Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2010 - 11:56am PT
|
Fat Dad, that is REALLY STUPID- nothing else can be said. The ignorance of so many people in this country is astonishing.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2010 - 11:58am PT
|
It's clear, JLB, that you know nothing about the science of evolution, which might as well be called 'Biology'. I would suggest that you bone up a little before participating in threads such as this one.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2010 - 12:07pm PT
|
Fat Dad, Donini, EEyonkee- damn straight.
JLB- you and your religion are as much the a-theist with respect to Ishtar or Amon-Re or all the ancient Greek "Gods" as Norton or Dr. F is the a-theist with respect to Jehovah (aka God of Abraham). A-theism is context dependent and it is astonishing so many millions are only getting around to this realization in this century as opposed to the 19th. Think about it - as you take a few years to bone up on the sciences.
|
|
JLB
Trad climber
Smiths, AL
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2010 - 12:07pm PT
|
I posted the reference to where you can test why God said people would mock that interpretation.
Again, maybe I am naive to think people will give any other thought pattern a chance. What I said was yet ANOTHER admission that I do take things on faith when I was not there to observe on my own. Please, tell me how you know for sure, without an evolutionary-biased interpretation, how fossils are actual proof. I've asked for it, gave you guys the benefit of the doubt, that you probably hadbetter answers than I can come up with. Is it fair to bash a non-evolutionary interpretation admitting an element of faith, all the while not offering a clear answer? Calling me stupid is not what I consider proof. Maybe that is proof to you - calling someone else stupid. I wouldn't call that science though.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2010 - 12:53pm PT
|
The funny thing is - if Christine O'Donnell, this year's U.S. Senate candidate for Delaware, had "dabbled" in science education instead of witchcraft in the 1990s, she probably wouldn't be in today's headlines as a right-wing Tea Party rep.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2010 - 01:01pm PT
|
Dr. F - digging in the ground and finding fossils - if you were to bring that fossil to court and say see - proof of evolution. I don't think it would stand up to the question - "Dr. F, how do you know that fossil gave birth to something that was different than what it is? or, came from something different than what it was?" Maybe you have a great, definitive answer. I don't know, all you've said is that finding fossils is proof.
That's not how it works.
Evolution by natural selection has credibility not because it has been PROVEN but because it has NOT BEEN DISPROVEN. So far it has withstood thousands of tests set out to disprove it. In other words, it's the set of ideas still left standing at the end of the day. Of course, it can still be disproven if new evidence shows it's all bunk. But that hasn't happened.
Bible based literal creation stories, in contrast, have been disproven.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2010 - 01:08pm PT
|
JLB, your "God" is Jehovah.
In the news today, food for thought, as you ponder evolution, variation of the species, natural selection pressures, the sciences - physics to biochemistry to genetics to bioengineering to planetary sciences - and last but not least for you the "bones" buried in the Great Flood:
P.S. (1) I bet the woman -now in her 20s - could bust some OW moves that would put Jaybro to shame. (2) Then again, she probably shouldn't go jogging alone in Rancho San Antonio Park with all those bobcats and coyotes let alone cougars on the loose.
|
|
Jim E
climber
away
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2010 - 01:09pm PT
|
The Bible does talk about how He did it, but you have to believe the Bible to accept it. It actually talks about it, and talks about there will be people who will mock it and WHY they will mock it
If I tell a big fat lie I'd expect to be mocked as well. Telling people that believe my lie that they will be mocked for it doesn't make the lie less of a lie.
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2010 - 01:19pm PT
|
I posted the reference to where you can test why God said people would mock that interpretation.
God didn't say that. You did.
For the record, I read the Bible. I believe in the Bible, but that doesn't mean that I accept the Bible as a science text nor that it was ever intended to be read as such. Rather, it is a book of faith.
Much of what's written in the Bible contradicts what we know to be true about science. In that regard (and I think I may have posted this comment earlier on this same thread), even as far back as the 4th Century, St. Augustine wrote that we read the Bible and know the words to contradict what we know to be true, then the passage must be interpreted allegorically or otherwise. Why, over 16 centuries later, have some drifted so far from that precept?
Too much of what I hear many Christians (i.e., evangelicals) talking about today is how an attack on their beliefs is an attack on God, as if they themselves are the only proponents of God's faith. B.S. You're not God. You're not his (His?) chosen messanger. You're just some dude sharing his POV on what YOU think the Bible means. Let's get that straight shall we?
|
|
JLB
Trad climber
Smiths, AL
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2010 - 02:35pm PT
|
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water. Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. (II Peter 3:3-6).
Fat Dad - God did say that, not me. I challenged you to think for yourself, not take my word. check the reference, not take my word. I put it out there to see if anyone would check it. No acknowledgment, just that I am stupid, I think I am God's messenger, etc etc. I am not His chosen messenger, never said I was. I just asked for candid discussion. So far all I've gotten is slammed and called stupid, been told to kiss an atheist's ass, which as I said, is fine. I asked for responses to simple child-like questions, all I got was called stupid, evolution is the way it works, the Bible has been disproven, etc etc. Not one answer to the questions. Not one admission there is any faith in their beliefs, that they are trusting something is true yet offer not real evidence as to why it is true, just that it is true because it hasn't been disproven (see that whole double standard discussion above). Again, I gave you guys the benefit of the doubt - saying "you guys probably have a better answer than me.." But no one offers it, just that I am stupid.
God did if fact say people will mock the Bible because they don't want to have to live by the standards that He said we should live by - "walking after their own lusts." That is what I see, people want to make up their own rules about what is right and wrong. History shows it. See my discussion about people living by different standards that no one has acknowledged, doing that causes atrocities to other people at some point. Because apparently, most men don't want to challenge their own opinions. I do that. I challenged others to do that. All we've seen in response is plenty of advice on all the myriad of things I don't know. I told you, I know less than 1% of anything, so calling me stupid as a response is second grader material. But I still can't get an answer to simple questions from those obviously much smarter than me.
"Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes." - Carl Jung.
I am thankful you read the Bible and believe it. That is awesome. St. Thomas Aquinas said - "any error about creation is an error about God." Yes, the God of the Bible, I can't speak to the other gods I have been accused of being an atheist of. I don't know of any of them that wrote a coherent, self-supporting document over the course of thousands of years. Yes, He does ask us to have faith. I have said that from the beginning. It comes down to this, do you believe God is who He said He is? I do. You guys don't. I challenge why I do. I asked you guys to challenge why you don't. That's all. Simple as that. Einstien did. To my knowledge, he never came to personal relationship with God, but he acknowledged the lack of evidence of a non-creation beginning to the universe. Again - don't take my word for it, check it out for yourself.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2010 - 02:40pm PT
|
Yeah, you don't call us stupid, you just quote your Abrahamic scripture which does the dirty work for you. (We're on to that.)
Hence, Norton's or Dr. F's reasons or justification for using the language and tone they do.
JLB=ID (???)
.....
JLB wrote- "See my discussion about people living by different standards that no one has acknowledged..."
It's an issue of time and energy conservation. Who's got the energy to "acknowledge" it for the thousandth time, don't know about others but my energy is limited. You write as though you think we're all high-school dropouts here. -Who haven't already thought about such conundrums, hardships, struggles, injustices, etc. that we're all tasked to deal with PRECISELY because there is no Guy in the Sky (God Jehovah or God Apollo) to make it easy for us. Suck it up, get a backbone. H. sapiens is NOT a spineless jellyfish.
|
|
JLB
Trad climber
Smiths, AL
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2010 - 03:13pm PT
|
the scripture is there to tell you who God is, not tell you that you are stupid. If you will read them, I beg you not to read the scriptures that way. Please read them and simply ask - who are you, God?
Dude, I never, in anything I said, called you or anyone else stupid. I actually give you guys way more credit than I give myself. Some of these guys sound like brilliant, analytical thinkers, which I love and appreciate. Engineering and other professions would not push us forward without that. I am simply asking why you believe or don't believe. Are you trusting a reliable source for your belief? That is all.
I am with you, I am so busy at work and again, have 3 kids who love their dad's time. But this question is huge to me, simply because I don't want people to miss God. Again, free choice to believe Him or not, but I don't want to lay my head down at night and have missed an opportunity to share who He really is. He is not an old man with a long beard who rolled the dice and took a chance on the world and sits around pointing fingers at us sinners. I hate that I can get very dogmatic about it at times and that is definitely not the way to go. I want to be open and show the love that He wants me to show. Everyone who will ever read this thread is worth that to me.
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2010 - 03:47pm PT
|
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water. Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. (II Peter 3:3-6).
One, I don't see what this quote has to do with anything that's been discussed on this thread. Scoffing about what? That God exists? About salvation? Two, to paraphrase Shakespeare, the devil can quote scripture for his purpose. I have a real problem when people take a passage of scripture and attempt to use it as a Rorschach, one size fits all blotch.
St. Thomas Aquinas said - "any error about creation is an error about God."
OK. You can take this at face value but it should be filtered through Aquinas' sensibilities and the advancement of science at that time. Since Aquinas lived during the 12th or 13th century, it was clearly before the theory of evolution was established so we have to forgive Aquinas for not knowing better. Also, since Aquinas uses the word "creation" (assuming it's a literal translation from the latin), does that mean the creation story from Genesis or is he referring to God's creation independent of that biblical passage.
Also, since you're borrowing from Catholic theologians, are you also accepting the Vatican-endorsed, Catholic precept that the Bible is NOT to be interpreted literally?
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2010 - 03:51pm PT
|
You don't need no science to prove the world is flat and at the center of the universe. You just gotsta beeelieeeeeeve.
|
|
JLB
Trad climber
Smiths, AL
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2010 - 04:02pm PT
|
Fat Dad - I believe it speaks specifically to people not believing there was a great flood - which is how I believe fossils came to be. And, again, why they don't want to believe. They don't want to believe God had the authority to judge the world, which is what happened on in the flood.
I don't have a clue or can take the time now to figure out what some of those words you just used are. I just poured my heart to the high fructose guy about why I have taken part in creation discussions. Again, I hate that I can get way too dogmatic about these things and again, don't want to turn people off to God because I say things poorly. Hey, I know that some of the biggest turn-offs to God are the way "Christians" act. You see it in too many churches - more divorce, more gossiping, etc - than you do everywhere else. It's atrocious. But the way I use words or the way Christians act does not change who God is.
And ye shall seek me, and find [me], when ye shall search for me with all your heart. Jeremiah 29:13.
That's a promise from God, it has happened to me. It's a promise I believe will hold true to anyone who will read His word openly searching to find Him, despite my inability to communicate effectively.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2010 - 04:05pm PT
|
Fat Dad and JLB,
Fat Dad's allusion to Augustine is, in fact, orthodox for Evangelicals as well. Standard systematic theology says that when physical evidence contradicts a particular interpretation of Scripture, that interpretation must be wrong.
To give just one example, the Church interpreted the account of the sun standing still in the sky in Joshua as meaning that the sun revolved around the earth. For that reason, they found Galileo's and Copernicus's discoveries to be heretical. As astronomy and astrophysics proved the church's cosmology incorrect (or, given issues of frame of reference, at least wildly inconvenient) we came to understand that the description of a miracle was simply that -- not a description of astronomical laws.
Evangelical orthodxy is that Scripture is God-breathed and inerrant. We also view Scripture as the only authoritative word on matters of faith now (since there are no apostles). For that reason, we adhere to the sola scriptura motto of Protestants historically.
We need to be careful, however, that we do not read more into Scripture than what is written. I often hear arguments claiming that scientific observations must be wrong because they contradict Scripture (or that Scripture must be wrong because it contradicts scientific observation). By and large, both arguments use too rigid interpretation of Scripture, usually by assuming or adding things. An example of this: concluding that the first (or any other) day of creation was 24 current hours long. Where does it say that, since the sun wasn't created on day one? Neither modern relativity theory nor only scripture says that.
I find the warning at the end of Revelation relevant to all Biblical interpretation: Don't add and don't subtract. When we make assumptions, and are unwilling to change those assumptions in light of knowledge God allows us to learn, we're either adding our interpretaion, or subtracting possible other meanings. We know the penalties for doing so.
John
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2010 - 04:09pm PT
|
Truth is, JLB, you bought into a narrative, a particular narrative. In your upbringing and over the course of your life. Now if you can ever look beyond it, you'll see other narratives, some more in line with not only (a) the so-called Scientific Story but (b) everyday experience. -Which is what many apart from you have done.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Sep 21, 2010 - 09:26am PT
|
Since this thread is supposed to be about science, let’s keep it there. JLB, it’s clear that you are anti-science. It’s absurdly easy to discount a Great Flood as the source of all fossils. The fossils occur in different rocks at different times. The rocks in which fossils have been found have been dated from over a billion years old to recent. Dinosaurs ALWAYS occur in rocks dated between about 225 million years ago and 65 million years ago. Probably 100s of thousands or more of these rocks have been dated with great consistency by thousands of scientists and graduate students. NEVER has a dinosaur fossil been found in rocks outside of this date range. Most fossils are found in limestone, which is not something that gets deposited in a flood. Fossils have been found on top of Mt Everest.
This is just a tiny sampling of established knowledge supporting an old earth and the fact that all of the plants and animals on it came about from evolutionary processes. There’s no guessing in the evidence I just presented. You are willfully deciding not to believe in this great body of knowledge that has been established by countless observations and studies.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2010 - 08:42pm PT
|
Ann Druyan (Carl Sagan's wife) appeared on Bill Maher last night. Appropos to this thread title. Commentary on Christine O'Donnell, too, from bitd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOMyB7lbZhE
Yeah, I miss Carl Sagan. In a world approaching seven billion, hard to believe the West can't seem to find one, let alone a dozen, to emulate him, to fill his shoes. Astonishing every time I think about it.
.....
Yeah, right wing is anti-science. Can't find the video in a short clip but if you want max proof of this catch former Senator Trent Lott (Sen majority leader from bitd) dissing science education. That's right - as blatantly as anyone I've ever seen. You can see it in the Beyond Belief 2006 seminar under Harold Kroto's talk.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!