Humanists send Dawkins to Stormont
Every Westminister MP from Northern Ireland, and all the party leaders in the new Assembly, are to receive complimentary copies of Richard Dawkins's bestselling book The God Delusion -- all courtesy of the Humanist Association of Northern Ireland.
Our local humanists are responding to the challenge of James Christie from Fife, who used the website make this promise: "I will arrange for my MP to receive a copy of Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, but only if 645 other people (one per UK constituency) will do the same for other MPs."
Alan Watson, a director of the Humanist Association, tells me they were unable to provide copies for individual MLAs -- there are 108 of them -- but they are hoping to raise the profile of atheism and humanism across Northern Ireland with this initiative. I doubt that any of the parties will respond publicly to the humanist book gift. Northern Ireland remains a deeply religious culture and I suspect that few politicians hoping to be re-elected would wish to be identified with an atheistic cause.
Incidentally, Private Eye ran last December about seasonally gift-wrapped copies of the book in question.
Pledgebank is an interesting idea. I've been meaning to take a look at it more closely on Sunday Sequence. Its tagline is: 'Tell the world 鈥淚鈥檒l do it, but only if you鈥檒l help me do it鈥'.
There's no limit to the campaigns people are prepared to initiate on pledgebank. "Eion" pledged "to reduce my carbon footprint by no longer flying between any two points in the UK linked by the national rail network but only if 100 other people concerned by global warming will do the same." One hundred people have stepped up to meet his challenge. (That pun was too obvious, I know.)
Meanwhile, "Steven Saragian" has pledged not to "procreate or add to the global population of human beings but only if 10 other people will do the same." We don't know if Steven's partner is one of the ten people who have now joined him in that pledge.
PRESS RELEASE
The Humanist Association of Northern Ireland
Stormont Parties to get a copy of The God Delusion
As well as participating in the UK pledge, The Humanist Association of Northern Ireland plan to present a copy of Dawkins鈥檚 book to every party in the Assembly when it opens on 8th May. Director Alan Watson said: 鈥橶e are extending this national campaign to remind our MLAs of the large secular constituency here, partly demonstrated by the huge sales of this book in the province.鈥
Every Westminster MP is to receive a copy of Richard Dawkins' latest book The God Delusion following a grassroots effort by humanists who want to challenge state privileges given to religious groups.
The campaign, organised through the community action website, , is an attempt to demonstrate how widespread secular and atheist views are in this country. It comes in response to Prof Dawkins's rallying cry in the book for atheists to be more vocal.
"The reason so many people don't notice atheists is that many of us are reluctant to 'come out'. My dream is that this book may help people to come out. Exactly as in the case of the gay movement, the more people come out, the easier it will be for others to join them.
"Being an atheist is nothing to be apologetic about. On the contrary, it is something to be proud of, standing tall to face the far horizon, for atheism nearly always indicates a healthy independence of mind and, indeed, a healthy mind."
Pledgebank works by hosting pledges from people who want to recruit others to achieve a common aim. James Christie from Fife posted the original pledge: "I will arrange for my MP to receive a copy of Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, but only if 645 other people (one per UK constituency) will do the same for other MPs."
Having achieved enough fellow pledgers, copies of the book are now being sent to MPs. Most are due to arrive on Monday 16th April.
Comments
Of all the books they could have given MPs and MLAs, the humanists chose this?
They could have given them a book about participatory democracy or about human rights or about global warming or about any number of crises in the world today that should impact their decisions.
But no. Richard Dawkins' pedestrian extended sneer at religion is the best our humanists could muster.
Despressing.
Of all the books they could have given MPs and MLAs, the humanists chose this?
They could have given them a book about participatory democracy or about human rights or about global warming or about any number of crises in the world today that should impact their decisions.
But no. Richard Dawkins' pedestrian extended sneer at religion is the best our humanists could muster.
Depressing.
dumb dumb- I'm sure that secular humanists all around the world will be pleased to enlighten you about humanism.
Meantime I can see the point raised by both the comments above; it's not a pro-humanist book, it's an anti-theism book. Fine, but why is it the choice of message that NI humanists want our MPs to read? Alan says it's his dream that reading this book will cause more MPs to 'come out' as atheist. Is that because they're influential and hopefully they'll talk about it? MPs legislate acts of law; that's what they do. What possible act of law do humanists want this book to provoke or present?
As a member of the Humanist Association of Northern Ireland I warmly welcome that the committee members of Humani have chosen to extend the UK-wide initiative to Stormont. I suppose for pretty much the same reasons why I voted for Dawkins during the Man of the Year election on this blog in December 2006. Dawkins style may be a bit strong from time to time, but I warmly endorse his calls for clear, rational thinking. I think that's a very positive thing and the world could use a lot more of that. I think that it would not only be humanists who think so.
Dawkins may be scathing in his criticism of religion, but is that something to blame him for? He's not the one being irrational, he's just making some good points against the irrationality (and other bad sides) of religion. Would it not be better to look at those rather than the tone of man who criticises them? Keep up the good work, prof. Dawkins.
If humanists care so much about changing politics in northern ireland, how come we don't have humanist candidates standing?
Where are the humanist anti-poverty groups?
Where are the humanist youth groups working with deprived kids?
Where are the humanist environmental campaign groups?
They will say their members are in all these organisations, but wh haven't humanists as an association formed anything themselves?
Meanwhile, the churches are taking the lead in compating poverty, working with young people in need and the churches are the major provider of volunteers across all social sectors.
Yeah right, Dr Dawkins.
Dumbdumb, Gerald Hayes etc,
Local Humanists have lots of things to say about lots of issues.
鈥 We supported the Brook Advisory Centre for Young People.
鈥 We support civic partnerships and officiate at them
鈥 We perform non-religious ceremonies.
鈥 We support voluntary euthanasia
鈥 We support the rights of ethnic minorities and migrant workers
鈥 We support cosmopolitan and third way discourses in local politics
鈥 Last August we marched in the Belfast Pride Parade.
鈥 We campaign for integrated education (see my letter in last Friday鈥檚 Irish News.
鈥 We campaign for Religious and Moral education to replace RE
鈥 We campaign for fair employment in teaching appointments and promotions
鈥 We defend the teaching of evolution
鈥 We support a sceptical, open-minded approach generally (and are not all 鈥榓theists; some are 鈥榓gnostics鈥, some 'sceptics')
鈥 We work with the Social development Foundation in India
Many of these issues are aired and debated at our meetings and in our magazine, the next issue of which will present the case for the union (to counter the case for a United Ireland presented in the previous issue), and also discuss global warming, spirituality, slavery, unfair trade, the groundbreaking William Crawley meets series (!), the relevance of critical thinking (obviously Freddie doesn鈥檛 like that!). We are even planning a summer school on 鈥楾he Joy of Humanism鈥 聽鈥 pretty life-affirming, that.
Wow, I confess I really had no idea how much the humanists were doing across all those issues. I'm not a humanist myself, but hats off to you for your commitment to those "human" causes.
Come on gerald, apologise!
That's Gerald put in his place then! Sorry, Gerald, but that was a speedy rejoinder there from Brian McClinton.
Director Alan Watson said......鈥橶e are extending this national campaign to remind our MLAs of the large secular constituency here, partly demonstrated by the huge sales of this book in the province.鈥
Most politicians particularly here don't appear to realise that many people have moved on from religious belief and our concerns need to be addressed.
from recent Tearfund report
But that means 55% don't attend church!
This has probably increased from 10% fifty years ago!!
Of course The God Delusion is anti-theistic but that is probably a neccessary first step to Humanism - and Dawkins IS a Humanist.
check out distinguished supporters of Humanism
I would bet money there are AT LEAST 10 MLAs who are not religious and we need them to 'come out' and be truthful about their beliefs.
Anybody like to take a guess why they are reluctant to do so?
My latest comment can be seen via 'Preview' button but not in main view? 成人论坛 anti-humanist bias?
I'm just testing with this post to see if it gets through better
If there are any atheist MLAs, I don't know who they are. There are some atheists in high positions in northern ireland but I wouldn't bet on 10 per cent of our MLAs being atheists. Some don't go to church (like Sammy Millar MP) but that doesnt make him an atheist. Some Christians I know dont go to church.
Alan,
I bought the God Delusion and I am not a secularist. It is wrong of you to use the number of book sales as an indicator of support fo humanism. I know lots of people interested in religion who are not humanists who also bought the book and lots who are interested in Dawkins but who disagree with him.
Going to McDonalds doesn't make you a hamburger alan!
Instead of sending out copies of Dawkins book why not send them a subscription to 鈥淔ree Inquiry鈥 and invite them to join 鈥淭he Jesus Project鈥?
Details here with 27 insightful comments:
What humanist believes that 鈥淭he God Delusion鈥 represents the peak of humanists鈥 intellectual thinking? Yet, they are in danger of having that believed to be the case.
I would like to refer readers to a thread in this blog wherein a representative of the Belfast Humanists refused to answer a couple of direct questions about the world view of the Belfast Humanists as it pertains not only to evolution but also to quantum mechanics.
See post #40 in the thread
/blogs/ni/2007/04/has_belfast_embraced_darwin.html
Earlier in post #35 of the 鈥渂elfast embraced darwin鈥 thread I wrote:
.... Secular humanists in the USA intend to rouse all of the sleepers here with their five year "Jesus Project". Might I suggest that you start a similar program through the Belfast Humanists and see if you might make more progress than beating up poor busdrivers, housewives etc on the streets of Belfast about their views on Darwin. Why don't secular humanists stop whining and present a more positive image of their position? Has anyone ever been persuaded (to change their beliefs) with an argument that attacked one's position in language as used by the Secular Humanists?
After many futile attempts in trying to have a rational discussion with the Belfast Humanists, and having been responded to with comments such as 'horse and cart', 'supernatural baggage', 'drowning man clutching at straws' coupled with 'cosmic conjurer', I went on to other things.
Debating such continuous Dawkinsesque prattlings is Sisyphean.
Thankfully, post #61 in the belfast/darwin thread summed up the situation quite nicely! (Thank you, Professor McNeill for writing it!)
Regards,
Michael
Ps Am I the only one fed up hearing about Dawkins? Maybe I will put my pen where my mouth is and shut up about it myself. Thus, this will be my one and only comment on this tread about Dawkins or the Belfast Humanists 鈥 the record speaks for itself!
What an absurd waste of time and money for anyone to send this book to these people. If they entertained the notion of atheism for even one second, they'd have to consider that their entire lives warring with the Catholics or Protestants in their country depending on which side they happened to be born into was a complete farce and that they had been duped by the people they looked up to most all of their lives. If there is one thing people will cling to above all others, it is their most cherished delusion, especially when it is so fondly held and emotionally committed to that it could incite them to murder.
Send in the "Arise, go down against the camp, for I have given it into your hand.
Someone should write a book called "The "The God Delusion" Delusion" about a scientist who has the quaint and naive notion that he could present a rational case based on demonstrable scientific fact and logical deduction that god doesn't exist and convince readers by assuming that they are intellectually honest and fair minded when in reality, he is up against organizations which have occupied the better part of the readers' lifetime winning and keeping them as followers having had nearly two thousand years or more to study the problem and hone their techniques and arguments. Besides, the god delusion is a mental illness to which many or most humans may be genetically predisposed and fighting it may be for some a lost cause, even those who flit disillusioned from one religion to another to another endlessly hoping to find ultimate truth.
It would be interesting if someone did a study to compare how many disillusioned Christians are lost to atheism compared to how many are lost to Islam. I think the results would be surprising even to Dawkins.
I for one would like to congratulate the humanists for this ground breaking endeavour.
If only more minority groups would feel like they have some God-given right (sorry!) to grab their elected representatives and force-feed them their views on God and how that should impact law and policy making in our country, then perhaps we would all be living in much better and more tolerant place.
[proceeding to evacuate oral manipluative organ from inside of mid-facial cavity]
;-)
PB
Many of the posters have missed the crucial point: that one of the main justifications for sending The God Delusion to MLAs is that religion in Northern Ireland is harmful because it divides the society
and causes much of the bitterness. In other words, the troubles are at least partly religious (see Hickey: Religion and the Northern Ireland Problem; Bruce: God Save lster; Conor Cruise O'Brien: Ancestral Voices; F.S.L. Lyons: Culture and Anarchy in Ireland). When mixed with nationalism (Irish and British), the cocktail is lethal). Lecky got it right when he wrote: If the characteristic mark of a healthy Christianity be to unite its members by a bond of fraternity and love, then there is no county where Christianity has more completely failed than Ireland.
In other words, and to put it bluntly, without 'the god delusion', Ulster, and Ireland, would be a better place. We could then behave more like the 'nice' people we think we are.
Brian
How many of the people shooting and bombing this country for the past 30 years were in church praying several times a week?
How bad might the troubles have been without all the people in church praying for the past 30 years?
PIRA were/are a bunch of marxists who were no friends of the Catholic Church.
And how many of the UVF did anybody ever see leading church youth groups?
Have you *any* idea how many churches were and are involved in cross-community activities throughout the past 30 years?
Yes there has been plenty of sectarianism but to suggest this can be improved by removing God from society seems like taking the engine out of the car to avoid engine trouble.
There is probably a non-traditional church in every town in Northern Ireland now that welcomes people from both sides of the community.
Your thesis just seems like such a blunt and blinkered instrument to me...
PB
pb, How many of those people praying in church thought or said when they heard that someone of the opposite religion was killed by a bomb or shot to death said good, they deserved it. And how many of them now are fretting over the fate of Alan Johnston because "a man's life is in danger and his collegues are worried about him?" What hypocricy.
PB said
There is probably a non-traditional church in every town in Northern Ireland now that welcomes people from both sides of the community.
I think the important word in that quote is 'NOW'
and perhaps you should be welcoming people from ALL sides of the community?
It certainly wasn't the case 20 years ago - why does it take so long for Christians to catch on? The same delay was evident in the debates on slavery, women and workers rights.
pb ignores my references to academic studies of the role of religion.
鈥淗ow many of the people shooting and bombing this country for the past 30 years were in church praying several times a week?鈥 This misses the point: namely, that ideas filter down from the thinkers/writers/priests/philosophers/politicians to the wider community, who often act according to a simplistic and often skewed version of them. Thus if someone preaches that Catholics are idolators and not true Christians, then some Protestants might believe that they don鈥檛 deserve to live. And if a Church preaches that God made a sacrifice of Jesus at Easter, then some Catholics might believe that in imitation of him they too must make a sacrifice at Easter (1916). Pearse identified the Irish nation with Jesus Christ. It was, as Conor Cruise O鈥橞rien says, a 鈥榮acral nationalism鈥. Bobby Sands also believed he was imitating Jesus. In other words, religion is politicised (see also 鈥楽acred Causes鈥 by Michael Burleigh).
Pb might believe that these views are distortions of religion, but the fact of the matter is that if there was less religion and less nationalism, and the obvious division that they bring in this island, then there would be less of the poisonous nonsense that often accompanies them. We could then act more positively towards one another. We could treat Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Humanists, etc as equals with equal rights. We could then work together for the common good, to eliminate poverty in our society, to promote the rights of ethnic minorities, women and gays, and to educate our children in the same schools so that they can learn to love one another instead of learning to hate one another.
"How many of the people shooting and bombing this country for the past 30 years were in church praying several times a week?"
Billy "King Rat" Wright.
William Somerville(Miami Showband murderer)
Harris Boyle(Miami Showband murderer)
amongst others...
See Martin Dillon 'God and the Gun'.
Religion was not the only factor but it certainly played a role.
I for one am happy enough for our MLAs to receive this book - even if you don't think it is the best choice for representing the humanist point of view, it is a book that is receiving a lot of attention and has succeeded in bringing atheism in to the public forum.
If it encourages anyone to come out as an atheist - all the better.
But even if it doesn't - at least people are being made aware that they have a choice. And it is a gesture that might make people consider Atheism where previously they hadn鈥檛. The Church has had its say for long enough - it's about time we heard an alternate rational point of view.
At the very least, it will raise some awareness. When I was a Christian, for a long time I thought there was something inherently *evil* about atheism. The word "atheist" carried the same sort of profoundly negative vibe as "mass-murderer", "sheep-molester" or "Micra-driver".
Then I realised that it just meant a person that didn't believe in god. Then I realised that I didn't believe in god. Then I realised that lots of very nice people were atheists too - such as David Attenborough and Patrick Moore. Then it didn't seem so bad. Our MLAs need to see this (as do Christians in general).
Atheists need to come out of the closet, and get the word used as a *positive* descriptor, rather than a negative. And I think that 10 MLAs is probably an underestimate for the number of atheists in the Assembly. Someone want to do some work on that?
Even Barack Obama in the USA *probably* is an atheist, but he knows that it's best not to adopt that label. Hey - maybe we should send a copy of TGD to the US presidential candidates...
-A
Humanists- Are you saying that atheists are less likely to commit violent acts against their fellow man than those who are religious?
Being Wright about wrong
As usual DD you misrepresent the facts to suit your own anti-Protestant fundamentalist agenda.
I would suggest to you DD to have a second read through God and the Gun by Martin Dillon and pay attention to what Billy Wright has to say about Christianity and being in the paramilitaries, Martin Dillon posing a thought to Billy Wright on page 77 says 鈥淵ou have told me that you cannot walk with God and fulfil the obligations required of being a paramilitary鈥.
Billy Wright answers. 鈥淵ou can鈥檛 glorify God and seek to glorify Ulster because the challenges which are needed are paramilitary. That鈥檚 a contradiction to the life God would want you to lead. If you were to get yourself involved in paramilitary activity in its present form, or the form in which it manifested itself during the Troubles, then I don鈥檛 think you could walk with God. I don鈥檛 believe you can involve yourself in loyalist activity such as shootings, bombings and so on. You are breaking the law of the land鈥.
And on page 65, I would say to you to read what Billy Wright has to say about Protestant fundamentalism and violence, he says Protestant fundamentalism and they are a potent, but when it comes to violence, you will not see those people become involved in violence.
If you are going to quote books first of all read them for yourself before trying to pull the wool over your eyes of them who have actually read them, and for your information Billy Wright publicly admitted that he had fallen from grace and faith.
I hereby send a cordial invite to DumbDumb to our next HUMANI meeting, where he will have the opportunity to hear for himself the wide and varied issues, both debated and supported by Northern Ireland Humanists.
Afterwhich I feel he will be slightly less of a DumbDumb.
Brian
Lets call a spade a spade.
Your primary interest is not *actually* in the betterment of Northern Ireland but in the promotion of your ideology.
I agree religion was a factor during the troubles.
Are the non-traditional fellowships throughout Ireland now incidental - or visible outgrowths of an underground movement that has been going on for decades?
Are they incidental or have they been helping shape society for the past 15-20 years in every town of Ireland?
You tick your box and I'll tick mine. I have evidence.
My church has people from every racial background you can think of BTW.
Gerry Adams describes himself as "an a la carte catholic" and is described as having the equivalent of a doctorate in British Empire post-colonial studies; he was not leading a campaign to exterminate "Protestantism".
I reckon dead religion (as opposed to actual Christians) did throw into stark contrast nationalistic tensions but are you really saying the troubles would not have happened if Britain and Ireland had been of no religious difference???
People would not have hated one another if they had been all Protestant or Catholic?
As I understand it, racial and nationalistic hatred has been well documented in humanistic societies; the problem is in the human heart, not in "religion" or lack or it.
But the reason you will reject this is because humanism deifies man and cannot accept any flaw in him.
PB
PS The only surviving member of the Miami Showband murders says the operation was directed by an army officer with a clipped English accent - and he was there. His conclusion is that it was a deliberate attempt to turn the policial tensions into sectarian hatred and mistrust.
PPS I just dont buy the idea that loyalist terrorism in Northern Ireland over the past 30 years were motivated by bible studies. What I have seen is some of them take passages out of context to justify their ideology, but their ethos and goals had already been set, it was not their root. Draw your own conclusions...
PS Alan Watson post 22
Will Crawley has affirmed his position
that the early church led the way on slavery through Paul's letter to Philemon, which resulted in the practise being virtually abolished in the early church. That was leadership, but what were humanists doing then?
see;-
/blogs/ni/2007/03/shibboleth_on_slavery.html
You have never understood this could not have been done as an ouvert political movement in the face of the Roman Empire.
/blogs/ni/2007/03/shibboleth_on_slavery.html
Then of course Wilberforce a bible beliving Christian had slave trading outlawed in the teeth of a Godless house of commons. Where were the humanists then?
As for women's rights and worker's rights I am not familiar with the history there, but wouldnt trust your objectivity.
No doubt people taking the name humanist or Christian may do good or bad, I think it is a bit simple to look for a black and white propoganda.
However I did note that some of the NI wing's main interests are killing unborn children, killing pensioners and the terminally ill, promoting homosexuality and Godlessness generally.
Can you recommend any society in history where these values dominated?
After all, if that is where you are leading us with your book postings, lets see how it works out in the real world.
Where and when exactly is Dawkins' paradise?
PB
Oh yes Billy did say those things he was also a lay preacher and got a full Free Presbyterian burial and was infamously visited by the Rev Willie "I will not sit down with terrorist, murdering scum" McCrea-who sat down with this perfect eg of a terrorist and murderer. Obviously Billy's faith wasn't strong enough to get him away from the killing and drug-dealing but was enough to get him into "heaven".
PB the two people I mentioned were both prominent Free Presbyterians and terrorists.
Well the early church did not entirely abandon slavery as it did continue. Humanism asa movement did not really gain any headway till the 20th Century.
"Then of course Wilberforce a bible believing Christian had slave trading outlawed in the teeth of a Godless house of commons. Where were the humanists then?"
Likewise it was also Bible-believing Christians who supported slavery(again same point about humanists).
"As for women's rights and worker's rights I am not familiar with the history there, but wouldn't trust your objectivity."
There were Christians that supported these movements but as in the case of slavery these movements were opposed by Bible-believing fundamentalist Christians.
"No doubt people taking the name humanist or Christian may do good or bad, I think it is a bit simple to look for a black and white propaganda."
Too true.
"However I did note that some of the NI wing's main interests are killing unborn children, killing pensioners and the terminally ill, promoting homosexuality and Godlessness generally.
Can you recommend any society in history where these values dominated?"
First off on another thread you supported the killing of children(and jumped through several hoops in order to justify rape) so get off the sanctimonious high-horse. No-one supports the killing pensioners this is done by a small, sick criminal element-who is killing the terminally ill? I understand that this happens only in Holland and Switzerland-it's called euthanasia and it is up to the right of the individual. Again this worrying obsession about homosexuals, and if promoting "godlessness" means giving people another point of view than your own, then bring it on.
What you picked out in your simplistic argument are not values.
Can't answer for Dawkin's but would say that his paradise would be the here and now and as far away from Bible-believers as possible.
Well DD
Are going to make sweeping statements on the role of all churches throughout the troubles based on claims you are making about Billy Wright and William McCrea?
The work of Rostrevor Renewal Centre, Econi and Corrymeela are well known Christian reconcilation enterprises throughout the Troubles.
As I said, cross community churches have been thriving in almost every town in Ireland for 15-20 years now at least.
And I know one Christian organisation which preached the gospel of love throughout south Armagh since 1978;-
So is it fair to damn all Christians throughout the troubles based on allegations about three terrorists you are making?
What parallel works were humanists making to compare to the work of these three orgs.
If you read Will's posting on slavery again you will see the modern slave owners jumped through hoops to keep bibles out of the slave's hands and only allowed "bastardised" forms of the faith among them.
It is not hard to conclude that the athiests here are reading the bible/slavery facts in the most cynical light to suit their agenda.
I salute your recognition that Christians were involved in womens rigths and workers rights, but as I stated in recent days, you have great trouble in recognising what a "fundamentalist Christian" is so I take lightly any objective identifications you make.
Wilberforce identified his main opposition as being from "nominal" Christians (ie in name only) so that may complicate things for you in attributing blame on the matter.
You CLAIM I have justified killing children and rape? that is quite wide of the mark, what I did was relate mainstream commentaries on bible passages that trouble you, again a rather cynical spin on what I actually said.
Funny though, when you come down to it, ALL the secularists I have ever met prefer to live in a society with biblical judeo-Christian foundations; NONE of them have ever said they prefer to live in one of the secular socities history has ever shown us.
PB
"So is it fair to damn all Christians throughout the troubles based on allegations about three terrorists you are making?"
As usual PB you completely misrepresent what I said as in the debate about slavery I made a distinction and said that not all Christians supported the slave trade. Likewise in this discussion I never painted all Christians with the same brush. I am well aware that many Christians did a lot of good here during the troubles and did their utmost to bring people together however they were forever damned by the Bible-believers as "ecumenicists" etc. So do try and get something right.
Humanists to my understanding did the same thing that liberal Christians tried to do i.e., get people together and fight sectarianism.
If you read Will's thread re: Theological racism you will see that it was Bible-believers supported the slave trade there was nothing nominal about them. They also justified their racism by citing "the children of Ham". What is undeniable is that large amounts of fundamentalists did support slavery/racism and please do note that I am not saying all Christians.
Oh I do recognise fundamentalists but there are different hues and you certainly do tick a few boxes.
You did indeed attempt to justify the murder of children and rape and if you cannot see what is so wrong with that then I truly pity you.
You are on again about societies with "Judeo-Christian" values, this has been answered many times before. If you are attempting to say that Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia were "secular" then you are wide of the mark, these societies were the antithesis of secularism. You live in a broadly secular society that has had many influences.
To answer John Wright (27), the answer is yes. According to research at the University of Michigan, violence sanctioned by a God in scriptures can increase violence, especially in believers. Brad Bushman, psychologist at the university, states: 锟絋o the extent that religious extremists engage in prolonged, selective reading of the scriptures, focusing on violent retribution towards unbelievers instead of the overall message of acceptance and understanding, one might expect to see increased brutality锟 (see The Freethinker, April issue)
pb,
Humanists don锟絫 have an ideology. That is precisely what I was saying, namely that ideologies, whether religious or political, are what cause so much death and destruction. The twentieth century is clear proof of this truth. I repeat: humanists include atheists, agnostics, sceptics, freethinkers. We are a disparate group of people: young and old, conservative and radical, unionist and republican, ex-Protestant and ex-Catholic, 锟絧ositive锟 and 锟絥egative锟, satirical and serious, and so on. What holds us together is support for such values as freethinking, tolerance, a common humanity etc.
We do not deify humans: we are all too well aware of humanity锟絪 imperfections, not least our own (humanists are often supercritical of one another!). But we do believe that people can be improved and that their better nature can be brought to the fore, if only they would divest themselves of destructive ideologies. We want nice people with nice minds, not nice people with nasty minds.
The point about any ideology is that is has a both as well as a negative, and the positive is as much responsible for the chaos as is the negative. Thus a Nazi felt positive about belonging to a wonderfully loving community, therefore anyone who did not fit in to that lovely community was anathema. Humanists want people to unite under the banner of their common humanity and to be sceptical and questioning of beliefs in general. As Peter Ustinov put it, 锟紹eliefs are what divide people; doubt unites them锟. There is far too much facile certainty in the world (alas, much of it promoted by blogs! And the media!).
DD
After some probing you are now coming closer a more nuanced and balanced assessment of what role "Christians" played in these matters, which I respect.
I have no doubts that sincere bible-beliving Christians have got matters wrong before. I should make that clear.
However my main point was that Christians have played on the whole a positive role in Northern Ireland throughout the [premdominantly nationalistic] troubles. I believe this contradicts the implied point behind this book post to our MPs, ie that N Ireland would be better off without belief in God.
And I notice you dont cite any orgs or work done by humanists in reconciliation throughout the troubles. Can you?
My own ordinary presbyeritan church did quite a bit of stuff under the radar and there were many more like that.
However, is this now a secular society?
In his intro to this thread William makes it clear no politican would dare come out as an athiest because it could end their career.
I dont get how that is a broadly secular society though it is certainly heading in that direction, I concede.
I still think the major Christian festivals are thriving here even though understanding is waning of them. Those are Christian foundations.
Our laws were certainly founded on biblical foundations with biblical language, though that is also changing. What sort of foundation do you call that, if not Christian?
I would be most interested in hearing how the USSR and related states were not a secular societies by the way.
Also, Cuba? China? Korea?
PB
PS Dont accept or condone "murder of children and rape" BTW...
"After some probing you are now coming closer a more nuanced and balanced assessment of what role "Christians" played in these matters, which I respect."
It was what I was saying all along PB.
Brian McClinton etc could give you better eg.'s of the work done by humanists here, but from what I can see their goals were the same as liberal Christians.
I never argued that this society does not have Judeo-Christians roots but as in everything it is not as simple as that. It is only in heavily religiously orientated societies that atheists have a hard time ie., in mainland Britain there are quite a few atheists MP's and the same for Europe. Our laws were also influenced by Roman law, hence the language.
The eg's that you gave are not secular rather they were/are fundamentalist doctrinal societies were individual liberty is curtailed and an evangelical faith in their leader is encouraged. Secular societies are those that are neutral in matters of religion and treats its citizens the same regardless of religion.
The problem as it ever was and is, is fundamentalism and as I said before this can take many forms not just religious.
"PS Don't accept or condone "murder of children and rape" BTW..."
Well PB you certainly made a good stab at it.
DD
So when you are condemning non-religious political evangalical fundamentalism I take it that could mean you are also condemning Dawkins?
And how many "politically neutral socieites" which you are so keen on do not have judeo christian roots?
Brian
Sorry, I just dont buy that humanism doesnt have an idedology.
says this is a philsophy "rejects faith as a basis for action".
You will be telling me next that the Dawkins book you are pushing doesnt promote a specific worldview.
You sound very nice and tolerant on this blog so I just dont compute how you think you are working for a society of nice tolerant people when your patron saint is ofetn described as "Darwin's Rottweiler".
The book is an incitement hatred of anyone who belives in God.
Though admittedly there are some redeeming bits, like where Dawkins says he believes in UFOs, little green men and alien civiliations...
Errr, how does that sit with the sceptical scientists listening in???
PB
PB
Sometimes I am a fan of Dawkins and sometimes I am not...he is not my Messiah;-). However Dawkins is not a fundamentalist in that he has admitted that he would change his mind if he was wrong. Some of his language is a bit fruity but then again at times I can see where he is coming from and his language is mild in comparison to that used bt Paisley etc.
It's religiously neutral societies BTW. The ones that don't have judeo-Christian roots well a major one is Japan, which has strong family and a very low crime rate especially in comparison with countries which have Judeo-Christian roots. There are also other Asian countries and India also aprings to mind.
I know you didn't ask me this but...
"The book is an incitement hatred of anyone who belives in God."
No it's not, perhaps you should read it.
"Though admittedly there are some redeeming bits, like where Dawkins says he believes in UFOs, little green men and alien civilizations...
Errr, how does that sit with the sceptical scientists listening in???"
This has been done before with you, read again what he has to say...he is simply speculating, he is not being fundamentalist about it ie., saying it is true without providing any evidence.
If Dawkins' tedious, petulant rant is the best atheists have to offer then theists have little to worry about. I've listened to GCSE R.E. students with a better understanding of religion than Dawkins. And at least most of the R.E. students don't sound like shrill psychotic wackos much of the time. Isn't it funny how atheists increasingly show the traits of the very religious fundamentalists they so despise?
If you want a better critique of religious philosophy then perhaps reading the works of some leading atheist philosophers would be more beneficial to the cause - Kai Nielson, J. Smart, Michael Martin, of pre-conversion-to-deism Anthony Flew.
Adopting Dawkins as spokesman isn't going to assist the long-term advancement of atheism, and many theistic philosophers - such as Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga - are more than a match for the pseudo-philosophical ramblings of the God Delusion.
SG
If Dawkins' tedious, petulant rant is the best atheists have to offer then theists have little to worry about. I've listened to GCSE R.E. students with a better understanding of religion than Dawkins. And at least most of the R.E. students don't sound like shrill psychotic wackos much of the time. Isn't it funny how atheists increasingly show the traits of the very religious fundamentalists they so despise?
If you want a better critique of religious philosophy then perhaps reading the works of some leading atheist philosophers would be more beneficial to the cause - Kai Nielson, J. Smart, Michael Martin, of pre-conversion-to-deism Anthony Flew.
Adopting Dawkins as spokesman isn't going to assist the long-term advancement of atheism, and many theistic philosophers - such as Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga - are more than a match for the pseudo-philosophical ramblings of the God Delusion.
SG
BTW DD
ref rape and murder accusations,
The passage about taking wives you were discussing (Deut 21) does not state it is permissable for a man to force himself upon the woman against her will.
Deut 22 says that a man that forces himself upon a woman will be stoned to death and this was obviously the normal law known and practised by all in Israel.
The passage you questioned must be read in that context, not in isolation. The whole point of the Deut 21 regulation was that in contrast to pagan cultures around about, women were NOT to be raped during war. That is crystal clear.
It is a difficult passage, granted, but you have to press your intepretation is correct against the above and not ignore it.
I also think you should remember that murder is the *unlawful* killing of a person. The category you are talking about was lawful killing of peoples during war.
You find it hard to accept this because you have no concept of what it means for your country to be permenantly in a state of national emergency for generations with no possible outside help from outside countries, UN or NATO etc if you are overrun.
The OT is also clear this was a divine judgment for the peoples responsible for their everyday practise of child sacrifice, bestiality, incest, demon worship, necormancy etc.
I asked you before how *you* would protect and lead ancient Israel in this context but never actually got an answer.
And as I have said before, this is not a direction for the church, see Romans, Galations, Hebrews.
PB
well put SG...
PB
PB
The passage in question deals with women captured in war and says that they are to have their hair shaved and then raped after a month-no matter how much you try to dress it up, this is vile.
Again the rest of your post is an example of moral relativism remember we are talking about the murder of children-this is inexcusable under any circumstances. You attempted to excuse this by citing that the children may have grown up to revenge against the Hebrews I cited elsewhere a comment from a SS corporeal at Auschwitz which eerily and disturbingly echoed your own sentiments. As I have said before if you cannot see what is so wrong in your attempt to try and justify these vile acts then I do pity you.
Don't remember you asking me how I would have dealt with Israel in ancient times but if I was an all-powerful deity then I would have made my enemies disappear or convert them not massacre them wholesale and certainly not kill the children.
Instead what we see in the Bible is a parochial god for parochial times, when Israel was at peace then we had a more loving god and when at war he/she was more like Mars/Aries ie., a god of war. A "good" god would not have allowed such atrocities.
DD
Here is the passage concerned. It nowhere says the man must have intercourse with the woman against her will, in fact.
The main contrast with the nations you are so keen to defend from these wars was that they raped the women during battle, please note.
I am not saying I have all the answers, I dont, but lets learn together and read what the passage actually says.
We have to bear in mind that rape was clearly outlawed when reading this passage.
Deut 21
10When you go forth to battle against your enemies and the Lord your God has given them into your hands and you carry them away captive,
11And you see among the captives a beautiful woman and desire her, that you may have her as your wife,
12Then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and pare her nails [in purification from heathenism]
13And put off her prisoner's garb, and shall remain in your house and bewail her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.
14And if you have no delight in her, then you shall let her go absolutely free. You shall not sell her at all for money; you shall not deal with her as a slave or a servant, because you have humbled her.
Again, you will note the obvious implication of the pagan nations you were so queasy about exterminating was that they sold the women they raped on the battlefield as slaves after the rape. This again was forbidden in Israeli law, above.
Interesting that you talk of moral relatism, what anchor do you have which ensures you avoid it?
PB
DD
When you calm down can you tell me was it "inexcusable murder" when German children were killed by the Allied bombers during WWII?
You are saying this was not acceptable in any circumstances?
Do you know what murder actually is, the difference between murder, manslaughter juducial killing etc etc?
it doesnt appear that you do?
PB
..you also support enforced religious conversion? post 44...
PB
DD
I have to review what I said on the war wives passage.
I dont "like" the passage.
And I feel it might technically allow for rape (...it also may not!)
However, I think it unfair to assume that all slave owners loved beating up their [rather expensive] slaves in ancient Israel every day, thought the law technically allowed it. In practise this was not the spirit of the community (witness the universally good treatment of servants [slaves] in the gospels).
Similarly, I am sceptical that your cynical reading of this taking wives law is how it would actually have been followed; it certainly does NOT command rape, rather it regulated common war practises to curb it. ie rather than rape a women during battle, Israelites who wanted to take such a woman had to do so for MARRIAGE. They had to calm down for four weeks during which they stripped the woman of her beauty and waited to see if they still wanted to marry her.
And if they didnt like her as a wife, they were barred from the pagan practise of selling her as a slave; she had to be freed. Soliders were NOT required to sleep with the woman to decide she was not marriage material.
BIG difference to pagan battlefield rape.
Rape was OUTLAWED in the next chapter, 22, and arranged marriages were normal too, where women would not have given consent as we know it.
This regulation certainly WAS there to lift Israel's standards above the surrounding pagan nations regarding rape during war.
Anyway, perhaps the main query I have is whether this passage is a blockage to you believing in Christ - or a convenient excuse not to?
If this and the passage about destroying entire communities (including children) was not in the bible, I just dont get the impression you would be rushing into baptism. wrong?
My view was some years ago when people like yourself dismissed the bible because of the slavery mentioned, I wrestled for months and years to get my head around it.
Eventually I did - the bible does NOT promote slavery, quite the opposite in fact, see this entry posted by Will Crawley for example;-
/blogs/ni/2007/03/shibboleth_on_slavery.html
I trusted God while I was wrestling with this topic. And I trust God now while I wrestle with this passage about taking wives during war.
And perhaps some light is breaking.
In Hebrews 7,8,9,10 it is clearly written that the Old Testament Laws such as this were DEFECTIVE and that they were there to try and reign in the wicked and rebellious people of Israel.
They could not bring Israel to be the people God wanted them to be, even with the standard being set ncessarily low at times.
The laws certainly tolerated standards below what God wanted for his people eg Christ's teaching on divorce confirms this.
But it was always God's plan to let Israel - and the world - see this for themselves; strict and severe laws cannot make a people or person perfect.
God's ultimate solution in Hebrews is to actually change willing individuals' hearts through, yes that word again, "faith" in Christ.
Yes I agree to an extent, the Old Testament itself was "parochial" ie state law was specifically for the theocratic state of Israel at a certain time.
But it is certainly NOT legislation for the church, a global community of believers who must live holy lives in any and all political systems that exist around the world. See Hebrews 7-10.
So being a Christian does not require assent to these regulations.
In the New Testament and covenant, even looking lustfully at a woman is sin, because the power is now present under the new covenant to avoid this sin. So the question of the OT war-wives regulation just cant even be asked; it is ruled out of order before it can be discussed.
You wont like it I am sure. I am sure you dont like Shibboleth's essay on slavery either. I dont expect I have a full handle on it, but I do have faith that, as with slavery, my understanding will develop which will, in time, allow me to reconcile this to a loving God.
BTW, ref God's character, destroying communities in war was NOT him at his most fearsome. In genesis he destroyed every living thing in the world during the flood because of the exceptional evil and violence covering the world.
I dont understand everything, but surely one point we were learning here is about one facet of the character of God; he is holy and he has wrath which can be stirred.
In other places we see his exceptional patience and mercy. But I think a God who wont be rightly furious about evil cannot really be God.
Christ also taught similar lessons about God's justice with his grim teachings on hell.
At the end, what sort of character do you think God should have? Do you think he should get angry with evil?
Do you think he should be prepared to take radical steps to destroy it, even sacrificing his all if necessary?
In fact he already did.
PB
PS Amenhotep; I AM easy, as you say. very easy. It is the nightmare dimension you need to worry about. ;-)
PB
Quite a lot to get through and my time is limited today.
Firstly moral relativism and how I avoid it...I examine everything on their own merits and have my own moral philosophy.
I am very clam PB, re: Bombers
I think it was "inexcusable" and I don't believe that Allied bomber command nor the pilots deliberately went out to kill children therefore I believe that it is a false analogy and I am aware of the distinctions between murder, manslaughter etc.
The problem is that your god directly ordered his troops to kill children.
As for forced religious conversion...of course not, I was only thinking hypothetically and putting myself in the shoes of an powerful deity and I think that you would agree that I would make a better job of it!
Post 48,
I am glad that you acknowledge that the passage is "difficult". Still I see you trying to jump through loops in order the try and excuse the inexcuseable.
"Anyway, perhaps the main query I have is whether this passage is a blockage to you believing in Christ - or a convenient excuse not to?"
Not at all! it's the same reason that I do not accept Mohammed, Zeus, Anon-Ra etc.
"If this and the passage about destroying entire communities (including children) was not in the bible, I just dont get the impression you would be rushing into baptism. wrong?"
No I would not!
In your impression the Bible may not promote slavery but it certainly does not outrightly condemn it and small point of order it was not Will who posted that article but Shibboleth.
You seem to be saying that the OT got it wrong, strange for and omniptent all-powerful god? why not get it right the first time.
"BTW, ref God's character, destroying communities in war was NOT him at his most fearsome. In genesis he destroyed every living thing in the world during the flood because of the exceptional evil and violence covering the world."
Errr PB there was no world-wide flood, it's a myth as there is NO evidence to back it up.
"At the end, what sort of character do you think God should have? Do you think he should get angry with evil?
Do you think he should be prepared to take radical steps to destroy it, even sacrificing his all if necessary?
In fact he already did."
Do you not think that it is rather petty of an all-powerful deity to get annoyed so easily?
Have to run...busy...aplogies for short reply
DD
DD
Take your time to respond...
1) Who should be the arbiter of whether a rationalist secular, christian or other worldview is more correct than all the others? A Christian a rationalist or other?
2) So your guide against moral relativism is your "own [personal] moral philsophy". Quite a circular argument going on there...that is NO guard at all against moral relativism BTW; that makes YOU the God of your own personal religion, and gives you no grounds to prescibe anything to anyone else.
3) So there was no flood? And your area of expertise is??? Palentology?
4) You admit that even if your problem passages were not in the bible you are hostile to faith, so you have already declared an interest in rejecting sound mainstream theological explanations; therefore that is exactly what you do. You obviously havent read the passages I referred you to in hebrews which would answer your questions about why the OT law was imperfect. But as you admit you have no interest in listening I dont see any point in talking about it...otherwise read up Hebrews 7 to 10 and come back.
5) Seeing you have so much expertise in theology, science and running ancient civilisations and all, would be interested to hear;
a) How would you have created and run the world differently to what is now happening WITHOUT removing free will to do evil? Or would you create robots?
b) Please paint us a picture of your perfect God, if he were to exist. Would you ensure he had no anger in his character at all? How would he ensure people who escape earthly justice for terrible crimes would actually pay? or would he let them all off for the holocaust with a wink?
6) Do you ever challenge non-Christians over their worldview?
7) So you concede "the bible does not promote slavery" but object that it doesnt condemn it. If you were Paul you would have started a public campaign to outlaw slavery and probably been crucified for your trouble?
You refuse to understand that the slavery you condemn was not the slavery of the bible; a voluntary social security net and community service for criminals or POWs.
Are you condemning the social security net and judicial community service of one of the most civilised societies some 3000bc because of your own personal moral religion that relies on no opinions but your own?
You also refuse to acknowledge that all the nations surrounding Israel did not recoginse their slaves as human, wheras Israel was providing a lead by recognising their humanity and giving them human rights.
God's management of Israel was clearly based on "the art of the possible" because Israel was so stubborn AND influenced so heavily by the surrounding brutal nations which YOU defend so strongly from being wiped out.
Ref the death of children, Moses and Christ are just two examples of random displaced children who if killed before their time would have had drastic consequences for Israel's history; likewise, random displaced children of the pagan nations that treated slaves as animals, sacrificed babies in fires, practised incest, raped animals, worshipped demons etc etc could have just as possibly started a revival of that terrible Baal worship and all the associated practises mentioned, if they had not been wiped out with their communities.
How would you fancy a race of giants like Goliath sacrificing children in their barbecues as your neighbours?
Remember, Moses was an infant when displaced but still found his way back to his faith to lead Israel.
As I said before, but you ignored, there was no EU, NATO or UN to come to the rescue in those days if Israel went under; bang would have gone the only real "Burnt-babies/raped-animals/Slaves-International-Human Rights-Commission of the day.
Well done DD, a true blow for human and animals rights you would have struck!
At least read and absorb the arugments you attack so you can reject them wholly and intelligently, please.
You seem to just come back with the same one liners that demonstrate you have never absorbed facts that have been explained to you time and again.
No offence meant or taken...
;-)
PB
PS ref alliwed bombing...
Again have to be quick
1. I would say a rationalist
2.Nothing circular about it! I am simply my own judge, you should try it sometime.
"BTW; that makes YOU the God of your own personal religion, and gives you no grounds to prescibe anything to anyone else."
Errr well I am not a god but thanks for the compliment! and the answer is evidence for the second part.
"3) So there was no flood? And your area of expertise is??? Palentology?
Rest assured PB I know more than the "scientists" at AIG! as with Biblical creationism (you won't like this) but the flood is utter twaddle. Now instead of giving links to psuedo-"scientic sites could you tell me of an atheist, agnostic, Hindu, Sikh etc scientist who subscribes to the flood myth of Genesis?
Also as has been pointed out to you before AIG's pathetically short list of dentists, software engineers etc do not amount to a hill of beans.
Also it is not 400 "Phd's" but rather less
see
See
here's an article by a Christian geologist
have to run...
PB
1, Why not get everyone together to discuss it? I would say rationalist.
2,Nothing circular about it! "BTW; that makes YOU the God of your own personal religion, and gives you no grounds to prescribe anything to anyone else."
Errr never said I was a god! rationalism and common sense.
3. No there was no flood! and please AIG!? paleontology is not my field but neither is it yours! but I can ask the experts. As with the creation myth(s) of Genesis there is no objective, credible evidence to back up the flood myth(s). Perhaps you could tell me of some objective evidence to back this up...from an atheist, agnostic, Hindu etc etc.
AIG is a joke and their pathetic list of "phds" ie., dentists and engineers is a bigger joke.
Please see
for more info on their "Phds"
4, PB I answered this, sorry you did not like the answers.
5, a: I would have made a hell of a better job than your god! I do not recognise "sin" and why invent evil?
b: anger is illogical for an all-powerful being. Don't get the whole heaven/hell thing, for one some of the most nastiest people I have ever met have said they were going to heaven and according to bible-believers some of the nicest people that I know are going to hell-that's twaddle! I.E., according to the Free P.s Billy "King Rat" Wright the drug-dealing, psychopathic serial killer is "sitting at the right hand of (your) god"-there is something very wrong with that. I would not have allowed the holocaust to happen.
6, Yes, I have even challenged atheists!
7, Again you misrepresent, I said under YOUR impression the bible does not promote slavery!Why could Paul not have done this, I mean an all-powerful deity could have clicked their fingers and ended slavery or indeed been more specific and out rightly condemned slavery-which never happens.
"a voluntary social security net and community service for criminals or POWs. "
Oh please! not who is trying to impose 21st century norms onto the past! Community service for female pow's by kidnapping them shaving their heads and then raping them!yep that's some service!
"Are you condemning the social security net and judicial community service of one of the most civilised societies some 3000bc because of your own personal moral religion that relies on no opinions but your own?"
Actually this society was backward in terms of Greece and Rome. Well yes!
"You also refuse to acknowledge that all the nations surrounding Israel did not recognize their slaves as human, whereas Israel was providing a lead by recognising their humanity and giving them human rights."
Well it's your god and his orders that are in question...and rights like shaving female prisoners heads then raping them!
"God's management of Israel was clearly based on "the art of the possible" because Israel was so stubborn AND influenced so heavily by the surrounding brutal nations which YOU defend so strongly from being wiped out."
What a silly parochial god! what I do object to that an all-powerful, "loving" god could not order the murder of children.
Again their you go in attempting to justify the unjustifiable.
"As I said before, but you ignored, there was no EU, NATO or UN to come to the rescue in those days if Israel went under; bang would have gone the only real "Burnt-babies/raped-animals/Slaves-International-Human Rights-Commission of the day."
But there was supposedly your all-powerful god...
"At least read and absorb the arguments you attack so you can reject them wholly and intelligently, please."
Yes and the same right back at you, remember the debates we had before re: evolution when you did not take anything on?
""You seem to just come back with the same one liners that demonstrate you have never absorbed facts that have been explained to you time and again."
Ditto answer above.
"No offence meant or taken..."
Ditto above
I am aware of Dresden, read 'Slaughterhouse 5' by Kurt Vonnegut.
PB
Could you give your opinion on my reply to you in M39 second paragraph?
PB
To stop us going around in circles...
I do not beileve in your god in the same way that I do not beileve in Zeus, Allah, Amon-Ra, the tooth-fairy.
We are coming friom different perspectives when we look at the Bible, you belive that it is wholly true(or the parts that suit you), I look at it from a historical perspective, rather interesting in parts boring in others with a not particularily nice deity in charge of it all.
We know that parts are not literally true like the myths of Genesis. I feel the same debating with you as with someone who literally belives the myths of the Greeks, Vikings etc
Are you a geo-centrist and if so why not?
You may be interested in this Bible-believing webiste?
PB
To stop us going around in circles...
I do not beileve in your god in the same way that I do not beileve in Zeus, Allah, Amon-Ra, the tooth-fairy.
We are coming friom different perspectives when we look at the Bible, you belive that it is wholly true(or the parts that suit you), I look at it from a historical perspective, rather interesting in parts boring in others with a not particularily nice deity in charge of it all.
We know that parts are not literally true like the myths of Genesis. I feel the same debating with you as with someone who literally belives the myths of the Greeks, Vikings etc
Are you a geo-centrist and if so why not?
You may be interested in this Bible-believing webiste?
Had a bit of free time but will drop in tommorow...
regards
DD
PB
To stop us going around in circles...
I do not believe in your god in the same way that I do not believe in Zeus, Allah, Am on-Ra, the tooth-fairy.
We are coming from different perspectives when we look at the Bible, you believe that it is wholly true(or the parts that suit you), I look at it from a historical perspective, rather interesting in parts boring in others with a not particularly nice deity in charge of it all.
We know that parts are not literally true like the myths of Genesis. I feel the same debating with you as with someone who literally believes the myths of the Greeks, Vikings etc and most of us know now that parts of the Bible are not true, this does not affect the faith of many Christians.
Are you a Geo-centrist and if so why not?
You may be interested in this Bible-believing website?
Had a bit of free time but will drop in tomorrow...
regards
DD
DD
Starting at number 1 in my questions your answers were really quite silly.
And The wiki figures and description of the AIGs Phds is just plainly and clearly wrong for anyone who looks up the website DD.
You make no serious attempt to answer most of the questions but revert into bluster DD.
Not much point going on.
PB
PB
I answered the questions PB but unfortunately not the way you wanted me too and talking about silly...
"And The wiki figures and description of the AIGs Phds is just plainly and clearly wrong for anyone who looks up the website DD."
Not at all PB, we have been over this many, many times about how much nonsense is AIG. The Wiki article actually counted up the dentists, software engineers etc etc that make up the list of "Phd.s" and found it even more wanting than I and others originally thought.
Again the "scientists" of AIG make up a pathetically small number of scientists worldwide(a minute fraction of 1%), all have to sign a document that they MUST agree with Ken Ham-not very scientific and all are fanatical Christians-it's not science that formed their opinions but their extremist faith that forces them to twist, lie and pervert evidence to fit their very narrow world-view.
If you think that I am wrong please provide objective(say from a Hindu), credible, verifiable peer-reviewed evidence that would back up a literal interpretation of these myths? If the evidence is empirical then you would expect to find at least one?! Maybe it is the same reason why you do not find Christians and Hindus who accept the Scientology creation belief or Christians who accept the Hindu creation myth etc etc ad nauseum.
The flood myth(s) of Genesis are an allegorical myth other Christians do not have a problem accepting that so why not do a bit of research?
"You make no serious attempt to answer most of the questions but revert into bluster DD."
Ditto first answer
"Not much point going on."
No there not if you are going to go back to quoting pseudo-scientific sites that has been pointed out to you on many occasions are complete twaddle.
DD
ref list of creation scientists.
There are a heck of a lot of phds in genetics, palentology, biology, archeology and geology in that list.
Much has been made of the fact that they sign up to the AIG statement of faith. I dont understand why. If you read the testimonies of these people they obviously have come to creationist viewpoints of their own free will.
Furthermore, you seem to make the assumption that these are the only creation scientists in the world, which you cant begin to stand up.
In previous debates I have posted lists of others from other websites too. I would expect creationist scientists to be a minority, however, who is the authority for gathering such figures?
Having spoken to professional scientists in different fields I know they are just ordinary people like the rest of us. As different posters here have attested including Dr Michael Hull, they watch their backs like everyone else about what they say for fear of damaging their careers. And creationism is not likely to be a serious career enhancer. The aig link above has articles on persecution of creation scientists in their careers.
You also assume that there are no non-Christian scientist evolutionary dissenters, which of course, you cant stand up. just one example of this dissent would be the book, Evolution - a theory in Crisis by Michael Denton.
You also assume that all-non western scientists generally adhere to evolutionary theory, which I would bquestion. Wouldnt a non-western worldview among scientists severely weaken such belief systems, eg among Islamic, Hindu and African scientists?
My overarching point is not whether or not evolution is true!
My point is that there is much more dissent among professional scientists about it than people like you would like us to think.
PB
AIG list of creation scientists in full.
Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist (interview)
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist
Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr. Andr茅 Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr. Pierre Jerlstr枚m, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr. Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr. Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr. Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
AIG list of creation scientists in full.
Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist (interview)
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist
Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr. Andr茅 Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr. Pierre Jerlstr枚m, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr. Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr. Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr. Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
BTW DD
what do you believe?
PB
Hello pb,
I see Dylan Dog is doing an excellent and admirably patient job of tearing down the pseudo-scientific nonsense you still cling to. After a few months of absence from this blog let me join him.
On the McIntosh threads you constantly displayed such an utter lack of undertsanding of science and the most ignorant persistance in not wanting to learn anything about it. Desparately wanting to stay in your irreality bubble because learning some science would shatter your fairy tale world view.
Several people pointed out to you that the test of scientific credibility is not whether 200 people with PhDs are willing to sign away their credibility for it (because signing up requires them to say that anything that contradicts scripture must by definition be false, and no credible scientist would ever agree to such a diametrically unscientific approach). A better test would be peer-reviewed scientific literature on the subject. Could you present some peer-reviewed literature on the flood? E. g. a few links to some pdfs with scientific journal articles. I assume that your pdf reading troubles have been fixed since januari? And that you have had plenty of time to study scientific literature, like e. g. that on half-evolved species on which there is such a vast volume of literature?
Hello again pb,
About the wiki article on AiG you wrote
"And The wiki figures and description of the AIGs Phds is just plainly and clearly wrong for anyone who looks up the website DD."
Come on pb, even by your patheticly low standards you're doing very poorly here. The wiki article states there are 186 'scientists' signed up. Indeed on the website of AiG, as you posted, the list is exactly 186 long. Come on pb, counting is not too difficult. The credibility of someone who is making statements about science, division about supposed divisions within the scientific community etc while having difficulty counting is not great, is it?
PB
We have been over this before your pathetic list of religious fanatics does not amount to a hill of beans.
"There are a heck of a lot of phds in genetics, paleontology, biology, archeology and geology in that list."
there are only 79 and all of which are religious fanatics, the rest of the list is made up of dentists!! and software engineers!!!
"Much has been made of the fact that they sign up to the AIG statement of faith. I don't understand why. If you read the testimonies of these people they obviously have come to creationist viewpoints of their own free will."
They came to their decisions because they are fundamentalists. Could you name me the equivalent document that the rest of the world's scientific community MUST sign?
"Furthermore, you seem to make the assumption that these are the only creation scientists in the world, which you cant begin to stand up.
In previous debates I have posted lists of others from other websites too. I would expect creationist scientists to be a minority, however, who is the authority for gathering such figures?"
err surveys, common sense etc
There is also the amount of peer-reviewed papers etc
"Having spoken to professional scientists in different fields I know they are just ordinary people like the rest of us. As different posters here have attested including Dr Michael Hull, they watch their backs like everyone else about what they say for fear of damaging their careers. And creationism is not likely to be a serious career enhancer. The aig link above has articles on persecution of creation scientists in their careers."
It's because creationism is twaddle.
"You also assume that there are no non-Christian scientist evolutionary dissenters, which of course, you cant stand up. just one example of this dissent would be the book, Evolution - a theory in Crisis by Michael Denton."
Did not assume anything!and we have been over this before
You should find this interesting
"You also assume that all-non western scientists generally adhere to evolutionary theory, which I would question. Wouldn't a non-western worldview among scientists severely weaken such belief systems, eg among Islamic, Hindu and African scientists?"
Didn't say that and the reason that a tiny minority of them do not adhere to science is because they of their fanatical belief in their religion. Evolution and science(because this is about science not just evolution)are accepted across the board by those of all faiths and none-you cannot say the same about Biblical creationism.
"My overarching point is not whether or not evolution is true!"
it's a fact and theory.
"My point is that there is much more dissent among professional scientists about it than people like you would like us to think."
Support has never been higher...
What do I believe...I examine the evidence and reach a conclusion and can recognise an allegorical myth when I see one(and so do the majority of intelligent theists).
PB if the evidence for the myths of Genesis is empirical then why are there no atheist, agnostic, Hindu, Sikh etc etc Biblical creationists?
And you do know that not all(thank goodness) Christians accept your view and are embarrassed by the knuckle dragging creationists?
In short back up what you say with evidence that is objective, credible, verifiable and peer-reviewed? go=on knock yourself out...
DD
Yes we have been over the evolution before. And of course even evolutionists on the blog we discussed this on did not agree with you that evolution was "fact".
Anyway, can we go back to the thread topic?
If you give me a considered answer to this I will do the same for a question from you;
Is there any chance you could describe how an all powerful God might run the world and people in it while not removing their free will, to do evil?
cheers
PB
Hi again Peter
Someone pointed out to me last week that on your Spagetti Monster website you are still reminiscing about the bruising I persoanally gave you some months ago.
I must have made quite an impression!
Anyways, I'll be glad to answer all your questions if you give me one simple date first please;-
In which year did the scientific method become universally accepted by the human race as the universally accepted arbiter of absolute truth on all subjects?
;-)
PB
DD
I had a quick glance at wiki on support for evolution and generally speaking I didnt disagree with anything.
I thought this chart on it quite summed up the matter that internationally there is signifigcant dissent on the matter, though evolution is in the ascendancy.
PB
...I should have said though, this chart from wiki focusses on the west (Europe and USA) which largely believes the assumptions of the western secular wordlview.
Had this chart covered other countries outside Europe and the US, there would obviusly have been an even bigger dissent than what is displayed...
PB
...I should have said though, this chart from wiki focusses on the west (Europe and USA) which largely believes the assumptions of the western secular wordlview.
Had this chart covered other countries outside Europe and the US, there would obviusly have been an even bigger dissent than what is displayed...
Having said that, even I am surprised by the level of dissent in Europe and the US.
I just didnt expect there to be so much!
PB
"Yes we have been over the evolution before. And of course even evolutionists on the blog we discussed this on did not agree with you that evolution was "fact"."
PB we were over this umpteen times before, I gave evidence, you grossly misrepresented me. Let me repeat again evolution is fact and theory and the really pathetic thing is even your fellow creationists agree with me!astounding even by your levels!-I pointed this out too and backed it up with evidence. It's a given that evolution is a fact, I tried to explain this in the simplest terms possible but this seems to have been beyond you(I will try and draw a picture the next time) and you really should stop false witnessing against me I can't believe you brought this nonsense up again-then again you are a fundamentalist and honesty is not a known commodity in your group.
If anyone is interested (or bothered) you can see here how PB has misrepresented me and how I veerryyy patiently tried to explain to him details in what I thought where the simplest terms possible and the links that I provided.
"Is there any chance you could describe how an all powerful God might run the world and people in it while not removing their free will, to do evil?"
gave it.
The live science link is PUBLIC acceptance of evolution(try and get something right)Interestingly the 2 countries with the highest rates of fundamentalists are the 2 countries with the lowest acceptance of evolution(these countries are also the highest in crime rates!).
"Had this chart covered other countries outside Europe and the US, there would obviously have been an even bigger dissent than what is displayed..."
The chart was for "western" countries. So there would have been higher levels of "dissent" elsewhere?! So if there are high levels of dissent in India because of Hindu fundamentalism then the Hindu creation myth is true!? I will look into other surveys but I don't think that you should immediately presuppose that everyone else in the world is as ignorant as Christian fundamentalists.
"Having said that, even I am surprised by the level of dissent in Europe and the US.
I just didn't expect there to be so much!"
I thought it was pretty good for a PUBLIC(remember this is not a survey of scientists), and shows Europe is ahead of the US and please don't presuppose that everyone is as ignorant as you. The list does not show what the people who against evolution, what their alternative they use ie., which creation myth etc
Now PB could you actually give me any evidence to back your claims? evidence that is objective, credible, verifiable and peer-reviewed?
Will you acknowledge that that list of 189 dentists etc is a pathetic non-entity in terms of the world scientific community?
"I had a quick glance at wiki on support for evolution and generally speaking I didn't disagree with anything."
Oops you did actually answer my last question, glad you agree then that the AIG list is pathetic.
Talking about public acceptance on things, a high level of people accept astrology as being true
and another
Since all these have high acceptance levels then they must be true!?
and another
There are reasons why science is rejected in the US and Turkey
And the survey damns the usual creationist yap about evolution leads to crime, murder etc etc as the countries with the highest acceptance are the ones with lower crime rates.
Oh and the link (if anyone can be bothered to read where PB misrepresented me and in which ?I tried to explain to him things in what I thought were the simplest terms possible) can be found here
/blogs/ni/2007/03/the_dawkins_debate_continues.html
Hello pb, you wrote
"Anyways, I'll be glad to answer all your questions if you give me one simple date first please;-
In which year did the scientific method become universally accepted by the human race as the universally accepted arbiter of absolute truth on all subjects?"
It's not been universally accepted. People like you will cling to their irreality bubbles, preferring to think that the laws of physics don't apply to their world no matter how insane the illogic must be to maintain that view.
People knowledgeable in certain fileds of science have accepted that science gives the best explanation for the world and universe around us. I guess Darwinism provided the answer to what was at the time the best question to hold out for the existance of a god, i. e. the origin of life. So the answer to your question would be somewhere in the 1800s.
"Someone pointed out to me last week that on your Spagetti Monster website you are still reminiscing about the bruising I persoanally gave you some months ago."
The FSM regulars, including myself, are still laughing at you, if that's what you mean. I don't remember the bruising you speak of. What I remember is you making pdf-reading trouble excuses for not absorbing the endless scientific information being presented to you by various scientists. How's your computer doing these days. Read up on intermediate fossils yet?
You did come up as a subject of conversation on thew FSM site recently, that's true. Wench Nikkiee pointed out how you were getting criticised from all sides on the subject of slavery. I read one of the threads, and indeed it must have been rather ugly for you.
Ok guys
lets pull back a bit and be civil.
let focus on the ideas not personalities.
1) Ref the AIG list, it is right there in earlier postings so lets just leave it at that, the number and areas of expertise are plain for anyone interested in it.
2) Ref slavery, I think I should point out that Will Crawley posted an essay to vindicate my position after I fought off what will called "hermenuetic abuse" for several days from dozens of differnet posters.
You can read the essay and my position here;
/blogs/ni/2007/03/shibboleth_on_slavery.html
As DD conceded, this blog's official position conclusion (ie the essay's)was that the bible does NOT promote slavery.
3) Ref science and faith, my understanding is that science cannot prove (or disprove) matters of faith in a lab, so no peer reviewed papers can be made for God as creator.
But as Peter concedes above, the scientific method has never been universally accepted by the world as final arbiter of abolute truth.
sincerely
PB
"Ok guys
lets pull back a bit and be civil.
let focus on the ideas not personalities."
Ok PB then stop mis-representing me. I took a great deal of time pointing out to you about evolution being fact and theory with links etc obviously that did not and still not get through(as I said the really pathetic thing is that even your fellow creationists acknowlege evolution as a fact!? truly astounding PB!). The link is here /blogs/ni/2007/03/the_dawkins_debate_continues.html
"1) Ref the AIG list, it is right there in earlier postings so lets just leave it at that, the number and areas of expertise are plain for anyone interested in it."
Yes and it still is a pathetically small number of religious fanactics and the this minutre list is mostly made up of people who have nothing to do with science like dentists!!!(only 79 have relevant qualifications and they are all fanatics)
PB I said under YOUR impression the Bible does not promote slavery(it's in a message further up and this was pointed out to you before-is it any wonder that people find debating with you so frustrating?)
"3) Ref science and faith, my understanding is that science cannot prove (or disprove) matters of faith in a lab, so no peer reviewed papers can be made for God as creator."
This has been pointed out to you before(yawn), science cannot prove/disprove your god, Zeus, Allah, Amon-Ra, the tooth fairy etc ad infinitum however the claims by AIG and other creationists are suposedly based on empirical evidence which anayone can study ie., fossils, age of rocks and cover the whole range of scince therefore it can be tested and when it is, it has been shown to be cpmplete and utter twaddle hence the reason why there are no peer-reviewed evidence to support it and why there is no objective evidence as it is wholly fundamentally religiouisly based.
I think you should look at what Peter wrote again PB and if Peter would agree why not ask him science questions after all he is a professional scientist. I am sure if you asked him nicely he would agree?
Hello Dylan Dog,
"I think you should look at what Peter wrote again PB and if Peter would agree why not ask him science questions after all he is a professional scientist. I am sure if you asked him nicely he would agree?"
Several scientists have posted info for pb to read previously. I think you were around during the McIntosh saga? Pb kept nagging on about the lack of half-evolved feathers. So someone else did a quick database search and very easily came up with a number of references to articles about it. There are plenty of examples of half-evolved fossils in literature. And not just in the fossil record. Think of the proteins and energy emus and ostriches spend on wings they can't fly with. Even pb would have to agree that those animals are real. I downloaded and read part of one of the papers on half-evolved feathers, and pointed out the very pages that had the figures of the fossils on them, the location of the excavation site etc. to pb. That paper btw was part of a special issue of that journal dedicated all to intermediate fossils. And there were tons of references to related earlier work of course. And it's all freely available to download. Pb could have learned a lot by now if he had wanted to. Instead he chose to come up with some excuse that he couldn't read pdf on his computer. And still he kept repeating his noise about the supposed lack of half-evolved feathers. Pathetic.
It is of course easy to see why he wants to remain ignorant. Knowledge, inquisitiveness and (critical) questions are the mortal enemy of faith. Someone summarised it very well before on this very blog when he compared science and religion:
science: I don't understand this. I'll try to find out what the explanation is.
religion: I don't understand this. Behold, we have witnessed the hand of the Lord! Now switch off your brains everyone, put your trust in the Lord. Hey, why haven't you still switched off your brain yet, and why are you asking these uncomfortable, critical questions? You wouldn't dare to question the Lord, would you?
Religion is so intellectually demotivating. It promotes people (and their children, making it self-propagating) to not use their brains to the full but put their trust in some fairy tale god(s). That's possibly my main reason for being a hardline atheist, because religion is so damaging. Religious people don't have to put on belts of explosives and board a bus to be damaging. Kind, gentle people who wouldn't hurt a fly and even do the occasional charitable deed can still hold us back by discouraging thinking. That is possibly as damaging or more so than the occasional small war (whether that is a religiously inspired war or not).
Hello Dylan Dog,
"I think you should look at what Peter wrote again PB and if Peter would agree why not ask him science questions after all he is a professional scientist. I am sure if you asked him nicely he would agree?"
Several scientists have posted info for pb to read previously. I think you were around during the McIntosh saga? Pb kept nagging on about the lack of half-evolved feathers. So someone else did a quick database search and very easily came up with a number of references to articles about it. There are plenty of examples of half-evolved fossils in literature. And not just in the fossil record. Think of the proteins and energy emus and ostriches spend on wings they can't fly with. Even pb would have to agree that those animals are real. I downloaded and read part of one of the papers on half-evolved feathers, and pointed out the very pages that had the figures of the fossils on them, the location of the excavation site etc. to pb. That paper btw was part of a special issue of that journal dedicated all to intermediate fossils. And there were tons of references to related earlier work of course. And it's all freely available to download. Pb could have learned a lot by now if he had wanted to. Instead he chose to come up with some excuse that he couldn't read pdf on his computer. And still he kept repeating his noise about the supposed lack of half-evolved feathers. Pathetic.
It is of course easy to see why he wants to remain ignorant. Knowledge, inquisitiveness and (critical) questions are the mortal enemy of faith. Someone summarised it very well before on this very blog when he compared science and religion:
science: I don't understand this. I'll try to find out what the explanation is.
religion: I don't understand this. Behold, we have witnessed the hand of the Lord! Now switch off your brains everyone, put your trust in the Lord. Hey, why haven't you still switched off your brain yet, and why are you asking these uncomfortable, critical questions? You wouldn't dare to question the Lord, would you?
Religion is so intellectually demotivating. It promotes people (and their children, making it self-propagating) to not use their brains to the full but put their trust in some fairy tale god(s). That's possibly my main reason for being a hardline atheist, because religion is so damaging. Religious people don't have to put on belts of explosives and board a bus to be damaging. Kind, gentle people who wouldn't hurt a fly and even do the occasional charitable deed can still hold us back by discouraging thinking. That is possibly as damaging or more so than the occasional small war (whether that is a religiously inspired war or not).
Come on Peter
You are obviously a smart guy, stretch yourself a little and meet me as a human being without any hostility?
OUr previous discussions I wouldnt rate as a failure.
What I learnt from talking to a few very civil athiests was this;-
At Dover the judge found that he could not consider creationism as science because science cannot currently differentiate between withcraft astrolgy and creationism.
He was careful not to take a position on whether it was correct or not, just that it could not be taught as science because it had a built in God assumption.
That all seems logical to me. I repeat, he was clear he was not saying whether or not creationism was true.
But faith by definition is not required if everything can be proven.
You cant just pretend the word and the full history of its meanings doesnt exist.
Same in human relationships, as with divine ones; trust cannot be created in a test-tube.
So Pete, dont think all those discussions were a total waste!
I did learn something.
PB
BTW Alan Watson et al.
I remember now Alan Watson gave me a lashing because I was talking about cross-community churches.
Well our church has members from protestant and catholic backgrounds, and it also facilitates english classes for chinese, eastern europeans and brazilians.
I think someone, DD?, on this blog also said that fundamentalists dont do reconciliation.
Now many messy labels here which I dont go in for, but as he keeps calling me a fundamentalist, perhaps it is worth saying I have been involved in reconcilitation work for about 13 years.
Now I am not saying any of this to blow the trumpet of any church or myself.
Just to say things are not always as clear cut as you might think.
PB
PB
We did the difference between ID and creationism before
/blogs/ni/2007/03/the_dawkins_debate_continues.html
The claims of ID cannot be tested ie., a magic sky fairy started it all. However the claims of Biblical creationism can be tested and sorry to say it have been found to be twaddle.
I am aware that there are different brands of fundamenatlist and even more aware that even fundamentalists do not agree on what is literal!
DD is quite correct; Creationism is a falsified hypothesis. However I think it is not necessarily correct to suggest that the claims of ID cannot be tested - they actually can. And of course, when they are, they are found to be rubbish.
The problem is this: ID makes a very specific general claim, which is that there are types of biological organismal complexity that cannot be explained by evolution (population variation by introduced by mutation, followed by differential reproduction, iterated+++).
They are happy to agree that population variation is injected by mutation. They are furthermore happy to agree that this variation leads to a process of evolution (so they are "microevolutionists" whether they like it or not). What they specifically state is that for certain biological features (and they stupidly use the bacterial flagellum and clotting cascade as but 2 examples) there IS NO evolutionary path that can lead to these features. They use this term "irreducible complexity" which they want you to think means "unevolvable complexity".
The problem for them is therefore this: Once a single pathway is demonstrated to be *possible*, their assumption is formally disproved. Falsified. Kaputt. It's not necessary for the scientist to show that it was THE pathway followed - just that such a pathway can in principle exist. And bang goes the example.
Now people like Dembski have then tried to fall back on a probabilistic approach (they've actually tried to lie with statistics, but never mind). However, they are then assuming that the demonstrated pathway that has just falsified their own hypothesis is the only route, and then assume that *all* other routes are unavailable. But it then becomes incumbent on them to *demonstrate* that those routes are all unavailable, and this they cannot do.
So, given that the ID-iots have accepted that evolution works, they are left with trying to find little islands of "non-evolvability" among the vast panoply of clearly evolvable systems (they've even abandoned the eye). Which actually doesn't leave them with very much - just a few examples that they can propose, and every time they propose one, someone comes along and shoots it down. Poor pets. It must be very frustrating for them. But it's their own fault for being dishonest.
There is a lesson in this: ID is crap. "Design" is the chief illusion of evolution. Intelligence is not required. *If* ID is being proposed for any system, it needs to be clearly demonstrated that there IS NO evolutionary route to that system. They have never been able to do this.
[Dawkins is quite good on this in The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable]
PB, you suggest that acceptance of evolution is based on the "assumptions of the western secular worldview". This is rubbish. Science is built on *evidence*. It would not matter if there were a great pixie in the sky directing events here there and everywhere, visible for all to see. The evidence of biological evolution is there, whether one believes in the sky-pixie or not. Creationism and Intelligent Design are contradicted NOT by the assumptions or the worldview, but by the *evidence*. The fact that some people continue to believe the falsehood of ID/creationism is there, and it just shows what we already know: religion causes people to believe (and to do) Stupid Things.
If you were really a Christian, you would accept that "creation" itself is part of your god's revelation. The heavens declare the glory of the lord and all that jazz. Revelation on a par with your holy book. Now, the fact is that Revelation A (the universe itself) directly and flatly contradicts your interpretation of Revelation B (your "bible"). IF (under your assumption) A and B are mutually-supporting and equivalent, THEN there is clearly an error, and that error is in your interpretation of Revelation B. There it is. Get over it.
Having said that, of course, there is no reason why Revelation B should be treated as any more special than Revelation C (to the Egyptians), Revelation D (to the Babylonians), Revelation E (to the Mayans), Revelation F (to the ancient Celts)... and so on and so forth. They're all just human creations; people wanting to make sense of the world, and passing on folklore.
-A
Amen
You are actually NOT correct when you say belief in evolution is not based on the assumptions of the western secualr worldview.
A primarily scientific worldview, (excluding any possibility of anything that cannot be measured by science to be true) is *the backbone* of the western secular worldview.
You insist that I justify my worldview according to the values and belief system in YOUR worldview.
But the argument I have already advanced above, and which has not been counfounded, is that you have not demonstrated why your worldview, (the clothesline on which all your scientific tools hang) should be considered more correct than mine.
For example, you say to me, show me evidence that proves your holy book is correct.
I can equally ask, where is your divine authority for evolution being the truth?
By what authority do you presume your question to be more valid than mine?
William Crawley made this point to Dawkins in his interview with him, ie that Dawkins' worldview was based on a religious assumption - that God does not exist!
;-)
PB
Thanks Peter and Amenhotep for your responses,
To clear something up with PB that has been going on a long time...
According to science is evolution fact and theory?
Any response would be greatly appreciated.
Regards
DD
Ps. Peter I did indeed come in during the McIntosh debate and I remember several posters exasperation with PB, I know the feeling myself.
PB, sorry old pal, but you are flying a kite here. Gods may or may not exist. That's neither here nor there. As it happens, the scientific method works, whether there are pixies hovering around or not. I don't formally need to take any position on the matter. Evidence remains evidence.
And the evidence is in favour of evolution. Presuppositions are not required.
On the other hand, you have to presuppose three basic things:
1. There is a pixie
2. The bible is some sort of express infallible revelation of important stuff from that pixie to us smart chimps
3. Your dismal interpretation of said bible is infallible.
Assumptions are all very well, but you need to be able to back up those assumptions. And you cannot do that (or, rather, you have repeatedly failed to do that).
m htp,
-A
I think its a fairly good idea to send the book out. I dont think it will make one bit of difference but then again nothing ever does in N Ire politics. If it makes one of them question their beliefs, even just a little bit, then that is worth it. It is all about letting people realise that there is a large body of people in Northern Ireland who no longer give a damn about religion. Jeffery Donaldson remarked on the whole Gay's rights issue that Christians were getting persecuted and that Northern Ireland is a christian society.
It is a MAINLY christian society with rapidly dwindling church attendance rates (particularly among Catholics). If sending the Dawkins book makes our prescence felt then that is worth it.
Also to the guy who asked whether it was meant that atheists were less likely to commit crimes than theists? Get a grip. No one implied that in the slightest and it was a real twist to get to that inference. The point is this: CHRISTIANS LOVE TO TELL US THAT WITHOUT RELIGION PEOPLE WOULD RUN AROUND COMMITING MURDERS ETC ETC ALL DAY EVERYDAY! BUT THEIR OWN ACTIONS IN NORTHERN IRELAND SUGGEST THAT HATRED, MURDER AND BIGOTRY ARE PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE DESPITE THEIR RELIGION. That is a problem for any theist as far as I am concerned and I would like someone to tackle it?
I think its a fairly good idea to send the book out. I dont think it will make one bit of difference but then again nothing ever does in N Ire politics. If it makes one of them question their beliefs, even just a little bit, then that is worth it. It is all about letting people realise that there is a large body of people in Northern Ireland who no longer give a damn about religion. Jeffery Donaldson remarked on the whole Gay's rights issue that Christians were getting persecuted and that Northern Ireland is a christian society.
It is a MAINLY christian society with rapidly dwindling church attendance rates (particularly among Catholics). If sending the Dawkins book makes our prescence felt then that is worth it.
Also to the guy who asked whether it was meant that atheists were less likely to commit crimes than theists? Get a grip. No one implied that in the slightest and it was a real twist to get to that inference. The point is this: CHRISTIANS LOVE TO TELL US THAT WITHOUT RELIGION PEOPLE WOULD RUN AROUND COMMITING MURDERS ETC ETC ALL DAY EVERYDAY! BUT THEIR OWN ACTIONS IN NORTHERN IRELAND SUGGEST THAT HATRED, MURDER AND BIGOTRY ARE PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE DESPITE THEIR RELIGION. That is a problem for any theist as far as I am concerned and I would like someone to tackle it?
Hello pb,
In post #82 you wrote:
"You are actually NOT correct when you say belief in evolution is not based on the assumptions of the western secualr worldview.
A primarily scientific worldview, (excluding any possibility of anything that cannot be measured by science to be true) is *the backbone* of the western secular worldview."
Science, including evolution, doesn't accept any necessity of beliefs or world views. Things just have to be verifyable. A persons world view must be irrelevant for that. Try and get a grip of the basic concepts of sciene (that so many have pointed out to you over and over again. Your persistance to remain ignorant is astounding. Do you find it surprising that many on this blog have no moral inhibition against showing open contempt for your lack of intelligence and honesty?).
Show one example where you can do something in major contradiction to the fundamental laws of physics and you'll be instantly famous. You'd go down in history as possibly a greater man than Einstein or Newton.
"You insist that I justify my worldview according to the values and belief system in YOUR worldview.
But the argument I have already advanced above, and which has not been counfounded, is that you have not demonstrated why your worldview, (the clothesline on which all your scientific tools hang) should be considered more correct than mine."
It is more correct because it is verifyable to all who care to take the time. Verifyable independent of the views of the person doing the verifying. I would again challenge you to show any example of how you can step outside the laws of physics. You're ruled by the laws of physics just like anyone else, whether you like it or not.
"For example, you say to me, show me evidence that proves your holy book is correct.
I can equally ask, where is your divine authority for evolution being the truth?"
Maybe you have had time to read up on half-evolved fossils by now? The aurthority of evolution over the biblical account comes for a large part from the fossil record. It would be good if you familiarise yourself with that before you make claims that do little else but show your (willful) ignorance.
"William Crawley made this point to Dawkins in his interview with him, ie that Dawkins' worldview was based on a religious assumption - that God does not exist!"
Rubbish. Inspection of scientific evidence (like the fossil record through radiological dating methods) makes no assumption that god doesn't exist. That's just an outright error/lie on your part.
guys guys guys....
you are so sucked in you dont even realise you are doin it.
u r all justifing a scientific worldview using only scientific language and concepts!!!
read the question against, 82
BY what authroity do you presume your question more valid than mine? (a scientific answer is a circular argument and not valid, please note).
Here a few pointers;
Things the Dover judge did not say;-
1) Creationists are nuts
2) Creationism is not logical
3) Creationism is not true
4) Science is universally accepted by mankind as the final arbiter of absolute truth in all matters
Things the Dover judge did say;-
1) Creationism begins with a supernatural event.
2) Science cannot test or prove supernatural events
3) Therefore creationism cannot be taught within science.
That is probably not a bad example of how a modern independent chairman might begin to answer my question, above.
pb
"BY what authroity do you presume your question more valid than mine? (a scientific answer is a circular argument and not valid, please note)."
Evidence and common sense.
"1) Creationists are nuts
2) Creationism is not logical
3) Creationism is not true
4) Science is universally accepted by mankind as the final arbiter of absolute truth in all matters"
It was not in his remit or the trials to comment on such things(although he did make a point of noting that creationists on the school board lied under oath).
"1) Creationism begins with a supernatural event.
2) Science cannot test or prove supernatural events
3) Therefore creationism cannot be taught within science."
However as Amenhotep and myself have pointed out the ID/creationist crowd attempt to present evidence that they say CAN be tested by modern scientific methods and when it is, it is found to be twaddle. It has also been pointed out to you before (see my link in P79) that ID and Biblical creationism is mutually exclusive, the claim that god/s exist has nothing to do with it(this has been pointed out to you before).
Now PB do you agree with Behe and Dremski that the Earth is billions of years old and have no problem(as such) with evolution or do you agree with Ken Ham that all science is wrong and the world started 6000 years ago in six days?? some serious cognitive dissonance going on there PB! I think you should make your mind up PB.
DD
Common sense among whom?
Evidence by standards of which discipline?
Lying under oath by anyone is obviously disgraceful regardless of who does it.
PB
DD
I have given you these answers before.
I have not the expertise to put an age on the earth, but I see first hand the highly unscientific hostility to any CALM discussion on the matter by science folk on this here.
I do believe the bible first, and see its creation account cannot dove tail with evolution, ie Gensesis says all animals were perfect BEFORE death arrived.
I also notice that secular history and geography by strange cooincidence roughly tally with the creationist view of human arrival on earth.
Beyond that I am not qualified to say anything, nor do I have the time or desire to do so at this period of my life.
PB
PS A friend of mine recently showed me a fossilised teddy bear. It had been hung in naturally mineralised water in a waterfall and in a short period had been "fossilised".
PB
"Common sense among whom? "
Anyone with a bit of wit.
"Evidence by standards of which discipline?"
well since Biblical creationists claim their findings are scientific then they are up to the same standard as the rest of science and they have found to be twaddle on a consistent basis.
"I have given you these answers before."
then why do you repeat the same "double-think" assertions?
"I have not the expertise to put an age on the earth, but I see first hand the highly unscientific hostility to any CALM discussion on the matter by science folk on this here."
Glad to hear that. It's because you repeat assertions that have been shown to you(with great patience) to be false and... then you repeat them again i.e., that pathetic list from AIG, still challenging evolution being fact and theory, still flip-flopping between ID and Biblical creationism when they are mutually exclusive positions.
"I do believe the bible first, and see its creation account cannot dove tail with evolution, ie Genesis says all animals were perfect BEFORE death arrived"
well there you have it in a nutshell! no amount of convincing is going to do otherwise your literal interpretation of a bronze age creation myth is true! even though it is complete and utter twaddle. Genesis is an allegorical myth(intelligent Christians agree with me) which does not mean that it does not hold some truths-in the same way we can glean truths from Greek, Roman, Egyptian etc etc doesn't mean they are to be taken literally! And if they are meant to be literal and factual then there would be evidence to back it up, but as you well know there isn't.
"I also notice that secular history and geography by strange coincidence roughly tally with the creationist view of human arrival on earth."
Really!
And that all coincides with your interpretation of the creation myths of Genesis!?
"Beyond that I am not qualified to say anything, nor do I have the time or desire to do so at this period of my life."
Thank goodness for that! does that mean that you will no longer be commenting on this subject?
"PS A friend of mine recently showed me a fossilised teddy bear. It had been hung in naturally mineralised water in a waterfall and in a short period had been "fossilised".
Yes it's great fun! but there are different types of fossil
Why not look here(and they even have a function in which you can ask practising paleontologists questions)
Regards
DD
I've just stopped by to see how this discussion is going, and I couldn't help but comment on the fact that PB has apparently gone so far as to say that science is not the arbiter of truth with regard to the question of origins?! I had to re-read a few times to ensure that I hadn't misunderstood!
What this means is that, like Galileo's claim that the earth is not the centre of the universe and instead rotates around the sun, you can present no new evidence to PB if he believes something else based on something other than the arbiter of science, like the bible. The church was made up of many PBs at the time; Christians who resisted Galileo's new evidence, saying that science is not the arbiter of truth on such questions when the bible contradicts it.
Christians nowadays have resolved the apparent contradictions regarding the centricity of the earth, and have no beef with Galileo anymore, but it took them almost 400 years to acknowledge that he was right. I wonder how long it will take PB to acknowledge that evolution is right?
Science worldview vs theology worldview, a parable.
One day the boxers challenged the jiu jitsus to a fight.
"Come over to our gym and have a go at boxing, we'll stuff you," said the boxers. "Queensbury rules only, mind."
Some of the jiu jitus went over, and because they had little experience in the comparatively narrower discipline and Queensbury rules," they were all beaten at boxing.
"Then one jiu jitsuer stood up. "Errr. Why are we just competing at boxing? I know it is a much more popular sport in our country and we are clearly a fairly despised minority, but why dont some of you guys come over here to our dojo and try your hand at jiu jitsu?"
The boxers started to get nervous: "You're just kite flying. Everyone knows boxing is far superior to jiu jitsu. Its common sense. We have no time for it. No, we wont come over."
But the jiu jitsuer protested: "Errr. Who is this 'everyone' you are talking about? Who is the impartial judge that has decided by indpependent standards that boxing is superior to jiu jitsu? Come on over to our dojo and lets just find out!"
"Well, anyone with a bit of wit knows boxing is superior, its as simple as that," said the boxers: "Shan't".
///////////////////////////////
There we have it folks: that is what happens when people who have been mastered BY science - as opposed to mastering it themselves - are asked to justify why a scientific worldview is perfect at defining absolute truth in all matters of human concern - and why theology or a spiritual viewpoint is so "useless". That's right, they have actually no real answer...because there isnt one.
They just assume God doesnt exist and refuse to discuss the real story; the inconsistencies, limitations, contradictions and constantly evolving (!) nature, knowledge base and conclusions of science.
sincerely
PB
PS BTW DD, secular academia places homo sapiens as only around 40,000 years old; it finds that recorded human history is only around 6000 years old and it also finds human civilisation in large part began in and around the Euphrates river, ie exactly where the Garden of Eden is located in Genesis. Those are three mighty curious facts AND cooincidences, I find. There was no need for mankind to be so young and appear in and around Eden when the eart is supposed to be tens of billions of years old. Any of you scientists actually work out the odds of each one happening? Oh, whats that you say, the batteries have run out on all your calculators? ;-)
PPS Err, DD the fossils recipes you have given are made from bread! The fossilised teddy bear I was talking about was actually mineralised!
I know it is remarkable how the fundamentalist mind works!?
Yeah PB thats right, you haven't listened to anything that was said have you?
"They just assume God doesnt exist and refuse to discuss the real story; the inconsistencies, limitations, contradictions and constantly evolving (!) nature, knowledge base and conclusions of science."
Nothing to do with it PB ie., if your god exists or not we are talking about a literal interpretation of your creation myth and the complete lack of evidence to support it.
More creationist twaddle...The Eurphrates valley was were writing began that does not necessarily mean that Genesis were true indeed if anything it adds more credence to the Babylonian creation myth which is older than Genesis and was "copied" by the writers of Genesis.
No if you are saying that there is evidence then please present it and amke it objective, credible and verifiable...go-on, knock yourself out!
Have a look at the links again PB! Indeed follow the bottom and ask the experts...
Oh dear pb,
In post #91 you wrote
"I have not the expertise to put an age on the earth"
Realising and admitting the limitations of your knowledge is commendable. Pity then that you go on to demonstrate your lack of knowledge so explicitly and make yourself look even sillier than before by posting the following in post #94:
"PS BTW DD, secular academia places homo sapiens as only around 40,000 years old;"
Oh really? The early stone age began roughly 125000 years ago. You can debate about from when on exactly to call homo sapiens homo sapiens, but by the time people started using tools anyone would (or pehaps better: should) agree that they had evolved into man. So your number of 40000 is highly creative. Got any source reference for that number in some respectable history journal or book?
You also wrote:
"There was no need for mankind to be so young and appear in and around Eden when the eart is supposed to be tens of billions of years old."
Well, your first quote about not having expertise on the age of the earth is demonstratd to be true beyond any doubt. At present the best determination for the age of the earth is 4.6 billion years. The entire universe is determined to be ~14 billion years old with the knowledge and data presently available. So saying that science would claim that the earth is supposed to be tens of billions of years old is again a clear demonstration of ignorance.
Peter
ps: I see you are again being provided with many links to sources of learning by DD. How's the reading going? Apart from what DD pointed out, did you get around to reading about half-evolved fossils yet? That issue has been outstanding for months now. Any opinions on any of the large number of examples available in literature?
I can add some links to radiological dating methods if you really want to learn something about how fossils, old rocks, etc are dated.
DD / John Wright
DD
Is it not possible that we could be civil and calm when we converse?
To be anything else serves no purpose.
I dont think there is anything new or contructive here, except perhaps for one question;-
John Wright -
At the Dover trial the judge decided that that creationism could not be taught in schools as science because it began with a supernatural event, and science cannot allow for the supernatural. (He was careful to state very carefully that he was not saying creationism was incorrect or illogical).
As a Christian and a believer in God yourself John, is the God you believe in supernatural or not?
If not, what sort of God is he? Would be very interested in your description of him and what role he plays in the universe.
I know you are trying to marginalise me but it seems belief in creationism in the west and scepticism about evolution is actually pretty strong, it surprised me for sure;-
I hope the person who carried out the research did not deliberatly restrict it to western countries in order to shore up "apparent" support for evolution....
;-)
PB
PB
If you wouldn't say such idiotic things then I would be "calmer".
If you could just back up what you are saying with evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable that would be great!
PB
Don't mean to answer for John but you commit the same fallacies.
You mention Dover again - it has been pointed out to you that ID and Biblical creationism are mutually exclusive. Do you agree with Behe and Dremski who both have no trouble with evolution nor with the Earth being billions of years old? because that contradicts with what you have said previously and does make you look very silly.
It has been pointed out to that the claims of ID like irreducible complexity and Biblical creationism can be tested and as you know both have been shown to be twaddle.
"He was careful to state very carefully that he was not saying creationism was incorrect or illogical"
As has been pointed out this was not within his remit.
Since you love Dover so much why not take this on board...
"Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs鈥 scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator."
PB intelligent Christians have no problem with evolution.
Re the live science survey. Well I for one am delighted that evolution is rated so highly! and that people are not so generally willfully ignorant as you PB.
It is interesting that the countries with the highest levels of support for evolution are also those with the lowest crime rates and social problems and the 2 countries with highest number of fundamentalists (Turkey and the US) are the ones with the highest crime rates and social problems! Which pits lie to the often repeated creationist canard that evilution leads to all sorts of evil.
As I said I am delighted by the results of the survey!
Again you bang on about "western" countries, these are countries are the "first world", now in India if there are high levels of support for Hindu creationism then it's true!?
Also this was a survey of public support not scientific and as I said I am delighted!
PB you do know that surveys also show a pretty high level of public acceptance of astrology...therefore it's true!?
As I said PB please provide a piece of evidence to back up your claims that is objective, credible and verifiable...go on, knock yourself out!
DD
The trial judge also said he found no difference between ID and creationism and equated the two clearly, as I recall.
Ref evidence;-
1) If you are really interested in scientific evidence from scientists, why not read the viewpoints and life stories of some of those scientists scientists listed in posts 59 and 60.
I am not a scientist.
BTW It has struck me how Peter Klaver was so upset that so many of them are from fields not directly related to biological evolution, when by that standard he also strikes himself out of having any authority on the subject whatsoever, as he is a physicist!
2) However your call for strictly scientific evidence rules out the possibility of evidence on your terms, as you well know; science cannot accept God as the supernatural source of creationism. But your emphasis on the supposed absolute validity of your question is subjective, as SG pointed out yesterday, and which you did not reject.
Many, many people the world over do not have such a strictly scientific worldview as you, as we have seen, and they do not agree with your assumption that there is no such thing as the supernatural.
If I as a non-scientist cannot give you evidence to your liking, you as a science buff have equally never been able to explain to me why you are so right to have a worldview that precludes every possibility of the supernatural.
On the same point, it occured to me that it would be very interesting to see how many scientists today do have habitual involvement in worship of a supernatural being, even if only at their weddings or funerals; any concession to the existence of a supernatual being is at odds with any presumption that supernatural events do not happen. I think the survey we are discussing suggests there is probably much more scepticism of evolution among scientists (and much more creationism) that you would like to believe.
3) Lastly DD, did I ever ask you what standard of evidence would actually satisy you? I dont actually believe any could. If Christ appeared to you, wouldnt you say you were hallucinating or had eaten something off or been on medication?
If you saw God create life in a lab with your own eyes you couldnt replicate it or explain it and so it wouldnt be science.
If God wrote a divine letter to the world, people who hated God would call it a hoax and devote millions to discredit it.
Can you conceive of any evidence that would actually satisfy you?
I dont imagine you can conceive of any because you have already determined not to consider any, it appears.
BTW, I 100% agree with the trial judge, neither evolution nor creationism nor young or old earth are essential to the Christian faith, and none of them were an issue to me coming to faith.
One key point you havent addressed though, is the pro-evolution scientists in the trial said evolution does not deny or oppose the belief in a creator.
This means two things;
1) Either they were theists, and were clear that evolution allows for the existence of Almighty God, which actually allows for the supernatural and therefore allows for the existence of creationism to be real, but still not within current scientific parameters.
2) Or else they were athiests and had a clear idological interest in claiming evolution allows for God and were not independent; I can live happily as a Christian without creationism but you as an athiest cannot live without evolution.
And strengthening the hand of evolution ALWYAS strengthens the hand of athiests and God haters.
Are all those doubters and creationists in this survey really "stupid"?
And what makes YOU really qualified to make such a call?
True science is not actually democratic anyway; if you didnt witness an event at the beginning or through any of its myriad stages and cant recreate it in a lab I think it is only fair to say you are dealing with a theory.
PB
I should add DD, a quick glance at this survey shows that countries such as France, Swtizerland, UK, Germany, Finland, Japan and the Netherlands feature as having between around 10 to 30% of the population believing in creationism.
That is quite surprising given the amount of weight evolution packs in the media etc.
PB
Hello pb,
I see you've had some time to post again. Yet you leave so many open questions. Let me list a number of issues on which we are all still eagerly awaiting your responses.
To start with, where did you get those values about how long the earth and homo sapiens have been around, as I inquired in post #96? Contradicts anything I've ever read about it.
And I can't await your response on half-evolved fossils. You were on about that to no end in the McIntosh threads. And you've had months now. Surely enough to read about something that was so enormously important to you. So what do you think about the extensive literature on the numerous half-evolved fossils? Really blows your statements into microscopic splinters, wouldn't you say? If not, please present the papers that form the basis of your views. You've been awfully quiet on this one, despite being asked repeatedly.
You could of course say that you don't base your views on scientific evidence. But in that case (after suppressing my laughter, John Right makes a fine point) I'd like to repeat my request for an example where you do not adhere to the laws of physics as science states them. This should be interesting.
Going beyond fossils, what about emus and ostriches? I asked you before about these animals that spend much energy and proteins on wings they can't fly with. What clearer demonstration of half-evolved feathers could you ask for? Little science is required there to see it.
Come on pb, you leave so many open questions. Surely even someone with your completely unrational, disproven, unrealistic, fairy tale views has something better to offer as a basis for those views than the huge gaping hole you leave open? Quick sand would be amore solid basis than what you have. Do you really have nothing with which to answer the above list of questions?
Come on, give us some specific answers to the questions above please. Surely you're not leaving the field all to us that easily?
Pb, you wrote
"BTW It has struck me how Peter Klaver was so upset that so many of them are from fields not directly related to biological evolution, when by that standard he also strikes himself out of having any authority on the subject whatsoever, as he is a physicist!"
Kindly point out where I posted anything that showed me being upset about the fields the AiG supporters come from. That just never happened. You're possibly the most hopeless forum troll I've ever debated and I've learned to deal with the bs level in your posts, but falsely attributing statements to me that I never made is something I quite strongly dislike. Even when it comes from a credibility-lacking character like you. So kindly point out where I made any such statement or take back your remark and refrain from falsely attributing statements to me. You either have a terribly bad memory or you're consciously lying.
PB
"The trial judge also said he found no difference between ID and creationism and equated the two clearly, as I recall."
Yes he did BUT that is not the same thing as saying that ID and Biblical creationism are the same in the religious content but not on "scientific" and when he did it was a death knell for the ID cause. I did provide the links(which again you did not bother to look at) in a previous thread the post is further up and these 2 positions are mutually exclusive. PB do you agree with the ID movement who have no problem with evolution(as such) and with the Earth being billions of years old or do you agree with Ken Ham? You do look rather silly when you flip-flop between these 2 mutually exclusive positions.
"1) If you are really interested in scientific evidence from scientists, why not read the viewpoints and life stories of some of those scientists scientists listed in posts 59 and 60.
I am not a scientist."
I know you are not a scientist. Oh please are you still flogging that pathetic list! all these so-called "scientists" got their world-view from fundamentalist religious belief, nowt to do with science! We have been over this many. many times before-do I have top repeat myself again?
Peter is a genuine scientist and he did make a valid point, I mean dentists and software engineers!?
2)I answered that question to Stephen on the terms of subjectivity. As has been pointed out to you on many occasions accepting science and evolution does not make you an atheist. Many Christians who are scientists have no problem with it. In any case PB you have no right to talk about subjectivity when you cannot provide a single objective piece of evidence for Biblical creationism. Again it has been pointed out to before that the claims of ID and Biblical creationism(by their own standards) can be tested and that is why they are twaddle.
Yes people have different views on the supernatural and many would be at odds with you doesn't prove anything I wonder if you would accept the supernatural claims of Hinduism etc?
It's to do with evidence PB, evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable and so far you have not provided me with that. I am an open-minded person (not so open my brain falls out) and open to new possibilities and so far in terms of Biblical creationism you have just repeated the same old canards.
Well PB why do you not read Kenneth Miller, Paul Davies, Francis Collins, these are scientists who are Christians and have no problem with evolution, I don't feel qualified to speak on the subject. The survey dealt with public perceptions on the acceptance of evolution and I am delighted that it is so high!
3)Again PB evidence that is objective , credible and verifiable. If Jesus or your god or Zeus, Amon-Ra etc etc appeared to me I would take it under consideration, but it hasn't happened yet. Again we are talking about the claims of Biblical creationism which can be tested and has been found to be complete twaddle.
Is there any evidence that would convince you of evolution because I can't think of any?
"One key point you ha vent addressed though, is the pro-evolution scientists in the trial said evolution does not deny or oppose the belief in a creator."
1)Well Ken Miller who is a christian and did more to expose the sham of ID as twaddle describes himself as a creationist! He's the author of 'Finding Darwin's God'-perhaps you should read it.
2) Rubbish PB you are off on a Ken Ham rant! I provided lists(which of course you did not look at) before of Christians who are scientists(and clergy) who have no problem with evolution and it has done nothing to weaken their faith. As I said Ken Miller spoke at the trial. As I have told you before intelligent Christians have no problem with evolution.
Well for someone who can live quite happily without creationism you certainly do go about it!and so do your fellow creationists. Evolution nor science does not obsess me and I can live without it what does annoy me is religious fanatics posting pseudo-scientific twaddle and thinking that is the be all and end all and expect to get away with it.
"And strengthening the hand of evolution ALWYAS strengthens the hand of atheists and God haters."
Utter Twaddle! my you fundies are a paranoid bunch! as I told you before many, many Christians have no problem with science and does not affect their faith because this argument is about the fundamentalist cults of Christianity, indeed many Christians see you as an embarrassment and you are actually doing more to make your religion seem nutty and ridiculous than Richard Dawkins.
"Are all those doubters and creationists in this survey really "stupid"?"
Some creationists are clever in the sense that they can frame an argument but I would say that by and large Biblical creationists are largely on the intellectually challenged side.
"And what makes YOU really qualified to make such a call?"
Unfortunate experience PB and many Christian agree with me.
"True science is not actually democratic anyway; if you didn't witness an event at the beginning or through any of its myriad stages and cant recreate it in a lab I think it is only fair to say you are dealing with a theory."
What are you on about!?
"I should add DD, a quick glance at this survey shows that countries such as France, Switzerland, UK, Germany, Finland, Japan and the Netherlands feature as having between around 10 to 30% of the population believing in creationism."
And the surveys show that between 70-90% of the population have no problem with evolution.
This is surprising given the amount of religious propaganda we have about?
And of course these countries have a fraction of the crime rate in comparison to countries which have high rates of creationism, also these countries do not have high rates of fundamentalism.
Cheers for the link!
Ps. Pb could you please provide evidence that would back up the claims of Biblical creationism? after all they claim the "evidence" is empirical so please give me evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable, go on-knock yourself out!
@DD
"Peter is a genuine scientist and he did make a valid point, I mean dentists and software engineers!?"
I don't know if you took this from pb's post or whether you came to that yourself? As I said to pb, please point out where I said anything such.
If you were just dragged into this by pb's statement then please ignore my post. In that case pb, I'd really like you to point out where I said anything such. Apparently people are starting to follow your false statements. So where, already?!
Well it seems that you folks are giving PB a run for his money already, so there's no real need for me to do this, but PB did ask me a few questions in post #97 that I'd be happy to address.
1) "As a Christian and a believer in God yourself John, is the God you believe in supernatural or not?"
If by supernatural you mean that God is not based upon the same fundamental limitations as human beings, I would say he's supernatural.
2) "If not, what sort of God is he? Would be very interested in your description of him and what role he plays in the universe."
It seems evident to me that everything (or at least almost everything) we observe is consistent with 'natural' explanations for it. As we learn more and more about our universe, 'natural' explanations (ie. scientific explanations) have proved to be the most consistent, reliable, coherent explanations. I think, therefore, that seeing God primarily as a supernatural being, outside of this universe but interacting with it and interfering in it is probably mostly erroneous. It seems to me that if one claims that God created the universe, he created it to run 'naturally'. We are now finding mechanisms of nature by which the universe expanded and by which life evolved; that is, mechanisms which didn't require the 'supernatural' intervention of God. I'm not opposed to the idea that a 'supernatural' intervention was required to ignite the first spark of life, but I'm also wary of relying on such an explanation simply because we haven't found a 'natural' mechanism by which it can occur just yet.
As for my description of God, I don't have a very detailed one. It seems to me that we know very little about that which we call God, and certainly nowhere near as much as most Christians would like to believe. However God exists, it seems clear to me that he is at least as much 'natural' as 'supernatural'. But most of this regards our choice of language. If we someday find parts of our universe which operate on another level or dimension, perhaps in the human brain, do we call it 'supernatural'? Or is it not merely a part of the 'natural' that we've only recently discovered? Today we call it 'spiritual'; tomorrow we may call it by a scientific name once we observe and theorise about it scientifically.
In summary: I don't particularly like the drawing of a line between what is 'natural' and what we just don't understand. We could call everything 'natural' once we understand it, and that's long been the goal of humanity: to understand.
3) "I know you are trying to marginalise me..."
Not in the slightest; I'm merely disagreeing with you and, in some cases, expressing my utter astonishment at some of your claims.
4) ..."but it seems belief in creationism in the west and scepticism about evolution is actually pretty strong...."
Few would deny that. But haven't we been here before? Why does it concern you what other people believe? Surely it doesn't matter; truth does not consult a majority to manipulate its existence. Truth is truth, regardless of who believes it and who doesn't. You made the same argument with regard to Christian theology. As I replied then, there are more people who disagree with you than who agree with you (Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews); does that mean they're right? Of course not.
Good luck with this crowd PB! You definitely have your work cut out for you.
Aplogies Peter,
For once I didn't check PB out(I should know by now!), and you didn't mention this. PB does love misrepresnting people doesn't he?
Anyway aplogies, will be more vigilant in future(and I usually am especially when it comes to PB).
Regards
DD
No problem DD :)
Peter / DD
Peter
I wasnt seriously trying to define the age of the earth in the figure I gave, my focus was on the age of homo sapiens, apologies.
What I was specifically referring to was the age in which "homo sapien sapiens" first began to act
like modern humans, doing art an dmaking rafts etc, this I understand to have been around 40,000 BC.
I certainly agree, you did not make a distinction between biological and non-biological scientists, so apologies again.
I was mistaken in that the complete quote from wikipedia, which you partially quoted, did make that distinction however.
Having said that, the point does still stand, your expertise is still not directly related to biological evolution, Peter.
Ref "half-evolved fossils and feathers" to be honest I havint been thinking about them at all, more important things on Im afraid.
You refer to John Wright and support his views - but what do you have to say about his belief in a supernatural God? Do you challenge him to "prove" his God too? or just me?
I think my main point in recent posts has been that DD and yourself seem to shy away from
the question about how valid your scientific-to-the-exclusion-of-everything-else worldview is.
Who decides that your question is more valid than mine;-
"Where is your divine authority that confirms evolution is true?"
Who decides?
If you cant accept this as a valid question from a "primitive bible believer",
then can you consider it from a philosophy/theology graduate? SG is addressing it here,
/cgi-perl/mt/mt-comments.cgi
Peter, you do seem to be taking a very judgemental tone against me. But I never saw you criticise any of your friends at
your Spaghetti monster website for creating multiple false identities to multiply falise posters against me?
DD, your definition of Peter as a scientist while dismissing all the AIG Phds is of course completely subjective.
You confess that even if God appeared to you it wouldnt convince you?
BTW, I apologise for noting Arthur C Clarke as an author you recommended, my mistake.
But if I may inject a little reality into biblical scholarship discussions, you give my understanding
no credit at all, yet in spite all of the mighty authors you have read you still
totally rejected my analysis of slavery in the bible...
/blogs/ni/2007/03/how_to_be_a_theological_racist.html
until Will Crawley posted an essay vindicating my position;-
/blogs/ni/2007/03/shibboleth_on_slavery.html
I also notice that while Peter slated me for my views on this, he too has avoided this blog's final word on the matter.
As I recall, just about every poster on this blog attacked me for my postings on slavery, until Will's essay vindicated them.
I dont have a grudge against either of you. I apologise for being a little sarcastic in places above, but you both come on pretty heavy.
You do raise important points and make me think, though often I am not sure we really "hear" each other.
I am just an ordinary bible student and do occasionally ask questions about science. It is because I am curious.
I dont consider that a promise to surrender any of my beliefs and dont think it justified for anyone to consider it so, no more than it would be vice versa.
If that bothers anyone, I would prefer they didnt engage with me at all.
I will never be able to prove creationism, nor, I contest, do I aim to. I am not convinced about the young earth old earth debate, but asking
folks like you questions helps inform me.
And sorry, but I dont honestly have the time to read every link given to me - I dont think either of you do either!
I will never be able to prove the resurrection or God, nor do I believe I really try that either.
I dont think either is possible, or desireable in fact. If possible it would cancel the very concept of "faith".
This is a blog dedicated to debate among people of all types, so I dont think the level of ad hominems above are justfied.
Will himself regulalry invites all shades of Christians (including creationists) onto his show for robust debates.
But I think he does extend them common courtsey and respect.
Respect to your both ;-)
sincerely
PB
PB
"You refer to John Wright and support his views - but what do you have to say about his belief in a supernatural God? Do you challenge him to "prove" his God too? or just me?"
The main thrust of this debate here has not been whether your god exists or not, it is whether Biblical Creationism is science and belief or unbelief in your god is immaterial to the debate because Biblical creationists claim their findings are empirical therefore they can be tested. It is interesting that you keep bringing this issue up 1. because it says that you must believe in your god before you can look at the evidence-well plenty of Christians have no problem with evolution so I don't see the problem 2. I must accept your god then the evidence will become clear or something-that's a bit of circular reasoning.
Re: worldviews- the short answer is evidence.
"DD, your definition of Peter as a scientist while dismissing all the AIG Phds is of course completely subjective."
I have gave my reasons many, many times PB!do you want me to go over it again?
PB I still stand by assertions on the points that you raised re: slavery
PB it has been pointed out to why YEC is rubbish(I am sorry but it is)the central crux of the matter as I said before is that creationists claim their evidence is empirical, I have asked you to provide the evidence and to make the evidence objecetive, credible and verifiable this is something that you(nor any creationist) can do...therefore the conclusion that I reach that your views on this matter are not scientific but rather religiously based therefore invalid in a discussion about science.
All I ask for evidence is when people make assertions, that not much PB, indeed I think it is very reasonable!
DD
Pb,
Your reply is nowhere near good enough. You hardly addres the list of issues put to you at all. I point out massive holes in your views, and the best you can do is to mostly try to divert attention to other subjects. Not going to work. Before you try to shift attention again, first answer the many points put to you.
You definately can't just pass over the half-evolved fossils issue. You've been on and on and on about that for ages. It is one of the prime reasons why you lost all credibility on this blog. So I put it to you again: you favourite subject is no more than a demonstration of ignorance. You have nothing to reply to that?
And what about those animals alive today with intermediate feathers that I enquired about? Emus, ostriches etc. As I said you don't need an awful lot of science to see how far off you are. Still nothing to show for yourself there?
You're holding out that people using spears etc 125000 years ago are not humans yet? Then kindly tell me what they were. And as asked before, please provide some basis for your number of 40000 years (for the number of 125000 I came up with see e. g. Robert M. Maxon's 'East Africa, An introductory History').
As for why I consider the laws of physics as laid down by science the final arbiter? As I asked, and you completely ignored: the laws of physics rule you too, so answer within those rules. If you disagree, please point out any instance of where you can step outside them.
Come on pb, you have to do better. This list of questions you can't answer is the death knell for your credibility. If you want keep going, you have to addres them.
**
And now, we take a short intermission for snacks and restroom breaks. Will 2007 be the year PB sees the truth and begins belief in theistic evolution? Or will he make Dylan Dog bark instead? Will PB's faith or Peter's reason win the day? Join us in mere moments for the next episode of 'PB the homosapien.'
***
Woof Woof!
I await the outcome with baited breath!
You could have added to the list how long will PB keep bringing up that list from AIG?
(cheers for giving me a :-)
DD
Wow DD, has PB never come back? I do believe that the cliffhanger may have become the end! Enjoying your convo with Stephen G on the other thread, btw.
John Wright
Come on you naughty boy. What evidence do you have for believing in God?
We did go through this debate before some time back and you conceded your contradiction.
How can you chide me for believing in creationism as unscientific and yet have no evidence for
believing in God yourself?
DD
Maybe we are getting closer to understanding. I sympathise with your questions.
I am not a scientist and you demand scientific answers from me.
My beliefs are based on the bible. Can you see how you keep asking me questions which are
not so important to me; I dont study science and cant engage with you on that level.
My beliefs are based on the bible.
Your worldview is framed by science, mine by the bible.
I am not fighting to prove creationism or God or the bible to you.
I am not saying it is best or most right. I am just saying it is what I believe.
But having said that, I fully respect you and your views.
Peter
When you ask if I can defy physics, which physics do you mean?
Physics of 1907 or of 2007 or of 3007?
In 1907 there was not yet a nuclear bomb.
In 50 years I may well be able to defy gravity; British Aerospace and
others are sinking lots of money into the field.
Come on now Peter, science cannot answer for everything and it changes all the time, as John Wright says. My own sister had open brain surgery which found
a brain tumour but it completely disappeared afterwards. The Dr said "miracles do happen" and brought her into
a leacture theatre full of doctors to present her as a "mystery case".
While I have every respect for science and people with your obvious expertise in your field,
I have no doubt that many people sense deep inside something beyond the material world; In the survey referred to by DD, only around an average of 60% of the
people in 34 countries believed in evolution. There is no doubt in my mind that many many people sense deep within that there is much more to reality that the physical world.
Going back to early man, I was reading a 1948 encyclopaedia last night which did not even mention evolution or darwin when discussing the
origins of man. See how views can change with the zeitgeist of each new age?
Even today, I still find it fascinating that secualar historians say recorded history is only
6000 years old and that life began largely around the Euphrates and Tigris, where Eden was located.
Add to that how very very young secular history dates modern man (you give me the correct age!)
and those three factors seem very cooincidental.
Considering you date the world billions of years old, what really are the chances of those three seperate factors
roughly tallying with creationism?
Some other difficult questions,
-What happens your personality and consciousness when you close your eyes for the
last time Peter? How can you really be sure? what evidence do you have?
-Did modern humans really evolve by pure chance from a pool of random molecules?
-What existed before the universe and what caused it to begin?
-why do evolutionists scramble with religious fervour when they think that once again
they have found the holy grail of the missing link? Arent they convinced enough already?
And why do the missing links they do find never create consensus among mainstream scientists as to what they are?
Some questions which vexed Darwin were, how on earth did the marvellous eyeball evolve by chance?
And also the extremely few numbers of fossils in existence which he knew really undermined his view that species evolved into species.
There is still no evidence that one species ever evolved into another - just assumptions that they did, with mighty huge gaps in the fossil records.
That is why it is called the "theory" of evolution.
At Dover, the reason the judge gave for rejecting creationism as science was not that it didnt make sense or that there was not evidence. It was
because it had a supernatural beginning.
He (correctly in my view) stated this excluded it from the science class as such causes are not allowable in modern science.
But is not the same as saying he does not believe supernatural events occur!
thats all from me tonight folks, Im beat.
sincerely
PB
John Wright
Come on you naughty boy. What evidence do you have for believing in God?
We did go through this debate before some time back and you conceded your contradiction.
How can you chide me for believing in creationism as unscientific and yet have no evidence for
believing in God yourself?
DD
Maybe we are getting closer to understanding. I sympathise with your questions.
I am not a scientist and you demand scientific answers from me.
My beliefs are based on the bible. Can you see how you keep asking me questions which are
not so important to me; I dont study science and cant engage with you on that level.
My beliefs are based on the bible.
Your worldview is framed by science, mine by the bible.
I am not fighting to prove creationism or God or the bible to you.
I am not saying it is best or most right. I am just saying it is what I believe.
But having said that, I fully respect you and your views.
Peter
When you ask if I can defy physics, which physics do you mean?
Physics of 1907 or of 2007 or of 3007?
In 1907 there was not yet a nuclear bomb.
In 50 years I may well be able to defy gravity; British Aerospace and
others are sinking lots of money into the field.
Come on now Peter, science cannot answer for everything and it changes all the time, as John Wright says. My own sister had open brain surgery which found
a brain tumour but it completely disappeared afterwards. The Dr said "miracles do happen" and brought her into
a leacture theatre full of doctors to present her as a "mystery case".
While I have every respect for science and people with your obvious expertise in your field,
I have no doubt that many people sense deep inside something beyond the material world; In the survey referred to by DD, only around an average of 60% of the
people in 34 countries believed in evolution. There is no doubt in my mind that many many people sense deep within that there is much more to reality that the physical world.
Going back to early man, I was reading a 1948 encyclopaedia last night which did not even mention evolution or darwin when discussing the
origins of man. See how views can change with the zeitgeist of each new age?
Even today, I still find it fascinating that secualar historians say recorded history is only
6000 years old and that life began largely around the Euphrates and Tigris, where Eden was located.
Add to that how very very young secular history dates modern man (you give me the correct age!)
and those three factors seem very cooincidental.
Considering you date the world billions of years old, what really are the chances of those three seperate factors
roughly tallying with creationism?
Some other difficult questions,
-What happens your personality and consciousness when you close your eyes for the
last time Peter? How can you really be sure? what evidence do you have?
-Did modern humans really evolve by pure chance from a pool of random molecules?
-What existed before the universe and what caused it to begin?
-why do evolutionists scramble with religious fervour when they think that once again
they have found the holy grail of the missing link? Arent they convinced enough already?
And why do the missing links they do find never create consensus among mainstream scientists as to what they are?
Some questions which vexed Darwin were, how on earth did the marvellous eyeball evolve by chance?
And also the extremely few numbers of fossils in existence which he knew really undermined his view that species evolved into species.
There is still no evidence that one species ever evolved into another - just assumptions that they did, with mighty huge gaps in the fossil records.
That is why it is called the "theory" of evolution.
At Dover, the reason the judge gave for rejecting creationism as science was not that it didnt make sense or that there was not evidence. It was
because it had a supernatural beginning.
thats all from me tonight folks, Im beat.
sincerely
PB
PS Do any of you guys have any formal qualification in evolutionary biology related science or biblical theology?
PB-
"Come on you naughty boy. What evidence do you have for believing in God?"
I love when people reply to me saying "Come on" as if that allows them to circumvent logic! PB, you're a decent guy and I enjoy your contributions on here, if only for the entertainment value of seeing someone with your views debate with people who are at the absolute other end of the spectrum. I don't have any evidence for belief in God, but I choose to believe in God anyway because I am persuaded by a few of the arguments for his existence, including various versions of the ontological argument. I'm what could best be described as an "".
And:
The difference is that one is a matter of philosophy and the other a matter of science. Theism (belief in God) is a matter of philosophy. Origins (creation or evolution) is a matter of science. Science cannot and does not disprove God. Science, on the other hand, directly disproves a literal account of Genesis and strongly suggests the truth of a very coherent, compelling, substantiated explanation called evolution.
I hope this distinction is helpful.
Hello pb,
I see you're still up to your old tricks. Mostly ignoring the points put to you where you've been shown to be so wrong and (wilfully) ignorant. Trying to move to divert attention by bringing in other subjects. As I said in post 110 this won't work.
And you're demonstrating your lack of understanding of physics and science when you try to address the point of how we are all ruled the by laws of physics.
So you have really nothing then on the issue of half-evolved feathers? Come on, this has been the corner stone of your criticism of evolution for so long. You've been on about that so many times. Stating that it's not important, as you do in post 108, is not particularly credible. The rug has been yanked from under your favourite nag, and you don't have anything at all in response?
I imagine it must be very disheartenening when you have people tear up something at the basis of your views and you can't do anything about it.
And to worsen your problems, there were still the living animals with half-evolved feathers like emus and ostriches. Repeated requests on this, but only a gaping hole of silence in response. Come on pb, creationists and ID'ers are a laughing stock on average, but you're doing poorly even by their standards. Surely you don't want to be the man who couldn't even get into the dumb club? Come on, address the issues that have been put to you so often.
When you do addres issues, you will want to do it better than the way you tried to address the science issue:
"When you ask if I can defy physics, which physics do you mean?
Physics of 1907 or of 2007 or of 3007?
In 1907 there was not yet a nuclear bomb."
Oh dear pb, what ignorance you display about very basic concepts of science. The physics that governs something like a nuclear bomb have not changed between 1907 and 2007. And they will be the same in 3007. If anything changes, it's the laws of physics that scientists use to capture the behaviour we observe in nature (and the development of technologies that enable us to use the physical insights). But even there your example is wrong. In 1907 Einstein had already published his mass-energy equivalence equation that lies at the heart of the nuclear bomb (E=m*c^2). No changes there since 1907.
It's commendable that you at least make an effort to address one of the issues that were still outstanding. Pity that nothing you said on the issue makes any sense. So it's still outstanding and I will therefore repeat my request: I you don't want to play by the fundamental rules of physics, then show me any example where the rules of physics (e. g. those as they are presently stated. I'll go easy on you, you don't have to bother yourself about a developing field like string theory just yet.) don't apply to you. You're not of the hook on this one, issue still outstanding.
And then there is the issue of how old homo sapiens is. You write
"(you give me the correct age!)"
Sorry, I can interpret this in two ways, either thinking you're telling me I had it right and you're conceding this point or you're saying I'm the source of your wrong number of 40000. Please clarify. And if it is the latter, please stop from (once again) attributing statements to me I never made. That really is becoming your new trademark technique, isn't it?
Please don't bring in other subjects again to divert attention pb. Just address the issues that have been put to you so often already.
greets,
Peter
Cheers John!
Looks like the cliffhanger has returned!
"My beliefs are based on the bible.
Your worldview is framed by science, mine by the bible."
Exactly PB! and it's a narrow interpretation of the Bible that I believe that does the Bible and Christianity a disservice.
My worldview is based on assessed evidence.
I'll leave it at that as I see John and Peter have replied and you have enough on your plate!
Regards
DD
I can remember on the old 成人论坛 science board we used to play the game of creationist bingo ie., see how many tired old canards creationists come up with and on your last post PB you hit full house!
It was explained to you in detail before PB what scientific theory means and of course evolution is fact and theory.
There are no "missing links" but there are plenty of transitional fossils.
As has been pointed out to you before PB the claims of ID and Biblical creationism can be tested and when they are they have been found to be twaddle.
Regards
DD
Amenhotep
You certainly seep into every nook and cranny around the bible and have had been scracthing my head a bit!
You have charged me with this in the past but I think you ought to realise that you too are a product of your time and culture. How old is your particular strict athiestic scientific worldview?
Ref Tekton I am honestly quite dissapointed in you here. I have demonstrated to you that by far and away the primary meaning of the term is carpenter but you previously challenged this in very strong terms.
Are you really a better greek scholar
that every English translator of the New Testament that there ever was?
You also took a very patronising tone to ridicule my perception of Christ which was wholly unsubstantiated.
In post 120 you said the gospels did not claim Jesus was a carpenter, but that is not what Mark 6:13 says!
You suggested I "read a bit more bible" ;-)
The way you keep using problems you see in the gospels to "discredit" the Christian story while simultaneously discounting their historical credibility is a bit boggling. it is very arbitrary indeed. Lots of room for presumptions there to colour your vviews!
Ref the idea that you dont look at the evidence and incorporate it into your presumptions, I would say that is exactly what you have done with the greek, tekton, above.
The way I see this in ref to the fossil record is that because you have presumed that God does not exist and creationism therefore cannot, the only remaining credible way of looking at the fossils (for either old or young earth) is through the lense of evolution.
You speak as though evolution is absolute fact but I understand many evolutionists are very comfortable with its status as most probable theory.
I have yet to see a convicing arguemnt as to how life began itself by chance in mud and evolved. There are no [even alleged] eye witness scripts to verify this yet you have more faith in this than in Christ?
Neither are there witnesses or actual evidence that one species ever changed into another - JUST PRESUMPTIONS.
And you cant recreate evolution in a lab either. Lots of room for presumptions in there Amen?
You also claim that a-theism performs just as well as theism. But does it? In your life up until this point you think it does. But remember, in your "weaker" moments you still feel nostalgia for your old Christian faith, you confess.
And you have not lived out your entire existence yet to come to a proper conclusion; maybe you have halted your experiment too early to say God does not matter in this life - or after this life ends.
As I understand it, the mathematical chances of man evolving from dust by chance are astronomical, and not really in keeping with Occam's razor; but creationism is a much simpler proposition, depending on your presumptions about whether science can reach an accurate verdict on the supernatural.
You asked about mainstream historical acceptance of the gospels as eye witness accounts.
The Times Complete History of the World says of "Jesus of Nazareth" that he was "Born near the end of the age of Herod the Great, his ministry and Passion are recounted in the
four gospels of the New Testament...".
It gives a very traditional profile of his life in about 200 words based on the gospels without looking down on them whatsoever.
The Oxford Dictionary of World History says of "Jesus Christ" that "The Gospels of the New Testament are the main sources of information about Jesus."
It then proceeds to give a very traditional 300 word profile of his life based on them without any embarrassment whatsoever.
The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary says the gospels are "One of the books written by the four Evangelists".
World History for Dummies, which you previously concurred with on the bible, says: "Four of Jesus' twelve disciples, who were called the Apostles, wrote down his words and deeds in the Gospels..."
If many works dont actually describe them as "eye witness accounts" they clearly treat them as though they are, and give no reason whatsoever for the reader not to doubt this common assumption.
The only one I have seen that openly questions them as eye witnesses is Encylopaedia Brittanica 14th ed but it doesnt actually explain why.
Early church leaders also ascribe the four gospels to the four apostles as named, though Brittanica questions this without any explanation.
DD
I appreciate your comments on my biblical slavery analysis. thanks :)
Being honest seems simple yet sensible (an presumption!) but is that going to be enough to help you differentiate among all these different faith claims, if indeed you have any interest in doing so?
At the moment it does not appear that it will. Are you open to any new approaches? I am not suggesting any, only that you might consider some.
You seem awfully hung up on creationism. It is not the lynchpin of the Christian faith, not by a longshot as you point out all the time (ref theistic evolutionists). I would say the resurrection is the key place to start.
It might surprise you but I am open to review my views on creationism, but based on learning from people who
dont have such a certain anti-faith as you appear to.
I just dont buy that evolution is rock solid "fact".
Ref faith it seems one thing to say "I dont have the evidence, Im withholding judgement" and quite another to say "I dont have the evidence, it is most definitly not true".
Isnt that a fair summary of how you see some faith matters?
I'm still quite curious that you appear not to admit to having a worldview. It appears you believe it is possible to be "honest" enough not to have one. But at the same time you admit to being a naturalist/scientist.
But of course like religion, that too is very much the product of a particular culture, time and place and has its own values and assumptions.
Doesnt your desire for crystal clear evidence itself define a worldview with assumptions that evidence exists according to your strict criteria?
sincerely
PB
Hi JW
I dont really buy your diffentiation between a supernatural God and a supernatural creation! Sorry!
Peter
Sorry mate you are just being really immature. If you actually engage me in a two way conversation I will return the complement.
DD
Maybe we are making some progress. Sometimes I feel you are on the offensive so much you never really explain what you believe about the world and it is hard to relate to you.
Am I right in saying you are in pursuit of ultimate truth?
In all seriousness, when you say my interpretation of the bible is very narrow and does the Chirstian faith a disservice, I think if you reflect on that you will have to admit that is a very subjective opinion.
In any case, are you dismissing my right to hold a viewpoint of the world or dismissing my value as a person for choosing the one I did?
Are you truly qualified to make such calls? Or do you see what you are doing as quite different to what I do.
If I never choose to assess the world by your standard of evidence can you still respect me as a person? or will you always feel the need to challenge me when I express a view?
It almost seems like your own form of fundamentalism, inflexible and intolerant of other views.
Interested in your take on it.
sincerely
PB
PB
Firstly to be fair to Amenhotep, the response that you give here- the discussion was on another thread and sometimes it is difficult to keep up with other peoples postings in this blog format. Perhaps you could copy your answer to him as he may not be aware that you have posted here.
OK honest re: faith claims...try to judge them on their own merits, but they cannot all be right...even Christians do not agree.
I am always "open" PB! are you?
I am not "hung up" on creationism per se rather it is people posting pseudo-science and expect that to be the be-all and end-all of the matter.
PB how am I "anti-faith"? I criticize aspects of faith especially the unthinking fundamentalist side but have you read me give a diatribe against all Christians?
Evolution Fact and theory PB-I think you should look up what science actually means by these terms.
I would define faith as...belief without evidence.
Everyone has views PB! so do I, especially when it comes to football matters I can be quite irrational! I am not a scientist PB just an interested dabbler. I believe that science has the best method of assessing evidence, it's honest and objective and when it makes a mistake , moves on and that's the end of it. It's not my criteria PB it's an objective criteria that can be tested and if found to be false-dumped!
Ultimately PB...the answer is I DON'T KNOW.
As for the rest of post 121
PB we are on a public message board, we all hold different opinions, you challenge people and so do I...am I not allowed to challenge you when you make assertions that I believe to be false?
That's what it's all about!
"If I never choose to assess the world by your standard of evidence can you still respect me as a person? or will you always feel the need to challenge me when I express a view?"
Yes and depends on the content.
"It almost seems like your own form of fundamentalism, inflexible and intolerant of other views."
I am challenging you PB! when yo make an assertion re: evolution/creation etc I am asking you for evidence to back up your claims, whats so inflexible and intolerant about that!
DD
Hello pb,
"If you actually engage me in a two way conversation I will return the complement."
No answers at all then to the many open questions after so many reminders and challenges? No response at all after you were crucified on so many issues? Not a very stylish way to concede defeat, but I'll accept it and leave the matter there.
thanks DD
Is your definition of faith just yours or the generally accepted definition?
Surely science is only as honest and objective as the scientist?
Ref faiths. I have been thinking about your question;
I wonder if an honest way forward is to lay out the claims of each faith and compare them.
Then to start working towards them by deciding yourself what an almighty God would be like, according to what he has created ( by whatever means you like).
I havent thought this through the whole way, but there actually dont appear to be too many real candidates for an all powerful, just and caring God, if those qualities would be expected in Him.
You dont really come across as gracious or respectful when you are disagreeing or challenging, BTW.
PB
PB, the chaps are right - I can't be everywhere at once. But I did pick this up, and I think you deserve to be roundly spanked with it.
I am not (never have) arguing that Joseph was *not* a carpenter, just that this is an unwarranted assumption. An early assumption, yes (as early as the Vulgate), which is the reason it gets thus translated all the time. Maybe it's right. You never know.
Anyway, this:
As I understand it, the mathematical chances of man evolving from dust by chance are astronomical
Firstly, "man" was not specified in advance. Secondly, evolution is not the same as "chance". Evolution Just Works. Steven Jay Gould was good on this stuff.
Now this:
The Times Complete History of the World says of "Jesus of Nazareth" that he was "Born near the end of the age of Herod the Great, his ministry and Passion are recounted in the
four gospels of the New Testament...".
Yes, that's all true. So where does it say they were eyewitness accounts, rather than stories passed down?
The Oxford Dictionary of World History says of "Jesus Christ" that "The Gospels of the New Testament are the main sources of information about Jesus."
And that's true as well. Again, not eyewitness accounts.
The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary says the gospels are "One of the books written by the four Evangelists".
And that's true too - by *definition*, because the evangelists (you will recall) are *defined* as the writers of the gospels. Wow, you're really hammering me here!
World History for Dummies, which you previously concurred with on the bible, says: "Four of Jesus' twelve disciples, who were called the Apostles, wrote down his words and deeds in the Gospels..."
Well, I'll take my leave of it there, because that is wrong. Mark and Luke were not from the Twelve, and Matthew and John did not write the gospels attributed to them. But you knew that of course.
If many works dont actually describe them as "eye witness accounts" they clearly treat them as though they are
So you are agreeing that I am right then? Good.
and give no reason whatsoever for the reader not to doubt this common assumption.
And none of the ones you mention (apart from, arguably, the Dummies) even make the claim.
The only one I have seen that openly questions them as eye witnesses is Encylopaedia Brittanica 14th ed but it doesnt actually explain why.
I think I have already explained why.
-A
Amen
Yes I will concede a battle to you, that only one of these references use the terms "eye witnesses" and on your Dummies point.
But in the next breath I will claim the war; the whole point of this discussion is that you pour disdain on the credibility of the gospels and these mainstream sources dont.
No dont equivocate on this, you have cast doubt on every other passage you have mentioned so far in the gospels, eg bethlehem, nazareth, carpenters, the resurrection etc etc etc.
The point is that the vast majority of refence books I checked accept the gospels at face value as true, bar the supernatural, which they report as believed by the disciples.
In your opinion the references that completely vindicate the accuracy of the gospels agree with you and the one source that questions them agrees with you two. Thats marvellous logic to own in any debate, at least you will always win in your own mind if nowhere else.
How convenient that you neglected to discuss why all the early church leaders ascribed the accepted authors of the gospels as such.
So the prize for mint tithing and denial here goes uneqivocally to you, but the prize for historical credibility goes to the gospels.
/////////////////////////
Mark 6:3 hurts your eyes a bit doesnt it? its a bit bright to look at?
Why cant you bring yourself to discuss it? pride?
You said the gospels nowhere say Christ was a carpenter but that is wrong by Mark 6:3.
You are absolutely WRONG to say it is an unwarranted asumption that Joseph and Jesus were carpenters.
I have previously given you links to 2 greek authorities that state the primary meaning of tekton is carpenter.
It is no such thing as assumption, it is the actual meaning of the Greek.
You really appear to be having a laugh or else in psychological denial on this one.
Do you really think I dont appreciate that hebrew and greek has nuances beyond English? Or that Jesus was fully Jewish? or that we read the bible inadequately with 21st century vision?
And then there is the small matter of every single English translater of the bible putting it as carpenter.
The Latin translation is a red herring, as you know.
Here I really *am* hammering you now!
1. Mark 6:3 does say Jesus was a carpenter; which you said was not in the NT.
2. You are *not* a better greek scholar than every other one who worked on every english new testament.
Your phd is in genetics - remember? not greek!
You were rightly taking a lashing from other posters this week for pontificating on philosophy, religion and anything and everything else outside genetics.
eg You are absolutely certain Christ is not the Son of God, but feel no need whatsoever to demonstrate your absolutely certain evidence?
ref evolution, I never claimed man was specified in advance in evolution. And I doubt that Prof Nevin would agree with Gould that there is no chance in evolution!
But what would he know, he is only a prof in genetics!
;-)
PB
Amen
Have you read Mark 6:3 yet which contradicts your assertions that they never claimed Jesus was a carpenter?
The Gospels
1) Ancient unbroken tradition and the recorded views of respected early church leaders unanimously ascribe M,M L & J as the authors.
2) I understand this is still accepted by virtually all serious scholars in the field who accept the
the virgin birth, deity of Christ and resurrection, and has only been rejected recently by modern "scholars" who have also determined to reject
these beliefs. What a cooincidence. So obviously, when we say "scholars say..." we are actively selecting our distinctive scholars according to
our preferred worldviews/prejudices/assumptions. However I understand evidence questioning John as author is very flimsy when actually viewed by any intelligent person, for example.
3) Interestingly, early Jewish writers in the Christian era - unbelievers and opponents of the Christian faith - record Christ as practising magic and of his disciples of healing people; Sceptics' testimonies to the supernatural in the gospels! But people like you just brush away the supernatural even today. Ref your attitude to miracles, as we have discussed, my sister's
brain tumour disappearing into thin air is simply brushed away as insignificant by you. But the medical testimony backs it up and she
came to faith through it. But you simply reject out of hand any possibility of it having been supernatural, though you cant offer
any other explanation. This is not scientific, the consultant said "miralces do happen." Again you are demonstrating a willful closed mind that will not even consider the case.
4) If all the supernatural acts and many facts in the gospels were *correct*, how would history and the gospels differ to what has happened?
If I was wrong, I just dont see how early oral tradition, the early church leaders, early Christian era Jewish writers could all be
in such agreement. It just doesnt make any sense. It makes more sense to believe the date 2007AD has been marked by the Son of God incarnate visiting earth.
Again, your rationale that his impact on history in this regard is pure accident just doesnt add up.
5) Reference prejudice, I see yours especially in how you treat the greek term tekton. Authorities already given to you primarily refer to it as "carpenter", yet
you refuse to accept this heavily weighted balance of probability because you are determined to introduce your own doubt and sceptcism, without
any rational justification whatsoever. This openly demonstrates a willfully closed, prejudiced mindset which is the root of misleading and spurious discrediting of the gospels.
6) You have not yet presented one serious "contradiction" in the gospels that throws them into doubt, I notice, though you claim this is a major issue.
I maintain my earlier point, all mainstream historians place great weight on their historical accuracy, which is far removed from your arbitrary double-mindedness on the matter.
sincerely
PB
PS BTW, have you read Mark 6:3 yet?
PB
"Is your definition of faith just yours or the generally accepted definition?"
Yes and some others.
"Surely science is only as honest and objective as the scientist?"
that is why it is peer-reviewed and why it has been so successful as a means of assessing evidence.
"I wonder if an honest way forward is to lay out the claims of each faith and compare them."
I have tentatively and they really say the same thing at heart ie., be nice to one another.
"You dont really come across as gracious or respectful when you are disagreeing or challenging, BTW."
It all depends on what you post and the same could be said of you on occasion!
Peter K is right PB in that you have not answered his questions and you have asked open-ended questions in return, perhaps you could go back and give them a go?
PB it took me awhile to find this thread I was wondering if you would be willing to copy your replies to Amenhotep to the Alliance party...thread and do as John has suggested ie., book mark the page so we can keep the discussion going in one place and it would mean that threads are not lost and questions/assertions do not go unanswered-is that fair?
regards
DD
Mk6:3 - yes, OK then, it does say that Jesus was a tekton. I was only flagging the point up as an illustration to show how people make assumptions when reading the bible. I actually don't have a major problem in conceding this point! You will however note that the parallel passage in Matt13:54 says "carpenter's son". Come to think of it, there's a contradiction right there (albeit not a very impressive one). But hey ho, you can have it. You're right, he was a joiner (a better translation of "tekton", you will agree ;-)
Your assumption that the "vast majority of reference books... accept the gospels at face value" is simply silly. No-one accepts *any* historical document at face value. Especially not when resurrections etc. were pretty common expectation (Mark 6:14-16, and look at the corresponding sections of the other synoptics). Magic and "supernatural" acts happened all the time, because (and it remains thus) people love embellishing stories. And the gospels tell stories. Embellished ones.
The challenge is to see if we can find anything in them that sheds tentative light on the topic. If you must know, I do not "believe" ANY of the bible - I use it as evidence that needs interpretation.
As for Jesus being the "Son of God", well, I don't believe in god, so I hardly believe he has a wee lad. But that is what is known as an extraordinary claim, and YOU need extraordinary evidence. Unfortunately for your position, the evidence points in the other direction.
As for miracles, I have said before that I am glad your sister recovered from her brain tumour. I have seen that sort of thing happen before too. Tumours regress. Sometimes. Sometimes even with atheists and no prayer. What your consultant said (sorry to break this to you) was the sort of platitude that is given out in these circumstances all the time. Why don't you phone him and ask him precisely what he meant?
As for Prof Nevin, while I respect him, I think Steve Gould knew rather a lot more about evolution than he does. I don't think I said that there was no "chance" in evolution - there clearly is. Random mutation is responsible for creating genetic variation within a genepool. It's *selection* that is non-random. But you know all that anyway. Don't you?
-A
Amen
Is that the best contradiction you can find in the gospels;- that one says Jesus was a joiner and the other says he was a joiner's son.
Funny how you totally ignore the possibility that both would most likely be true!
But that seems quite typical of the choices you make in analysing the evidence.
You will also find the greek for manger means stall/stable so you are also wrong to say Jesus was not born in a stable too, it appears.
How many other flyers have you thrown into the mix I wonder?
You will win the tumour debate no matter what I answer wont you? My ONLY point is that science cant answer what happened it, so a bit more humility on its puisance would be nice.
Yes I know all about random mutation - and believe it just as much as Prof Nevin does.
I believe Prof FF Bruce has written an excellent book on the historical and literary validity of the gospels and he is probably more qualified more than any of the authors you quote. He says the actual volume number and age range of the biblical manuscripts dwarf and of the other historical documents of the period which are never questioned.
Ref your dismissal of the supernatural, CS Lewis said modern textual critics were so off beam when it came to the bible because they made the monumental error of assuming they knew more and better about what happened at that time that the authors.
I am signing off debating you now because you have such a high handed attitude you are not really interested in serious discussion;
How many times did I have to challenge you to admit you were wrong on the basic point that Jesus was a carpenter for goodness sake?
And look at how begruding your attitude is when you do that. it is so qualified.
There is no onus on me to prove Jesus is God.
But if you are going to claim he definitely wasnt that virtually makes you God; otherwise how could you be so sure; you were there and arent even qualified in the field.
I could respect a phd in genetics who said he didnt believe it; but one who says it is defintiely not true is hot going to help me and I dont see how might help him either.
I dont mean to be rude and we have had interesting disussions before, but there are time to be firm.
Shalom
PB
PS DD I will come back, I appreciate us staring again on a clean sheet :)
Amen
Is that the best contradiction you can find in the gospels;- that one says Jesus was a joiner and the other says he was a joiner's son.
Funny how you totally ignore the possibility that both would most likely be true!
But that seems quite typical of the choices you make in analysing the evidence.
You will also find the greek for manger means stall/stable so you are also wrong to say Jesus was not born in a stable too, it appears.
How many other flyers have you thrown into the mix I wonder?
You will win the tumour debate no matter what I answer wont you? My ONLY point is that science cant answer what happened it, so a bit more humility on its puisance would be nice.
Yes I know all about random mutation - and believe it just as much as Prof Nevin does.
I believe Prof FF Bruce has written an excellent book on the historical and literary validity of the gospels and he is probably more qualified more than any of the authors you quote. He says the actual volume number and age range of the biblical manuscripts dwarf and of the other historical documents of the period which are never questioned.
Ref your dismissal of the supernatural, CS Lewis said modern textual critics were so off beam when it came to the bible because they made the monumental error of assuming they knew more and better about what happened at that time that the authors.
I am signing off debating you now because you have such a high handed attitude you are not really interested in serious discussion;
How many times did I have to challenge you to admit you were wrong on the basic point that Jesus was a carpenter for goodness sake?
And look at how begruding your attitude is when you do that. it is so qualified.
There is no onus on me to prove Jesus is God.
But if you are going to claim he definitely wasnt that virtually makes you God; otherwise how could you be so sure; you were there and arent even qualified in the field.
I could respect a phd in genetics who said he didnt believe it; but one who says it is defintiely not true is hot going to help me and I dont see how might help him either.
I dont mean to be rude and we have had interesting disussions before, but there are time to be firm.
Shalom
PB
PS DD I will come back, I appreciate us staring again on a clean sheet :)
Hi PB, you are a funny wee punter, that's for sure. Don't worry, I'm not cross with you, just amused :-)
Sorry, but it *is* up to you to prove that Jesus is the "Son of God" (whatever that means).
It's not up to me to *prove* that he wasn't a carpenter or the son of a joiner man, or born in a stable; it suffices to show that your basis for believing these things is fragmentary and (frankly) grim. You will (for instance) be aware that it was common practice in those days (as it is in many countries still) to use a manger as a cot. But look at the pile of nonsense that has been loaded on that little cot!
I have repeatedly encouraged people to *read* the gospels (side by side is best; I note that some of the links in my cross-referenced RSV have been omitted when they hit on contradictory passages...). Look up all the references to John the Baptist and read them in their entirety for a bit of craic.
As for the contradictions, I just mention that (very mild, and - you're right - unimpressive) one, because I'm bowing down in admiration to you at disproving my assertion (well done).
The problem for you is that the gospels do actually support my version of events, but they don't support the resurrection - just an empty tomb in the context of widespread belief in resurrection and expectation of the messiah. The rest is Chinese Whispers, and although it is remarkable, it's not surprising.
BTW, regarding your sister's brain tumour, like I said, these things do sometimes regress, and it is due to a cellular process called apoptosis. If you would care to provide more details, we could see if a miracle has occurred; at present, it looks like she was fortunate that her body shut down the growth. I take it this was visible on MRI? Did she have a biopsy? I'm not dissing your sister, and I'm very glad she's OK, but you're waving a non-shroud here, so we're entitled to more info.
Well, if you're fed up debating with me, that's fine. We all have better things to be doing with our time than discussing a maybe-carpenter who died 2000 years ago, and was in all likelihood buried on a hillside in Galilee, overlooking Kafr Nahum.
-A
Amen
You are a funny wee punter yourself.
Have you any idea how patronising that makes you sound? It certainly fits in with your arrogant handling of the evidence here.
And by that I mean that you have much more faith in your ability to do so than has been borne out by the facts on this website and by your qualifications.
So you are now retracting your retraction of the fact that Jesus was a carpenter(Greek: tekton) (Mark 6:3). How surprising! but please try and make up your mind.
Why bow to me if I was wrong?
I dont think you actually *heard* what I just said about the manger.
The greek word for manger actually means stall/stable, so the use of the word manger is erroneous but the use of the word stable is more correct in translation.
Once again your *superior* knowledge is cut to ribbons.
I actually agree that much cultural gravy has been loaded around the biblical story of the Christ but I have clearly refuted any suggestion that this includes the established facts that he was born in a stable and was a carpenter.
As for the cute and cuddly Jesus, you dont need to be a progressive atheist to dimiss this notion, as you well know.
The whip of cords in the temple; the man from whom two words felled a troop of hardened Roman soldiers in Gethsemane; the Christ with the eyes of fire and sword tongue in Revelation; the Christ who will judge the world for eternal damnation or salvation by the standard of his own life...
...You didnt need to make a fool of yourself to dismiss misleading stereotypes!
I dont know if you picked me up wrongly on the credibility of the bible in mainstream history today, I did not mean that there is or should be no critical analysis of the manuscripts.
I am simply saying that the life of Christ as presented in the gospels is generally (with minor equivocation) accepted to be true by mainstream secular historians, who revert to attributing the supernatural elements as belief from his disciples, ie a neutral stance on the supernatural.
I have proven this in mainstream references I have given.
What I have not done is major on the professional theologians, textual critics and historians who literally believe the complete gospels, and there are also many of those.
eg Prof FF Bruce, JI Packer, CS Lewis, ( a bit of an expert in textual critcism, though not genetics!).
I have one study bible with about 20 doctorate contributors who are actually qualified to speak in this area Amen, though I doubt they would make much of a show in the field of genetics either ;-)
I also have a single bible dictionary written by people with real academic credentials in the field who wipe the floor with you on every point, historical, theological, textual.
Where does the debate end?
I have also been needled in retrospect by your dismissal of Josh McDowell, whom I dont read.
Why if I read his writings am I "allowing him to think for me", but if you read one of your *favourite* trendy modern Jesus authors are they authorities in comparison?
Were these the "scholars" that suggested to you that Jesus was not a carpenter and was not born in a stable? tut tut!
If you want to dismiss McDowell then do the decent thing and demolish his arguments. But I recall you also used this same non-technique to swat off such "lightweights" as CS Lewis and Augustine etc previously so maybe we should not hold our breaths for you to try this.
Ref John the Baptist I honestly dont have time to do that. Perhaps it may help your reading if you consider the gospels may be 100% true without being 100% precise.
I am not very up to date with the RSV, but you might also try reading the KJV on problem passages, it does not leave out verses that some other versions do.
I realise that is another discussion, but perhaps play devil's advocate with yourself and try it.
Yes my sister had numerous scans and an open-skull biopsy. If it had been a simple apoptosis why did her consultant display her as a "mystery" case to a lecture theatre full of his colleagues after all these procedures were carried out?
But *dont* be deflected from my point on this, I dont expect you to believe anything from this episode, except this; you know as well as I do that science has real limitations when it comes to understanding the world (just as theology does).
Perhaps your problem in believing in God is compromised by your obvious overconfidence in your own opinions in apparently every subject you are discussing?
Would believing in God again make you feel too small in your own eyes?
If only you werent so patronising it would be a pleasure to discourse with you, and I mean that as a compliment.
sincerely
PB
DD
I have switched to the Alliance thread now fyi.
But just on the points to Peter,
I read a little around feathers and fossils at the time and as I recall he appeared to avoid points I was raising.
I cant remember what I studied at the time and dont have the time to revise.
But more to the point, I think Peter is not really interested in a civil discussion here, just attacking me.
In a more recent thread, Maureen raises many of the points I have raised above and Peter concedes she is making valid arguments.
He concedes to her that science has limitations and that it tells him little about the "why" part of life and that he does not have much knowledge of the politics of science.
see post 25;-
/blogs/ni/2007/04/robert_winston_and_the_science.html
But he attacks me when I raise the same points, and when I say "I dont know" he attacks me but he feels happy saying this to Maureen about some fields.
I think it also must be noted that Peter is a nuclear phyiscist and his expertise is not directly related to evolutionary biology.
He might actually tell us what relevant qualifications he has in this field???
sincerely
PB
Pb, you are the most shameless distortionist.
"He concedes to her that science has limitations and that it tells him little about the "why" part of life and that he does not have much knowledge of the politics of science."
I said on the 'Alliance party welcomes Dawkins thread' I was not up in policies and politics in the context of string theory, an hobby interest far removed from my work. I never mentioned my own field. And your statement about my field is again not true (not nuclear physics). You have falsely attributed statements to me and distorted others multiple times in only the last week. And that has been your behaviour to others as well (DD, Amenhotep, etc). I really, really resent your somewhat dirty ways of conducting yourself in this blog.
And you never read any literature that others took time to point out to you, on half-evolved feathers or other subjects you might have learned about. Come back once you've answered my many questions.
When this post is read by the moderator, may I suggest to do not only look if my tone is acceptable, but also at the message about pb being a most dishonest irritant. Is that acceptable?
PB,
I would like to read Peters response to you(although I do suspect that he has given up on you).
That is a gross distortion of what Peter actually wrote.
Peter(if he wants, though as I said before I do believe that he is fed up with you) did not state he was a nuclear physicist-don't know where you got that from and the same goes for the feathers etc.
I think Peter would appreciate answers to his questions that he gave in a post further up rather than you simply returning and asking open-ended questions in return.
It is ironic that you should criticize Peter for not being up in evolutionary biology when firstly you have no background in science and in that really small list of AIG which cites 79 Phd's biology is subject with the least Phd's.
I thought we were meant to be turning over a new leaf PB?
PB
You are coming across as rather arrogant in your replies to Amenhotep, because you seemingly scored a minor point.
"I am simply saying that the life of Christ as presented in the gospels is generally (with minor equivocation) accepted to be true by mainstream secular historians, who revert to attributing the supernatural elements as belief from his disciples, ie a neutral stance on the supernatural."
I don't think anyone would disagree with you there PB, although I am not sure of the word "true", the gospels are the only source we have.
Ironically the wiki source that you touted so much agrees that the gospels are not eye-witness accounts.
Of there are many scholars who believe the gospels are true and Islamic scholars believe that the Koran is true etc
They are not "trendy" authors that I cited but the heavyweights of Biblical scholarship.
The argument with Josh Mcdowell is briefly he asks 12 ultra-conservative scholars their opinion and though and behold he gets 12 ultra-conservative opinions back. It is truly awful 'pop' history and also remember that I gave the other extreme of Freke and Gandy 'The Jesus Mysteries' as another eg. It is not case of simply reading/dismissing a book because the author is an atheist/theist rather it is the quality of the work that counts. You seem to be picking people simply because they back up your opinion and before you consider me doing the same why not have a look at some of the writers I mentioned?
I am glad that you like Augustine perhaps you should consider these words...
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation."
I'm off...
DD
Ok Pete
Lets have that discussion on feather evolution.
Here is an excerpt from paper from a creationist phd in biology.
Your thoughts welcome.
PB
////////////////////////////////
The evolution of feathers: a major problem for Darwinism
by Jerry Bergman phd (Biology)
Summary
The origin of birds has always been a major problem for Darwinism, and even today little agreement about the evolution of birds exists. One of the most difficult issues related to bird evolution is the evolution of feathers. Feathers are complex, designed structures required for flight, and are today found only on birds. A literature review on the evolution of bird feathers showed that even though feathers are found back as far as the Cretaceous, including many well-preserved samples in amber, the fossil record reveals a complete absence of evidence for feather evolution. The implications of this major difficulty for Darwinism are discussed.
ctd on this hyperlink;-
Well pb, first you complained semi-continuously about the supposed lack of half-evolved feathers for months, then you were presented with extensive literature which you never read despite the many reminders by various posters. You had decided all of a sudden that it was not important to you anymore. And now you seem to have made another 180 degree turn apparently. Oh boy pb, the inconsistency in your posts do make me shake my head in bewilderment.
And then your attempt at debate is no better. Bringing out the hogwash from AiG again. How many times has DD explained to you that that is not the voice of science pb, how many? How many more will be necessary before you accept it?
This attempt is actually of lower standards than most of your previous ones. How many articles on half-evolved feathers have been pointed out to you, pb? Links to articles, entire issues of scientific journals dedicated to it, hundreds of references therein to other work covering dozens of excavation sites where fossils of half-evolved feathers have been found. So you knew that that AiG quote was nonsense at the moment you posted it. Again a very dishonest way of doing things pb, posting things which you know are not true.
To put the debate about your lack of honesty beyond any doubt I remind you of another question that you have consistently run away from, that on living animals with half-evolved feathers like emus and ostriches. You know they are around, alive and well. So your endless naggingh about a supposed lack of half-evolved feathers isn't true and you know it. Never mind what a guy with a phd says, from the countless examples, both fossils and living animals, you know perfectly well it's not true. It has been pointed out to you sooooooo often. Not very honest of you to knowingly keep up the charade.
Quite a bit of bluster there I would say Peter.
You actually dont address any of the issues this guy raises and go for a string of ad hominems instead.
Not very scientific at all.
I would remind all readers, Peter has a phd in nuclear physics but has yet to tell us if he has any qualifications in any subject related to feather evolution.
The expert I cite is a phd in biology.
I concede I am a complete layman and that Peter has been badgering me for weeks to debate him on this subject of feathers.
Apparently it is ok for him to cite experts from his perspective, but I am not allowed the same privilige.
Anyway Peter, as I said before in recent days, do the decent thing and discuss the ideas politely please.
Continual personal attacks profit neither the originator nor the target.
Agreed?
PB
pb, noone needs a phd in any field to read and understand the simple opbservation I made in my previous post. The AiG phd says there is no literature. Several posters have pointed you personally to tons of it in the past. That would seem to end any debate to me. You never cared to read any of it (as you know it will shatter your excuse) of course, but it's there. So his statement is simply not true. Very simple for all to follow, doesn't require any knowledge. If you had ever cared to read what was pointed out to you, you would know. What else is there to address then?
And again you're making statements about my field of research. You've bungled over this several times in the past and apologised for your misstatements about me. But if you keep repeating the misstatements, then your apologies re not worth that much, are they?
Peter
Tons of research does not make it correct.
Your hyperlink says you work in nuclear physics, I believe.
You have never actually said if you have any qualifications relating to evolution.
You say AIG is not the voice of science and I agree,
But what is?
Isnt the voice of science the voice of scientists themselves?
is the chap I quote not a scientist?
PB
Peter and pb
Im sure you are already aware of this, but it is posible to be an evolutionist and a creationist(at least in some sense).
so here it goes. God created the earth 7000 years ago (or whenever it suits your theology). He burried dinosaurs under the ground left loads of interesting fossils about stuck some microwave radiation up in the sky and so on, then he clicks his findgers and off it goes (he gives it a bit of character if you like!). This world that he created then also has the natural property that the species in it then evolve. So not only do the fossils look like evolving spicies but we have real scietific evidence of evolution in the last 7000 years (or whatever).
Seems to me that any argument against this requrires you saying that god has to be constrained by the laws of science? Why does god have to act "rationally"?
I dont belive in any hard and fast theory for creation. I dont "BELIVE!" that the above is correct for example. But it is a completly viable alternative (agreeing with our experiments - that is what science is right?), as far as i am aware, mabey i am showing my ignorace on some points here? It would be nice if you could let me know?
it explains pb worries about feathers, the evolution of the eye, the fossil gaps, etc etc and still lets you be an evolutionist? Have i done a tony blair here?
PB
It has been explained to you very patiently why AIG is not science.
The person you cite is a scientist, however he did not reach his conclusions based on science rather because he is a religious fundamentalist.
AIG is twaddle, indeed it is embarrassing twaddle.
Incidentally biology is the lowest percentage of "scientists" in the list of 79 that AIG cite(and all of which are fundamentalist nut-jobs, I know you won't like it but there you go).
DD
pb, you are as evading, goal-post moving and therefore insencere as ever.
The point of the quote of the AiG man in your post 137 was to state that there were no intermediate fossils. You knew that was incorrect (you have been pointed to tons of it so many times), hence you were very dishonest to state it again through that quote. Stating things you know are not true makes it lying.
Even if one were to question whether the intermediate fossils form a sufficient support for evolution, the intermediate fossils are there in good quantity. So stop distorting, evading and moving goal posts. Your point was false and you knew it.
"Tons of research does not make it correct."
As I said, the point was the presence of intermediate fossils (which you have chosen still not to read anything about). Interpretation of it is step two. Stop moving the goal posts. Reading up on it first before judging it would seem a wise course.
"Your hyperlink says you work in nuclear physics, I believe."
No it doesn't, I work in materials science. Pb, you've already apologised for this distortion in the past! Now you're back to the original misstatement. How dishonest can you get?! You misstate, admit you did and apologise for misstating, then repeat the original misstatement. Sigh.
"You have never actually said if you have any qualifications relating to evolution."
Observing that there is so much literature about hundreds of intermediate fossil excavation sites doesn't require a phd in any field. You can see how much there is. Indeed, you have been shown as much time and time again. I can see it without needing my PhD for that, anyone can see it if their mind is not blocked by the mental disease that is religion.
"You say AIG is not the voice of science and I agree,"
Well that's new!! You've held up that list dozens of times when the debate about science was raging. Another 180 degree turn for you then.
"Isnt the voice of science the voice of scientists themselves?"
No individual scientist (or 186 biologists, dentists, etc) speaks on behalf of science. If you want anything to speak out on behalf of science, then try peer-reviewed literature. That's the best source of what science has to say. And the message it gives you about the origin of life is that of evolution.
Hello am,
You're saying basically 'Everything is in accordance with the way science says it is, because God made it appear so' in order to reconcile science and creationism, am I right? Sorry, but no, that is not scientific. You could say that the Flying Spaghetti Moster did it all (as some jokingly do say, me included), or Zeus, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. But there is no reason to assume that there is a FSM who did it, and similarly there is no reason to believe there is a God, IPU, etc. Just popping incredible assumptions out of thin air is not scientific. Hence creationism and science are irreconcileable.
Peter,
You say that the above theory is not scientific. I want to know why?
It is a scientists responsiblity to help produce a theory that agrees with our experiments.
Just because a theory can be extrapolated to the past does not mean the past existed, or behaves like your theory predicts. All we know is that it seems to work in our little local patch of spacetime.
science is not about what seems rational, it is about what agrees with experiments.
Hello am,
"You say that the above theory is not scientific. I want to know why?
It is a scientists responsiblity to help produce a theory that agrees with our experiments."
Yes, it is, but those is not the only requirement. A scientific theory should also be capable of making specific predictions. Those can then be tested in an experiment. That will then lend credibility to the theory or disprove it. Just explaining everything after the fact (as religion does) is not enough. Anyone could make up any explanation involving some god(s) and say of everything we observe: that's how he/she/they willed it. An simple explanation of everything, but totally useless of course. So a reason for not accepting Christianity etc as science is that it can't make any specific accurate predictions.
"Just because a theory can be extrapolated to the past does not mean the past existed, or behaves like your theory predicts. All we know is that it seems to work in our little local patch of spacetime."
True, noone living today was there to watch milions or billions of years ago. So scientific claims regarding those times in the past are extrapolations. But those extrapolations are the best we have at present. If you have a better model, then make it known to the world.
"science is not about what seems rational, it is about what agrees"
Very true! Parts of quantum mechanics (part of my job unfortunately) seems utterly counter-intuitive, maybe even a little contradictory and certainly incomprehensible to me sometimes. Yet is does the most astonishing job of explaining AND PREDICTING things on small length scales. So we stick with it, even though it's not always the kindest theory to be working with.
Thanks for your reply Peter
Im not saying the above (post 142) is a useful theory or correct. I just find it hard to argue against, as a scientist, without making the theological assumption that there is no god.
I do not think that religeon can form our science.
my problem is it kind of seems a bit like you are deciding that you cannot discover god at the end of the equations, even before you start doing the maths.
I think Augustine does a good job, so ill post him again
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation."
see you later
Hello am,
"Im not saying the above (post 142) is a useful theory or correct. I just find it hard to argue against, as a scientist, without making the theological assumption that there is no god."
I get the opposite impression of who is making the assumptions. For the case you mentioned, many different measurements tell us the earth is 4.6 billion years old etc. Those measurements give the same outcome for any scientist, whether he's a Christian, buddhist, shintoist etc. That doesn't require any particular belief or world view, no assumptions about the (non)existance of God there. You then add the idea that it was all made to appear old by God while it's actually only 7000 years old. I think that you're doing the assuming there. Why would you think that? And where am I making any assumptions?
"my problem is it kind of seems a bit like you are deciding that you cannot discover god at the end of the equations, even before you start doing the maths."
If God was to appear before me I'd be very surprised (and have very critical questions for him), but I'd have little difficulty accepting he was real if I thought he was. Where do I appear to have made up my mind before considering everything?
Peter,
Fiar enough. I respect your opinion. Personally I dont think the above theory (post 142) is correct, and i am not saying you are making scientific asumptions, my point is you are rejecting other peoples belifes because they are not based on scientific theory.
So you are kind of telling god he has to be "scientific" or you will not belive in him. Why should he be this way?
I just fell that sicence is as incaplable of acting as grounds for your theology as theology is as acting as grounds for your science.
bye,
am
Peter,
Fiar enough. I respect your opinion. Personally I dont think the above theory (post 142) is correct, and i am not saying you are making scientific asumptions, my point is you are rejecting other peoples belifes because they are not based on scientific theory.
to me it seems like you are telling god he has to be "scientific" or you will not belive in him. Why should he be a "rational" god?
I just fell that sicence is as incaplable of acting as grounds for theology as theology is as acting as grounds for science.
bye,
am
Hello am,
"my point is you are rejecting other peoples belifes because they are not based on scientific theory."
Wel yes, more or less. I don't assume there is anything outside our physical reality. I do expect that we'll discover many parts of that reality that we are at present still ignorant of. But I expect we'll fit whatever comes along into equations etc and gain a very good understanding of it, in many cases to the point of even being able to manipulate it. For instance how we presently understand life and are able to modify it more and more through genetic manipulation.
Some people assume there is much more. Seems very strange to me. Why would you do that? And if you decide to do so, then what do you assume to be there? The Christian God, Allah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster? I assume you would agree that the enormous variety in beliefs makes it impossible for all to be true? Many of them are mutually exclusive, so most of it must be wrong. But all believers live in the happy bliss that they are of course right and all others are wrong. That alone is already enough for me to reject it. There'splenty more, but I'll leave that out for now. Applying the critical, skeptical ways of science to life in general perhaps limits my life in some ways. I don't have any religious part in it. But although limited in some ways, it does give me a confident feeling that the things my life is about are at least real.
Hi Peter,
I found a series of conferences you might be interested in. If you get accepted to them you may be eligble for free funding.
I would enjoy Will interviewing Paul Taylor from www.answersingenesis.org
to further spark of debate from the title below:
Creation Row in Northern Ireland
For further details click into: