Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss wrote: Christianity, with its assertion of an historic
> Fall, Curse, Incarnation, Atonement, Resurrection,
> and Judgment ... is obviously a bombshell into
> this world-view.

Self-referential BS again

Its exactly the opposite way around - observation based science is the bomb which has destroyed the intellectual foundations of religion - forcing the retreat to 'faith' in the imaginary.

Having to believe in the unbelievable and unobservable because you're scared about what science shows you is hardly a victory for religion

You have yet to propose anything for which a religious explanation is necessary, better or as good as that which science provides

Not one.

You just retreat into 'my religious text is its own proof and clearly superior to all of its rival religious texts' - which, frankly, is just unsupportable angels-on-a-pinhead BS

GladToBeChristian! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi!
> When I go to a new Christian site, first thing I
> look for is its Doctrinal Statement,

The only doctrinal statement for this site is "put up or shut up"

Regurgitating religious pap is the ultimate stupidity - which is why poking sharp sticks into Eliot has become a continuous, although increasingly dull, blood-sport

If you have any evidence show it, if you have anything that can only be explained by religion present it - if not, keep the religious BS for church - its a waste of spare bits

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss wrote: "I'm agnostic in terms of whether
> or not Jesus actually existed. If he did, then I
> have serious doubts that much of the New Testament
> can actually be attributed to his deeds and
> words."
>
> Ness replies: I understand, because supernatural
> events are inextricably woven into every bit of
> the New Testament, including not just Jesus'
> miracles but his awareness of what his opponents
> were thinking, his repeated escapes from attempts
> to kill or capture him, and his clear statements
> of foreknowledge about his impending death and
> resurrection.

Actually it's not really the supernatural events, although they play a part in it. I agree with the Jesus seminar on the idea that practically none of what Jesus said can be reasonably attributed to him.

> In a 'Big Bang' world-view of impersonal
> matter/energy + time + chance (which I call
> 'contemporary Darwinism'), you can trust nothing,
> really, that speaks about human activity in the
> past (let alone 'divine' activity) ...

The 'Big Bang' is a cosmological model of the expansion of the universe from a singularity. It is not a worldview.

Further, we don't know whether or not it (the expansion) was a 'chance' endeavor. We would have to know the initial conditions of the universe (or existence?) in order to determine that.

As far as 'trust' goes, I really don't know what you mean here. Are you talking about epistemic certainty? If you are, then why is that a necessary feature? It's not, really. Such demands are ludicris and unobtainable for all but a choice selection of propositions. If you aren't talking about epistemic certainty then I'll ask you to clarify.

> and you can
> know nothing, obviously, about the future apart
> from speculation.

Again, I'll hazard a response, but keep in mind I don't think you are being very clear; what we can do is rely on probabilities.

The nature of this universe that has been discovered is a probabilistic reality - your worldview, unless it denies quantum physics - is included in that bunch.

> You're left with your own
> personal experience of the present which, based
> upon observation, you expect to end in a permanent
> 'fade to black' at some point.

Um, aren't you as well? Even if you rely on revelation you first have to presuppose your own personal experience as trust worthy (as I've repeatedly made clear). So charging me with this is ignoring your own role in it.

> Christianity, with its assertion of an historic
> Fall, Curse, Incarnation, Atonement, Resurrection,
> and Judgment ... is obviously a bombshell into
> this world-view.

It's different, but no more reliable - in fact, I'd wager it's *less* reliable since you have to smuggle in naturalistic presuppositions in order for your worldview to be consistent. One such smuggling is trusting your own autonomy which presuppositionalist apologetics repeatedly tries to deny (only to fall upon the sword of contradiction as I've pointed out).

> But the Bible is clear that
> men/women believe the Bible's history and
> cosmology as a result of a 'body-slam' by the Holy
> Spirit, not as a result of scholastic
> argumentation or online forum debate."The Gentiles
> ... were glad and honored the word of the Lord;
> and all who were appointed for eternal life
> believed." (Acts 13)

Actually it's not clear - you are being VERY vague and dodging my questions (AGAIN!).

How does the 'holy spirit' 'body-slam' anything? These seem to be empty words that you use to convince yourself of your worldview. Why don't you reason with us and present your case for what the holy spirit does.


I'll ask you again to answer my questions - remember you said that if the insults stopped the discussion would become better. It hasn't so far as you are avoiding the discussion:

I would like you to specifically address these questions Eliot (I've added another from the Joshua conversation):
-------
To make my last post more efficient I thought I'd repost two of the important points that I think you need to address Eliot (of course if you want to address the others, then I'd be happy to read them).

1. I do not think it can be said that Adam and Eve 'rebelled' against God. If they can be said to have rebelled I do not think it's fair to punish them (and by extension mankind) for that rebellion. In order to rebell it seems to me that you would have to know that doing what you are not supposed to is wrong. Adam and Eve did not know disobeying God was wrong, so I don't think it can fairly be said that they rebelled against God.

2. Why ought we do what God says? Why ought we not commit sin. Your answer was that he created us and he can control us. Both of these answers do not follow that we should do what he says/thinks/wants - why do we care whether he created us or controls us? At best you could argue that we have no choice but to do what he wants. The trouble with this is that if this is the case then no one could logically sin. Since sin supposedly happens, this cannot be the case. It also seemed as though power lead to authority. That depends on how you define 'authoritative'. The only difference right now is that god is more powerful, which is a might makes right morality. If god does not exist then it seems to me that morality would depend on the most powerful being/entity in the universe. It could be, for instance, a government that was capable of exerting it's control over all the denizens of the planet. If it's power that is the reason for following God's demands, then ought we also follow those who are more powerful then us? It seems to me that would be the case.

3. Would you kill that child? Slowly or quickly? And would you feel holy and good doing God's word?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2009 03:53PM by Professor Pangloss.

nutters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you have any evidence show it, if you have
> anything that can only be explained by religion
> present it...

Self sacrificing suicide bombers....


I really can't think of anything that would lead such numbers to kill themselves in an effort to kill others. I suppose one could appeal to patriotism, ala the Japanese Zeros (Samuri and all that), but I think they believed their emperor was an actual god, so it can be traced back to that.

In seriousness, I wouldn't doubt there *could* be a secular equivolent, I'm just having trouble thinking of them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7913375.stm

Earliest 'human footprints' found

The earliest footprints showing evidence of modern human foot anatomy and gait have been unearthed in Kenya.

The 1.5-million-year-old footprints display signs of a pronounced arch and short, aligned toes, in contrast to older footprints.

The size and spacing of the Kenyan markings - attributed to Homo erectus - reflect the height, weight, and walking style of modern humans.

The findings have been published in the journal Science.

The footprints are not the oldest belonging to a member of the human lineage. That title belongs to the 3.7 million-year-old Australopithecus afarensis prints found in Laetoli, Tanzania, in 1978.

Those prints, however, showed comparatively flat feet and a significantly higher angle between the big toe and the other toes, representative of a foot still adapted to grasping.

Exactly how that more ape-like foot developed into its modern version has remained unclear.

The fossil record is distinctly lacking in foot and hand bones, according to lead author Matthew Bennett of Bournemouth University, UK.

"The reason is that carnivores like to eat hands and feet," Professor Bennett told BBC News.

"Once the flesh is gone there's a lot of little bones that don't get preserved, so we know very little about the evolution of hands and feet on our ancestors."

The footprints were found near Ileret in northern Kenya. The site, on a small hill, is made up of metres of sediment which the researchers carefully cleared away.

What they found was two sets of footprints, one five metres deeper than the other, separated by sand, silt, and volcanic ash.

The team dated the surrounding sediment by comparing it with well-known radioisotope-dated samples from the region, finding that the two layers of prints were made at least 10,000 years apart.

Another critical feature that the series of footprints makes clear is how Homo erectus walked.

There is evidence of a heavy landing on the heel with weight transferred along the outer edge of the foot, progressing to the ball of the foot and lifting off with the toes.

"That's very diagnostic of the modern style of walking, and the Laetoli prints don't give that same character," Professor Bennett said.

The finding is a critical clue for mapping out the evolution of modern humans, both in terms of physiology and also how H. erectus fared in its environment.

H. erectus was a great leap in evolution, showing increased variety of diet and of habitat, and was the first Homo species to make the journey out of Africa.

"There's some suggestion out there that Homo erectus was able to scour the landscape for carcasses and meat...and was able to get there very quickly, had longer limbs and was much more efficient in terms of long distance travel," Professor Bennett added.

"Now we're also saying it had an essentially modern foot anatomy and function, which also adds to that story."

If I hear the term "darwinist" one more time, im gonna blow a funny fuse.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Christian must painfully watch the God of the
> Bible fulfill the curse pronounced in Genesis,
> after the rebellion: "By the sweat of your brow
> you will eat your food until you return to the
> ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you
> are and to dust you will return."
>
> Obviously, you don't like the 'sovereignty of God'
> that runs clearly through the entire Bible.
> (Neither, in some respects, do I.)
>
> But let me ask you the "Adam Question:" If
> Joshua's men had not killed those children, would
> they have lived forever (like the 'toons' in the
> Roger Rabbit movie)?

so basically what you are saying is... you would slaughter this child, because in the long run "what does it matter"? Well then lets all get abortions, and go out and commit some good ole fashion murder (oh, in gODs name ofcoarse).

kl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> shut the fuck up KL Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > hey Kl did you have to make 18 different
> responses
> > and quote people in every single fucking one. I
> > liked christ before- but now i think hes a
> > douche, thanks man.
>
>
> Answer: All the responses are to separate
> individuals, like this one.
> Whom, even though you meant to use 'douche' in a
> negative way, you obviously don't understand the
> function of a douche. The function of the douche
> is to clean out impuritys. And this is what
> Christ does for us, He cleans out impurities in
> the lives of people, and makes them whole and
> clean.
> What an interesting comparison.
> Thanks, and I pray for God's best for you as well.

furthur reply
By the way, I do not and am not currently able to own a house either, but am very glad for those who can. I hope one day I can, too. I'm not jealous of them, but glad for them, even though I do not make enough myself.

We still live in a free country, where, as much as is possible, and if we don't spend time tearing each other apart, but live constructive lives with positive attitudes, we can do what we can to learn and grow and grow up, and move ahead, and in turn, do what we can to try to help others get ahead, and guide them to be able to help themselves. We are only individuals, and we cannot help all to learn to get ahead, though many of us wish we could, but what we can do to help others we do, as we learn how ourselves.
Jealousy is sin, not just a green-eyed monster, though that is the case, too.
It is imperative for a nation, that there are rich people, but not arrogant, self-centred ones, yet even with them, whole nations could never survive on poverty alone. The rich have a moral responsibility to help keep the nation going financially, and to reach out and help others. Deductions, yes, the rich should have these, too, or they may become too poor to help anyone or any company.
The rich should not snub the poor, some do, and some do not. But nations are made up of all ranks in life. America has been unique in the past, in that it was started mostly by those who were not rich, though some were, and they, for the most part, worked together, equally, to make this nation great, founded on Biblical principles, for the most part, and it is because of the latter, that this nation rose in prominence before the world and could stand up against all odds, no matter, what. This nation kept from borrowing for a while, and prospered, and thus, was able to help others, as finances permitted. Individuals learned not to borrow for years, and kept ahead. Some do this yet. But now this country has forsaken these principles and is going downhill fast, and can no longer help anyone properly, because she is in poverty now. Has all been perfect all these years? No. But as long as all God's principles are followed in the majority, it will prosper again. Some people follow these principles without even realizing they are from the Bible, and get ahead, maybe not rich, but doing fine in other ways. His principles work, when followed properly.
Must go and get ready for work.

I'm not jealous of the rich. I'd like to learn the wise steps they took to get where they are, not the wrong decisions or attitudes which some have taken. I may or may never get as rich as some, but if I can learn to manage what resources I do have, wisely, and with the Biblical guidelines, I'll do better somehow, and so will everyone else who learns wisely.
Sadly, as long as God is ignored, the world will get worse.
Thank you for sharing, I'm praying for God's best for you and all who read these pages. If you have God's best in your life, on His terms, you will never regret it, though you don't believe it, nor currently want to believe it, nor understand it. Some things are hard to understand and accept, even with what God has to say to us, nevertheless, His ways are best for us. He created us, He knows what is best for us, and wants, more than any human being, what is best for us as His creation. I'm glad. I don't have to argue to prove rather He is real or not, and God won't argue either, but His proof is all around us each day, even amidst the evil that is also around us. And ultimately, and I believe, soon, all on this earth will see Him for Who He is, and then all will know He is real. God's Word, in centuries past, already told us of the days we are living in now, long before it ever came to be. We ARE living in the Last Days spoken to us in the Bible. His return is imminent, and soon. Are you ready to meet Him face to face? Who is, and who isn't - the decision is up to you, just like it is to me.

Ever since Jesus supposedly died there have been Christians saying we are living in the last days.

Why should we believe your claims when so many others have been wrong?



BTW - for this question, let's suppose that Christianity is true.

kl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> kl Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > shut the fuck up KL Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
We ARE living in the Last
> Days spoken to us in the Bible. His return is
> imminent, and soon. Are you ready to meet Him
> face to face? Who is, and who isn't - the
> decision is up to you, just like it is to me.


This is why you people are so dangerous and should be expunged from civilized society

There is no God. There is no end time.

Anyone attempting to accelerate the end time by kick-starting dumb wars, supporting Israeli dominance to support scripture etc etc should be rounded up as terrorists and stuck in one of the CIA's deepest black holes.

Alternatively - push off to some jungle retreat and start preparing your Kool-Aid

Another reminder, this time with Biblical Backing!

"1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in you hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear"

-------
To make my last post more efficient I thought I'd repost two of the important points that I think you need to address Eliot (of course if you want to address the others, then I'd be happy to read them).

1. I do not think it can be said that Adam and Eve 'rebelled' against God. If they can be said to have rebelled I do not think it's fair to punish them (and by extension mankind) for that rebellion. In order to rebell it seems to me that you would have to know that doing what you are not supposed to is wrong. Adam and Eve did not know disobeying God was wrong, so I don't think it can fairly be said that they rebelled against God.

2. Why ought we do what God says? Why ought we not commit sin. Your answer was that he created us and he can control us. Both of these answers do not follow that we should do what he says/thinks/wants - why do we care whether he created us or controls us? At best you could argue that we have no choice but to do what he wants. The trouble with this is that if this is the case then no one could logically sin. Since sin supposedly happens, this cannot be the case. It also seemed as though power lead to authority. That depends on how you define 'authoritative'. The only difference right now is that god is more powerful, which is a might makes right morality. If god does not exist then it seems to me that morality would depend on the most powerful being/entity in the universe. It could be, for instance, a government that was capable of exerting it's control over all the denizens of the planet. If it's power that is the reason for following God's demands, then ought we also follow those who are more powerful then us? It seems to me that would be the case.

3. Would you kill that child? Slowly or quickly? And would you feel holy and good doing God's word?

bizzump bitches

Pangloss, Christians would all agree with your statement that "morality [depends] on the most powerful being/entity in the universe."

Absent the God of the Bible, you talk about "a [human] government that [is] capable of exerting its control over all the denizens of the planet."

The Bible certainly foresees such a horrible future government ... and its destruction by Jesus upon his return.

Ultimately the Christians expect to live resurrected, not in a 'democracy,' but in a peaceable kingdom which is a theocracy in the fullest meaning of that term.

You however expect to die and simply disappear forever, forgotten.

If you want to be 'remembered' you should probably be posting for a much larger audience on exchristian.net ... rather than bashing Christianity on this small Fairfax County bulletin board.

In the impersonal chance universe of (what is commonly called) 'Darwinism,' none of this chatter has any meaning in any case ... here's the 'Darwinian' gospel as cast by Shakespeare:

Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

For those, on the other hand, who believe in the historicity of the Bible -- as opposed to the uniformity of natural causes in the impersonal, closed system of 'Dawinism' -- life is not just a gigantic hamster wheel ... precisely because God is the 'ultimate reality' and his 'morality' applies all the way from the Fall in the Garden of Eden to the return of his Son as King.

They have hope for a truly better world. You have none, despite all the prancing and dancing on this forum, as the clock keeps ticking toward your forthcoming death.

I guarantee that the Christians who read this forum sincerely 'love' you despite your disdain for their hope ... and that they pray (perhaps to your irritation) to the God that you think does not exist, that on your deathbed you'll turn to reading the Bible again for just one last time ... rather than seeking cold comfort by leafing through, say, "The Origin of Species" or "Cosmos" ...

the issue being whether you are just something "kicked up out of the slime by chance" ... or an image-bearer of the living God, subject to 'morality', eligible for condemnation on the basis of your own actions or for forgiveness based upon the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2009 05:01PM by Eliot Ness.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss, Christians would all agree with your
> statement that "morality on the most powerful
> being/entity in the universe."

No, not all would, some argue that there actually is a thing called 'good' and 'evil' which are not arbitrary or subjective. This is beside the point though.

> Absent the God of the Bible, you talk about "a
> government that capable of exerting its control
> over all the denizens of the planet."

None so far - but really, they don't need to be. They just have to be powerful enough to express their moral wishes on their populations (including you and I).

> The Bible certainly foresees such a horrible
> future government ... and its destruction by Jesus
> upon his return.

It strikes me as highly suspect that Jesus would fight a powerful government for *control* over the populous.

> Ultimately the Christians expect to live
> resurrected, not in a 'democracy,' but in a
> peaceable kingdom which is a theocracy in the
> fullest meaning of that term.

So they don't even have the facade that their opinions matter? What's the point of their existence if it's to simply submit to slavery of an entity who doesn't need them at all?

> You however expect to die and simply disappear
> forever, forgotten.

Well, not initially, but eventually, yes. It's actually what gives my life more value. The finiteness of a substance in demand increases it's value.

> If you want to be 'remembered' you should probably
> be posting for a much larger audience on
> exchristian.net ... rather than bashing
> Christianity on this small Fairfax County bulletin
> board.

1. I do not expect to be remembered by posting on an internet messageboard.
2. I *have* posted on exchristian.net and a wide variety of other forums. Professor Pangloss is not my usual screen name. As far as bashing, believe it or not, I usually don't do that. Regardless though, I find it strange that you would still consider what I'm doing as bashing even though I've complied with your request about my inflammatory rhetoric.

> In the impersonal chance universe of (what is
> commonly called) 'Darwinism,' none of this chatter
> has any meaning in any case ... here's the
> 'Darwinian' gospel as cast by Shakespeare:

Take that up with a Darwinist. I am not one, as I've said repeatedly.

You seem quite upset by the lack of *meaning* (whatever you mean by that) the universe has. I am not that upset by it. The fact is, the notion that the universe is the battle ground for an evil monster (Satan) and a heroic superman (God) is the type of meaning that is found in hollywood, not reality.

Your (seemingly) only objection to modern science and a secular worldview is, again seemingly, based on your desire to be 'important' in the grand scheme of things. I'm sorry but from all available evidence, you are not. Nor am I.

I am important to my family and friends. I'm actually okay with that. To put a smile on my daughter's face is more important then the idea of swashbuckling with Satan. It is more valuable to me and I don't particularly care if no one is around to witness it.

> Out, out, brief candle!
> Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
> That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
> And then is heard no more: it is a tale
> Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
> Signifying nothing.

Yet it's the most important thing we have. If you can't handle not being a minor figure in an outlandish hollywood tale, I can't help you. I'm living my life and I'm quite happy.

> For those, on the other hand, who believe in the
> historicity of the Bible -- as opposed to the
> uniformity of natural causes in the impersonal,
> closed system of 'Dawinism' -- life is not just a
> gigantic hamster wheel ... precisely because God
> is the 'ultimate reality' and his 'morality'
> applies all the way from the Fall in the Garden of
> Eden to the return of his Son as King.

Again, I'm not a "Darwinist" or a 'Dawninist' (I'm not sure if you misspelled Darwinism or if this is a new term), but I do not view life as a 'gigantic hampster wheel'.

By your own implied admission, god's morality is no more objective, no less arbitrary, and no less subjective then any person's. So why ought we follow it?

The fact is, in this long post of yours where you attempt to address one of the three questions, you *STILL* cannot give us *ANY* reason we *ought* to follow God's morality.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliot Ness Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

> The fact is, in this long post of yours where you
> attempt to address one of the three questions, you
> *STILL* cannot give us *ANY* reason we *ought* to
> follow God's morality.


or more pertinently, why we should believe there is a god

- sorry I forgot that your argument is 'there is a god, therefore there is a god' - less than convincing I'm afraid

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> precisely because God
> is the 'ultimate reality' and his 'morality'
> applies all the way from the Fall in the Garden of
> Eden to the return of his Son as King.

You change things around a bit, but the point remains that you have not given us a reason we ought to follow god's morality. I suppose, based on the quote above, you think that god has an ownership claim to us and therefore we ought to follow his morality. This is slavery mentality and I hope that now that I've pointed it out to you, you'll realize how arbitrary and subjective and useless it is.

My guess is that you went to Lon asking for answers this Sunday and he was unable to give you anything better then what you've posted here. That is the reason you aren't fully addressing the questions I've set forth. That is the reason you cannot come up with an ought.

> They have hope for a truly better world. You have
> none, despite all the prancing and dancing on this
> forum, as the clock keeps ticking toward your
> forthcoming death.

?

This denies basic reality, Eliot. I have hope for a better world because I *care* about the world and I view reason as an avenue to address the problems in this world.

As for my forthcoming death, it's what gives my life value. Were I to live forever, then this world wouldn't matter at all to me.

I'm curious as to why you are pretending that this world means anything to you and why you would attempt (badly) to castigate me and my ilk in regards to hope for this world. You, and the Christian, have *NO* hope for this world. You all don't really care about it - in fairness, you don't really have to, with eternity and all.

> I guarantee that all the Christians who read this
> forum sincerely 'love' you despite your disdain
> for their hope ...

Then that is a 'shallow' love, as they do not know me at all.

Further, I take issue with your notion that I 'disdain' their hope. You seem to be upset with me, which indicates to me that your talk with Lon didn't go too well.

I'll clarify. I do not wish the Christian to have no hope. I do not wish the Christian to be sad in their worldview. I just wish the Christian would look at reality (or at least the worldview of the secularist) with honest eyes. It is not the horrible monster that the Christian has convinced himself it is. It is the most precious thing we all share.

> and that they pray (perhaps to
> your irritation) to the God that you think does
> not exist,

Again, why are you trying to make me out to be a seething anger monger. I am no such thing and I do not find it irritating when people pray for me. I'd prefer if they really cared for them to talk with me, but ultimately, I see their prayer in the manner as they (usually) intended - a request for god with the best of their intentions.

> that on your deathbed you'll turn to
> reading the Bible again for just one last time ...
> rather than seeking cold comfort by leafing
> through, say, "The Origin of Species" or
> "Cosmos."

Sounds like you are giving up instead of giving the issue the critical thought that it requires. I hope I'm wrong about that.

In any event, I would not read 'the origin of the species' or watch/read 'cosmos'. Both are too dry for me and one time was enough.

No, I'd rather spend my death bed with my family and those I care about. If none were around, I think I'd spend my time reading Camus.

nutters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Eliot Ness Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> > The fact is, in this long post of yours where
> you
> > attempt to address one of the three questions,
> you
> > *STILL* cannot give us *ANY* reason we *ought*
> to
> > follow God's morality.
>
>
> or more pertinently, why we should believe there
> is a god
>
> - sorry I forgot that your argument is 'there is a
> god, therefore there is a god' - less than
> convincing I'm afraid


Perhaps I'm misreading Eliot's tone, but it appears to me that he's giving up. He tried to engage a few times after the Joshua Challenge, but I think that Lon's response to it (basically suggesting that Lon would have killed the children) took the wind from his sails.

I think he realizes that the might makes right authority of the bible is truly no different the Nazi rationalizations of morality that he was decrying earlier. He's left with 'hope' for eternal salvation and that's about it. He realizes there really isn't any reason to follow god's commands and he's been reduced to hoping he will survive by doing whatever god commands, no matter how horrible.

It reminds me of the Jews who during the holocaust would beat/mistreat other Jews in the camps just to save themselves. I can't remember what the name for those Jews were, BTW.

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the issue being whether you are just something
> "kicked up out of the slime by chance" ... or an
> image-bearer of the living God, subject to
> 'morality', eligible for condemnation on the basis
> of your own actions or for forgiveness based upon
> the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.


Technically it's an issue between being 'of slime' or 'of dirt'. That distinction, I must admit, is lost on me.

As for being the 'image-bearer' of the 'living god', what does that mean? That god is a humanoid?

Regardless, it seems that your reason for rejecting reality (at least what *I* claim to be reality) is because you find it unpleasant that you would be related to slime.

Unfortunately reality is not obligated to subject itself to your wishes, Eliot. Why you think it has to be, I have no idea. Reality will not provide you better meaning or better relatives simply because you are upset by what you've been presented.

Pangloss, nobody is ever going to 'argue' you into believing that Christianity is true.

But here's an idea. Since this forum is about McLean Bible Church, why don't you offer a critique of a sermon by Lon Solomon. For example, this recent one about the Return of Christ?

http://www.mcleanbible.org/media_player.asp?messageID=23883

Eliot Ness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss, nobody is ever going to 'argue' you into
> believing that Christianity is true.

What do you base this on? Your poor argumentation? The evidence suggests that *I* can be argued into renouncing my beliefs as *it's happened in the past*!

Seriously, get real. If anything I think the reverse can be suggested of you, since you have been dodging theological issues left and right. Those issues you do deem to answer are answered poorly.

> But here's an idea. Since this forum is about
> McLean Bible Church, why don't you offer a
> critique of a sermon by Lon Solomon. For example,
> this recent one about the Return of Christ?
>
> http://www.mcleanbible.org/media_player.asp?messag
> eID=23883

I'm at work - I can't listen to this. I have no interest in arguing against Lon Solomon, as he's not here to defend himself and he can be misunderstood and all. That is why I've repeatedly asked *you* questions.

Eliot, I know you have a blog and I've criticized your, for a lack of a better term, "discussion" skills, but I am genuinely curious: Have you ever had a long drawn out religious discussion (either online or over the course of several days/weeks) with someone who was not your religion?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2009 04:35PM by Professor Pangloss.

Ugh I go there on wednesday nights for the rock but everyone there is and idiot! The adults that supervise are annoying as hell and all the kids think that they're just too cool!!! There's this one kid Mika who thinks he's the biggest badass but he's my age and up to my neck! Lame as hell!

I've actually never been to the church. What is it like? (physically as well as the people - aside from the idiots)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/2009 03:40PM by Professor Pangloss.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've actually never been to the church. What is
> it like? (physically as well as the people -
> aside from the idiots)


aside from the idiots? who does that leave?

Childish and foolish talk will never satisfy your souls, only Jesus... but if you won't believe you'll never understand why a man who follows Christ is blessed with or without finances. Take the money away and the man will be left standing and if he never forsake's the Lord, like Job, it will be given back many times.

The reason Lon is doing well will always be a mistery to you, the ministry by a Christ following church will always glorify the God of our Fathers. If god ordained this ministry, it is up to him what he wants to do with it. Man can dislike or hate God's decision, but His word is final. In Christ alone the church is not really the building, but the people who have a relationship with the Almighty. God's word is final, fear Him not man. Look at yourselves why are you complaining for what God has done,remember to whom much is given, much is reqiured. Do you get payed what you deserve, I hope so. If you give little you get little, give it up man are you mightier than God?

KF Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Childish and foolish talk will never satisfy your
> souls, only Jesus... but if you won't believe
> you'll never understand why a man who follows
> Christ is blessed with or without finances. Take
> the money away and the man will be left standing
> and if he never forsake's the Lord, like Job, it
> will be given back many times.
>
> The reason Lon is doing well will always be a
> mistery to you, the ministry by a Christ following
> church will always glorify the God of our Fathers.
> If god ordained this ministry, it is up to him
> what he wants to do with it. Man can dislike or
> hate God's decision, but His word is final. In
> Christ alone the church is not really the
> building, but the people who have a relationship
> with the Almighty. God's word is final, fear Him
> not man. Look at yourselves why are you
> complaining for what God has done,remember to whom
> much is given, much is reqiured. Do you get payed
> what you deserve, I hope so. If you give little
> you get little, give it up man are you mightier
> than God?

Cut the BS - show us some evidence of any of this

Put up or shut up

Time for religion to be expunged from rational society - its a cancer that's overdue for surgery

KF Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Childish and foolish talk will never satisfy your
> souls, only Jesus... but if you won't believe
> you'll never understand why a man who follows
> Christ is blessed with or without finances. Take
> the money away and the man will be left standing
> and if he never forsake's the Lord, like Job, it
> will be given back many times.

What you are saying is a basic truth, happiness is found through friends, family, and positive living, not in wealth. This is true, but has absolutely nothing to do with christianity. I can show you people from all over the world that are not christians yet are spiritually sound and happy.

>
> The reason Lon is doing well will always be a
> mistery to you

no it wont, its not a mystery, its sheep like you that pay him to lead you through this life without questioning anything that has been shoved in your face. Its hardly a mystery.

>, the ministry by a Christ following
> church will always glorify the God of our Fathers.
> If god ordained this ministry, it is up to him
> what he wants to do with it. Man can dislike or
> hate God's decision, but His word is final. In
> Christ alone the church is not really the
> building, but the people who have a relationship
> with the Almighty.

Then Why not take the money out of the equation? why build multi million dollar churches and homes for Lon. Who, even though im sure he believes what hes preaching, is still taking money from people too blind to see it.

> God's word is final, fear Him
> not man. Look at yourselves why are you
> complaining for what God has done,remember to whom
> much is given, much is reqiured. Do you get payed
> what you deserve, I hope so. If you give little
> you get little, give it up man are you mightier
> than God?

Man is god, god is the maniphestation of mans mind. this is easily seen when you look at god in the old and new testiments. He has been given humanistic qualities. He is angry, jealous, forgiving, and judgemental... these are all human qualities, and if their truly were a divine being, he would be above these feelings. their is no way to prove or disprove the existence of god, but you can disprove the existence of a christian god very easily. It just doesnt add up. Why does every christian I see post here speak like they are in the 1st century? they talk as if they are quoting scripture, and are speaking the divine word of god. I have yet to see a christian on the site that speaks from his heart about what he believes...

Hey asshat, I am just a bit curious about this one ... who was Jesus? Every historian (both believers and nonbelievers) agree that a man named Jesus - the one they called The Christ - actually lived on the face of the earth. So, tell me asshat, who was he???

TruthandFacts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey asshat, I am just a bit curious about this one
> ... who was Jesus? Every historian (both
> believers and nonbelievers) agree that a man named
> Jesus - the one they called The Christ - actually
> lived on the face of the earth. So, tell me
> asshat, who was he???


actually you are wrong, there are many historians who do not believe he existed at all. At the time of his supposed life/death their were around 40 well known historians living within the region, and not one of them documented any man named jesus, or any of the other events that supposedly happened. The accounts that were written in the bible came many years after his death (if he existed), and they were all 2nd and 3rd hand accounts of what had transpired. So yea, do a little research.

TruthandFacts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey asshat, I am just a bit curious about this one
> ... who was Jesus? Every historian (both
> believers and nonbelievers) agree that a man named
> Jesus - the one they called The Christ - actually
> lived on the face of the earth. So, tell me
> asshat, who was he???


A lot of historians believe this - but not every. Off the top of my head, Robert Price doesn't believe this and argues against it.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TruthandFacts Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hey asshat, I am just a bit curious about this
> one
> > ... who was Jesus? Every historian (both
> > believers and nonbelievers) agree that a man
> named
> > Jesus - the one they called The Christ -
> actually
> > lived on the face of the earth. So, tell me
> > asshat, who was he???
>
>
> A lot of historians believe this - but not every.
> Off the top of my head, Robert Price doesn't
> believe this and argues against it.

And frankly, it doesn't make a lot of difference

The ancient, medieval and modern worlds are full of would be messiahs, miracle workers and mystics

None have provided any evidence that their own brand of snake-oil has any credibility

Eliot's only argument for his preferred snake-oil is 'the bible says so, and it even said it was going to say so!' and that just doesn't cut it

I go to McLean, I am one of those robots you speak of. I don't put money in the offering plate, I give to social programs affiliated with the church that put recreation centers in "needy" neighborhoods. While I have a bit of a problem with the size of the church, I am one degree of separation from the pastor there - who is a decent and good man, driven by compassion and a desire to see people succeed in life. He knows that without God (CHRIST), he would remain lost and searching for truth. Almost all of what people are saying here is untrue - it is completely unfair to spread lies - why don't you people just let others decide for themselves if this place is right for them? You are so wrong when you say the people there *hate*. I have never seen a church reach out to its community more than this one. While the churches I grew up in rejected divorced people and women who had unplanned pregnancies - this church does whatever it can to engage and help those less fortunate. They have a clothing bank, a food bank, and an open door policy. No one there even *has* to believe in God, give offering, or be publicly humiliated to attend - unlike the churches I was raised in. Give the guy a break - at the end of the day, he cares about people and is actually quite selfless compared to people who are just trying to tear others down. His life is devoted to spreading information about Christ. He could be working anywhere else (he is actually very educated and well traveled), but he doesn't. If he was in it for the money, he would have left a long time ago. This church and it's supporters will do more for the DC area than any government (OR YOU) ever will, and for that they have my respect. The people who go there who don't "get it" and continue to mistreat people, even in spite of sound teaching are just lame...there are a handful in every crowd...

realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
This church and it's supporters
> will do more for the DC area than any government
> (OR YOU) ever will,


BS again

I hate to point out that tax payers (through the government) pay for the education, medicare, medicaid, defense, policing, EMT, transportation etc etc etc that the DC area relies on. That includes hundreds of thousands of tax payers in FFX.

Anything the church does, it could do without being a church or pushing its doomed theology

If mbc closed down tomorrow, the only thing we'd miss is the sound of whining.

If tax payers and government went away you'd miss a great deal more

Get a sense of perspective man.

Love your neighbor...it is the job of the church to teach that, not the government. McLean Bible does a good job - I can tell you all kinds of things they could be doing with their money *instead* of investing in people's lives. Not all of us who go there agree with each and every thing they do, but we are not blind followers...we are educated consumers (I used that word just for the "all church is a business" fella). We made an informed decision, and just like with anything else, we can change the channel at any given time...take our "business" elsewhere.

Good luck with your mission(s) to tear down believers in Christ and Lon...it will be in vain. You haters have a lot of energy, I hope it is well spent in great things at the end of the day. If Lon is not the real deal, he will self-destruct, regardless of your efforts - he has plenty of people holding him accountable...

"I give to social programs affiliated with the church that put recreation centers in 'needy' neighborhoods"

Where are these recreation centers? Please describe.

"he has plenty of people holding him accountable"

Who?

The church supports the building of these centers in Anacostia (DC), and reaching out to the community there. Not sure how many structures they have right now - but this is where my money goes. http://www.thehousedc.org/home.shtml

"Since 1999, The House has been transforming and empowering the lives of inner city youth and their families. The House is located in the Anacostia area of Southeast, Washington, DC, on a street formerly known as "Murder Row." This former crack house is now a catalyst for youth to develop healthy relationships and experience changes of heart."

There is also a large "Turkey Outreach" at Thanksgiving, a huge outpouring via an "Angel Tree" program at Christmas, and many other service projects that go on throughout the year. There are outreaches for the troops, scholarships for kids who can't afford to go to church camp (if they want to go), and as I mentioned before, a huge clothing and food bank where I have seen people from all parts of the DC area come for help. Here's a very realistic (albeit negative in tone) article from the Washington Post about Lon and the church:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7933-2004Jun26?language=printer

As far as the accountability, many churches have elders that are in charge of financial oversight and doctrinal integrity. McLean is no different. Without getting too specific - I can tell you that the you will never hear pastors at McLean ad-libbing or doing off the cuff preaching - there is not fire and brimstone and dancing in the aisles. There is bullet point by bullet point *teaching*, speaking pastors who want to ramble on about their personal interpretations of scripture need not apply. Elders will be the first to squawk if something is said from the pulpit that goes against the teachings of the Bible. Lon has a likeable personality and is a great public speaker. The number one reason I choose this church is because I can see that the sermons there are intelligently constructed, and based on research, current events, science, and doctrinal theology. Who better to teach about the Bible than a Jewish person who can actually study the text, languages, and contexts presented in the scriptures and translate it to someone like me? Better than the church where I grew up, where the pastor just rolled out of bed and told stories that made no sense, completely abused the finances, and publicly humiliated the congregants, among many other horrible things. It doesn't matter to me that there are thousands of people there each week - if I want to get involved, I know where to look to find a service project, I can volunteer my time to the day care there, find a "small group" or otherwise. It's not up to them, it's up to me...

I don't know much about MCBC, so I can't and haven't really commented about it. However, I'm curious, what science do they teach?

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know much about MCBC, so I can't and
> haven't really commented about it. However, I'm
> curious, what science do they teach?


I'm not trying to officially speak for MBC, I don't work for them. I also haven't read this whole thread, so I don't know what has been talked about; I just read the last post and the post before.

I mainly (although I think Lon is great) go to Frontline and I know that the pastor there (Todd Phillips) teaches that MBC encourages science. They/I believe that the seeming contradictions could be explained with more research and that science and Christianity are harmonious, but that faith is ultimately what we have. I know that is something you've heard before and I'm sorry if that is vague, but furthermore I personally won't put a life-revolving faith in science anymore than I would put it in a single imperfect human.

So, in regards to realist's post, I would imagine the pastors at MBC use science when they see God revealing Himself through it.

Christian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I don't know much about MCBC, so I can't and
> > haven't really commented about it. However,
> I'm
> > curious, what science do they teach?
>
>
> I'm not trying to officially speak for MBC, I
> don't work for them. I also haven't read this
> whole thread, so I don't know what has been talked
> about; I just read the last post and the post
> before.
>
> I mainly (although I think Lon is great) go to
> Frontline and I know that the pastor there (Todd
> Phillips) teaches that MBC encourages science.
> They/I believe that the seeming contradictions
> could be explained with more research and that
> science and Christianity are harmonious, but that
> faith is ultimately what we have. I know that is
> something you've heard before and I'm sorry if
> that is vague, but furthermore I personally won't
> put a life-revolving faith in science anymore than
> I would put it in a single imperfect human.
>
> So, in regards to realist's post, I would imagine
> the pastors at MBC use science when they see God
> revealing Himself through it.


I'm not sure exactly what you mean. It sounds like you/MBC look at the situation in the same way that Gould did; ie, non-overlapping magesteria. In other words, both science and religion ways of knowing and they do not overlap each other (except when people try to force the two).

Is this a fair assessment?

Professor Pangloss Wrote:

> I'm not sure exactly what you mean. It sounds
> like you/MBC look at the situation in the same way
> that Gould did; ie, non-overlapping magesteria.
> In other words, both science and religion ways of
> knowing and they do not overlap each other (except
> when people try to force the two).
>
> Is this a fair assessment?


I believe that God can partially be experienced through nature. In the same way some of an artist is revealed through his paintings. I can see minor visual representations of Him in the order, majesty, beauty, vastness of science and nature to name a few. Maybe that is just because that is how I see the world now, but I don't think so. I would say that science and the nature of God not only overlap, but over time or divine revelation it will obvious one came from the other.

Christian Wrote:

>
>
> I believe that God can partially be experienced
> through nature. In the same way some of an artist
> is revealed through his paintings. I can see minor
> visual representations of Him in the order,
> majesty, beauty, vastness of science and nature to
> name a few. Maybe that is just because that is how
> I see the world now, but I don't think so. I would
> say that science and the nature of God not only
> overlap, but over time or divine revelation it
> will obvious one came from the other.


For goodness sake - why don't you people actually read some science

What science provides is an increasingly complete self consistent explanation of everything we experience and which you, any of us, can test

None of the religious posters here have managed to identify a single substantial gap or inconsistency whose explanation requires a deity - not one. Neither have they managed to show any evidence for one, or where one would provide a better explanation.

You'd have thought that given all those wasted Sunday's you'd be able to do better.

We've been through this in exhaustive detail over the last 15 tedious pages

astronomy explains:
a universe 93 Billion light years across
containing 100 billion galaxies
each containing 10 million to 1 trillion stars each

physics and quantum mechanics explain:
how the materials around us behave down to amazing sub-atomic detail

biology and evolutionary methods explain:
how life works

... and they fit together to give a self consistent explanation, with predictive characteristics, open to continuous detailed critique by anyone who wants to do the experiments

and in all that, not a single religious poster has managed anything better than "the bible is true because the bible says so"


Sir/madam, your theology is bankrupt and its basis laughable - give it up

Christian Wrote:
> I believe that God can partially be experienced
> through nature. In the same way some of an artist
> is revealed through his paintings. I can see minor
> visual representations of Him in the order,
> majesty, beauty, vastness of science and nature to
> name a few.

I think everyone can see the beauty and wonder in nature and something that is unknown. I myself would refer to this wonder and majesty as "god" too, but not in the sense of a personal being, but as an all encompassing term. Though there is god in nature, this however does not point to a christian god. For as long as I can remember, christianity (catholisism specifically) has preached against nature. This I believe was a long campaign to discredit other religions who worshiped nature as god (druids, pagans, etc.) That is my point I guess, people all believe in something more than what is just seen heard and felt. But people usually turn to the only religion they have been exposed to, or what is socially acceptable in their community. I guess what im saying is that people dont understand that you can have spirituallity without having a religion. You do not need a bible to truly know "god", whatever that word means to you.

>Maybe that is just because that is how
> I see the world now, but I don't think so. I would
> say that science and the nature of God not only
> overlap, but over time or divine revelation it
> will obvious one came from the other.

Christianity has long rejected science instead of embracing it. Finding out that man was not the center of the universe, meant that man may not have been divine, or that even earth may not be gods only creation with life. The reason why they reject science is that if one supposed "truth" is found to be false, then a crack shows in the armor of the faith, and the bible in the case of christianity.

Science is god. That statement may seem extreme or unfathomable to some, but when you realize, nature is "god" and science is the study of nature, then it starts to make sense. The bible was a scientific document for its time.... meaning, that it was the observations of man, trying to understand and define what and why we exist. The only difference between science today and the bible of old, is that science is constantly updating itself. Theories are disproven and overturned, new evidence is found that contradicts, it is constantly evolving, and it is open to critique. Where as the bible, is "divine" and infallible.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Christian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I don't know much about MCBC, so I can't and
> > > haven't really commented about it. However,
> > I'm
> > > curious, what science do they teach?
> >
> >
> > I'm not trying to officially speak for MBC, I
> > don't work for them. I also haven't read this
> > whole thread, so I don't know what has been
> talked
> > about; I just read the last post and the post
> > before.
> >
> > I mainly (although I think Lon is great) go to
> > Frontline and I know that the pastor there
> (Todd
> > Phillips) teaches that MBC encourages science.
> > They/I believe that the seeming contradictions
> > could be explained with more research and that
> > science and Christianity are harmonious, but
> that
> > faith is ultimately what we have. I know that
> is
> > something you've heard before and I'm sorry if
> > that is vague, but furthermore I personally
> won't
> > put a life-revolving faith in science anymore
> than
> > I would put it in a single imperfect human.
> >
> > So, in regards to realist's post, I would
> imagine
> > the pastors at MBC use science when they see
> God
> > revealing Himself through it.
>
>
> I'm not sure exactly what you mean. It sounds
> like you/MBC look at the situation in the same way
> that Gould did; ie, non-overlapping magesteria.
> In other words, both science and religion ways of
> knowing and they do not overlap each other (except
> when people try to force the two).
>
> Is this a fair assessment?


Reply (to more than only Professor Pangloss):
First, I like you Professor Pangloss, no matter what anyone else says or thinks. You are definitely a thinker, and you seem to want to genuinely learn every area of learning, and seem to really want to know the truth. And truly, it is very true that those who truly want to know the real truth, will eventually learn what the real truth is. I certainly hope and pray that among so many others reading and writing in these columns, there are more who truly want to know the real truth, because if they do, one day they too will learn what that is.

As for science, in Genesis 1, we are told that "In the beginning God made the Heaven and the Earth". And certainly science does study as much of the heavens and the earth as it can. Therefore, since God created the Heavens and the earth and all of creation, including animals, plants and humans - then He actually created the true science. I'm glad He did, because it is not only very interesting, but a comfort as well, that He really is real and cares so much for us.

Thank you again for sharing.

GW Wrote:

> As for science, in Genesis 1, we are told that "In
> the beginning God made the Heaven and the Earth".
> And certainly science does study as much of the
> heavens and the earth as it can. Therefore, since
> God created the Heavens and the earth and all of
> creation, including animals, plants and humans -
> then He actually created the true science. I'm
> glad He did, because it is not only very
> interesting, but a comfort as well, that He really
> is real and cares so much for us.

You religious relics are getting very boring and very very repetitive

You can't just quote scriptural 'as if by magic', claim its compatible with science and hope any one takes you seriously.

To be taken seriously, you have to identify significant areas which can only be explained by a deity whilst maintaining consistency with the way that biology, physics and astronomy can be shown to work - and no-one posting here has managed to come any where close.

If you say that science is true and compatible with Christianity, the you have to justify why evolution doesn't explain the emergence human species whilst simultaneously explaining a fossil record rich with dinosaurs etc. Similarly, you have to address issues of scale and complexity from the subatomic to the galactic in a manner at least as satisfactorily as contemporary science.

To be blunt:

you have to show that science is wrong

or

you have to show that religion adequately and consistently explains, in detail, the observations that science explains

and

you have to show that religion is a better and more complete explanation - with detail, no hand waving

Claiming a line or two of scripture and refusing to step up to the challenge rational explanation is intellectual cowardice


Religion is an intellectually bankrupt concept which should be wiped from modern society

GW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reply (to more than only Professor Pangloss):
> First, I like you Professor Pangloss, no matter
> what anyone else says or thinks. You are
> definitely a thinker, and you seem to want to
> genuinely learn every area of learning, and seem
> to really want to know the truth. And truly, it
> is very true that those who truly want to know the
> real truth, will eventually learn what the real
> truth is. I certainly hope and pray that among so
> many others reading and writing in these columns,
> there are more who truly want to know the real
> truth, because if they do, one day they too will
> learn what that is.
>
> As for science, in Genesis 1, we are told that "In
> the beginning God made the Heaven and the Earth".
> And certainly science does study as much of the
> heavens and the earth as it can. Therefore, since
> God created the Heavens and the earth and all of
> creation, including animals, plants and humans -
> then He actually created the true science. I'm
> glad He did, because it is not only very
> interesting, but a comfort as well, that He really
> is real and cares so much for us.
>
> Thank you again for sharing.


Well, yes, in that respect the magisteria would overlap. I meant more along the lines of what science uncovered conflicting with religious truth. In otherwords, Gould's magisteria suggests that religion (ie, the bible/revelation) tells you how to live, whereas science tells you what life is.

I'm now a little more curious - what exactly does Lon teach? I suppose I just expected typical bible lessons and such.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In otherwords, Gould's magisteria suggests
> that religion (ie, the bible/revelation) tells you
> how to live, whereas science tells you what life
> is.
>

Its not appropriate to use 'tell' in the same way.

Science 'tells' based on observation, analysis, prediction and critique and provides a self consistent and increasingly fine-grained explanation of everything around us, including our own minds.

Religion can only 'tell' you anything in the same way a novel or a movie can - artistic observations on the human condition.

To take a religion as being in any way true without evidence is ridiculous.

Christianity is a perfect example:
- if you take the bible as 'true' you run straight into its complete incompatibility with observable reality, now well described by science, at the most obvious levels
- if you start chopping off the bits that are most patently absurd, you're left with a random jumble of poorly reported Jewish history and myth

Christianity cannot 'tell' you any more than Tolkien or Titanic

In modern societies law, social norms and markets provide the agreed social framework for, and bounds on, behavior, and are what tell you how to live through a snapshot of society's dynamic agreement patterns for interaction - not some imposed religious dogma.

Society functions through the local agreement (or forced compliance) of its members

The reason I did not respond to the question about "what science does MBC teach?" is that I knew this is where you all were going. Curiousity got the best of me and I came back to visit this thread - and just as I suspected, it had turned into a forum for throwing more insults at "believers". How can that be explained? I just knew... as if by magic, right? My point here is that there are many things for which there is no explanation. The mere thought that someone believes the earth or the galaxy is billions of years old is enough to throw a non-believer's argument out the window - how can it be *proven* that any of these things are more than a few thousand years old? Just as you argue that the existence of a Creator cannot be "proven", neither can it be "proven" that things in nature are the ages scientists have ascribed them.

Look, I am less of a scientist, and more of a "feeler". Not to the extent that all reason will go out the window, but I believe very simply that our basic human needs are met supernaturally and if there is a flaw in our ability to gain access to those human needs, we will spend the rest of our life searching for them and trying to become whole again (study Jesus in the wilderness for more on how to behave when we all of our basic needs are taken from us). I do deeply believe that the answers lie in the questions we ask, and where we search for answers. I am fascinated by archaeology and "science" as it pertains to religion - though I can't toss around theories and anti-theories as intelligently as our atheist friends, I am equally willing to engage in discussion about my belief system without trying to shove it down anyone's throat.

This thread is about McLean Bible Church, not about dis/belief in God. I simply cannot believe someone would choose to leave behind a legacy of bitterness and loneliness versus perhaps a more respectable existence of constantly looking for answers. People that arrive at Christianity do so by very different means - and if they are satisfied there, they find peace, they rest, and they strive for growth. These are personal journeys that we have no business trying to undo. People that arrive at the conclusion that they will oppose Christianity also do so by different means, but I find it doubtful that there is peace and rest there - perhaps the reasons for such late night activity by atheists Online.

If you are anti-Christian, then Lon and MBC are about as crazy and radical as they get - but very organized, very structured, very caring, while striving for excellence in all they do. I don't know what else to tell you.

If you are a Christian searching for a church - prepare for good teaching, good kids' programs, and to be lost in a sea of people - unless you find a Sunday school class or a small home group.

Good luck, everyone.

realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The reason I did not respond to the question about
> "what science does MBC teach?" is that I knew this
> is where you all were going. Curiousity got the
> best of me and I came back to visit this thread -
> and just as I suspected, it had turned into a
> forum for throwing more insults at "believers".
> How can that be explained? I just knew... as if
> by magic, right? My point here is that there are
> many things for which there is no explanation.
> The mere thought that someone believes the earth
> or the galaxy is billions of years old is enough
> to throw a non-believer's argument out the window
> - how can it be *proven* that any of these things
> are more than a few thousand years old?

This is the sort of religious BS that I've been talking about. No-one has set out to insult "believers[in religion]" - but if you spout this kind of stuff and expect special dispensations from society such as freedom from the taxes we all pay, then you should have to stand up to rigorous scrutiny - just saying you're a "feeler" and 'god did it' is just not good enough in the face of solid evidence.

There are a number of extremely good ways of determining the age of materials and minerals based on well categorized phenomena which we see around us every day such as radioactive decay.

Such methods are conclusive that the world is billions, not thousands of years old.

This is more than enough, in your words "to throw a non-believer[in science]'s argument out the window". Being a "feeler" is not an adequate justification for saying "well, I just prefer the supernatural"

If you have any real substantive arguments against the scientific results, the present them.

This not a 'mere thought that someone believes' - it is a rigorous set of testable and open methods that anyone can open up, replicate, test and critique.

Being "less of a scientist" is no badge of honor, but I can understand that turning up in church occasionally is less time consuming than actually understanding how the world works and much less challenging

To help, here are a few easy starters on the subjects under discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_timescale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life


Could I suggest that you actually read some of this material before you continue spouting off that there is no evidence that the world is more than a few thousand years old.

If you have any real, substantive criticism, questions or comments after reading the material - come back with them.

Its really not hard

lol, i love when people say that carbon dating is "not an accurate way of dating fossils", because it ISNT. Carbon has a decay rate of about 65,000 years, so it is NOT used to date fossils, they use other types of radioactive material (the names escapes me, there are many types), with decay rates up to 4 billion years i believe.

asshat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lol, i love when people say that carbon dating is
> "not an accurate way of dating fossils", because
> it ISNT. Carbon has a decay rate of about 65,000
> years, so it is NOT used to date fossils, they use
> other types of radioactive material (the names
> escapes me, there are many types), with decay
> rates up to 4 billion years i believe.


As you say, there is a full set of tools for determining the age of materials of different age-ranges, including various radiometric systems such as uranium-lead

"One of its great advantages is that any sample provides two clocks, one based on uranium-235's decay to lead-207 with a half-life of about 700 million years, and one based on uranium-238's decay to lead-206 with a half-life of about 4.5 billion years, providing a built-in crosscheck that allows accurate determination of the age of the sample even if some of the lead has been lost."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

Carbon-14 is best for much younger organic samples

Then, of course, there's the simple observation that the further you dig down, the simpler the fossils get until they finally stop - another of that pesky satan's tricks

nutters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > In otherwords, Gould's magisteria suggests
> > that religion (ie, the bible/revelation) tells
> you
> > how to live, whereas science tells you what
> life
> > is.
> >
>
> Its not appropriate to use 'tell' in the same
> way.
>
> Science 'tells' based on observation, analysis,
> prediction and critique and provides a self
> consistent and increasingly fine-grained
> explanation of everything around us, including our
> own minds.
>
> Religion can only 'tell' you anything in the same
> way a novel or a movie can - artistic observations
> on the human condition.
>
> To take a religion as being in any way true
> without evidence is ridiculous.
>
> Christianity is a perfect example:
> - if you take the bible as 'true' you run straight
> into its complete incompatibility with observable
> reality, now well described by science, at the
> most obvious levels
> - if you start chopping off the bits that are most
> patently absurd, you're left with a random jumble
> of poorly reported Jewish history and myth
>
> Christianity cannot 'tell' you any more than
> Tolkien or Titanic
>
> In modern societies law, social norms and markets
> provide the agreed social framework for, and
> bounds on, behavior, and are what tell you how to
> live through a snapshot of society's dynamic
> agreement patterns for interaction - not some
> imposed religious dogma.
>
> Society functions through the local agreement (or
> forced compliance) of its members

Fair enough - I'm not arguing that it's correct. I'm just saying that Gould suggest two different magisteria and that the two shouldn't overlap.

I would argue that religion tells you more then Tolkien or the Titanic, as neither of them really has a set of rules and such to follow - but your general point is correct and really, this would just be a pendantic exercize.

realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The reason I did not respond to the question about
> "what science does MBC teach?" is that I knew this
> is where you all were going. Curiousity got the
> best of me and I came back to visit this thread -
> and just as I suspected, it had turned into a
> forum for throwing more insults at "believers".
> How can that be explained? I just knew... as if
> by magic, right? My point here is that there are
> many things for which there is no explanation.
> The mere thought that someone believes the earth
> or the galaxy is billions of years old is enough
> to throw a non-believer's argument out the window
> - how can it be *proven* that any of these things
> are more than a few thousand years old? Just as
> you argue that the existence of a Creator cannot
> be "proven", neither can it be "proven" that
> things in nature are the ages scientists have
> ascribed them.

I don't look for things to be proven (although some do). I look for reasoned belief with evidence or rational argumentation.

You don't have to accept science, I have no truck with that. What I have a truck with is when groups of people want to teach religion as science.

> Look, I am less of a scientist, and more of a
> "feeler". Not to the extent that all reason will
> go out the window, but I believe very simply that
> our basic human needs are met supernaturally and
> if there is a flaw in our ability to gain access
> to those human needs, we will spend the rest of
> our life searching for them and trying to become
> whole again (study Jesus in the wilderness for
> more on how to behave when we all of our basic
> needs are taken from us). I do deeply believe
> that the answers lie in the questions we ask, and
> where we search for answers. I am fascinated by
> archaeology and "science" as it pertains to
> religion - though I can't toss around theories and
> anti-theories as intelligently as our atheist
> friends, I am equally willing to engage in
> discussion about my belief system without trying
> to shove it down anyone's throat.

I have no beef with this - my beef comes in when people teach other people who do not know any better that science supports X, when the reality is, it doesn't.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> realist Wrote:

>
> You don't have to accept science, I have no truck
> with that. What I have a truck with is when
> groups of people want to teach religion as
> science.
>

I'd put it even more strongly.

Not accepting science is not intellectually defensible. Engineered artifacts such as TV's were not developed solely through iterative tinkering but through the fundamental sub-atomic science of people like JJ Thomson in the 1890s and the supporting disciplines such as chemistry for phosphors etc.

That science works is show extensively by the materials and products that have been successfully engineered based on its predictions, The prediction and recent practical sues of gravitational lensing are further examples

If you don't accept science, then you're back to claiming that elves pull the apples down from trees and there really are little people in your TV.

Nutters, I think you want me to tell you that you are smarter than me. You are smarter than me. Does that make you feel better? I am still not sure how you *know* that all of the scientific methods used to determine age are 100% valid and correct. Believing those things wholeheartedly is parallel to believing in that which I cannot see with my physical eyes. I have much more faith in my personal and spiritual experiences, that they are real and solid and true and proven than I do this type of scientific talk. Not because it's easier, NO SIR...it is not easier!

Having said that, I think this thread needs to be moved - I wouldn't mind engaging with you about how simple you think I am, at the end of the day, I would still emerge confident in my belief structure, *because it just IS* (your turn to cut/paste/insult). I don't have a problem being perceived that way, whatsoever. Until you have seen the things I have seen and been taken from born to "born-again", I would never expect you to understand, relate, or comprehend. And I'm okay with that...I am in love with life, I am in awe of nature, I am at peace with every part of my past, present and future. Totally and 100% radical and "blindly following", in the eyes of people like you.

Pangloss - I kinda like you.

realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> Until you have
> seen the things I have seen and been taken from
> born to "born-again", I would never expect you to
> understand, relate, or comprehend. And I'm okay
> with that...I am in love with life, I am in awe of
> nature, I am at peace with every part of my past,
> present and future. Totally and 100% radical and
> "blindly following", in the eyes of people like
> you.
>
> Pangloss - I kinda like you.

>Nutters, I think you want me to tell you that you are smarter than me. You are
> smarter than me. Does that make you feel better?


I've never claimed to be smarter than anyone, all I've ever said is that if anyone makes claims that diverge from observed reality, then they have to justify them.

Religions and religious organizations demand special treatment and privileges from society - tax breaks, inclusion in the pledge, influence over politicians, freedom from scrutiny etc - worst of all is the active indoctrination of children before they have an intellectual maturity to question what they are being told.

We now know enough about the way the universe, the world and our minds work that religion can no longer be given a free pass.


>I am still not
> sure how you *know* that all of the scientific
> methods used to determine age are 100% valid and
> correct.

So please enlighten us with what you think is wrong with these methods? Do you not like the observable physics of atomic decay? Do you not the dinosaur fossils? Are you pissed off that the geoligcal layers all line up so well with bacteria part way up through to todays flora and fauna at the top?

Thinking that it would be nice that the world was 6,000 years old is not the same as it being so.

Science never claims to be 100% accurate at any given time - it is constantly being refined. However, in this case, the vast convergence of evidence is overwhelming.

>I have much more faith in my personal and spiritual experiences, that they are
> real and solid and true and proven than I do this type of scientific talk.
>Not because it's easier, NO SIR...it is not easier!

Its intellectually lazy and socially destructive

What you're saying is that no evidence will ever trump your emotional attachment to your particular religious cult.

Exactly the same thinking as Al Qaeda, extreme zionist sects, dangerous lunatics like Falwell and Robertson and the crazies who committed suicide in Canada because they'd been told that the flying saucers were coming to collect them.

These are views that should be given no credence or special treatment by society - in fact kids should be given tools to actively question them.

If you want to be taken seriously, you have to think seriously and give serious rational arguments with evidence

Bottom line
===========

If you think that you have a theory that is "real and solid and true and proven than I do this type of scientific talk", put it out there... justify how it explains cosmology, geology, biology and neuroscience ... in detail ... not just how it makes you happy.

Why not pick one area as a starter - how about geology?

If you want to take teh leap into the la-la land of faith, then you also have to justify why your faith is better than Hindu faith, Buddhist faith or Wiccan faith

Just quoting genesis is not good enough and just claiming that evidence based science isn't true, because you don't like what it tells you, gains you no credibility at at all.


Damn this new fangled "type of scientific talk"

nutters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > realist Wrote:
>
> >
> > You don't have to accept science, I have no
> truck
> > with that. What I have a truck with is when
> > groups of people want to teach religion as
> > science.
> >
>
> I'd put it even more strongly.
>
> Not accepting science is not intellectually
> defensible. Engineered artifacts such as TV's were
> not developed solely through iterative tinkering
> but through the fundamental sub-atomic science of
> people like JJ Thomson in the 1890s and the
> supporting disciplines such as chemistry for
> phosphors etc.
>
> That science works is show extensively by the
> materials and products that have been successfully
> engineered based on its predictions, The
> prediction and recent practical sues of
> gravitational lensing are further examples
>
> If you don't accept science, then you're back to
> claiming that elves pull the apples down from
> trees and there really are little people in your
> TV.


Hm...I'm not entirely sure how to respond to this. On the one hand, I think pragmaticistically speaking (is that a word), you are completely correct. Science has enriched our lives and is fundamentally the best way of knowing about the world that mankind has come up with so far. It works and it is useful.

On the other hand, I'm reminded of the Amish.

To me, existence is a very important thing. It's the most important thing. That being said, I can't claim that there is a 'correct' way to exist. It seems to me that there is something wrong with interferring with how other people choose to exist. This is not to say that I feel that it's wrong in all cases to interfer. I feel that it is encumbent upon me to act on a serial killer, for instance. The serial killers actions are harming other people.

Whereas the Amish are not hurting anyone in this way. They are living their lives without modern science (for the most part) and they seem to be quite content. They even give their children an out after they become mature enough to understand their choices.

I realize that it could be argued that religion can be intellectually harmful, in the same way that afrocentricism or holocaust denial can be. I think this is what responsible citizens in the community should fight against.

But I don't think I can park my car in the same lot as the people who think that all religion is harmful. If someone wants to consciously reject science and live outside it, then fine. Conversely if someone wants to integrate their religion into their scientific worldview; a la Ken Miller (or Gould's suggestion), that's fine with me too.

It's when someone wants to change science *INTO* their worldview by foisting it upon the public, is when it starts to bother me.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nutters Wrote:

>
> On the other hand, I'm reminded of the Amish.
>

> harmful. If someone wants to consciously reject
> science and live outside it, then fine.


I think there's an important distinction at play here between science and technology.

Its fair to opt out of using technology and its a personal or social decision.

Opting out of science is very different.
e.g. You can decide not to have a TV but you can't decide that they don't work

If you claim a worldview that explains everything, then if you decide to engage in its propagation or the benefits of its special religious status, you have to be prepared to stand up to scrutiny or give up those exemptions and benefits,

In effect, you can either accept the way that science shows you that the TV works, or you can propose a better mechanism - but it has to stand up to critique - and you have to follow where those arguments take you.

That's why 'realists' victim complaint against "this type of scientific talk" is intellectual cowardice opening the door to the propagation of all sort of crazy ideas - and people like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Osama Bin Laden

If you want to claim that radioactive decay started on day a few thousand years ago, you have to explain the material that existed at that time and why/how its different from the materials that developed afterwards. And if you can't make a convincing argument, then you should not expect special treatment.

Science, as a process, provides that forum for global debate over time where evidence and theories can be compared openly.

So I have respect for the amish in that they do let their children explore the world at some point, but I have a real problem with the fact that they have 18 years of active indoctrination before hand. Its exactly the same as the Madrassas - indoctrinate kids, send them out into the world, and enough of them will still deliver the bomb according to doctrine. That's one reason why we shouldn't have god in the pledge of allegiance in schools every morning and why religious schools are an extremely bad idea.

It would be far better to educate children without religion for 18 years, then each religion could lay out its wares and see if they get picked

Religion does not see itself as socially neutral - particularly in the US, religious groups (many of the most outrageously bigoted form) attempt to dominate politics and the law. They expect to determine what you and I can do based on doctrines which can be shown to be farcical. They lead us into disastrous wars based on religious bias, they use religious backing for destructive social policies and they expect special access because they have a special phone to the divine - even if each phone seems to be saying something different. Go Figure.

That makes them harmful

PASTE:
" If you want to claim that radioactive decay started on day a few thousand years ago, you have to explain the material that existed at that time and why/how its different from the materials that developed afterwards. And if you can't make a convincing argument, then you should not expect special treatment. "

I know you're not talking about "realist" - because "realist" didn't say that radioactive decay started on a day a few thousand years ago. BUT, just in case you are (or not!), I was hoping that based on your logic, that perhaps you could give me information about why you believe there is no God (don't forget to provide *evidence*!), or perhaps why Christ is not real (that is, if you believe that).

And then I'm not sure who you are referring to when you say "you should not expect special treatment". Christians in general? You win that one hands down. "Realist", not so much.

In reference to something you said earlier about Christianity being the lazy way - I would definitely challenge you to take the teachings of the New Testament and apply them to your life. Tell me if that is easy. If you're really up for a challenge, go to the Old Testament and follow the laws there. Again - not easy. Blindly following=easy. Following the teachings of Christ after picking them apart and applying them to life in 2009...goes against every fiber of my being - delaying self-gratification, forcing myself to be kind when all I want to do is be selfish, and not engaging in more worldly behaviors when that is the easiest way to self-medicate and self-gratify. The payoff is that after going through a dark time and enduring, "the universe" has a way of rewarding the sacrifices we make, and the return is tenfold. The joy that is experienced after coming through a hard time by leaning on scripture and the teachings of Christ is better than any drug and a methodology that has been repeated over and over again - why do you think people are so "on fire" about promoting Christianity? Because it worked for them on a personal level - for at least 2000 years. And not necessarily because they are looking to start wars in the name of God! The science-driven world is not without excitement and euphoria, but it comes up short, philosophically speaking - if one believes there is purpose in our existence.

realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PASTE:
> I was hoping
> that based on your logic, that perhaps you could
> give me information about why you believe there is
> no God (don't forget to provide *evidence*!), or
> perhaps why Christ is not real (that is, if you
> believe that).


That's the whole point - you don't have to make an argument for why 'things that don't exist' don't exist

Its like asking for evidence that fairies, the flying spaghetti monster, big floating pink elephants and cookie monsters don't exist.

Its fundamentally different from explaining things that do exist and can be observed and tested.

The underlying problem with religions is that they spend their time arguing amongst each other about which of their rival 'things that don't exist' everyone else should have to believe in

Science doesn't have to prove that god doesn't exist, its job is to explain what does exist - but it has provided a testable set of explanations for everything we see around us (and with enormous predictive powers) which does not indicate anything that requires a deity or supernatural experience. What it also does is provide conclusive evidence to exclude the basic teachings of religions to support their particular deities - for example, as we've discussed, the world is not 6,000 years old. Basically, science has squeezed the need for the supernatural as an explanation out of any question you care to ask. Religion is a cultural left over from a time when we didn't have rational explanations.

None of the religious posters here have identified any gap in evidence based science that requires the supernatural or would be better explained by it - which is really amazing when you think about it.

- why do you think people are so
> "on fire" about promoting Christianity? Because
> it worked for them on a personal level - for at
> least 2000 years.

it doesn't matter why they are on fire. All that matters is that they are on fire because of things that are demonstrably false, and that their impact is, on average, negative and dangerous.

Its not just christianity - but christianity is not exempt - particularly as the dominant religion in the US

Another way of looking at this.

Take a set of books
-the bible
-the complete works of shakespeare
-something by homer or virgil, say the aeniad
-something from another religion such as the hindu sruti and smriti

what can we say about them?
- we don't really know who wrote most of them, or much about the authors
- they all touch on historical events to some extent or another
- they all provide 'moral' guidance through parables and stories
- they have all encouraged some social stability
- most have caused virulent religious wars and wasteful discrimination
- they all include some historical figures viewed through the distortions of time and retelling
- they all include stories of the supernatural and supernatural explanations of the cosmos
-they are all incompatible
- everyone in them is dead and left no evidence of anything supernatural then or since
- they all originate form a time when we had no rational ways of explaining the world


How do you choose between any of them or none? You ask for evidence - and if none is forthcoming, you are forced to set all of them aside as historical, occasionally useful artifacts of literature.

Just because one of them makes you happy, doesn't make it true - anymore than the fact that one of the others makes someone else happy makes its incompatible statements true.

Compare that with science, where anyone can start from direct observations or first principles and rebuild or validate any element of the structure and then make predictions that can be validated through working engineered artifacts

realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know you're not talking about "realist" -
> because "realist" didn't say that radioactive
> decay started on a day a few thousand years ago.

no one said you believed this, it was a generalization of the christian community, who has to manipulate scientific data when it is convinient to their cause.

> BUT, just in case you are (or not!), I was hoping
> that based on your logic, that perhaps you could
> give me information about why you believe there is
> no God (don't forget to provide *evidence*!), or
> perhaps why Christ is not real (that is, if you
> believe that).

I dont think anyone on this board has stated that god can be disproven, what can be disproven is the christian god, who so clearly is the creation of the mind of man. The god with human qualities, made in mans image, clearly showing that we think of ourselves as god figures.
In terms of christ, yes there is some good historical evidence that he did exist, although there are many historians who are still not fully convinced of his existance.
>
> And then I'm not sure who you are referring to
> when you say "you should not expect special
> treatment". Christians in general? You win that
> one hands down. "Realist", not so much.
>
> In reference to something you said earlier about
> Christianity being the lazy way

Intillectualy lazy. Its easy to not want to think about the possibility that this is it. The human brain cannot fully comprehend the thought of not existing anymore, I think the brain even rejects the idea. Its lazy in the sense that it over simplifies every wonder in the world to say, "an earthquake just happened, god must be angry", when its a far more interesting shifting in the earths plates.

"ignorance is bliss"

>- I would
> definitely challenge you to take the teachings of
> the New Testament and apply them to your life.
> Tell me if that is easy. If you're really up for
> a challenge, go to the Old Testament and follow
> the laws there. Again - not easy. Blindly
> following=easy. Following the teachings of Christ
> after picking them apart and applying them to life
> in 2009...goes against every fiber of my being -
> delaying self-gratification, forcing myself to be
> kind when all I want to do is be selfish, and not
> engaging in more worldly behaviors when that is
> the easiest way to self-medicate and self-gratify.
> The payoff is that after going through a dark
> time and enduring, "the universe" has a way of
> rewarding the sacrifices we make, and the return
> is tenfold. The joy that is experienced after
> coming through a hard time by leaning on scripture
> and the teachings of Christ is better than any
> drug and a methodology that has been repeated over
> and over again - why do you think people are so
> "on fire" about promoting Christianity? Because
> it worked for them on a personal level - for at
> least 2000 years.

and before that, another religion was in its place, whether it be zeus, rah, or jesus christ, man has always yearned for a reason and explination and purpose for why we are here and where do we go. What religion does is to diminish those questions, and the mystery that truly is life. And you have to realize, you can have a profound sense of spirituality without being a christian, or a muslim, or a jew. And on that same note, there is a muslim on the other side of the world who has just as much faith as you, just as much conviction, and thinks he is just as right as you, does it not scare you that one of you has to be wrong? Take some shrooms one time, that is the challenge i offer you, tell me if you dont feel more connected to god or life or existance on that drug, then you ever have through religion. These drugs were indeed used for religios purposes for thousands of years, and are probably the start of religion in the first place.

> And not necessarily because
> they are looking to start wars in the name of God!
> The science-driven world is not without
> excitement and euphoria, but it comes up short,
> philosophically speaking - if one believes there
> is purpose in our existence.

As Lennon said, "religion is the opiate of the masses", it truly is a free drug. What is harder then following the rules of the old testiment, is making objective moral choices, and not choices that use fear of punishment vs reward in order to make you obey

azzhat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> realist Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

>
> As Lennon said, "religion is the opiate of the
> masses", it truly is a free drug. What is harder
> then following the rules of the old testiment, is
> making objective moral choices, and not choices
> that use fear of punishment vs reward in order to
> make you obey

Although it was Marx (well ahead of his time) who said that, the sentiment is a good one.

It was Marx who said it not "Lennon" whose name for those of us who aren't pig-ignorant idiots like you is spelled L-E-N-I-N. Lenin. Get it moron?

Steve Wilhite Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It was Marx who said it not "Lennon" whose name
> for those of us who aren't pig-ignorant idiots
> like you is spelled L-E-N-I-N. Lenin. Get it
> moron?


It does sound amazingly 'Lennon' though ;) - although I can't imagine Marx and Lennon getting on at a personal level, Engels and Ono probably wouldn't have worked either

Wasn't it Groucho Marx who said "How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all?" Or was it John Lennon?

nutters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Steve Wilhite Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It was Marx who said it not "Lennon" whose name
> > for those of us who aren't pig-ignorant idiots
> > like you is spelled L-E-N-I-N. Lenin. Get it
> > moron?
>
>
> It does sound amazingly 'Lennon' though ;) -
> although I can't imagine Marx and Lennon getting
> on at a personal level, Engels and Ono probably
> wouldn't have worked either
oh i was totally talking about the beatles lennon :P, lol no, i guess i just suck at spelling

I agree. Most of the writers on this blog need help if all they spend their time doing is bashing MBC and Lon. Lon and his wife are of an age to have received inheritances. I think a pastor purchasing his own home and not burdening his church for a free parsonage is admirable. Their daughter Jill needs lots of help and I understand mcLean is planning a school for handicapped children. That church does so many things to help people who want to be helped. As far as doing the right thing when no one is looking and just being kind to your fellowman, there are several on this site who have yet to live that one out. I would be careful about criticiing people of faith, their big bad God might just reap judgement on you. Sinners facing a righteous God. No, that big God even loves miserable people too and sent His son to die for them.

Lynda Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree. Most of the writers on this blog need
> help if all they spend their time doing is bashing
> MBC and Lon. Lon and his wife are of an age to
> have received inheritances. I think a pastor
> purchasing his own home and not burdening his
> church for a free parsonage is admirable. Their
> daughter Jill needs lots of help and I understand
> mcLean is planning a school for handicapped
> children. That church does so many things to help
> people who want to be helped. As far as doing the
> right thing when no one is looking and just being
> kind to your fellowman, there are several on this
> site who have yet to live that one out. I would
> be careful about criticiing people of faith, their
> big bad God might just reap judgement on you.
> Sinners facing a righteous God. No, that big God
> even loves miserable people too and sent His son
> to die for them.

At the risk of feeding the trolls... Do you people NEVER SHUT UP?

Give us one single piece of evidence for a "big bad god' or a "little weeny god" and be might be able to have some kind of sensible conversation.

Faith in the face of overwhelming evidence is intellectual cowardice of the worst kind.

When asked to come up with any reasoned argument how religion gives a better, more supportable explanation for the world around us than science, and comes anywhere near its predictive capabilities, the christian posters to this threat have come up with zip, nadda, nothing.

(..although I like your 'shut up or my god will get you' - that was a winner in the 12th Century, great to see it dusted off again...)

Even when offered simple places to start like the fossil and geological record - nothing.

'Faith' is the intellectual equivalent of lobotomy.

Time for religion to finally be cast into the pit of history in which it belongs.

Either put up evidence, or an explanation that fits the evidence as well as science - or shut up.

I agree with Nutters.

i agree with vince, who agrees with nutters.

My friend goes to McLean Bible Church and now he's crazy. He doesn't listen to a single thing I say, and he's always telling me to stop worry about problems. The rapture is coming, so quit my job (he's fucking insane) and let's just become homeless and wait for the rapture because its coming very soon.

I also had an ex-gf and she's a massive slut. Lon tells her its okay to be a whore because once you have accepted Jesus, you're going to heaven no matter what you do, so she uses that as an excuse to keep slutting it up.

hmm....

*****

I carry a very,very heavy cross with a White Jesus nailed to it.

Can you post the number of your ex-gf. Its been awhile.

Wow Ernie, thanks for adding fuel to the fire shitbrick

*****

I carry a very,very heavy cross with a White Jesus nailed to it.

what is a korean think tank? and can i keep fish in it?

Well, after reading this forum I have to comment about science and religion and the age of the universe. . .

I am a Christian believer, Jesus Christ is my savior. I am also a PhD-trained scientist, and I believe that the universe was created approximately 12-20 billion years ago, that the Sun is approximately 6 billion years old, and the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. How do I know this? And how do I reconcile it with my beliefs? Read on. . .

When conservative Christians say there is no "proof" that the universe is old, I have to ask them: what constitutes "proof" in their mind? For example, can it be proven that the civil war actually happened? There are no people alive today that fought in that war. So to prove that it happened, you have to rely on second-hand evidence, written accounts of people who were alive that day, physical evidence left behind (trenches, bullets, muskets, etc.), and photos taken during that time. For virtually everyone all that evidence is proof enough.

So what about the universe? Believe it or not, there are only a remarkably small number of basic principles that "prove" the age of the universe. It is much more difficult, and requires a very roundabout argument, to try to prove that the universe is young.

OK on to the evidence. . .given the laws of thermodynamics (which, by the way, allow your car to drive down the highway--did you know that?), some basic nuclear physics, and a spectrometer (which measures light from stars and galaxies), we find the following. First we can "hear" the Big Bang, and measure the current echo. Using thermodynamics, and high school math, what we are hearing and its current intensity originated about 15 billion years ago (give or take a few billion). To argue against that, which some try to do, requires very obtuse arguments that belie the basic fact: we can hear that explosion today.

If that's not enough, spectrometers tell us the chemical composition of the stars and galaxies. Nuclear physics tells us that you can assemble heavier elements (carbon, oxygen, silicon, etc.) from smaller elements (hydrogen and helium) through fusion. We know that the Sun operates as a fusion machine, and that at the rate its consuming its fuel it has another 5 billion or so years left in its life.

And now for the theory: it's not a stretch to assume that the initial explosion created a lot of hydrogen (there's direct evidence for that through spectrometers looking at distant quasars). The first stars consisted only of hydrogen, through fusion they created heavier elements. Those heavier elements found their way into second- and third-generation stars (our Sun is one of them). The observed abundance of these heavier materials is consistent with a 15-billion year old universe.

Now is this proof? Maybe not to some. What it represents is a consistent story of how things came to be that relies on very simple and well-verified physical laws and direct observations of what is around us. To argue otherwise you have to invoke very complicated arguments that, at some level, don't make much sense.

And what about the Bible? Well Genesis 1 is the place to look. In that book there is no constraint that the "days" are 24-hours long. Yes it says "evening and morning. . .the Nth day" (by the way, evening to morning is a night, not a day). But the 7th day has no evening and morning, and it is referred to in the present tense. We are living in the 7th day of creation--God's day of rest--and clearly it is more than 24 hours long. Also in the very beginning the Earth was shrouded with clouds, it wasn't until later that the stars and sun were visible--it would have been difficult to discren "day" and "night" from the surface of the planet prior to that event. All this leads me to believe that it is perfectly acceptable to God to believe that the creation occurred in stages that were not necessarily 24 hours long.

The order of the creation stages in Genesis 1, by the way, are correct from a scientific viewpoint. A remarkable achievement for Moses, given that he wrote the book circa 1900 BC without any knowledge of current science. Some might conclude that Moses could only have gotten the order of creation right if someone--say the Creator Himself--told Moses. But to some that's very difficult to believe.

Are these arguments proof that the Bible preaches an old Earth? Hardly. Many prominent theologians would disagree. But it represents a consistent way of viewing the Bible that is also consistent with the scientific view of creation.

So, to my critics I say the following: reject an old universe at your own peril. The same thermodynamics that allows you to drive your car also governs the age of the universe. And if you stubbornly insist that the universe was created in seven consecutive 24-hour days, and thus came into being on a Friday afternoon about 5:30 PM in 5500 BC or so, you will find yourself further and further removed from the evidence around you (which God has clearly put there) and you will become irrelevant within society (if you're not already).

For those who want to argue with this, all I have to say is. . .Go ahead, make my day. . . :-)

Dark star - unfortunately, you appear to be cherry picking the bits of the explanations you happen to like - the God's days argument is a hack to crowbar theology in where science already gives good explanations

You're right in that refusing to accept thermodynamics is ridiculous because you can see it in action. I'd claim that the same is true about quantum mechanics, radioactive decay, the fossil record, genetics and the evolutionary mechanism

If you accept an old and vast universe based on scientific observation, then its extremely hard to ignore the fossil and biological/genetic evidence for evolution over extended periods of time - as you would say 'you do so at your peril'.

Once you do that, and I don't think you can avoid it without ignoring clear evidence such as the emergence of biological complexity over time through the geological record (dated using well known physical principles) that would need alternative explanation, you have to explain how a creator and evolution fit together in a defensible manner.

The fossil and geological evidence together show a consistent picture of dramatically varying environments over long periods of time adequate to explain the biological variations we see.

Quantum mechanics and complexity theory show us that the systems which make up the universe - or even a single planet or ecology, are so complex and chaotic (in the technical sense) that you cannot just pick the starting conditions required for a given outcome. E.g. you can't just pick your physics, line up your hydrogen atoms, press the go-button and end up with a predetermined set of species - e.g. you can't start with a hydrogen cloud and hope to end up with Moses.

Appealing to the bulk thresh-holding behavior of chemistry or the error correction mechanisms of biology, doesn't help.

Quantum computational theory suggests at the most fundamental level, you can only predict the outcome of a quantum system with a system of the same complexity over the same number of calculations - so, in effect, every universe is an independent experiment

Once you accept that heavy elements are formed in the quantum furnaces of stars, you're stuck with the dynamics of the math.

Evolution - based on the observed fossil record and our increasing understanding of systems biology gives us a very good model for understanding how biological complexity emerges and develops.

Ignoring this and claiming that a deity somehow removed from the nasty messiness of quantum mechanics, biology, complexity science and physics did it is to shift the problem into an area where you can safely never quote any evidence.

Once you accept thermodynamics (and you can't avoid it), you're stuck having to acknowledge other evidence and phenomena you see around you (to do otherwise is intellectually lazy)

When the mechanisms that you can see around you, test and can be used to make predictions, provide a consistent explanation, you have to either

1) show evidence of god (and preferably your own preferred version)
- which has NEVER been done
or
2) show a phenomena which can only reasonably be explained by one
- which worked while science was immature
or
3) show where one provides a better explanation than the phenomena you see around you
- which is avoided like the plague by most christians who use bizarre tactics to ignore evidence such as fossils

Nutters

Interesting post. First I'd like to point out that my original post said nothing whatsoever about evolution. I was merely pointing out the basic physical evidence for a 14-billion-year old universe. As you pointed out, thermodynamics and nuclear physics are not the only evidence for the old universe, there are other areas of science that support it as well.

But interestingly you also talk about evolution, and the apparent evidence for it. In doing so you appear to link evolution and Christian faith as diametrically opposite--that is, you can believe one or the other but apparently not both. Do you really believe that? Instead, could you believe that a benevolent God could have created life through evolution, just like He created the universe through the Big Bang?

But let's do a thought experiment and suppose that you cannot accept both ideas at once. Suppose that our minds are so limited and our philosophy so restricted that it's either evolution or God, and the two ideas cannot coexist.

I would then question whether the fossil record, over the past millions of years, is sufficient to show a gradual evolution from single-cell organisms to the complexity we see today. I would argue that the fossil record shows otherwise. A species apparently exists for millions of year--unchanged--and then there is a short pause and the fossil record continues, with a much more advanced form of the animal. We see this over and over again.

It's not that single genes are replaced one at a time and that you gradually evolve from a small dog-like creature to a horse, for example. Rather, the record shows that whole sequences of nucleotides are torn apart, replaced, and additional chromosomes are created where none existed in the unevolved species. And this all happens rather suddenly. In Darwin's day it appeared as though there was gradual evolution; today the fossil record is much more complete and it shows "step function" evolution.

Now don't get me wrong--step function evolution is OK, provided that a mechanism can be found to explain it. We need to discover the sequence of chemical reactions that form new chromosomes, that change whole genetic sequences and are transmitted from parent to child, and does so in such a way that the offspring are fertile, that there are more than one of themm so that the new creature actually survives and multiplies. None of this has been shown in the laboratory yet, or even on paper. What we do know is that when a mutation occurs, 99.9% of the time it is fatal for the offspring. The other 0.1% of the time it does nothing to help survival. For all our advances we cannot explain the basic chemistry behind evolution. Instead, we say "here's the fossil of a small dog-like creature and here's one a few million years later with similar characteristics but it looks more like a horse--presto, isn't evolution wonderful?" Hardly a convincing argument.

Thus my response to the evolution-vs-God idea is two-fold. First, to the extent that you believe in evolution, that belief does not conflict with any basic belief in the diety. In fact, Genesis 1, if anything, suggests evolution. Read it. The earth starts formless and void; oceans form; then continents; then small mammals, then large mammals, then birds, and after all that--finally man. Exactly the sequence that biologists will tell you happened according to the fossil record, and Moses could hardly have figured that out on his own in 1900 BC!

But from a scientific perspective evolution is far from certain. despite what your college biology professor would suggest. Evolution is taught because it is the only explanation science has for life on this earth--therefore, it must be correct, yes? Bear in mind in the mid-19th century students were taught that there is no speed limit in the universe. Then came the Michelson-Morley experiments, and a whole generation of physicists had to die before the obvious was stated: there is a speed limit, that limit is the speed of light in a vacuum, and everything is relative to that.

The point is not to re-hash history, but to show that science can be wrong. Yes, even the science that is in your high school and college textbooks. And evolution, whose detailed chemical reactions have never been demonstrated, is a particularly vulnerable theory ripe for an Einstein-type character to show otherwise.

I watched an interesting video the other day that i think both believers and non believers should watch. It was a town hall forum/debate on the book The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. It had Dawkins debating for the side of Atheists, and another man (his name escapes me) debating, the other man was a scientist as well as a christian. They both gave great arguments, if you only listened to one side and not the other, that side would have completely convinced you that he was right. The christian argued that the world and its laws were the creation, the mechanism, and they needed a creator. Dawkins fired back that if it was a creation, and indeed it had a creator, then whom was the creator of the creator? Both were valid arguments, but they both brought me to one conclusion... that one can not be certain of whether or not there truly is a god or not. I came to the conclusion that the only true certainty is agnosticism. Its just my personal belief that if there is a god, most (if not all) religions have got it wrong.

dark star - thanks for this - however I think you have some fundamental misconceptions

The fossil record presents a number of scientific challenges e.g. It only provides a very sparse record from which we have to extract a model of all species over all time - as very few individuals are preserved you must expect gaps in the record - for example, we don't have enough T-rex skeletons to say anything much about the diversity in the population at any time - which is one reason why we keep refining our views on dinosaur hair/feathers as news samples are found and new analysis tools are developed


In fact the fossil record does contain a very rich, long term record that stretches back about 3 Billion years which shows a very clear progression of complexity e,g, over two billion years of evolution before the first land invertebrates

Similarly, fossilization doesn't preserve DNA - so we have to use to extrapolate relationships and fine grain evolution from analysis of the DNA of current species. What that analysis is showing us that is that many morphological changes (such as how long a beak is) are actually relatively simple and can be achieved by regulating the expression of key genes. We also now know a great deal about the biochemical processes of evolution including phenomena such as gene transfer in microorganisms

It also provides deep insights into the relationship between species and within species. Your suggestion that 99% of mutations are fatal and all others make no difference is really untenable. In fact we know that many mutations just cause changes in the expression of other genes.

How would you explain the diversity within species? Is god in there with his tool kit at every conception or cell division?

You raise the question of how 'jerky' evolution is - and that's an interesting system level question - however the difference between say a Gould and Dawkins on this is fairly minor. The way to think about this is that individual communities will tend to come under local evolutionary pressures and be influenced by them at a relatively slow rate - it takes a long time for those communities to become sexually incompatible. Gould tends to emphasis the interaction of communities which have evolved in isolation from each other (e.g. being split by a mountain range or a river) and suggests that interaction is the point at which you observe macro morphological changes in the fossil record

None of this points towards the intervention of a deity. The idea that every-time you see mutation or evolution in the environment, its because god is sneaking in a wiggling the genome is a bit of a stretch - to be honest.

Your point that science is refined over time is a good one - however, its clear that we are not going to suddenly discover that the world is flat. But that refinement comes from a number of sources including

1) observation - phenomena that cannot be well explained by the current model
2) experimentation and refinement of model to improve the linkage between disciplines

You seem to be saying that science is fine at explaining what we see around us - but just you wait, there'll soon be an experiment that catches god out and we'l see him before he can hide - that does seem a bit desperate

azzz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I watched an interesting video the other day that
> i think both believers and non believers should
> watch. It was a town hall forum/debate on the book
> The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. It had
> Dawkins debating for the side of Atheists, and
> another man (his name escapes me) debating, the
> other man was a scientist as well as a christian.
> They both gave great arguments, if you only
> listened to one side and not the other, that side
> would have completely convinced you that he was
> right. The christian argued that the world and its
> laws were the creation, the mechanism, and they
> needed a creator. Dawkins fired back that if it
> was a creation, and indeed it had a creator, then
> whom was the creator of the creator? Both were
> valid arguments, but they both brought me to one
> conclusion... that one can not be certain of
> whether or not there truly is a god or not. I came
> to the conclusion that the only true certainty is
> agnosticism. Its just my personal belief that if
> there is a god, most (if not all) religions have
> got it wrong.

I'd strongly recommend some of Dawkin's biology books - particularly 'the blind watchmaker'

Dark Star Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And what about the Bible? Well Genesis 1 is the
> place to look. In that book there is no
> constraint that the "days" are 24-hours long. Yes
> it says "evening and morning. . .the Nth day" (by
> the way, evening to morning is a night, not a
> day). But the 7th day has no evening and morning,
> and it is referred to in the present tense. We
> are living in the 7th day of creation--God's day
> of rest--and clearly it is more than 24 hours
> long. Also in the very beginning the Earth was
> shrouded with clouds, it wasn't until later that
> the stars and sun were visible--it would have been
> difficult to discren "day" and "night" from the
> surface of the planet prior to that event. All
> this leads me to believe that it is perfectly
> acceptable to God to believe that the creation
> occurred in stages that were not necessarily 24
> hours long.

"Visible", huh, okay.

> The order of the creation stages in Genesis 1, by
> the way, are correct from a scientific viewpoint.

Not really. God creates grass and the oceans (Gen 1:11& Gen 1:12) before he created the two lights, the sun and the moon (which isn't an actual light) (Gen1:16)

> A remarkable achievement for Moses, given that he
> wrote the book circa 1900 BC without any knowledge
> of current science.

I very highly doubt that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, most scholars doubt this as well, preferring Friedman's documentary hypothesis. It would explain why Moses's death is written about and the various literary styles employed throughout the bible. It would also explain why there are two Noah's ark stories, two creation accounts, etc.

> Some might conclude that
> Moses could only have gotten the order of creation
> right if someone--say the Creator Himself--told
> Moses. But to some that's very difficult to
> believe.

Right, especially since "Moses" didn't get the creation account correct.

>Instead, could you believe that a benevolent God could have created life through >evolution, just like He created the universe through the Big Bang?

You weren't talking to me, but I'll answer anyway. No, I do not think that evolution disproves God. I think that if God exists, then God apparently used evolution (unless God is deceptive or something to that effect).

>I would then question whether the fossil record, over the past millions of >years, is sufficient to show a gradual evolution from single-cell organisms to >the complexity we see today. I would argue that the fossil record shows >otherwise. A species apparently exists for millions of year--unchanged--and then >there is a short pause and the fossil record continues, with a much more >advanced form of the animal. We see this over and over again.

I think it's clear that the fossil record supports common descent. It seems like you are attempting to support punctuated equilibrium here. In any event, my point is that the fossil record is not our only means of evidence for evolution. The twin nested hierarchy is powerful evidence.

>It's not that single genes are replaced one at a time and that you gradually >evolve from a small dog-like creature to a horse, for example. Rather, the >record shows that whole sequences of nucleotides are torn apart, replaced, and >additional chromosomes are created where none existed in the unevolved species. >And this all happens rather suddenly. In Darwin's day it appeared as though >there was gradual evolution; today the fossil record is much more complete and >it shows "step function" evolution.

Individuals do not evolve, populations do. In any event, I'm not sure what evidence you are pointing to here. Also, what is an 'unevolved' species? Do you mean one which has no mutations at all?

>Now don't get me wrong--step function evolution is OK, provided that a mechanism >can be found to explain it.

? Natural selection explains it. Gould would argue that populations achieve relative stasis for long periods of time and then the environment or other factors change (say a woodland turns into a desert) and that provides a rapid selection process. The changing environment provides an opportunity for the non traditional genes to flourish, hence the 'rapid' evolution in the span of a few million years.

>We need to discover the sequence of chemical reactions that form new >chromosomes, that change whole genetic sequences and are transmitted from parent >to child, and does so in such a way that the offspring are fertile, that there >are more than one of themm so that the new creature actually survives and >multiplies. None of this has been shown in the laboratory yet, or even on paper.

We have discovered sequences like this. In fact, humans and chimpanzees show a very powerful evidence of this.

>What we do know is that when a mutation occurs, 99.9% of the time it is fatal >for the offspring. The other 0.1% of the time it does nothing to help survival.

This is fictitious. On average, your run-of-the-mill human is walking around with 64 mutations (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB100.html).

>For all our advances we cannot explain the basic chemistry behind evolution. >Instead, we say "here's the fossil of a small dog-like creature and here's one a >few million years later with similar characteristics but it looks more like a >horse--presto, isn't evolution wonderful?" Hardly a convincing argument.

You would prefer a complete line of individual fossils? We are lucky to have ANY fossils, much less fossils which provide a transitional glimpse.

>Thus my response to the evolution-vs-God idea is two-fold. First, to the extent >that you believe in evolution, that belief does not conflict with any basic >belief in the diety.

I agree with this generally, depending on the deity.

>In fact, Genesis 1, if anything, suggests evolution. Read it.

I have read it. It's not a history book and it's not meant to be one. It's an allegory and reading it like a history book creates an absurd picture of what scientists believe occurred.

>The earth starts formless and void; oceans form; then continents; then small >mammals, then large mammals, then birds, and after all that--finally man.

You leave out the fact that the sun/moon form AFTER earth.

>Exactly the sequence that biologists will tell you happened according to the >fossil record, and Moses could hardly have figured that out on his own in 1900 >BC!

Um, no. Whales were mammals that went back into the water. The bible states that they were created in the water with other fish (Gen 1:21). Mammals were created the next day (Gen 1:24).

>But from a scientific perspective evolution is far from certain. despite what >your college biology professor would suggest.

Nonsense. Common descent is fact, the theory of evolution explains this fact in general. Sexual selection, evo devo, and other theories also help explain this fact.

>Evolution is taught because it is the only explanation science has for life on >this earth--therefore, it must be correct, yes?

Uh, again, no. There are many theories as to what occurred. Lamarkianism, saltation, and lysenkoism being other candidates - mostly refuted.

>Bear in mind in the mid-19th century students were taught that there is no speed >limit in the universe. Then came the Michelson-Morley experiments, and a whole >generation of physicists had to die before the obvious was stated: there is a >speed limit, that limit is the speed of light in a vacuum, and everything is >relative to that.

Right, and why did that change? Evidence. The best explanation of the evidence is evolution.

God's pretty awesome. I think it's great He was able to either create the Earth in six days or put into place the mechanics of evolution.

Professor Pangloss,

Another good post! This discussion makes interesting reading. What I want to zero in on here is the evolution part--particularly the lack of a mechanism to explain how new species arise. So here it goes:

> Individuals do not evolve, populations do. In any event, I'm not sure what evidence you are pointing to here. Also, what is an 'unevolved' species? Do you mean one which has no mutations at all?

I know you already know this, but let's start here. Biologists define different species as being animals that cannot interbreed. So a giraffe and a monkey can't produce fertile offspring (if they can breed at all), thus they are different species. Dogs, on the other hand, even though they might look quite different, can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

So my question back to you: what is the sequence of chemical reactions that cause offspring of parents to become a different species? The fossil record does not "prove" that it happens, it merely "suggests" that it might have happened. To prove it you have to go the extra mile, and show how our ancestors--who had fewer genes and chromosomes than we do now--created offspring with more genes and more chromosomes. How did that happen? The truth is, no one knows. The fossil record is so suggestive of gradual evolution that scientists are lured into thinking that it *must* have occurred. The fossil evidence is a good starting point, but again, the chemistry that shows how a self-replicating molecule can produce more advanced copies of itself has not been demonstrated.

An analogy would be clear here, albeit it's imperfect. Suppose a million years from now humans no longer inhabit the earth, and space aliens explore the planet (work with me here, I know it sounds silly so far). These aliens dig around and find a Model-T Ford. Then they find a 1950's-era Chrysler. Finally they find a 2000 Corvette. They then postulate that this planet at some point in the past must have had a way for these cars to evolve into more technically advanced models. They are convinced it happened even though they cannot explain how one car can produce another one that is superior to it.

That is where we are with evolution. Sure, there's fossils. Sure, it clearly shows that more advanced life forms followed simpler life forms. Sure, we know that chimpanzees and humans (two different species) share many common genes--just like two cars built in the year 2000 would be quite similar. But none of that makes any difference until Science can demonstrate exactly how a species (or a population of individuals) can produce offspring that are more advanced than itself. We don't see that happening today, for example: where are new species being created on the planet today?

How does DNA (a self-replicating molecule) not only replicate itself, but produce DNA with more genes and more chromosomes? The fossil record does not show how this happens, instead, it suggest that it might have happened. Scientists have no alternate explanation for life, so they cling to their faith that, sometime in the future, such a mechanism will be discovered.

All for now. . .

formerhick76 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> God's pretty awesome. I think it's great He was
> able to either create the Earth in six days or put
> into place the mechanics of evolution.

ahah - the shake and bake theology - take a cloud of superheated hydrogen, shake and wait until Moses appears

please provide

1. any evidence
2. how which particular gaps in observable science you claim to fill
3. how your theory works e.g how does it fit with our understanding of the predictability of complex/chaotic (in the technical sense) systems and quantum mechanics
4. any reason why yours is a better explanation than science
5. how your human centric, earth centric view fits with observable cosmology
6. any reason why your explanation is any more credible from viking mythology, tree spirit worship, hinduism, cthulism or mormonism

nutters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> formerhick76 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > God's pretty awesome. I think it's great He was
> > able to either create the Earth in six days or
> put
> > into place the mechanics of evolution.
>
> ahah - the shake and bake theology - take a cloud
> of superheated hydrogen, shake and wait until
> Moses appears
>
> please provide
>
> 1. any evidence
> 2. how which particular gaps in observable science
> you claim to fill
> 3. how your theory works e.g how does it fit with
> our understanding of the predictability of
> complex/chaotic (in the technical sense) systems
> and quantum mechanics
> 4. any reason why yours is a better explanation
> than science
> 5. how your human centric, earth centric view fits
> with observable cosmology
> 6. any reason why your explanation is any more
> credible from viking mythology, tree spirit
> worship, hinduism, cthulism or mormonism

It's more about love than about hate. I hope you find what you're looking for.

formerhick76 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> It's more about love than about hate. I hope you
> find what you're looking for.


errr...

Religion has always been full of as much hate as love - see the crusades, invasion of latin america, taliban, mormon wars, the general tendency to hate/slaughter people of subtly different denominations for baroque reasons etc

If its about the love quotient of a religion, you'd be better off with Buddhism or TM

Science is entirely neutral about love and hate - it views them simply as social mechanisms with differing utilities. Science doesn't hate anyone - but it does root out superstition and hocus-pocus.

So - you'd advocate picking your local religion because it happens to be your local religion? The evidence is that even the taliban love their mothers ...

Dark Star Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>Another good post! This discussion makes interesting reading. What I want to zero >in on here is the evolution part--particularly the lack of a mechanism to explain >how new species arise. So here it goes:

Lack of a mechanism? That's interesting. That's actually why 'intelligent design' isn't a scientific theory, but whatever.

>I know you already know this, but let's start here. Biologists define different >species as being animals that cannot interbreed.

Not quite - after all, were this true, ring species would not exist. In fact, ring species would be entirely incoherent.

>So a giraffe and a monkey can't produce fertile offspring (if they can breed at >all), thus they are different species.

Uh, this isn't quite the whole story. They are a completely different order, not simply different species under the same genus.

>Dogs, on the other hand, even though they might look quite different, can >interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

Right, they are of the same genus.

>So my question back to you: what is the sequence of chemical reactions that >cause offspring of parents to become a different species?

There isn't a specific sequence of chemical reactions - this is a strawman. Speciation occurs through a variety of mechanisms, the most frequent being isolation. One group of a population gets isolated from another and both groups diverge genetically until interbreed cannot be achieved. Interestingly there are multitudes of examples of this; ie, there are two groups of species that cannot interbreed yet there is a different group that can interbreed with them both. These species are called ring species.

>The fossil record does not "prove" that it happens, it merely "suggests" that it >might have happened. To prove it you have to go the extra mile, and show how our >ancestors--who had fewer genes and chromosomes than we do now--created offspring >with more genes and more chromosomes.

Proof is for math and alcohol - science works off of abduction and induction. Also, what is this nonsense about fewer genes and chromosomes - where's your evidence for this? You do realize that some bacteria have larger genomes then us, don't you?

>How did that happen? The truth is, no one knows.

Not so, speciation has been observed: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

How it exactly happened (ie, one species went to X while another went to Y) might not ever be known, however likely scenarios can be constructed.

>The fossil record is so suggestive of gradual evolution that scientists are >lured into thinking that it *must* have occurred. The fossil evidence is a good >starting point, but again, the chemistry that shows how a self-replicating >molecule can produce more advanced copies of itself has not been demonstrated.

Not yet, you mean, but the precursors are there. We have developed protocells, for instance. We also have many hypothesis as to how it occurred. We don't have enough evidence to suggest *WHICH* one did occur yet - but that doesn't mean it didn't occur: Here's a good breakdown of how it might have happened:

"In brief, it goes as follows. The formation of amino acids can occur (and have been experimentally demonstrated to occur) in a variety of ways in early Earth conditions, and can subsequently, then, give you proteins (for example - water, sulfur, hydrogen and carbon monoxide give you acetic acid, more carbon monoxide gives rise to pyruvic acid, ammonia to that makes for alanine, and bingo, you're at a peptide). All well and good, but not quite the complete picture, yet. This is where the environment - in our case, hydrothermal vents - really come into play. All the available ingredients, plus a ready-made heat source, and you're looking at a life-making warehouse.

The most prevalent feature of the thermal vent model (aside from being an ideal catalyst for chemical reactions to take place) is the availability of methane, interestingly enough. It is empirically demonstrable that thermal vents on an early earth gave off more methane than they do today (which wouldn't actually be necessary for our purpose here, since they still give off an adequate ammount of methane in the present). Levels of hydrogen in the early atmosphere are now understood to be higher than previously thought. Hydrogen and methane in the atmosphere help give you hydrogen cyanide, from which you can derive your acgu bases. Top all that off with co2 leading to formaldehyde, and you'll end up with ribose, throw in some phosphate, and boom - you've got everything you need for some rna action to get going within a nice membrane-type environment. Provided, of course, that you have a membrane. And interestingly enough, it turns out that iron-sulfide minerals alone can very much develop a 'bubble' that can act as a membrane, and in doing so, creates a chemiostatic gradient (you can just think of it as a power supply, more or less).

The late Dr. Sidney Fox discovered something very important - the process by which certain amino acids form thermal proteins - what was at the time of his innitial discovery termed proteinoid microspheres. He replicated this process many many times in his lab, and discovered that different amino acids combine into different proteins naturally. It is not a random process, it is completely controlled (like most everything in chemistry) in short, essentially by valence and bonds between molecular structures involved. Meaning, the results are predictable. The mircrospheres could grow, could replicate sans DNA, responded to stimuli much like neurons do, and overall, exibit every characteristic of life as we define it in biological terms. When they form, they give off flavin as a by-product (for you non-biology folk, flavin is the basis for any metabolic system). MORE IMPORTANTLY - the oldest fossil evidence we have on planet earth goes back almost three and a half billion years. They are of microspheres that look exactly identical to the ones Dr. Fox was able to replicate. Nail in coffin."

>An analogy would be clear here, albeit it's imperfect. Suppose a million years >from now humans no longer inhabit the earth, and space aliens explore the planet >(work with me here, I know it sounds silly so far). These aliens dig around and >find a Model-T Ford. Then they find a 1950's-era Chrysler. Finally they find a >2000 Corvette. They then postulate that this planet at some point in the past >must have had a way for these cars to evolve into more technically advanced >models. They are convinced it happened even though they cannot explain how one >car can produce another one that is superior to it.

Yes, it's imperfect as their is no way for the cars to replicate. This also assumes that the aliens are sufficiently similar to us in technology - otherwise you fall victim to one of Hume's criticisms of the argument from design.

>That is where we are with evolution.

Uh, no, not really. We know how animals reproduce, how mutations occur, and how mutations are naturally selected.

>Sure, there's fossils. Sure, it clearly shows that more advanced life forms >followed simpler life forms. Sure, we know that chimpanzees and humans (two >different species) share many common genes--just like two cars built in the year >2000 would be quite similar. But none of that makes any difference until Science >can demonstrate exactly how a species (or a population of individuals) can >produce offspring that are more advanced than itself. We don't see that >happening today, for example: where are new species being created on the planet >today?

"Advanced" is an anthropomorphism. It's a value judgement that you are giving a species - it is not found in nature.

Species produce offspring that are different then themselves by having sex. They are combining their genetics with another individual of their own species which will create different a different combination of genetic information.

As for new species today, all one has to do is look. Here's one: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

>How does DNA (a self-replicating molecule) not only replicate itself, but >produce DNA with more genes and more chromosomes? The fossil record does not >show how this happens, instead, it suggest that it might have happened. >Scientists have no alternate explanation for life, so they cling to their faith >that, sometime in the future, such a mechanism will be discovered.

The link I gave above provides some illumination. Further, Chromosomes can fuse together, they can duplicate, they can change in a variety of ways.

Of course the fossil record doesn't show this - that is a strawman. The fossil record regards bones, not genes!

You are simply not up to speed on current biological or biochemical research. You made a number of false claims and a number of claims that can be refuted with a little research.

Dark Star Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss,
>
> Another good post! This discussion makes
> interesting reading. What I want to zero in on
> here is the evolution part--particularly the lack
> of a mechanism to explain how new species arise.
> So here it goes:
>

Ok - modern biology has shown us many of the mechanisms e.g.

- we see gene swapping between micro-organisms
- we can see viral sequences in human and other dna
- we see mutations which add additional copies of sequences or whole chromosomes
- we can see the mechanisms which switch genes on and off to differing degrees and the effects that these have on morphology
-we see the genetic variability within species and the effect that sexual reproduction has

a good example is within our own species

For example, two chromosomes in the Homo genus fused to produce human chromosome 2; this fusion did not occur in the lineage of the other apes, and they retain these separate chromosomes. In evolution, the most important role of such chromosomal rearrangements may be to accelerate the divergence of a population into new species by making populations less likely to interbreed, and thereby preserving genetic differences between these populations.

We can see all of these processes and more underway on any lab bench and in any garden

The big difference between life and cars is that we do not see any such mechanisms in cars, Your car analogy is completely flawed - see Dawkins 'Blind Watchmaker' for far more on this

As darwin noted, the physical isolation of island such as the Galapagos gives the perfect environment in which speciation can occur. Even in more local micro-environments this holds true - there is far more variation between fresh water habitats than ocean habitats which is why we have far more varieties of snails (which live in streams and on land) than any other mollusca

oh,,, and 360,000 species of beetles


Leaving aside the fossil record :

Total number of species (estimated):
7 - 100 millions (identified and unidentified), including:

5-10 million bacteria;
74,000-120,000 fungi;

Of the identified eukaryote species we have:

1.6 million, including:
297,326 plants, including:
15,000 mosses,
13,025 Ferns and horsetails,
980 gymnosperms,
258,650 angiosperms,
199,350 dicotyledons,
59,300 monocotyledons,
9,671 Red and green algae,
28,849 fungi & other non-animals, including:
10,000 lichens,
16,000 mushrooms,
2,849 brown algae,

1,250,000 animals, including:
1,203,375 invertebrates:
950,000 insects,
81,000 mollusks,
40,000 crustaceans,
2,175 corals,
130,200 others;

59,811 vertebrates:
29,300 fish,
6,199 amphibians,
8,240 reptiles,
9,956 birds,
5,416 mammals.


so, your suggestion would be that every time one of the 350,000 micro beetle environments changes, god leans in with his toolkit and adds a few genes or duplicates a chromosome?

nothing more disturbing than a bunch of religious fanatics. I rather share a cell with Charles Manson than go to church with any of you scary motherfuckers.

lol

nutters,

Again good discussion. But I have to take exception with your last statement:

> so, your suggestion would be that every time one of the 350,000 micro beetle environments changes, god leans in with his toolkit and adds a few genes or duplicates a chromosome?

Nope, not at all. All I'm suggesting is that it is not clear that evolution works the way science says. Perhaps there is some other mechanism that caused life on this planet. To your specific points:

- we see gene swapping between micro-organisms

OK, but does that produce a new species?

- we can see viral sequences in human and other dna

well of course, that's how viruses work. They inject their DNA into host cells to take them over. But again, that does not create a new species.

- we see mutations which add additional copies of sequences or whole chromosomes

You do? Do you have a reference for this? Where can I find out more? This is what I'd be interested in studying.

- we can see the mechanisms which switch genes on and off to differing degrees and the effects that these have on morphology

Yes that happens all the time. Differences in morphology, however, are not different species. A chihuahua and a great dane are both dogs and can reproduce. Even though they appear quite different they are the same species.

-we see the genetic variability within species and the effect that sexual reproduction has

Yes there is certainly variability within a species, and sexual reproduction assures that such variablility occurs. But again, to my knowledge we have no example of a species that produces offspring of a different species. In order for evolution to work you must have that. Lacking that, and all you have are fossils.

>> For example, two chromosomes in the Homo genus fused to produce human chromosome 2; this fusion did not occur in the lineage of the other apes, and they retain these separate chromosomes. In evolution, the most important role of such chromosomal rearrangements may be to accelerate the divergence of a population into new species by making populations less likely to interbreed, and thereby preserving genetic differences between these populations.

Interesting. Do we know the chemical mechanism by which chromosomes fuse? The sequence of reactions that causes a self-replicating molecule like DNA to do something other than replicate? Apparently what we have is a genus that has some set of chromosomes. Later we find two other more advanced species, apes and humans. In one (humans) the chromosomes appeared to have fused, in the other they did not. But that hardly proves that the original genus evolved into the other two species. To prove the evolution, we need the chemical reactions. Otherwise all we have are bones. Evolution = chemical reactions, not bones!

That's where the science breaks down. It can't explain how evolution works--it only asserts that it must be true because it can't figure out any other explanation!

Now regarding its confluence with God, one of the two statements below will become true:

(1) Science will eventually figure out the chemical reactions that produce advanced copies of DNA. If that happens, I would then agree that evolution is proven.

or

(2) Some bright Einstein-type person will disprove evolution by providing a different mechanism for life on Earth, that is consistent with the fossil record but shows an entirely different mechanism for creating species.

Dark Star Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nope, not at all. All I'm suggesting is that it
> is not clear that evolution works the way science
> says. Perhaps there is some other mechanism that
> caused life on this planet. To your specific
> points:

Abiogenesis and speciation aren't the same process. Further, the theories that we have adequately account for how life came to be and how it changed - rationally speaking. We don't have all the details yet, but we are getting pretty close.

> - we see mutations which add additional copies of
> sequences or whole chromosomes
>
> You do? Do you have a reference for this? Where
> can I find out more? This is what I'd be
> interested in studying.

There is plenty of information on this - I've provided a few links. Let me guess, you are one of those 'no new information' creationists.

Do you have a definition of 'information'?

> -we see the genetic variability within species and
> the effect that sexual reproduction has
>
> Yes there is certainly variability within a
> species, and sexual reproduction assures that such
> variablility occurs. But again, to my knowledge
> we have no example of a species that produces
> offspring of a different species. In order for
> evolution to work you must have that. Lacking
> that, and all you have are fossils.

There is plenty of evidence for speciation. You need to actually look for it. I've offered up a few links.

> Interesting. Do we know the chemical mechanism by
> which chromosomes fuse?

This is called 'moving the goal posts'. I don't even know what you are trying to ask here.

> The sequence of reactions
> that causes a self-replicating molecule like DNA
> to do something other than replicate?

...? What do you mean 'other than replicate'?

> Apparently
> what we have is a genus that has some set of
> chromosomes. Later we find two other more
> advanced species, apes and humans. In one
> (humans) the chromosomes appeared to have fused,
> in the other they did not. But that hardly proves
> that the original genus evolved into the other two
> species. To prove the evolution, we need the
> chemical reactions. Otherwise all we have are
> bones. Evolution = chemical reactions, not bones!

1. Proofs are for math and alcohol, not science.
2. We know how genes replicate and transform (point mutations, for instance).
3. We do not need the exact biochemical breakdown to what happened in order to conclude that it happened. Your question is setting an absurd demand of proof - akin to asking the exact details, down to the nano-second of how a murder occurred.
4. Common descent is the only reasonable explanation left on the table to explain the transformation. We know how it can happen (sex, mutation, isolation) and we have witnessed it happening. Requiring the exact breakdown is absurd - at least for an MB. If you want that level of precision, get a PhD in biochemistry.

> That's where the science breaks down. It can't
> explain how evolution works--it only asserts that
> it must be true because it can't figure out any
> other explanation!

Oh bullshit man. Look, we have the theoretical explanation for how common descent occurs and evidence that it occurred. You want the exact biochemical pathways - an unreasonable request - and because we aren't giving it to you, you are claiming that it has to be lamarkianism (the other explanation)!

> Now regarding its confluence with God, one of the
> two statements below will become true:
>
> (1) Science will eventually figure out the
> chemical reactions that produce advanced copies of
> DNA. If that happens, I would then agree that
> evolution is proven.

The chemical reactions are not needed for reasonable belief.

> or
>
> (2) Some bright Einstein-type person will disprove
> evolution by providing a different mechanism for
> life on Earth, that is consistent with the fossil
> record but shows an entirely different mechanism
> for creating species.

Lamarkianism and Lysenkoism have been demonstrated to be wrong. Evolution is the only theory left with the evidence that supports it.

So until you refute the evidence that favors the theory, you are a duck out of water.

La estrella oscura escribió: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nope, en absoluto. Todo el I' el sugerir de m es que él > no está claro que la evolución trabaja la ciencia de la manera > dice. Quizás hay un cierto otro mecanismo eso > vida causada en este planeta. A su específico > puntos: Abiogenesis y speciation aren' t el mismo proceso. Además, las teorías que hacemos que adecuadamente expliquen cómo la vida vino ser y cómo cambió - racional hablando. Nosotros don' t tiene todos los detalles todavía, pero estamos consiguiendo bastante cerca. > - vemos las mutaciones de las cuales agregue las copias adicionales > secuencias o cromosomas enteros > > ¿Usted hace? ¿Usted tiene una referencia para esto? Donde > ¿puedo descubrir más? Esto es lo que I' d sea > interesado en estudiar. Hay un montón de información sobre esto - I' VE proporcionó algunos acoplamientos. Déjeme conjeturar, usted son uno de esos ' ninguÌn nuevo information' creationists. Usted tiene una definición de ' ¿information'? > - vemos la variabilidad genética dentro de la especie y > el efecto que la reproducción sexual tiene > > Sí hay ciertamente variabilidad dentro de a > la especie, y la reproducción sexual asegura que tales > el variablility ocurre. Pero otra vez, a mi conocimiento > no tenemos ninguÌn ejemplo de una especie que produzca > descendiente de una diversa especie. Para que > la evolución para trabajarle debe tener eso. Falta > ése, y todo lo que usted tiene son fósiles. Hay un montón de evidencia del speciation. Usted necesita buscarlo realmente. I' VE ofreció para arriba algunos acoplamientos. > Interesante. Sabemos el mecanismo químico cerca > ¿qué cromosomas se funden? Esto se llama ' mudanza de la meta posts'. I don' t incluso sabe lo que usted está intentando preguntar aquí. > La secuencia de reacciones > ese causa una molécula de uno mismo-repliegue como la DNA > ¿para hace algo con excepción de réplica? ¿…? Qué usted significan ' ¿con excepción de replicate'? > Al parecer > qué tenemos es un género de el cual tiene cierto sistema > cromosomas. Encontramos más adelante dos otros más > especie avanzada, monos y seres humanos. En uno > (seres humanos) los cromosomas aparecían haberse fundido, > en el otro no hicieron. Pero eso prueba apenas > que el género original se desarrolló en los otros dos > especie. Para probar la evolución, necesitamos > reacciones químicas. Si no todos lo que tenemos son > huesos. ¡Evolución = reacciones químicas, no huesos! 1. Las pruebas están para la matemáticas y el alcohol, no ciencia. 2. Sabemos los genes repliegan y transforman (las mutaciones de punto, por ejemplo). 3. No necesitamos la avería bioquímica exacta a qué sucedió para concluir que sucedió. Su pregunta está fijando una demanda absurda de la prueba - relacionada con pedir los detalles exactos, abajo con el nanosegundo de cómo ocurrió un asesinato. 4. La pendiente común es la única explicación razonable dejada en la tabla para explicar la transformación. Sabemos él podemos suceder (sexo, mutación, aislamiento) y lo hemos atestiguado que sucedía. Requerir la avería exacta es absurdo - por lo menos para un MB. Si usted quiere ese nivel de precisión, consiga un PhD en bioquímica. > That' s donde la ciencia analiza. Él can' t > explique cómo la evolución trabaja--afirma solamente eso > debe ser verdad porque él can' t imagina cualesquiera > ¡la otra explicación! Oh hombre del bullshit. Mire, tenemos la explicación teórica para cómo ocurre la pendiente común y evidencia que ocurrió. Usted quiere los caminos bioquímicos exactos - una petición desrazonable - y porque nosotros aren' ¡t que le lo da, usted está demandando que tiene que ser lamarkianism (la otra explicación)! > Ahora en relación con su confluencia con dios, uno de > dos declaraciones abajo llegarán a ser verdades: > > (1) la ciencia imaginará eventual > reacciones químicas de las cuales produzca las copias avanzadas > DNA. Si sucede eso, entonces convendría eso > se prueba la evolución. Las reacciones químicas no son necesarias para la creencia razonable. > o > > (2) un cierto Einstein-tipo brillante persona refutará > evolución proporcionando un diverso mecanismo para > la vida en la tierra, de que es constante con el fósil > registre solamente las demostraciones un mecanismo enteramente diverso > para crear especie. Lamarkianism y Lysenkoism se han demostrado para ser incorrectos. La evolución es la única teoría dejada con la evidencia que las ayudas él. Tan hasta que usted refute la evidencia que favorece la teoría, usted es un pato fuera de agua.

See?

I can do that, too.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/06/2009 02:58PM by MrMephisto.

nothing more disturbing than a bunch of atheist fanatics. I rather share a cell with Charles Manson than go to church with any of you scary motherfuckers.

KLO Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nothing more disturbing than a bunch of atheist
> fanatics. I rather share a cell with Charles
> Manson than go to church with any of you scary
> motherfuckers.


Yeah, it really doesn't work the other way, does it.

"nothing more disturbing than a bunch of religious fanatics. I rather share a cell with Charles Manson than go to church with any of you scary motherfuckers."


Don't work that way huh Pangloss?? I agree entirely.

dark star

>But again, to my knowledge we have no example of a species that produces offspring of a different species. In order for evolution to work you must have that.

yet again you attempt to mislead - evolution does not suggest that parents give birth to off-spring of different species - if that happened, it would be rare for them to have anything to mate with. Evolution works by a series of slow steps leading to speciation

>The sequence of reactions that causes a self-replicating molecule like DNA to do something other than replicate?

we have a whole slew of biochemistry that operates with and on DNA - for example the mechanisms that lead to protein production and those by which viruses replicate

>>we see mutations which add additional copies of sequences or whole chromosomes
>You do? Do you have a reference for this? Where can I find out more? This is what I'd be interested in studying.

"When an individual is missing either a chromosome from a pair (monosomy) or has more than two chromosomes of a pair (trisomy, tetrasomy, etc). An example of a condition caused by a numerical anomaly is Down Syndrome, also known as Trisomy 21 (an individual with Down Syndrome has three copies of chromosome 21, rather than two). Turner Syndrome is an example of a monosomy where the individual is born with only one sex chromosome, an X."

http://tinyurl.com/d3g7jf



But I think you know all this - my guess is that you're a scared christian hanging on desperately to the dying gasps of an outdated religion - happier ignoring and misrepresenting the well documented science that reduces your faith to mere superstition than facing up to the truth about the way the world works.

nutters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dark star
>
and those by which
> viruses replicate
>

should have read

'and those by which viruses insert their sequences'

nutters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But I think you know all this - my guess is that
> you're a scared christian hanging on desperately
> to the dying gasps of an outdated religion -
> happier ignoring and misrepresenting the well
> documented science that reduces your faith to mere
> superstition than facing up to the truth about the
> way the world works.


I think he's an advocate of Behe's new book. The asking of the entire specific pathways are something that Behe was asking for after his irreducibly complex flaggela (sp?) was shown to be reducible. If I recall correctly, some scientists showed how it could be broken down and true to his creationist nature he said that it didn't prove anything until the entire pathway was established.

This is a PRATT, similar to the PRATT that creationists use when shown a transitional fossil. They will not acknowledge the fossil as evidence, instead they will retort that now there are *two* gaps to be filled. It's intellectually dishonest. You sound like you've spent some time going the rounds with creationists, so I'm sure you've experience this.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nutters Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
It's intellectually dishonest.
> You sound like you've spent some time going the
> rounds with creationists, so I'm sure you've
> experience this.

The key thing to me is that science is not the one on trial - over the last 3-400 years, its religion that been shown to be an illusion, a social construct rather than an explanation for the way that the universe works.

The high level intellectual dishonesty is the retreat to religious 'faith' when presented with evidence they don't like - and demanding exquisite detail while refusing to provide any of their own - or even to explain why their cult is true when the cult around the corner is evil

I also find the refusal to look at the big picture amazing - refusing to place cosmology, physics, quantum science, geology, the fossil record, biological sciences, systems biology, information science and neuroscience into the same context.

Its the young earth people that really typify this - refusing to accept or explain a continuous geological and nuclear-chemical history, even though its right in front of their noses and then refusing to say in detail what they don't accept in the physics - or what their alternative explanation is (other than 'Poof! and there it was, all fully formed, fossils, oil, strata and all)


Its the conscious decision not to ask 'how' and 'why' that I find so depressing - 'why is that beetle this color and not that color', 'why are people different', 'how do they differ,'how does society work', 'how do phages fit in', 'how do galaxies interact over time', 'what is time' etc

Rather, they settle for 'it must be magic' or 'god dunnit' because some random priest/preacher/witch-doctor/oprah has told them so.

Which would all be okay if it didn't have real social implications such as the enormous waste of talent and dangerous distortions of national policy

Its time that the America stopped pandering to these dark age religions and started demanding honesty.