Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
AtomicHorror said:
How about this:What I'm asking you for is recent primary research. Rather like the 1988 paper, but not 20 years old. There must be a section describing a new experiment. New results. Preferably there'd be full disclosure of materials and methods. Most of what you're providing is reviews which discuss the findings of other people's work. That's little more than advanced scientific journalism. To support a hypothesis, or to falsify one, you need to make new observations which contradict or support the hypothesis. Reviewing the current evidence is a worthy pursuit, but it's not supposed to form the bulk of science. It's reactionary, cheap and very much open to cherry picking. Now if you were to show me a systematic creation science review, I'd be more impressed. But the primary research seems really lacking too.
Testing the Hydrothermal Fluid Transport Model for Polonium Radiohalo Formation: The Thunderhead Sandstone, Great Smoky Mountains, Tennessee–North Carolina
by Andrew A. Snelling
March 26, 2008
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/testing-radiohalos-model0 -
...the information given to the Evolutionists was a fair description of the issues being covered by the documentary ... what the Evolutionists CHOSE to believe about it is their own business!!!
You really think that it was an accurate description of the content of the film? That, say, this would be a suitable blurb for the DVD case of Expelled? I'm very surprised J C, because to me they sound like two entirely different films, even after the event. I think you have revealed an incredible bias here. A willingness to accept dishonesty from those who confirm your beliefs.....nobody forced the Evolutionists to give the interviews not were they coerced into making the statements that they did!!!!
No indeed, but nobody suggested anything of the sort so stop trying to divert us. They were merely approached under false pretences, and convinced to participate under false pretences, weren't they?....all this muttering about 'dishonesty' and 'morality' is a bit rich coming from Evolutionists who are on record on this thread as supporting job discrimination against Creationists of the most overt and crass kind!!!!
Assuming for a moment that we are dishonest and immoral, that we are hypocrites for finding Stein and company's behaviour distasteful, does that make their behaviour morally right? Of course not. There's a saying "Do as I say, not as I do." A hypocrite may still be right, assuming he really is such.1. Are YOU are shocked or moraly outraged that a teacher could be summarily sacked when she just mentioned that life looks like it could be designed ??
You're trying to derail us, but since you demonstrated that you're biased I suppose we can move on. If someone were fired summarily for a single such statement, then yes I would consider that to be unfair and thus immoral. However, persistently teaching material considered by experts in a given field to be false cannot be allowed. So warnings should be followed by punitive action, which should be followed by dismissal. But summary dismissal would not be appropriate in my opinion.2. Do you think that it is fair to deny tenure to a scientist simply because he doesn't accept Materialistic Evolution???
Depends on what you mean by materialistic evolution. If we're just talking about evolution in the biological sense, then it would only be acceptable if the academic were working in that field. An astronomer who rejects evolution in that sense is not much of a big deal, so long as the rest of his work is good. If you mean a rejection of everything from the big bang to speciation, then no I don't think that's immoral- it's appropriate. If you can't do science, then you shouldn't be a scientist.
I gather you see the above as immoral, but we don't. However you and I both supposedly consider dishonesty to be immoral. I'll call it such whether an evolutionist is dishonest or a creationist is. You've just shown us that you'll stick up for blatant lies on your side of the debate. I wonder how deep that runs.0 -
Our being mere animals (albeit the most intelligent ones) surely has more relevance to our morality/behaviour than the fact that we fall down if we trip.
Does this really need to be explained to you?
But you're still running with the idea that if evolution led to this sort of behaviour then it would be false, which is patently absurd.
Does this really need to be explained to you?0 -
I do not argue that at all. If it is true, hold it. Let the morals be re-examined in the light of the truth.
You are the one with the dodgy arguement. You are the one saying evolution has no moral implications.
That's not what I'm saying at all. All knowledge impacts on morality, but we are still left with choice.It is motivated by concern for humanity,
Rubbish. That article is dripping with fear of what evolution means to people whose faith is far weaker than they let on. Whether evolution is true or not is an issue for scientific evidence. So why are they trying to stir up such rabid emotion? Bringing up all the worst monsters in recent history and pinning the blame on Darwin? Come on, you know what this is. Quit kidding yourself.a humanity that is being told we are intelligent animals, not spirits who will exist forever.
That's what you think evolution says. That says a lot about the strength of your faith and your understanding of evolution.0 -
AtomicHorror said:
How about this:
Testing the Hydrothermal Fluid Transport Model for Polonium Radiohalo Formation: The Thunderhead Sandstone, Great Smoky Mountains, Tennessee–North Carolina
by Andrew A. Snelling
March 26, 2008
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/testing-radiohalos-model
That's exactly what we're looking for. There's a whole load of problems with the paper, but it's original research. I'll take a look at it.0 -
Advertisement
-
This has been explained countless times at this stage. You're just teasing me, I know it. But once more, with feeling: an invest9gation will involve a hypothesis being tested by way of some kind of experiment or data collection. The data being the key. The investigation being the key. Essays are just words - there are no data. DATA. SCIENCE.To avoid talking at cross-purposes, perhaps you will define your meaning of an investigation into creation?
An investigation into creation will be just that: an investigation that tests a creation-related hypothesis.
Ok, read carefully: evidence that supports a young earth is exactly what we want to see. REALLY IMPORTANT: just because something doesn't directly contradict YEC, doesn't mean that it supports it. E.g. the fact that airplanes exist does not contradict YEC. The fact that airplanes exists does not support YEC. Get it? Got it? Good.I hold that anything that tends to support a young earth, a world-wide flood, or rapid speciation, for example, would qualify. Am I missing the point?0 -
There is absolutely NO evidence that these radiohalos are solely related to polonium decay (the central conceit of this investigation). Hence, it does not support YE creationism. It does not even pass the 1st hurdle. But please look for more like this - where they actually did something.How about this:
Testing the Hydrothermal Fluid Transport Model for Polonium Radiohalo Formation: The Thunderhead Sandstone, Great Smoky Mountains, Tennessee–North Carolina
by Andrew A. Snelling
March 26, 2008
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/testing-radiohalos-model
It does look very science-y though, doesn't it? Lots of big words. Incidentally, is this one of the papers you understand or one of the ones you don't?0 -
Thanks.Yes
Given that you believe that Stein was being thoroughly honest, how do feel about a quote from Descent of Man:Stein wrote:With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated (deleted text). We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick (deleted text). Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. (deleted text) Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
It's quite clear from what Darwin wrote, that he differentiated between animals and humans -- in fact, Darwin said that sympathy was "the noblest part of our nature". Rather than reflect this, Stein chose to delete words until the bits he had left made it look like Darwin viewed humans as animals.What Darwin Actually Wrote wrote:With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Do you feel that Stein's actions are honorable and honest in choosing to reverse Darwin's opinions?0 -
Dawkins has made similar suggestions regarding human altruism. He reckons that it has become "hijacked" into becoming a generalised non-tribal desire to help all humans (because we now encounter so many of them whereas in the past we'd rarely meet anyone but our kin). But he says that there's no more reason to reject altruism on that basis than there is to reject any other "evolutionarily questionable" behaviour. A married couple who intend to have no more children may of course continue to cohabit and have sex, even when their children have left and the evolutionary need for the bonds of family unit are gone (as far as we can see). Our value of that companionship remains regardless, as does our value of the happiness of our fellow humans, our value of their lives.
Wolfsbane claims that the western atheist holds these values only because of the prevailing influence of Christian religion. Strange then that cultures that reject Christianity or have limited contact or familiarity with it still seem to have very similar core values. Family units, companionship, altruism, human life, human happiness...
The likes of Stein wish to imply that the morality informed by evolution is the amorality of evolution itself. But nobody is accusing atomic theory of reducing human life to mere atoms and molecules. Nobody is claiming atomic theory erodes our values or destroys our morality. In fact, our understanding of evolution speaks to the futility of trying to second-guess the process by applying "evolutionary morals". We have no idea whether non-tribal altruism will be positively selected for by evolution, because it'll take thousands of years for that to occur. Whichever way the selection goes, we certainly don't need to act on it- it'll do its own thing regardless. So in the end we're left with the same choices we always had.
We like to help people, so let's help people. The only thing we need consider is the classic question of whether you give a man a fish or teach him how to fish. In other words, we need to be rational about long-term benefit when we are altruistic.0 -
Do you feel that Stein's actions are honorable and honest in choosing to reverse Darwin's opinions?
Who could think otherwise?! Though I do wonder why Stein suddenly popped up on the anti-evolution bandwagon with his film, shortly after Mel Gibson's 'Passion of the Christ' made hundreds of millions of dollars playing to conservative Christian audiences.0 -
Advertisement
-
Fossil Gaps
If evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers. Actually, many gaps or discontinuities appear throughout the fossil record (a).
a. “But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 163.
“...the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].” Ibid., p. 323.
Darwin then explained that he thought that these gaps existed because of the “imperfection of the geologic record.” Early Darwinians expected the gaps would be filled as fossil exploration continued. Most paleontologists now agree that this expectation has not been fulfilled.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp10490190 -
Fossil Gaps
If evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers. Actually, many gaps or discontinuities appear throughout the fossil record (a).
a. “But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 163.
“...the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].” Ibid., p. 323.
Darwin then explained that he thought that these gaps existed because of the “imperfection of the geologic record.” Early Darwinians expected the gaps would be filled as fossil exploration continued. Most paleontologists now agree that this expectation has not been fulfilled.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019
Pahu, I note that you have already received a couple of infractions for copying and pasting stuff from other sites whilst providing no synthesis of your own. Next time you get a ban.0 -
Fossil Gaps
If evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers. Actually, many gaps or discontinuities appear throughout the fossil record (a).
a. “But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 163.
“...the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].” Ibid., p. 323.
Darwin then explained that he thought that these gaps existed because of the “imperfection of the geologic record.” Early Darwinians expected the gaps would be filled as fossil exploration continued. Most paleontologists now agree that this expectation has not been fulfilled.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019
Meaningless.0 -
AtomicHorror wrote: »Meaningless.
Pahu has about 7 posts... Almost(?) all of which are copy pasted junk and never a response to peoples replys...
@Wolfsbane, I read the paper... Response when I get back from germany.0 -
....IF we are just highly intelligent animals then our ONLY objective basis for morality is 'the law of the jungle' ... and 'survival of the fittest' where the 'strong' determine the 'fittest'!!!The Mad Hatter said:
Our being mere animals (albeit the most intelligent ones) surely has more relevance to our morality/behaviour than the fact that we fall down if we trip.
Does this really need to be explained to you?
To maintain some degree of order in such a scenario requires literally millions of pages of positive law regulating EVERY fascit of out lives ... and with an equally large police force to match the enormous enforcement task required.
....even then, people will find 'loopholes' in the law and do the most outrageous things ... and get away with them ... until the loophole is closed, thereby possibly creating another loophole!!!!
..other people, like drug pushers, will ignore the law altogether, if the rewards are big and they think they can get away with it.
....it becomes a 'paper chase' of ever burgeoning legislation and an ever increasing enforcement system matched by an ever sharper exploitation of any loopholes in the law...and ever more sophisticated attempts at breaking the law!!!
...on the other hand, the rules of morality grounded in Jesus Christ can be literally written on one page and are 'self policing'!!!!:pac::):D
....a simple example will suffice. Buslanes are there to favour public transport and to encourage people to 'leave the car at home'.
As a Christian I will 'do unto others as I would have them do unto me' ... so I will fully respect the letter and the spirit of the law on buslanes by never driving on them out of respect for the public good that buslanes represent.
If I believe that the 'law of the jungle applies' I might ignore the law altogether and drive on buslanes whenever I thought I could get away with it, because I saw no police around.
If I didn't wish to expose myself to the risk of criminal prosecution, I might avail of a loophole in the legislation ... and buy a taxi licence and drive myself into work on the buslanes in my own personal taxi ... thereby totally DISRESPECTING the spirit of the law on buslanes...and discomoding everybody else by my selfish actions.
....and WHY would I do such a thing?
....because I CAN ... and I have the money to do so....and my time is more 'valuable' than everybody else's ... at least in my own mind!!!
....my 'animal intelligence' has shown me a way to LEGALLY 'steal a march' on everybody else ... and that is supposedly how I EVOLVED to my supposed present state of 'superiority' over other animals ... and, in my own mind over other PEOPLE as well!!!!:D:)
....equally, if I were a financial 'whizz kid' and I found a loophole that allowed me to legally make 'megabucks' at somebody else's expense ... 'the law of the jungle' would encourge me to grab the 'opportunity' with both hands ... irrespective of the chaos that would result from my actions!!!
....after all, if evolution is true, that is how I got here...via mega generations of survival by grabbing opportunities at other creature's expense...and as my actions are legal, there is no 'downside' to it for me ... and considerable 'upside' !!!!:eek::)
...as a Christian, even if I knew that I could LEGALLY do something of benefit to me, which would destroy or disadvantage other people ... I still WOULDN'T do it, because I answer to a higher moral authority then myself ... and I DON'T beleve that I got here via the 'law of the jungle' .... I am the result of Direct Creation by God!!!!:D
Of course, some Christians exploit situations to their advantage and most Materialists don't 'drive home' their advantage or exploit other people .... however such 'Christians' and 'Materialists' are behaving AGAINST the logic of their 'origins' beliefs in both situations!!!0 -
...I DIDN'T say that it was an accurate description of the CONTENT of the video...but it WAS an accurate description of the ISSUES being covered by the video.Originally Posted by J C
...the information given to the Evolutionists was a fair description of the issues being covered by the documentary ... what the Evolutionists CHOSE to believe about it is their own business!!!
AtomicHorror
You really think that it was an accurate description of the content of the film? That, say, this would be a suitable blurb for the DVD case of Expelled? I'm very surprised J C, because to me they sound like two entirely different films, even after the event. I think you have revealed an incredible bias here. A willingness to accept dishonesty from those who confirm your beliefs.
Could I point out that the CONTENT of the video depended on the statements made by ALL sides during the course of filming for the documentary and so the content couldn't LOGICALLY be known in advance
The video basically started by interviewing ID people and getting their views on why they believe ID to be valid as well as their experiences within Acadaemia.
Their views were then put to various Evolutionists who gave their response / reactions.
Anybody watching the video can make up their own mind as to where the truth lies.
I can't see how Stein could be any fairer than that.
...and I look forward to the day when Materialistic Evolutionists make a video interviewing BOTH ID and Materialists on the validity of BOTH ideas!!!!
....but I'm not holding my breath on it!!!!
...it appears from the video that the dismissal was indeed summary, with little or no warning!!!AtomicHorror
If someone were fired summarily for a single such statement, then yes I would consider that to be unfair and thus immoral. However, persistently teaching material considered by experts in a given field to be false cannot be allowed. So warnings should be followed by punitive action, which should be followed by dismissal. But summary dismissal would not be appropriate in my opinion.
....so IF you are not a Materialist, you can't do science!!!AtomicHorror
Depends on what you mean by materialistic evolution. If we're just talking about evolution in the biological sense, then it would only be acceptable if the academic were working in that field. An astronomer who rejects evolution in that sense is not much of a big deal, so long as the rest of his work is good. If you mean a rejection of everything from the big bang to speciation, then no I don't think that's immoral- it's appropriate. If you can't do science, then you shouldn't be a scientist.
.....very conventient, if you happen to be a Materialist, don't you think???!!
....and about as 'threadbare' an excuse for favouring one belief over all others as I have ever seen !!!!:(:eek:
...science is SUPPOSED to be about QUESTIONING it's thories ...
....but you are clearly of the opinon that it is a form of Materialistic 'Religion' ... with only 'orthodox' believers allowed within it's ranks .... and with all 'heretics' to be excommunicated, if they are ever found to be worshipping any alternative 'god' ... other than pure materialism ... or at a push, pantheism!!!:D:eek::D0 -
FAO: JC
Please address post #14769:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59080563&postcount=147690 -
....IF we are just highly intelligent animals then our ONLY objective basis for morality is 'the law of the jungle' ... and 'survival of the fittest' where the 'strong' determine the 'fittest'!!!
If you say so JC :rolleyes:
Are you one of these I-would-be-a-psychotic-killer-if-I-wasn't-afraid-of-God type of "Christians"0 -
....IF we are just highly intelligent animals then our ONLY objective basis for morality is 'the law of the jungle' ... and 'survival of the fittest' where the 'strong' determine the 'fittest'!!!
1. Survival of the fittest does not and never has automatically meant "survival of the strongest". Under various conditions it means survival of the quickest, smartest, slowest, most colourful, darkest, smelliest, loudest or quietest.
2. For humans this rule has primarily meant survival of the most social and altruistic. So if we rely on that rule we behave more or less like... Christians. Except without the superiority complex.
3. What does "The law of the jungle" mean? Behave like selfish and opportunistic hyenas? Non-motile barnacles? Or behave like placid, social, curious and altruistic gorillas? Or, if humans are animals, behaving like... humans? Seems to me like the law of the jungle leaves us exactly the same choices we always had.To maintain some degree of order in such a scenario requires literally millions of pages of positive law regulating EVERY fascit of out lives ... and with an equally large police force to match the enormous enforcement task required.
Have you any evidence that atheists/scientists have any more trouble behaving morally where the law is ambiguous? Any evidence at all?....even then, people will find 'loopholes' in the law and do the most outrageous things ... and get away with them ... until the loophole is closed, thereby possibly creating another loophole!!!!
..other people, like drug pushers, will ignore the law altogether, if the rewards are big and they think they can get away with it.
And who are those people? Are they evolutionists? Or are they a mixture of all kinds of people including those who believe in God?....it becomes a 'paper chase' of ever burgeoning legislation and an ever increasing enforcement system matched by an ever sharper exploitation of any loopholes in the law...and ever more sophisticated attempts at breaking the law!!!
Hilarious. Evidence?...on the other hand, the rules of morality grounded in Jesus Christ can be literally written on one page and are 'self policing'!!!!:pac::):D
The golden rule is older than Jesus Christ. Because it is a law of humans, not of God. It is seen in cultures that disregard your God as nonsense, it is seen in atheists. It comes from our innate valuation of human life, and in a world where violent crime is declining, there's certainly no sign of that value changing.....a simple example will suffice. Buslanes are there to favour public transport and to encourage people to 'leave the car at home'.
As a Christian I will 'do unto others as I would have them do unto me' ... so I will fully respect the letter and the spirit of the law on buslanes by never driving on them out of respect for the public good that buslanes represent.
If I believe that the 'law of the jungle applies' I might ignore the law altogether and drive on buslanes whenever I thought I could get away with it, because I saw no police around.
What animal are you choosing to behave like in that case? Whichever suits you, I suppose. I've seen humans do this frequently, and yet I know that most humans in Ireland believe in God. My conclusion from that is that some people are just selfish.If I didn't wish to expose myself to the risk of criminal prosecution, I might avail of a loophole in the legislation ... and buy a taxi licence and drive myself into work on the buslanes in my own personal taxi ... thereby totally DISRESPECTING the spirit of the law on buslanes...and discomoding everybody else by my selfish actions.
Morals aside, that's a really stupid plan. A new NCT test, followed by a PSV test and then you have to buy the licence. How much would you pay for a taxi/hackney license in any country? You haven't found a loophole unless you're wealthy enough to write all of that off just to shorten your commute.....and WHY would I do such a thing?
....because I CAN ... and I have the money to do so....and my time is more 'valuable' than everybody else's ... at least in my own mind!!!
Honestly, if you can afford to buy a taxi for your own exclusive use, I dunno if anyone's going to feel jealous. Some of them will hail you down incidentally, and they'll start reporting you for refusing to accept the fares that you'll probably really need to pay off that license fee... What a bleak Godless future. Where dim people with lots of money waste it and everyone laughs at them for it.....my 'animal intelligence' has shown me a way to LEGALLY 'steal a march' on everybody else ... and that is supposedly how I EVOLVED to my supposed present state of 'superiority' over other animals ... and, in my own mind over other PEOPLE as well!!!!:D:)
All you're doing is using a misguided concept (that being an animal permits you to behave like some specific other species, presumably one that has a taxi system) to justify doing something you wanted to do anyway.....equally, if I were a financial 'whizz kid' and I found a loophole that allowed me to legally make 'megabucks' at somebody else's expense ... 'the law of the jungle' would encourge me to grab the 'opportunity' with both hands ... irrespective of the chaos that would result from my actions!!!
Presumably, if you could find an animal species capable of exploiting a financial system, you'd still just be choosing a behaviour a priori and then pinning it on that species.
I mean, it's not as if you're using animals to justify crawling slowly along the ground like a snail and eating cabbage. Instead you've decided you want to do a distinctly human thing which you are then going to justify by pointing at whatever species does something similar.....after all, if evolution is true, that is how I got here...via mega generations of survival by grabbing opportunities at other creature's expense...and as my actions are legal, there is no 'downside' to it for me ... and considerable 'upside' !!!!:eek::)
Humans got here by many means, including altruism. Evolution does not specify our right to take what we want from other species. In fact, the Bible is the more usual justification for human "mastery" over the other species....as a Christian, even if I knew that I could LEGALLY do something of benefit to me, which would destroy or disadvantage other people ... I still WOULDN'T do it,
Like claiming Darwin was a racist by editing his writing so that it says the opposite of what he, as an abolitionist, intended? You mean like saying that Ben Stein is not being deceptive when he is? Or claiming that Henry Gee is casting doubt on the validity of evolution when he's actually criticising the public's concept teleological anthropocentric evolution? I don't see your morals holding you back when you feel you can further your agenda J C. I see you turning a blind eye when it suits you in some cases and joining in the deceptive fun on occasion yourself. Historically, Christian morals seem to have failed about as many people as atheist morals have. What does that mean?because I answer to a higher moral authority then myself ...
Best hope you're wrong on that point. I can tell you that you answer to Earthly consequences though. You've shown us all how willing you are to twist the truth into the shape that fits you best.and I DON'T beleve that I got here via the 'law of the jungle' .... I am the result of Direct Creation by God!!!!:D
Of course, some Christians exploit situations to their advantage and many Materialists don't 'drive home' their advantage or exploit other people .... but the Christians and the Materialists are behaving AGAINST the logic of their 'origins' beliefs in both situations!!!
How so? Why does being an animal require us to behave like any given animal species? Being animals, should dogs behave like cows? Cows like squirrels? If humans are to behave like other animals, then which ones? All animals have their own distinct characteristics, including behaviour. Why should human behaviour or morals be any different? If we are animals, then we are animals who behave like humans. And so no change of behaviour is required of us.
Why is it that the idea that humans are animals is so very offensive to you? Is it because you see all other animals as being lowly and brutish? Hundreds and thousands of species and you've got them all neatly judged. And in your eyes they represent all the bad things that humans could become. Have you so little faith in simple humanity? Or is it that you have no faith in your humanity?
And why do you think that the knowledge that humans are animals compels us to reassess ourselves? Don't we already know humans as a species better than any other? Doesn't this knowledge actually compel us to reassess how we value other animals rather than ourselves?
So, how about we move on from the laughably stupid morality argument that you've once again siezed on in preference to discussing the science? Try refuting my answers to your 21 naive questions, or dealing with my criticisms of your useless answers to my 15 questions.0 -
...I DIDN'T say that it was an accurate description of the CONTENT of the video...but it WAS an accurate description of the ISSUES being covered by the video.
Then it was misleading as to the content and agenda yes? You're dancing around this.Could I point out that the CONTENT of the video depended on the statements made by ALL sides during the course of filming for the documentary and so the content couldn't LOGICALLY be known in advance
The agenda could though, as evidenced by Stein's statements. The agenda was settled on before Dawkins and co were approached. The content follows the agenda. The blurb reads as pro-evolution. The film is anti-evolution.
You're turning a blind eye to that and in doing so, if your assumptions are correct, you are "sinning" for the greater good. Tell me, why does finding the truth require you to lie to others and to yourself?....so IF you are not a Materialist, you can't do science!!!
.....very conventient, if you happen to be a Materialist, don't you think???!!
Science assumes that we can answer all questions by observation. When you answer a question with "God did it" but refuse to try and determine how He did it, then you're not doing science....science is SUPPOSED to be about QUESTIONING it's thories ...
We question evolution every time we do an experiment on it. That's 150 years of testing now. Funny how the only people who think there's evidence against it also happen to be conservative religious types.....but you are clearly of the opinon that it is a form of Materialistic 'Religion' ... with only 'orthodox' believers allowed within it's ranks .... and with all 'heretics' to be excommunicated, if they are ever found to be worshipping any alternative 'god' ... other than pure materialism ... or at a push, pantheism!!!:D:eek::D
That's your opinion, which comes from your total inability to imagine how people function without dogma and authority.0 -
Advertisement
-
..I'm not...If you say so JC :rolleyes:
Are you one of these I-would-be-a-psychotic-killer-if-I-wasn't-afraid-of-God type of "Christians"
...and I don't think that you are a would-be-a-psychotic-killer-if-you-weren't-afraid-of-the Law type of "Materialist" EITHER!!!
...and the reason is, that we BOTH have a God-given conscience that tells us that such behaviour is objectively IMMORAL!!!!!
....the point is that Materialistic explanations fail to account for such conscientuous behaviour!!!!!!!0 -
..I'm not...
...and I don't think that you are a would-be-a-psychotic-killer-if-you-weren't-afraid-of-the Law type of "Materialist" EITHER!!!
...and the reason is, that we BOTH have a God-given conscience that tells us that such behaviour is objectively IMMORAL!!!!!
....the point is that Materialistic explanations fail to account for such conscientuous behaviour!!!!!!!
No they don't. We see altruistic behaviour in many species. We can plausibly explain it using evolutionary theory. We can show that it confers a survival advantage for some species, including humans.0 -
-
....the blurb presents the context of the video....AtomicHorror wrote: »The agenda was settled on before Dawkins and co were approached. The content follows the agenda. The blurb reads as pro-evolution. The film is anti-evolution.
....the film itself presents the VIEWS of BOTH Materialists and ID Proponents ... and the viewer can make up their minds as to the truth.
The blurb reads as a balanced expression of the current controversies surrounding Materialistic Evolutionism, ID and Creationism.
I could equally, (and incorrectly) whinge that the video didn't address 6 Day Creationism by reading into the blurb, that because it mentioned Young Earth Creationism, that Creation Scientists should have been interviewed for the film.
What you are trying to do is to 'tie the hands' of the makers of the video to doing what YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE DONE as as result of the facts presented in the blurb.
I would have liked Ben Stein to have interviewed Young Earth Creation Scientists in his film ... but I recognise that he had (and should have had) the editorial freedom to not do so if he didn't wish to do so!!!!
...and the weakness in such an approach is that IF GOD DID DO IT ... then any Materialistic explanation IS ONLY A FAIRY TALE...and thus science (as you define it) could be completely discredited!!!!AtomicHorror wrote: »Science assumes that we can answer all questions by observation. When you answer a question with "God did it" but refuse to try and determine how He did it, then you're not doing science.
Science MUST protect itself from such possible ridicule by always evaluating the OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE for God ACTUALLY doing it!!!!
Your suggestion that asking if God did is not science is a bit like a forensic scientist who attends possible crime scenes and who ALWAYS rules out the action of intelligence ... and ONLY looks for natural / materialistic explantions for all evidence at the crime scene!!
...resulting in the follwing conclusions:-
...knife stuck in head ... must have spontaneously fallen down on her from the ceiling, of it's own accord!!!
....strangulation marks on body....must have choked himsel!!!
....poison in bloodstream....must have been in the tap water that he drank!!!!
....throat cut.....must be a haemophiliac!!!!
....smoking gun beside body....victim mudst be a smoker!!!!
Obviously a competent Forensic Scientist considers the possibility of BOTH Natural AND Intelligent causation for the evidence at a crime scene...ditto with the evidence for the origins of life!!!
....Ben Stein is a Liberal Jew .... certainly NOT a 'conservative religious type' .... and he doesn't think much of the evidence for Evolution!!!!!AtomicHorror wrote: »We question evolution every time we do an experiment on it. That's 150 years of testing now. Funny how the only people who think there's evidence against it (Evolution) also happen to be conservative religious types.
...I don't bow to any dogma nor any authority other than Jesus Christ...AtomicHorror wrote: »That's your opinion, which comes from your total inability to imagine how people function without dogma and authority.
the dogmatists and the authoritarians within science, seem to be the guys who want to sack anybody even suggesting an intelligent origin for life!!!!0 -
nearly 1000 pages of people debating a fairytale and i start a thread asking one simple question and it gets locked, boards at its best0
-
..I'm not...
...and I don't think that you are a would-be-a-psychotic-killer-if-you-weren't-afraid-of-the Law type of "Materialist" EITHER!!!
...and the reason is, that we BOTH have a God-given conscience that tells us that such behaviour is objectively IMMORAL!!!!!
....the point is that Materialistic explanations fail to account for such conscientuous behaviour!!!!!!!
Not true. They do explain, almost perfectly, the vast majority of human behaviour, why we act the way we do with regard to altruism, love, guilty, anger, aggression, compassion etc etc
"God did it" on the other hand doesn't explain any of it.
In fact you guys know it doesn't and you need to introduce "the Fall" excuse (quickly become the go to excuse for why a supposed designed world doesn't look in anyway designed) as a fudge around that fact, despite the Fall not actually explain any of it.0 -
AtomicHorror wrote: »3. What does "The law of the jungle" mean? Behave like selfish and opportunistic hyenas?
Hyenas don't live in the jungle. Plus they are one of the most social and least selfish animals out there.
*never listens to a word AH says ever again*
:P0 -
Flamed Diving wrote: »FAO: JC
Please address post #14769:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59080563&postcount=14769
And while you're at it, you need to address posts #14748 and #14707.0 -
Poor JC! You cant expect him to have all the answers for creationism.0
-
Advertisement
-
Well, not to have any looks like silliness.Fanny Cradock wrote: »You cant expect him to have all the answers for creationism.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement