Where's the water?

[River Jordan]

So, I never said science cannot be used to understand past events. I was specifically referring to biblical narratives and events which relate to things that took place "thousands, millions, or billions of years ago."

I still don't understand. Is it your view that archaeologists cannot understand past events that are described in the Bible? Is it the "described in the Bible" part that excludes something from being investigated by science?

I find the example of a CSI examining a murder scene using technology to be very poor. First, the tools used and the examinations in such a scene relate to present day events. For instance, I compare the DNA of the blood on the scene with the blood of suspect A. If they match, suspect A was at the scene. Or, I found a fingerprint at the scene and compare it with suspect A. So on and so forth.

This is apples and oranges with conjectures about what might have happened millions or billions of years ago based on theories that we have not observed and cannot replicate in the controlled environment of a lab.

I don't see how that's different at all. For example, today we see new abilities, traits, and species arise via evolution...all the time. Are you saying that in the past it was completely different? Did things change as soon as we started looking or something?

You need to get out of your head that modern science and naturalism are one and the same thing. They are not.

Modern science operates according to methodological naturalism; it has to. But that is not the same as philosophical naturalism.

I can only respond to what I read. Thus far, I have not read one comment of agreement or appreciation of any creationists. Instead you said, "I'll be blunt...because creationist organizations aren't at all honest. They are either incredibly stupid people (which I don't think is true), or they are outrageously deceitful." Notice, you did not say some creationists organizations aren't at all honest. Nor did you say, "Some are either incredibly stupid..." No you said "they" (creationists) are either stupid (which you don't think to be true) or terrible liars.

Actually, I would disagree with point 1. You never said "some" creationist organizations.

Ok, then please provide an example of what you think is an honest creationist organization and we'll look at their material.

You very explicitly said that creationists are liars. Thus I can only assume that you feel is someone is a creationist, they are a liar...because that is what you very clearly said.

No, I said creationist organizations.

RJ, there is a lot I could respond to with your posts. However, I find that your mindset is about the same as the most rigid and staunch KJV only fundamentalist. You have no interest in learning a different perspective or trying to understand anyone elses view...even if you believe them to be wrong. It is clear you feel everyone else is a fool and have a label for everyone who disagrees with you that justifies your self-perceived intellectual superiority. I have no interest in trying to convince you that those who disagree with your views are not liars and morons, or quibble about definitions of words. I don't delight in arguments or trying to show my views are better than yours. Ive only been trying to bring balance to this discussion and it seems you want none of it.

Ill leave the arguing to others.

If that's what you want, but please note that once again I've encountered another creationist who makes a claim like "no new genetic information" but can't get past the very first hurdle of even saying what "genetic information" is or how we should measure it; and parroted the ridiculous/dishonest "life couldn't have originated by chance" creationist argument.

And that's my point. You and the others here have been fed a bunch of ridiculous and dishonest arguments by creationist organizations, but because you're not experts in the science you don't know they're ridiculous and dishonest. To most people they seem reasonable and since they're coming from your fellow conservative Christians (and are against those danged atheists)...well then, they must be good solid arguments, right?

That's what the creationist organizations count on you to do. They count on you to give them the benefit of the doubt and trust that they're telling you the whole story. So you go out into the world and onto the internet and parrot these arguments..."no new genetic information", "mathematically impossible by random chance" you shout confidently. But then you encounter someone like me, someone who is an expert in the science and is very familiar with creationist arguments. All I have to do is ask "what do you mean by genetic information" and point out that "chemistry is completely non-random" and you're stumped. Now what?

This is the fascinating part. An objective, open person will, 1) recognize that they've been fed simplistic and erroneous arguments by creationist organizations, 2) admit it to themselves, 3) no longer use those arguments, 4) no longer rely on that organization for information about science, and 5) be much more careful and critical in the future. I actually see this with many of the kids who bring creationist material to me. I don't tell them who's right or wrong. Instead I generally do what I described earlier...I give the kid the science paper or book the creationists are talking about and let the kid see for himself which side is being honest and open, and which side isn't. Kids are smart, they figure it out pretty quickly.

But adults are a completely different story. They're more set in their ways and have a much stronger sense of tribalism and loyalty to the creationist organization, so they aren't at all open to even the possibility that the organization isn't being honest with them. I've had adults come to me and say "Atheist scientist S. Gould even admits that transitional fossils don't exist. Just look at these quotes from him!" But when I show them the quotes in full context and how Gould is actually saying the exact opposite, rather than reach the obvious conclusion that someone at the creationist organization deliberately misrepresented Gould's words, they get mad at me! They do exactly what you guys have done here...accuse me of "siding with atheists" and stuff like that.

It's a fascinating glimpse into the psychology of extreme tribalism and loyalty. Just like with the televangelists, you can directly show some people that they're being lied to, and they'll just get mad at you and go right back in to the televangelist. That's kinda what I see you doing in this thread. The two creationist arguments you've parroted in this thread are trivially easy to shoot down, but will that affect your willingness to use them in the future, or cause you to be more careful in repeating arguments you pick up from other creationists? I tend to doubt it.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Your intellect is truly dizzying.

What have you published and what PhD do you hold which qualifies you as an expert?

If we are to make our own assumptions based upon your hubris, we would assume you are an expert in everything.

Break it down for us. Please.



You seem talented at persuading children by your own standards anyway. Adults? Not so much?

 

[River Jordan]

What have you published and what PhD do you hold which qualifies you as an expert?

I'm a professional biologist and I have been published, but there's no way I'm telling you what my name is. No way.

If we are to make our own assumptions based upon your hubris, we would assume you are an expert in everything.

Break it down for us. Please.

When are you going to start posting beyond a 10-year old level? I keep waiting, but it seems all you can do is post childish insults.

You seem talented at persuading children by your own standards anyway. Adults? Not so much?

I explained why. Kids are more open than adults. I've had adults tell me "there are no transitional fossils", but when I show them one they refuse to admit they were wrong. They'll chalk it up to some sort of conspiracy among scientists. With kids, you show them one and they're like "Oh...cool!"

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Yes, Biology is your profession. No doubt if there is ever an outbreak in the Pacific Northwest of killer Goatsbeard plants you would be called either as an expert or suspect.

However, you have posited yourself as an expert in geology, paleontology, sociology, and psychology. That's just off the top of my head. The point being, you are not the center of the universe.

I say what others want to say. The problem is you are terrible at accepting any criticism. Wormwood, Hamnerstone and others have tried constructive criticism to no avail. I am more direct.

I know I need to grow up. When will you come to the same realization?

 

[River Jordan]

Yes, Biology is your profession. No doubt if there is ever an outbreak in the Pacific Northwest of killer Goatsbeard plants you would be called either as an expert or suspect.

Good to know what the 10-year olds think.

However, you have posited yourself as an expert in geology, paleontology, sociology, and psychology.

Actually, I haven't. I have studied those subjects a fair bit, but an expert on par with actual professionals? Nope. Do you remember our previous conversation about how you decide which experts you listen to and which ones you dismiss? It was less related to their expertise or anything like that, and more about which team they were on, exactly as I've been describing in this thread.

I say what others want to say. The problem is you are terrible at accepting any criticism. Wormwood, Hamnerstone and others have tried constructive criticism to no avail. I am more direct.

I know I need to grow up. When will you come to the same realization?

Ok, so what would you like to see me change? Try and be as specific as you can.

 

[Forsakenone]

No, I said creationist organizations.

I recall when the CERN facility first reported a neutrino had been documented traveling faster than the speed of light, the folks at the Institute for Creation Research issued a press release jumping stating that it perfectly well fit within the doctrine of Genesis, as if they had know it was actually true before the CERN experiment had even taken place. Yet it even made some scientist question whether it was possible or not.

However, while it seems the "let there be" precept would involve a process by which the Word manifested by the Spirit the light, atmosphere, and so forth, guess if the gospel of man's evolution from a beast is hid, it is only hid from them that are lost.

But, I hope you are not offended if I say that you're one hell of a man for standing up and fighting the good fight.

 

[Wormwood]

But, I hope you are not offended if I say that you're one hell of a man for standing up and fighting the good fight.

I don't think this discussion is what Paul had in mind when he coined the phrase, "Fight the good fight." Nor is "gospel" the good news about man's ancestors being a "beast."

 

[Forsakenone]

The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Matt 1:1

The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem. Eccl 1:1

I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them,
and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. Eccl 3:18

Did not Jesus call man vipers in Matthew 12:34?

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine,
lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. Matthew 7:6

 

[Wormwood]

Are you suggesting that Matthew 12:34 suggests we evolved from vipers and Matthew 7:6 that we evolved from dogs and pigs?

I suggest you reread all of Ecclesiastes. I assure you that the authors point is not to defend Darwinian evolution.

 

[Forsakenone]

Are you suggesting that Matthew 12:34 suggests we evolved from vipers

If you say you haven't evolved then I believe you.

But since you used that word 'evolved', I would define it as to change or develop slowly often into a better, more complex, or more advanced state.

Since Jesus came not to call the righteous, but rather the sinners to repentance, then do you think that he was referring unto the righteous as vipers?

 

[Wormwood]

I am not sure how this answers my question. I do not see how repentance and grace are in any way related to Darwinian evolution or how the texts you cited above could in any way be used to validate such a perspective biblically. It is utter nonsense.

 

[RANDOR]

Just checkin in to see if anyone has found the water yet............No?.........well carry on............

 

[Forsakenone]

Look at this way, your initial post regarding my post to River Jordan. Just as I might not understand the context in which you are replying to another forum member, I would probably get the meaning mixed up.

I don't think this discussion is what Paul had in mind when he coined the phrase, "Fight the good fight." Nor is "gospel" the good news about man's ancestors being a "beast."

Disputation over the semantics of how one uses the term "fight the good fight' with one not directly involved in the conversation isn't one I care to participate in yet is following a theory that is wrong any wiser than not following the right theory. Yet time is short so to answer briefly regarding your gospel about man's ancestors being a "beast"???- Romans 12:2-3 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will his Creator [3] For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

I am not sure how this answers my question. I do not see how repentance and grace are in any way related to Darwinian evolution or how the texts you cited above could in any way be used to validate such a perspective biblically. It is utter nonsense.
​

It should sound like utter nonsense since you jumped in with the wrong premise to begin with and creating beliefs of things you think I said. I am pressed for time so maybe later...​

 

[aspen]

brakelite - who are you talking to? And why are you so worked up?

UD - evil is broken good. God made Good after His own nature. His creation broke it.

i am just saying that we didnt have to break his creation in order to recognize or appreciate it. this teaching is found in the mormon church, not Christianity

 

[Wormwood]

I recall when the CERN facility first reported a neutrino had been documented traveling faster than the speed of light, the folks at the Institute for Creation Research issued a press release jumping stating that it perfectly well fit within the doctrine of Genesis, as if they had know it was actually true before the CERN experiment had even taken place. Yet it even made some scientist question whether it was possible or not.

However, while it seems the "let there be" precept would involve a process by which the Word manifested by the Spirit the light, atmosphere, and so forth, guess if the gospel of man's evolution from a beast is hid, it is only hid from them that are lost.

But, I hope you are not offended if I say that you're one hell of a man for standing up and fighting the good fight.

Sorry Forsakenone,

I was trying to make sense of this comment. I was trying to address the underlined part of your quote, but I clearly misunderstood your intent.