Re: Something for the Fundies...

Daniel Seriff wrote:
> Hey, walstib77, don't think of yourself as an ugly human, think of yourself
> as a beautiful monkey!
>
> > Daniel Seriff wrote:
> >> Not only does that not match the scientific model, but it defies entirely
> >> what we already know.
> >
> > "Know?" Dude, science doesn't mean we "know" anything; it only tells us
> > what we think is likely. Surely you know enough about the scientific
> > method to understand that.
>
> The whole point of the scientific method is to reduce our level of doubt
> about our perceptions. It does that *very* effectively.

No kidding.

But that doesn't change the fact that we know *very* little about the
world around us. The degree of effectiveness of the scientific method
doesn't mean that science is perfect--in fact, the very core of science
is that we do not *know* anything. That was my point; you seem to take
some kind of ownership of the validity of science, belittling me when
you feel threatened by my position, and yet you misstate the most
fundamental aspect of the scientific method.

> And just for the record, the only time I ever see people impugn the collected
> scientific knowledge of humankind is when they're trying to downplay their
> own personal ignorance.

Copping an air of self-righteousness doesn't make one right.

> > Genesis isn't perfect; I think I acknowledged that. The birds are a bit
> > of an anomoly, but considering science holds that birds are also the
> > only direct descendents of the dionosaurs alive today (which is a
> > relatively new position over the previous one of there having been no
> > direct descendents), science holds the birds as a bit of an anomoly as
> > well.
> >
> > But what is uncanny is how there was a water mass, and thenm land arose
> > from it.
>
> Which is exactly the opposite of what happened in the *actual* development of
> the planet. Molten rock isn't water.

No, but what percentage of the current land mass was previously under
water?

> > THe vegetation preceded the animals, and the sea animals
> > preceded the land animals which prededed mankind.
> >
> > Not bad, considering Moses didn't have the foggiest notion of the
> > timing of the stratafied fossil record or carbon dating.
>
> It's a fairly common assumption that simple things tend to happen before
> complex things. A dude standing in the desert 5000 years ago doesn't have to
> be a rocket scientist (or a divine prophet, for that matter) to come up with
> the notion that plants look like they're simpler than animals, so they might
> have showed up earlier.

Darwin's Theory, you're implying, was self-evident, and even the people
of the dark ages understood it to some degree?

???

Dude, why does a palm tree look simpler than a fish?

Strrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrretch...

> The originators of the Bible stories, like all the rest of us, drew
> conclusions from the world they observed around them. It didn't take any
> special insight or secret information that only they possessed.

But your assertion above is dismissive, but not based on sound logic.

Evolution is fairly simple to understand once it is presented to a
person. But don't let the simplicity of the concept color your ability
to try to understand the human perspective 5000 years ago. If what
you're saying is the case, why then, in Genesis, would the birds have
been listed out of step with evolutionary theory? Did the ancient
Egyptians think flight was simple?

> And given
> their relatively unsophisticated observational methods, it shouldn't be such
> a shocker that they got a bunch of stuff wrong.

No. But why are you so aggressively disparaging faith? I mean, it is
one thing to personally not believe, but why this campaign?

Sure, there are differences between the two accounts. So? This article
you were calling people to see, what is the point of your efforts--that
some of us think there are errors in the Bible? Does that somehow
empower you and your Godless perspective?

> > Genesis is a long-standing verbal tradition that predates even the
> > Judeo-Christian tradition. If you want to use its limitations as a
> > means of separating yourself from the moral truths in the New
> > Testament, so be it. But religion and science need not be mutually
> > exclusive. If they did, you wouldn't see nearly as many highly regarded
> > scientists who attend church.
>
> Irrelevant.

No, it's not. You seem to imply that your understanding and knowledge
make you too smart for God, and yet there exist among the scientific
community plenty of scholars with too much to do to have time to be a
usenet regular who are Christians.

It is NOT irrelevant--the implication that understanding science
precludes one from desiring to know God, and believing in his
existence, is wrong. If, as you say, a simple understanding of Calculus
and Physics would somehow shake us ignorant believers from our mindless
love of God, then why don't more people with a deep scientific
background reject Christianity?

> >>> There has been a long-standing rift between the literal fundies and the
> >>> atheist scientific community. Too bad; science and God are not mutually
> >>> exclusive. Rather, science is a model of understanding that frames our
> >>> puny knowledge of the incredible creation that obviously is a bit
> >>> beyond happenstance.
> >>
> >> The claim "look around, is design not obvious?" is rhetorically empty. It's
> >> nothing more than a subjective assertion based on ignorance of the facts.
> >
> > Dude, who's ignorant of the facts? Consciousness, morality and the deep
> > inner yearning for truth are hardly mere symptoms of chemistry and
> > physics.
>
> Prove it.

I can as readily as you can prove your position.

I *know* it; they don't call it "faith" for nothin'.

> > Look at the end of your arm; you mean to tell me that the
> > human hand is not a miracle?
>
> All you've done is to come up with a different way to ask "is design not
> obvious?" It's still rhetorically empty.
>
> We don't need to appeal to miracles to explain the human hand.

No, I suppose not, when you've bought entirely into the notion that
we're all just simple bags of chemicals waiting to oxidize into the
grave. What a depressing perspective. I know, because iot was mine for
many years.


> >> "Creation" is not even slightly "beyond happenstance". In fact, it *is*
> >> happenstance. We don't even need anything more than calculus and a knowledge
> >> of the laws of physics to prove it, either.
> >
> > Then why do scientists believe in Christ in roughly the same
> > percentages as the population as a whole?
>
> Irrelevant.

As irrelevant as saying that because we can learn by observing, there
is no God.

> > Were itr so easily understood, as you imply, one would think that more
> > scientists would see the same point of view you espouse.
>
> I never said it was easily understood. Happenstance rarely is. Human beings
> are pattern-seeking animals. We aren't mentally wired to grok chance or true
> randomness, which is why so many people spend so much time and effort trying
> to explain it away with silly stuff like "luck" and "curses".

What of those who have a profound understanding of science? Oh, that's
right, "irrelevant."

> > The Big Bang theory was the work of a priest:
> > http://www.thirteen.org/hawking/cosmostar/html/cstars_lemai.html

And?

> > How about Michael Polanyi? Copernicus? Newton? Kepler? Robert Boyle of
> > Boyle's Law for gases? Mendel? Faraday? Kelvin? Planck?
> >
> > Einstein even believed. From the E. Britannica:
> > [quote]
> > Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God
> > who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually
> > motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young
> > physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not
> > interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that
> > element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's
> > famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play
> > dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he
> > believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame,
> > religion without science is blind."
> > [end quote]
> >
> > Apparently your basic understanding of physics and calculus were not
> > available to these great minds?
>
> In case you haven't noticed, most of those people have been dead for a long
> time.

Yes; most well-known scientists, like artists, have been.

As you are fond of saying, "irrelevant."

> It may come as a shock to you, but in the intervening time, we've
> actually learned *new* stuff about how the universe works.

And that somehow means that we now know enough to be too smart for God?

Once again, that's not reflected in today's scientific community, where
the percentage of believeres roughly parallels that of the general
populace.

If your position were true, wouldn't we see a marked decline in the
percentage of Christians the farther up the ladder of scientific
accomplishment one goes?

> Go look up Niels Bohr's response to Einstein when he claimed that God doesn't
> play dice with the universe.

And what of it? A Marxist like Bohr is somehow the diffinitive voice on
the matter? I understand the uncertainty principle--so? Max Plank also
understood quantum physics and was a contemporary orf Bohr--and he was
a Christian. That shoots down your implied line of reasoning, mon
frere.

To answer Bohr, why don't we go to Gerald Schroeder?

We can delve into quantum physics if you wish, but even some of the
preeminent quantum physicists were believers. Where can it possibly
take us?

To me, heading toward the uncertainty of quantum mechanics leads toward
postmodern philosophy. When we look at where mathematics is headed
today, where quantum physics goes, and the postmodern philosophies,
there is really a revival of reverence for the unknown, the unknowable,
and to my perspective a deference to a higher wisdom, a higher being,
and a higher consciousness.

Dude, it's God.



> >>> Science reframes itself constantly--and the Bible doesn't. Sure, there
> >>> are dated elements of the Bible. What is amazing is how much of it is
> >>> true to this day.
> >>
> >> The parts of the Bible that are true (even according to the RCC, now) have
> >> nothing to do with either history or science, though, which is why
> >> historians and scientists tend to reject biblical arguments outright.
> >
> > Untrue, as above and also in terms of history. Historians and
> > archaeologists have reinforced the bulk of the Bible, not refuted it.
> > And the staid explosion of the Bible as literature was nothing short of
> > a miracle in itself. There are far fewer original versions surving of
> > Plato's work than of the New Testament, yet I bet you don't doubt their
> > veracity.
> >
> > And to imply that historians reject the accuracy of the Bible is
> > absurd; can you refer me to a source of what you're trying to imply?
>
> Perhaps I overstated. Let me rephrase:
>
> The process by which they do that is exactly the opposite of the kind of
> easily rejectable arguments I'm talking about. Most biblical historians are
> using the Bible as a conclusion, not as a premise. They begin with observed
> archaeological facts and conclude, where appropriate, "hey, the Bible got it
> right". They emphatically do *NOT* begin by assuming the Bible to be
> infalliable and try to make the facts fit their pre-existent narrative.
>
> The basic framework of the overarching biblical story is supported by
> archaeological evidence, but not the details.

Example? Again, can you refer me to a source of what you're trying to
imply?

> >> As for the true stuff, it doesn't take dogmatic adherence to a 2000 year old
> >> book to figure out that rape, murder and theft aren't such wonderful things,
> >> and that a little charity might do some good.
> >>
> >>> A much higher percentage than my eighth grade science book.
> >>
> >> I will absolutely guarantee you that your eighth grade science book, dumbed
> >> down and out of date though it may be, is a far better authority on science
> >> than the Bible ever was or will be.
> >
> > Of course. That's like saying Hoyle's is a far better guide to card
> > game rules than a Vonnegut novel. What's the point?
>
> The point is that your claim that the Bible is more factually accurate than
> your eighth-grade science textbook is just plain wrong.

That's not at all what I am saying; the Bible, unchanged in centuries,
is relevant today.

My eighth grade science textbook is riddled with disproven theories and
statements that make it dated and wrong.

The Bible, for what it is, is not dated and wrong--because it isn't
scientific. THis is a big part of what we are dancing around here. You
are trying to weigh the Bible from an empirical perspective, and that's
as pointless as trying to find the morality in the speed of light.

> The further
> difference is that textbooks actually get *revised* when we learn new stuff
> that is inconsistent with the old editions. The Bible doesn't, and never
> will.

Because it doesn't need to; in reality, it must not be. It is the
beauty of it--this book, thousands of years old, is still relevant.

There are no peer scientific texts remotely close to that
accomplishment.

> >>> Those who seek to deny science and evolution are simple. And if that
> >>> works for them, so be it. But don't make the rest of us bury our heads
> >>> in the sand, too.
> >>
> >> But that's exactly what they want. Creationism isn't about science, or even
> >> about facts. It's about assimilation. It's a crusade.
> >
> > I think it's important for you to define who "they" are. To say that
> > the extreme minority of Christians who are pressing the case against
> > which you;re reacting represent all of Christians
>
> I never said "all".

No, you said "they." That's why I said "I think it's important for you
to define who 'they' are." And you haven't yet.

> > would be the same as
> > my implying that any absurd scientific theory put forth is supported by
> > the entire scientific community.
>
> The scientific community has a very well established method of weeding out
> the bull***. The Christian community does not, and never will.

Sure it does; it's called "prayer." And I know that it works
wonderfully.

If I have a problem with something in the Bible, I can pray about it,
and the miraculous understanding I get only further reinforces my
faith.

> > God and Science are not at odds with one another, unless you place them
> > there in your own framework. And to do so is, in my experience, a
> > tragic rejection of the essence of life.
>
> If you assume, a priori, that God exists and created everything, then
> logically, you *must* conclude that God created the universe exactly the way
> we perceive it scientifically and empirically. I don't need to use God as an
> explanation for the origin of the universe, because it can be explained using
> only math and the known laws of physics.

But who established the universal constants? Just because you can
explain how a car works scientifically doesn't mean that noone
engineereed it--that it just came into being.

Of course you don't need God to understand Science. We don't need God
to understand art either. Nor do we need God to understand a pie
recipe.

That doesn't mean I'm wrong to believe in him.

Dude, I don;t need God to make me live forever. I'm perfectly willing
to face mortality and being a pile of worm fodder. I don't need
heaven--that's not why I believe.

But man, what a nice fringe benefit.

> I don't need to use God to explain
> the origins of life, because it can be explained using only biology and the
> laws of probability.

No it can't. Miller's experiment doesn't explain life, or why we're
here, or how we supposed to behave as people living on a planet
together.

We do NOT understand the origins of life--we see snippets of how we
came into being. We can observe traces of our history and how we got
here.

The fact that we are capable of understanding the mechanics on an
extremely base level doesn't do ONE thing to invalidate God.

Check this out:
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html
http://doesgodexist.org/SepOct99/QuantumMechanicsAtheistToolOrSpirtualIlluminater.html

> The problem comes when people try to personify and limit this God in order to
> make him into something they can "understand" without actually knowing
> anything about anything. Our understanding of the universe isn't perfect by
> any means, but that's a piss poor excuse to posit some magic man in the sky
> who makes all the unknown stuff disappear just by showing up. There is no
> "God of the Gaps". *That* is what the Christian community writ large is
> trying to push. It's nothing more than a vast argument from communal
> ignorance.

There are plenty of ignorant atheists too. That doesn't change the fact
that there exist myriad scientific geniuses who believe in God. You can
dismissively say "irrelevant" repeatedly and continue to dodge this
fact.

But it IS relevant. If knowing science is all it takes to discredit
God, why do so many exceptional scientists believe?

Dude, there is more to life that neurochemistry. Don't miss it because
of pride.

> Personally, I think that God thinks creationists are idiots.

Can a "creationist" believe in evolution?

.

Loading