely certain that [Jonah survived for three days inside a fish]?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Would you accept that the vast majority of self-identifying Christians in this country don't believe that the creation story in Genesis is the literal truth, but instead believe that the Universe is several billion years old?

...?

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by oscarBravo
But you're absolutely certain that [Jonah survived for three days inside a fish]?

Yes, Jesus Christ confirmed it ... and I accept it as a matter of faith - and not science.

wrote:

Originally Posted by oscarBravo
Would you accept that the vast majority of self-identifying Christians in this country don't believe that the creation story in Genesis is the literal truth, but instead believe that the Universe is several billion years old?

I don't know about Ireland.
The figures in Britain indicate that at least 22% believe in Young Earth Creationism or Intelligent Design

Quote:-
"Half of British adults do not believe in evolution, with at least 22% preferring the theories of creationism or intelligent design to explain how the world came about, according to a survey.

The poll found that 25% of Britons believe Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is "definitely true", with another quarter saying it is "probably true". Half of the 2,060 people questioned were either strongly opposed to the theory or confused about it."
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/feb/01/evolution-darwin-survey-creationism

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Yes, Jesus Christ confirmed it ... and I accept it as a matter of faith - and not science.


I don't know about Ireland.
The figures in Britain indicate that at least 22% believe in Young Earth Creationism or Intelligent Design

Quote:-
"Half of British adults do not believe in evolution, with at least 22% preferring the theories of creationism or intelligent design to explain how the world came about, according to a survey.

The poll found that 25% of Britons believe Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is "definitely true", with another quarter saying it is "probably true". Half of the 2,060 people questioned were either strongly opposed to the theory or confused about it."
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/feb/01/evolution-darwin-survey-creationism

Do you, as a self proclaimed scientist, not find it concerning that half of the British public reject a proven scientific theory?

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Do you, as a self proclaimed scientist, not find it concerning that half of the British public reject a proven scientific theory?

... the issue is what exactly is 'proven' ... NS acting on pre-existing genetic diversity has been proven ... but where this genetic diversity came from hasn't been proven.

Half the British public are rightly skeptical of the part of the 'theory of evolution' which claims that 'pondkind evolved into mankind'.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

... the problem is what exactly is 'proven' ... NS acting on pre-existing genetic diversity has been proven ... but where this genetic diversity came from hasn't been proven.

Half the British public are rightly skeptical of the part of the 'theory of evolution' which claims that 'pondkind evolved into mankind'.

I don't agree with what you're saying, but at least this makes a reasonable starting point for discussion. If you accept natural selection occurs though, why are you unwilling to follow it to it's logical conclusion? That over time, selection will have a stronger and stronger effect, until speciation occurs?

I'll admit to not being an expert on where genetic diversity comes from, but I was under the impression it would be as a result of mutation in DNA, something which can be observed today. Taking it much further back than that and you're talking about the origin of life in it's most basic form, and I'm nowhere near knowledgeable enough on that topic to go into detail on it. If you wish to attribute that event to divine intervention, go ahead. I won't agree, but I don't have any evidence to say you're wrong either :pac:

The theory of evolution has a number of components, including evolution itself (the fact that organisms change over time) which you appear to accept; Common descent (species have diverged from common ancestors, I assume you don't accept this part); that life changes gradually over time (again you appear to accept this); the idea that changes occur in populations; and natural selection, which again you agree with. I think that covers it. You don't seem to disagree with many of the core points of the theory of evolution, so why are you opposed to the theory as a whole? I accept there are parts of it you disagree with, specifically common descent, but surely focusing on those parts would be a sounder approach than shouting down the theory as a whole. It would certainly lend you a lot more credibility.

I realise more intelligent people than me have had similar discussion with you in the past without much luck, but I'm genuinely curious as to why you're willing to put so much time and effort into disputing a theory you seem to largely agree with. Is it simply because of the history between those who believe in evolution and religious groups?

EoghanIRL

Wow those statistics seem legit .

Doctor Jimbob

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Wow those statistics seem legit .

Sadly, from what I've read I don't think they're too far off the mark

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I don't agree with what you're saying, but at least this makes a reasonable starting point for discussion. If you accept natural selection occurs though, why are you unwilling to follow it to it's logical conclusion? That over time, selection will have a stronger and stronger effect, until speciation occurs?

Selection cannot get 'stronger and stronger' in the absence of newly created genetic information ... and this isn't being created.
Mutagenesis is no help as it can only degrade genetic information.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'll admit to not being an expert on where genetic diversity comes from, but I was under the impression it would be as a result of mutation in DNA, something which can be observed today. Taking it much further back than that and you're talking about the origin of life in it's most basic form, and I'm nowhere near knowledgeable enough on that topic to go into detail on it. If you wish to attribute that event to divine intervention, go ahead. I won't agree, but I don't have any evidence to say you're wrong either :pac:

It's not only abiogenesis that has serious issues ... its the origin of all the additional genetic information required to supposedly evolve pondkind into mankind where there is also no plausible non-intelligently directed mechanism to account for it.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The theory of evolution has a number of components, including evolution itself (the fact that organisms change over time) which you appear to accept; Common descent (species have diverged from common ancestors, I assume you don't accept this part); that life changes gradually over time (again you appear to accept this); the idea that changes occur in populations; and natural selection, which again you agree with. I think that covers it. You don't seem to disagree with many of the core points of the theory of evolution, so why are you opposed to the theory as a whole? I accept there are parts of it you disagree with, specifically common descent, but surely focusing on those parts would be a sounder approach than shouting down the theory as a whole. It would certainly lend you a lot more credibility.

I don't shout down the entire theory ... NS can account for populations of moths changing from white to brown and back to white again or finches changing beak sizes up and then down again (or even permanent changes in beak shape) i.e. minor changes in phenotype using pre-existing genetic diversity.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I realise more intelligent people than me have had similar discussion with you in the past without much luck, but I'm genuinely curious as to why you're willing to put so much time and effort into disputing a theory you seem to largely agree with. Is it simply because of the history between those who believe in evolution and religious groups?

It certainly didn't start out as a 'religious' thing ... I was an evolutionist at the time ... and I found that the theory had an enormous deficiency when it came to explaining the origin of the genetic information we observe in living organisms.
Discovering an enormous 'explanatory deficiency' in a major scientific theory (which the theory of evolution undoubtedly is) is a very big deal indeed ... and solving it would be an even bigger deal ... certainly genuinely meriting a Nobel Prize and everlasting fame.
I began by trying to think of more plausible mechanisms than the obviously destructive mutagenesis mechanism ... and I eventually had to give up on materialistic mechanisms (and everlasting fame) ... and I became a Creationist.:)

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

Yes, Jesus Christ confirmed it ... and I accept it as a matter of faith - and not science.

Then I reject categorically as a falsehood your claim to be a scientist.

Science says that people can't survive for several days in a fish's stomach. Religion says they can. One of them is wrong, and it's not the one that uses a bronze-age book as its only "evidence".

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

It certainly didn't start out as a 'religious' thing ... I was an evolutionist at the time ... and I found that the theory had an enormous deficiency when it came to explaining the origin of the genetic information we observe in living organisms.
I began by trying to think of more plausible mechanisms than the obviously destructive mutagenesis mechanism ... and I eventually had to give up on materialistic mechanisms ... and I became a Creationist.

Exhibit B, your honour. This alleged "scientist", when faced with something he couldn't explain, decided that the only possible explanation was magic.

Just like truthiness isn't truth, your brand of "scienciness" isn't science.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Selection cannot get 'stronger and stronger' in the absence of newly created genetic information ... and this isn't being created.
Mutagenesis is no help as it can only degrade genetic information.

Can you clarify this point? I don't quite follow

It's not only abiogenesis that has serious issues ... its the origin of all the additional genetic information required to supposedly evolve pondkind into mankind where there is also no plausible non-intelligently directed mechanism to account for it.

But there is. Mutation of DNA. You just seem to be saying that it's not plausible because you don't want it to be. Where's the proof?

I don't shout down the entire theory ... NS can account for populations of moths changing from white to brown and back to white again or finches changing beak sizes up and then down i.e. minor changes in phenotype using pre-existing genetic diversity.

Ok, so common descent is your specific problem rather than the theory of evolution as a whole?

It certainly didn't start out as a 'religious' thing ... I was an evolutionist at the time ... and I found that the theory had an enormous deficiency when it came to explaining the origin of the genetic information we observe in living organisms.
I began by trying to think of more plausible mechanisms than the obviously destructive mutagenesis mechanism ... and I eventually had to give up on materialistic mechanisms ... and I became a Creationist.

That's fair enough. Science would get nowhere if people didn't question anything. I just have difficulty believing that you jumped from belief in evolution to belief in a literal account of the bible.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by EoghanIRL
Wow those statistics seem legit .

Doctor Jimbob
Sadly, from what I've read I don't think they're too far off the mark

I wouldn't worry too much about the figures, one way or the other ... the theory of evolution (and its explanatory deficiencies) is the big issue.
The figure would change rapidly in favour of a genuine plausible materialistic explanation for the origins of the genetic diversity found in life ... if this were discovered.

It is quite legitimate to seek exclusively materialistic mechanisms to explain life ... and I will be the first to applaud anybody who succeeds in doing what I failed to do ... to produce and test a plausible materialistic hypothesis that accounts for the genetic diversity in life.

If this were to happen would I cease being a Creationist? ... probably ... as a materialistic explanation would (using occam's razor) be the simpler/more straightforward explanation.
Would I cease being a Christian? ... probably not ... but I certainly would hold my faith with a great deal less conviction.

J C

oscarBravo wrote: »

Then I reject categorically as a falsehood your claim to be a scientist.

Science says that people can't survive for several days in a fish's stomach. Religion says they can. One of them is wrong, and it's not the one that uses a bronze-age book as its only "evidence".

I did say I accepted it on the basis of faith ... and not science ...
... just like I accept that Jesus Christ died and rose again on the basis of faith ... and not science.

This doesn't mean that I expect any other dead person to come back to life ... or any other living person to survive for three days in a whale's stomach.