- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Seeking
Quote So now, where you are concerned, “opinions” are proof. I think not. Your “opinions” regarding the Bible being a fairy tale,”opinions” that there is no God, that Paul had a dream ARE NOT PROOF.
I KNOW! That’s why I said it was my OPINION! It is a fact that Paul never met Jesus, even though he appears to have made himself the messiah’s scriptwriter.Quote Mat 15:2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.”
Mar 7:3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands, holding to the tradition of the elders,
OK. That is very interesting. I retract what I said about hand washing. It would seem to be a custom with a very interesting history. I can’t find mention of it before the first century, where it appears to have originated as a Jewish cleansing ritual before prayers, washing hands in seawater. Washing hands before ordinary food appears to have been established by the first century, although it does not seem to be as old as the laws on pork and blood.Quote The Bible is right WITHOUT EQUIVOCATION unless the reader wants to find and contend equivocation.
You are just choosing to find no equivocation, although you are ignoring what I posted to do it.Quote Sorry, no PROOF yet.
Of what?Stuart
Seeking
Quote If someone says that Dr. Minnich’s arguments were “shot down in flames” at Dover, then I’m highly skeptical, and that is a mere assertion until someone shows exactly how and where it was “shot down”.
Can't you feel the wind from all that creationist back-pedaling in your post?http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day21am.html
…has the transcript starring Minnich:Q= Mr Harvey for the plaintiff; A=Minnich
Q. Now you and Dr. Behe claim that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex and thus could not evolve. Is that a fair statement of your position?
A. Correct. There is some — right. It's irreducibly complex in terms of the genetic analysis of the structure.
Q. Please tell me whether you agree with this statement. Neither you nor Dr. Behe has set out to do any original research to show that the bacterial flagellum could not have evolved, as you contend?
A. I think the work that I've published on for the last 12 years bears on this question of irreducible complexity, but I'm not aware of specific experiments addressing, you know, I mean, real lab experiments addressing the evolution of this structure.
There have been plenty of publications comparing the flagellum with the type III secretory system and whether it's an intermediate. So, in that sense, I think some of my work bears on that as well.
Q. So in other words, you agree with the statement I said?
A. Repeat the statement.
Q. Neither you nor Dr. Behe has set out to do any research to show that the bacterial flagellum could not have evolved?
A. I want to qualify that. You know, the thing that's interesting to me was, back in 1994, my laboratory, my students and I were the first to propose that the bacterial flagellum could be used for other than secretion of flagella proteins. We were the first to actually predict that the type III secretory system, which we didn't know existed at that time period, would either be the basal body of the flagellum or a structure that looked very much like it. Okay.
So I think that I have had some impact in this area directly. And the ironic thing is that, presenting this at scientific meetings and in grant proposals, it was considered a whimsical idea because there was no apriority evidence that the secretion of virulence factors or the flagellum had anything to do with each other.
Q. Well, would it be fair to say that, neither you nor Dr. Behe has published any papers in scientific journals on whether — on the evolution or not of either the type III secretory system or the bacterial flagellum?
A. I'm not funded to look at the evolution of the flagellum. I'm funded to look at its effect in terms of regulation and virulence and type III secretion.
Q. In other words, the statement I just said was true?
A. That's not the emphasis of my work.
Q. Now you did publish a paper, you told us about in your direct testimony, with Steven Meyer, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. That was published in some conference proceedings with respect to a conference that took place in Greece?
A. That's correct.
Q. And Steven Meyer is not a biologist, correct?
A. He's not. He's a philosopher of science.
Q. So he's not a scientist?
A. Well, he's a philosopher of science. He's trained as a physicist, my understanding, and work in that area for a while.
Q. Now this was a conference for engineers who used natural mechanisms to devise new technologies, do I understand that correctly?
A. Correct.
Q. It wasn't a conference for biologists or it wasn't a conference on evolutionary biology, was it?
A. It was a conference that included biologists and engineers and architects, as I discussed yesterday, looking at design in nature.
Q. And the paper that you published was only minimally peer reviewed, isn't that true?
A. For any conference proceeding, yeah. You don't go through the same rigor. I mentioned that yesterday. But it was reviewed by people in the Wessex Institute, and I don't know who they were.
Q. I'd like you to take a look at what's been marked as P-837. Matt, if you could bring that up.
A. May I just look off the screen?
Q. Yes. And in that paper, you cite several peer reviewed papers, including a paper in the Journal of Molecular Biology that suggests that the bacterial flagellum was the evolutionary pre-cursor to the type III secretory system, isn't that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And this actually is the paper you cite?
A. Correct.
Q. And from this paper, and this is in your report at — you stated this in your report at page 9. We'll bring that up. It's P-614. Matt, could you highlight the sentence that says, neither standard neo-Darwinism, in the bottom paragraph. It begins with — it's the third sentence. It begins, Given that neither. And from this paper, P-837, you draw the conclusion, as stated in your report, and this, I believe, is a quotation from the article, the conference proceeding paper, that, quotes, Neither standard neo-Darwinism nor co-option, has adequately accounted for the origin of these machines, or the appearance of design that they manifest. One might now consider the design hypothesis as the best explanation for the origin of irreducibly complex systems in living organisms. Isn't that true?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Now the paper that we just looked at, the one that you were relying on, that's a paper in a peer review journal, isn't that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And actually, you're aware that there are a number of papers in peer review journals on this same subject?
A. I am.
Q. For example, please take a look at what's been marked as P-284.
A. Got it.
Q. And if you look in the abstract, there's a sentence that I just want to bring you to, that I think it summarizes what we need to discuss. It's the fourth sentence in the abstract, Matt. The one that begins, Our analysis.
This says that, Our analysis indicates that the type III secretory system and the flagellar export mechanism share a common ancestor, but they have evolved independently from one another. Do you see that?
A. I see it.
Q. Unlike your paper, that is a peer reviewed scientific paper, correct?
A. In that — in that sense, yeah. Again, mine is a conference paper, so —
Q. This is a true peer reviewed paper, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Now I'd like you to look at another, if you turn to Exhibit P-740. This is another paper in a peer reviewed scientific journal called Trends in Microbiology, is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. I think I'd like to go to the second page of this, the paragraph on the right-hand side that begins on the right-hand side, Matt, about halfway down that paragraph, the sentence beginning with the words, regarding the bacterial flagellum, and the rest of that paragraph.
Now this says that, quotes, Regarding the bacterial flagellum and the TTSS's, we must consider three, and only three, possibilities. First, the TTSS came first. Second, the flagellar system came first. Or third, both systems evolved from a common pre-cursor. At present, too little information is available to distinguish between these possibilities with certainty. Do you see that?
A. I see it.
Q. Now I could show you, and I have in my notebook, a number of other peer reviewed scientific journals that discuss this subject. But would you agree with me that the — that how the bacterial flagel
lum and the type III secretory system evolved is an unsettled scientific question?A. Well, that's part of why we're here. It's a good scientific debate. And that's how science works. I think if you read — if you read the conclusion of this paper, Bill Sayer is favoring the fact that the flagellum came first.
And I think that the arguments and the evidence, not only the ones that we proffered in our conference paper, but the new evidence that's comes out, favors that, that scenario. I mean, this is — the type III secretory system is limited, to our knowledge now, to a narrow group of gram negative organisms, that the type III secretory system, from what we know now, only is designed to effect eukaryotic organisms either in a symbiotic relationship or a parasitic relationship.
So eukaryotic organisms evolved after prokaryotic organisms. The structure is directly to eukaryotic organisms. And you have to postulate that all the other bacteria, as they evolved, lost this TTS system, and that was only retained by this select group, you know.
So I think the evidence is getting to the point that we're going to side with the fact that the flagellum came first, more complex structure came first before the TTSS.
Q. There's actually a number of scientific papers that go the other way, isn't that correct?
A. Well, I think so. I think it's part of the nature of this debate. I mean, there's some subjectivity to it. If you look at Bill Sayers' first paper, just based on the sequence analysis, there's much tighter similarity between the type III secretory system proteins than there are in flagellum, which is an indication in evolutionary terms that these came later. They haven't evolved as much as the flagellar system.
In other words, NO I have not actually researched this; ALL my writing on the subject has been for creationists; YES others have published saying that the origins of the secretory type III system cannot be concluded; so NO my claims actually have no scientific standing.
Irreducible complexity means that if you remove one part then what you have is not useful for anything else. It is NOT a strawman, but perfectly reasonable to say that if you can find the same piece of machinery doing a different job then irreducible complexity is disproved. It is NOT reasonable to claim that if you knock out the flagellum an the system does not then begin to secrete proteins that it is irreducibly complex, that is the whole point of descent with modification: natural selection uses old parts for new jobs and the modification may mean the part can no longer do its original job. These creationists are being disingenuous because they have changed their claim from saying that, to demanding an evolutionary pathway. As usual, christian findamentalists have to move the goal posts for fear of being disproved.
By the way, why do you disagree with Dembski and Behe so vehemently about evolution?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ June 30 2009,04:28) Quote Sorry, no PROOF yet.
Of what?Stuart
Anything debunking Creationism, the Bibles historical accuracy or the accusation it is fairy tales and that Paul was delusional.Quote (SEEKING @ July 01 2009,04:52) Quote (Stu @ June 30 2009,04:28) Quote Sorry, no PROOF yet.
Of what?Stuart
Anything debunking Creationism, the Bibles historical accuracy or the accusation it is fairy tales and that Paul was delusional.
Because ID is a more refined version of creationism, if the creationists cannot find an example of something that IS irreducibly complex then they have a real problem on their hands. There is no theory of creation, but let's pretend that it might say all features of living things came into existence simultaneously, then you would expect to find irreducible complexity everywhere. Yet there is not even one clear example of it. Anyway, as there is no theory of creation, there is nothing to debunk. None of the ID bozos on the stand at Dover were able to give a scientific theory of ID, because there is no such thing.On the bible, there is no evidence of any merit presented by christians for the alleged flood. If it is onlya matter of a few thousand years ago you should be able to date it to within 50 years or so. They cannot even date the flood, so what a joke it is for any of them to claim it happened. When there is a date and evidence, then I will consider that there is something to disprove. Notwithstanding that, I have outlined the evidence against any recent global flood in the thread called “The too hard basket”. You might like to look there for details of that, and four other scriptural fallacies.
As for Paul, I just think he showed classic signs of delusion. What do you want, an ancient Palestinian psychologist's report?
All we have to go on is his rantings in the NT, and for the most part it is bigoted, anti-human bile predicated on a vision he had.
To pass that off as reality is delusional, IMO!Stuart
Quote (Stu @ June 30 2009,12:20) All we have to go on is his rantings in the NT, and for the most part it is bigoted, anti-human bile predicated on a vision he had.
To pass that off as reality is delusional, IMO!Stuart
Quote There is no theory of creation, You know better. It starts like this, “in the beginning God created…
Your admission regarding the statement, ” in the beginning God” is as follows –
Stu June 29, 2009
Quote Which is why claims about gods are not falsifiable. There is no test you can do to determine whether gods exist or not. June 29th 2009 stu Your dilemna is that you, admittedly, cannot disprove Creation Theories opening statement. You also admit “claims about God are not falsifiable.”
Quote On the bible, there is no evidence of any merit presented by christians for the alleged flood. So based on that you deny the historical accuracy of events , people, places, geography, etc. of the Bible yet claim the one little lie regrading Piltown Man is not adequate to dismiss evolution. You continue with your double standards.
Quote As for Paul, I just think he showed classic signs of delusion. What do you want, an ancient Palestinian psychologist's report? Shall we deem you delusional based on what one person, with no credentials, “thinks'?
Quote To pass that off as reality is delusional, IMO! To create a “Flying Spaghetti Monster” in your dreams and concoct a scenario that dicounts creationism is quite delusional also, IMO.
Seeking
Seeking
Quote You know better. It starts like this, “in the beginning God created…
And it goes no further than that, and is not a theory in the scientific sense, and any scientist whether deluded fundie or not should tell you the same.Quote Your admission regarding the statement, ” in the beginning God” is as follows – Stu June 29, 2009
Quote
Which is why claims about gods are not falsifiable. There is no test you can do to determine whether gods exist or not. June 29th 2009 stuYour dilemna is that you, admittedly, cannot disprove Creation Theories opening statement. You also admit “claims about God are not falsifiable.”
You cannot disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster. We established that before also. You cannot say that the FSM is NOT the creator of the universe any more than I can say your god is not.If the main point of your argument is that because I cannot disprove it then you are right, then I can choose any creation myth I like and assert it to you, and YOU cannot disprove it so I am right! So I choose… um… the Finnish myth of the egg (from the Holy Wikipedia):
Ancient Finns believed that the world was formed from an egg that was broken.
A bird was flying above the sea, seeking a place to make a nest and lay her eggs. She searched everywhere, but found nothing but water. Then she noticed the first dry place. In some stories it was an island, in other stories it was a boat and in other stories it was a body part of a floating being, like the wizard Väinämöinen. The place was too unstable for a nest: a big wave came and broke the eggs, spreading their parts all over. However the eggs were not wasted: the upper part of egg covers formed the sky, yolk became the sun, and lower parts of egg formed the mother earth. The first human was Väinämöinen, he was born from the maiden of air Ilmatar that was made pregnant by the sea. Väinämöinen ordered forests to be planted, and started human culture.
Christians love to put up their Judeo-christian creation myth as an explanation. Actually it explains nothing at all. Just like the Finnish egg myth.
Stuu: On the bible, there is no evidence of any merit presented by christians for the alleged flood.
Quote So based on that you deny the historical accuracy of events , people, places, geography, etc. of the Bible yet claim the one little lie regrading Piltown Man is not adequate to dismiss evolution. You continue with your double standards.
Piltdown is completely irrelevant, as I explained very carefully earlier with no refuation from you. Go back and refute that post before attempting to resuscitate a dead argument. Neither Lazarus nor Piltdown can help you here.I accept your lack of any specific response to my points about the flood as a tacet acceptance on your part that it is a biblical fantasy, and there is no good reason to think it happened. If you want to pursue it, tell me when it happened and what evidence there is for it.
Quote Shall we deem you delusional based on what one person, with no credentials, “thinks'?
If you like. However, it is not me making up philosophy on behalf of someone I only dreamed about.Quote To create a “Flying Spaghetti Monster” in your dreams and concoct a scenario that dicounts creationism is quite delusional also, IMO.
On the FSM (bhna), to have a literal belief in its existence I would agree would be delusional. As we have discussed already, the FSM is an allegory or a metaphor. On the other hand, creationism is piteous lying by people who do not seem to fear burning for their lies. To say that the human population at no stage ever numbered as low as two is not delusional, it is as good a fact as any in science: it would be perverse to claim there were ever only two humans. Do you prefer that creationists be called delusional or liars? It is almost certainly one of the two.Stuart
Stu,July wrote:[/quote]
Quote You cannot disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Wrong! Testimony by you and your fiction creator admit the FSM is a drempt about attempt to refute God. This, the false is falsifiable and proven as such.
Piltown Man a is as concrete as your bringing up of the flood.Again, scientist believe the flood has been disproven. But, Piltown man is another falsifiable lie admitted to as such. Big difference.
I accept your lack of specific response to the vast historical accuracies in the Bible as tacet acceptance that the Bible is an historically accurate document.
Quote To say that the human population at no stage ever numbered as low as two is not delusional, it is as good a fact as any in science More pious nonsense which you claim is a characteristic of Christians. What scientiost has been at ALL stages of human existence? Just one more bit of conjecture on the part of science that cannot be proven. NO FACT, NO PROOF.
Seeking
Seeking
Quote Testimony by you and your fiction creator admit the FSM is a drempt about attempt to refute God.
Please read previous posts again. I could be wrong about stating that the FSM does not exist. It might ACTUALLY exist despite my denial “testimony” (nullius in verbia, remember?) Do you remember when you said you could be wrong, and god might not exist? Same thing. I can make up whatever gods I want and you cannot disprove them. You cannot show that what you call ‘creation’ is the work of your god and not someone else’s.Quote This, the false is falsifiable and proven as such.
Where is your disproof?Quote Piltown Man a is as concrete as your bringing up of the flood.Again, scientist believe the flood has been disproven. But, Piltown man is another falsifiable lie admitted to as such. Big difference.
You are misrepresenting our earlier conversation on this point. Show that Piltdown plays a part in the modern evolutionary view and you might have a point. Would you like me to use the Catholic Inquisitions as an example of the violence of Jesus? Of course that would be absurd, but it is very similar to your disingenuous use of Piltdown. Remember, it was evolutionary biology that showed Piltdown was a fraud. There was no “admitting” to be done except on the part of the fraudsters.
Quote I accept your lack of specific response to the vast historical accuracies in the Bible as tacet acceptance that the Bible is an historically accurate document.
We have already been through this, too. The bible is historical fiction.Stuu: To say that the human population at no stage ever numbered as low as two is not delusional, it is as good a fact as any in science
Quote More pious nonsense which you claim is a characteristic of Christians. What scientiost has been at ALL stages of human existence?
Do you not believe in forensic evidence? Do you not believe in archeology? If not, then you should immediately retract your hypocritical claim that archeology is compatible with the bible, because you are now arguing against the same techniques you were championing just a few posts ago.Just one more bit of conjecture on the part of science that cannot be proven. NO FACT, NO PROOF.
If I gave you the facts, would you understand them? Given that you cannot retain an argument past a page or two, would these not be pearls I would be casting to rest on the ground, ignored by you?Here is one: can you imagine being Adam and Eve and having the burden of carrying every human-specific parasite known in order that those parasites continue in existence today? …Unless you believe in evolution of those parasites from other species, in which case you would know the other reasons why Adam and Eve cannot be the sole progenitors of all humanity. It is a religious fantasy and a biological impossibility.
Stuart
Stu,July wrote:[/quote]
Quote Remember, it was evolutionary biology that showed Piltdown was a fraud. Once Piltown was shown to be a fraud it would be foolish to hold it as a part of your present theory. If in fact it is a “scientifically proven” fraud it would seem equally foolish to state, “I could be wrong Piltown may really exist.”
Once it was admitted that FSM was fabricated it would be fooloish to say, “I could be wrong it might ACTUALLY exist.”Either that or we can know nothing because anything is an undiscovered possibility.
That being true we would have what I have expresses before, two opposing THEORIES each of which cannot be proven.
Quote Here is one: can you imagine being Adam and Eve and having the burden of carrying every human-specific parasite known in order that those parasites continue in existence today? You must first conclude that you know for a certainty that those “human- specific” parasites could not have existed outside the human vessel prior.
Quote …Unless you believe in evolution of those parasites from other species, Here you resolve the problem by stating that the parasites evolved from other species before taking residence in the human species. The Genesis account does not state that Adam and Eve existed alone as the only species.
This thread is the discussion of the historical accuracy of the Bible. Parasites have little to do with that discussion.
Quote The bible is historical fiction. PROOF? Would you like me to say the whole theory of evolution is fraud and lies based on Piltown Man?
Seeking
Seeking
Quote Remember, it was evolutionary biology that showed Piltdown was a fraud.
Once Piltown was shown to be a fraud it would be foolish to hold it as a part of your present theory. If in fact it is a “scientifically proven” fraud it would seem equally foolish to state, “I could be wrong Piltown may really exist.” [/quote]
Do you understand the difference between proof and disproof?Quote Once it was admitted that FSM was fabricated it would be fooloish to say, “I could be wrong it might ACTUALLY exist.”Either that or we can know nothing because anything is an undiscovered possibility. You cannot know whether the FSM really exists because he is in the supernatural, beyond your ability to test anything. It is in exactly the situation you have placed your god. You are just starting to get it with that last statement. If something is not falsifiable, then you can know nothing because it remains an undiscovered possibility. That is exactly the status of you god: it is undiscovered in any world-wide sense (ie: Hindus have not discovered it and they have been given no good reason to believe in it). The bizarre thing is that christians will tell you exactly what their god wants for everyone, but they cannot verify any of it.
That being true we would have what I have expresses before, two opposing THEORIES each of which cannot be proven.
But since you don’t seem to be able to get your head around the concept of a scientific theory, nor the concepts of proof and disproof in their scientific senses, it would seem to be a pointless exercise to even discuss it. You keep using the word theory without telling me what yours actually is. Genesis 1:1 is not a scientific theory.Stuu: Here is one: can you imagine being Adam and Eve and having the burden of carrying every human-specific parasite known in order that those parasites continue in existence today?
Quote You must first conclude that you know for a certainty that those “human- specific” parasites could not have existed outside the human vessel prior.
When exactly?Stuu: …Unless you believe in evolution of those parasites from other species,
Quote Here you resolve the problem by stating that the parasites evolved from other species before taking residence in the human species. The Genesis account does not state that Adam and Eve existed alone as the only species.
This is real progress. You are a fan of ID and you think that species of parasite have adapted into other species of parasite. Notwithstanding the touches of creationism left, this is your wholesale endorsement of Darwinian natural selection. At last we agree!Quote This thread is the discussion of the historical accuracy of the Bible. Parasites have little to do with that discussion.
But you have demonstrated that they do. Is Adam and Eve a reality? No, for all the other reasons.
Stuu: The bible is historical fiction.Quote PROOF? Would you like me to say the whole theory of evolution is fraud and lies based on Piltown Man?
You have already tried that and have been proven wrong.The bible has some aspects of history right. Although you do not seem to accept archeology, I do, and that archeology does indeed indicate that many of the kings, places and events depicted did indeed exist. Just because some of them were real does not mean that all of the fantasy stories about gods and demons have any basis in reality. Fantasy stories set in legitimate historical settings are called historical fiction. I accept that there are things that are true in the bible, but it is not up to me to show you that the fictional part did not happen. As we have been over already, science cannot prove a negative: once again the burden of proof of Imaginary Friends and their magic is on you. You like science to show the correct bits of the bible but you do not like it when science contradicts the bible. Do you think it is honest to try and have it both ways?
Stuart
Oh dear. Attempt 2:
Seeking
Stu: Remember, it was evolutionary biology that showed Piltdown was a fraud.
Quote Once Piltown was shown to be a fraud it would be foolish to hold it as a part of your present theory. If in fact it is a “scientifically proven” fraud it would seem equally foolish to state, “I could be wrong Piltown may really exist.”
Do you understand the difference between proof and disproof?Quote Once it was admitted that FSM was fabricated it would be fooloish to say, “I could be wrong it might ACTUALLY exist.”Either that or we can know nothing because anything is an undiscovered possibility.
You cannot know whether the FSM really exists because he is in the supernatural, beyond your ability to test anything. It is in exactly the situation you have placed your god. You are just starting to get it with that last statement. If something is not falsifiable, then you can know nothing because it remains an undiscovered possibility. That is exactly the status of you god: it is undiscovered in any world-wide sense (ie: Hindus have not discovered it and they have been given no good reason to believe in it). The bizarre thing is that christians will tell you exactly what their god wants for everyone, but they cannot verify any of it.Quote That being true we would have what I have expresses before, two opposing THEORIES each of which cannot be proven.
But since you don’t seem to be able to get your head around the concept of a scientific theory, nor the concepts of proof and disproof in their scientific senses, it would seem to be a pointless exercise to even discuss it. You keep using the word theory without telling me what yours actually is. Genesis 1:1 is not a scientific theory.Stuu: Here is one: can you imagine being Adam and Eve and having the burden of carrying every human-specific parasite known in order that those parasites continue in existence today?
Quote You must first conclude that you know for a certainty that those “human- specific” parasites could not have existed outside the human vessel prior.
When exactly?Stuu: …Unless you believe in evolution of those parasites from other species,
Quote Here you resolve the problem by stating that the parasites evolved from other species before taking residence in the human species. The Genesis account does not state that Adam and Eve existed alone as the only species.
This is real progress. You are a fan of ID and you think that species of parasite have adapted into other species of parasite. Notwithstanding the touches of creationism left, this is your wholesale endorsement of Darwinian natural selection. At last we agree!Quote This thread is the discussion of the historical accuracy of the Bible. Parasites have little to do with that discussion.
But you have demonstrated that they do. Is Adam and Eve a reality? No, for all the other reasons.
Stuu: The bible is historical fiction.Quote PROOF? Would you like me to say the whole theory of evolution is fraud and lies based on Piltown Man?
You have already tried that and have been proven wrong.The bible has some aspects of history right. Although you do not seem to accept archeology, I do, and that archeology does indeed indicate that many of the kings, places and events depicted did indeed exist. Just because some of them were real does not mean that all of the fantasy stories about gods and demons have any basis in reality. Fantasy stories set in legitimate historical settings are called historical fiction. I accept that there are things that are true in the bible, but it is not up to me to show you that the fictional part did not happen. As we have been over already, science cannot prove a negative: once again the burden of proof of Imaginary Friends and their magic is on you. You like science to show the correct bits of the bible but you do not like it when science contradicts the bible. Do you think it is honest to try and have it both ways?
Stuart
Stu,July wrote:[/quote]
Quote It is in exactly the situation you have placed your god. You are just starting to get it with that last statement. If something is not falsifiable, then you can know nothing because it remains an undiscovered possibility. Ah yes! Look at who is “starting to get it.” “In the beginning God created” is just what you described, 'UNDISCOVERED POSSIBILITY.” Modern day science is simply discovering and revealing what the creator has always known.
Quote it would seem to be a pointless exercise to even discuss it. You keep using the word theory without telling me what yours actually is. Genesis 1:1 is not a scientific theory See above. On several occasions I have given you the theory
of creation. Read on in Genesis for the unfolding. It is your bias that makes discussion pointless. You and your scientists are discovering and unfolding what always has been. Your best explanation for the beginning is a “Big Bang” that gave us this complex world and universe.Quote The bible is historical fiction. Science is mans conjecture, an attempt to explain and discover what he knows nothing about.
Quote Would you like me to say the whole theory of evolution is fraud and lies based on Piltown Man? The bible has some aspects of history right. Although you do not seem to accept archeology, I do, and that archeology does indeed indicate that many of the kings, places and events depicted did indeed exist. Just because some of them were real does not mean that all of the fantasy stories about gods and demons have any basis in reality. Fantasy stories set in legitimate historical settings are called historical fiction. I accept that there are things that are true in the bible, but it is not up to me to show you that the fictional part did not happen. As we have been over already, science cannot prove a negative: once again the burden of proof of Imaginary Friends and their magic is on you. You like science to show the correct bits of the bible but you do not like it when science contradicts the bible. Do you think it is honest to try and have it both ways?
You speak of the Bible as fiction because parts are not true to your reason. I do not write off the Bible based on what you think are “fairy tales” any more quickly than you write off evolution based on Piltown Man (which is only one of many frauds). Science can theorize all it wants, I do not mind. As you said, “it cannot prove…”
Quote once again the burden of proof of Imaginary Friends and their magic is on you It has been proven in historical acounts, witness statements,
and experiences of those who were there. Your rejection of the record is not valid disproof.Quote That is exactly the status of you god: it is undiscovered in any world-wide sense (ie: Hindus have not discovered it and they have been given no good reason to believe in it). Hinduism
the common religion of India, based upon the religion of the original Aryan settlers as expounded and evolved in the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Bhagavad-Gita, etc., having an extremely diversified character with many schools of philosophy and theology, many popular cults, and a large pantheonsymbolizing the many attributes of a single god Buddhism and Jainism are outside the Hindu tradition but are regarded as related religions.
They get the “single God” concept. It is you who struggle with it.
Seeking
Seeking
Quote Ah yes! Look at who is “starting to get it.” “In the beginning God created” is just what you described, 'UNDISCOVERED POSSIBILITY.” Modern day science is simply discovering and revealing what the creator has always known.
But it explains nothing. “No god ever did anything” is just as valid a conclusion to make from what you write here.Quote On several occasions I have given you the theory
of creation. Read on in Genesis for the unfolding. It is your bias that makes discussion pointless. You and your scientists are discovering and unfolding what always has been.
Evidence? Falsifiable? Predictive? There is no theory in Genesis. It is either irrelevant or wrong about cosmology. Have you read the thread called “The too hard basket” yet?Quote Your best explanation for the beginning is a “Big Bang” that gave us this complex world and universe.
That is your best explanation as well. Your alternative is neither an explanation, not a theory, which you would know if you had done the reading I suggested.Quote Science is mans conjecture, an attempt to explain and discover what he knows nothing about.
Not sure I have much more patience for you Seeking. You seem to have no commitment to your username at all. You have educated me about the handwashing thing, I am permanently changed in my thinking about that. What permanent change in your thinking has this conversation had on you? You keep going back to nonsense arguments for which I have provided answers, for which in turn you have made no answer. You cannot answer my points yet you persist in misrepresenting things and speculating on stuff YOU know nothing about. I have to say it is getting a bit tedious.Quote You speak of the Bible as fiction because parts are not true to your reason.
When did the flood happen, and what evidence is there for it being global?Quote I do not write off the Bible based on what you think are “fairy tales” any more quickly than you write off evolution based on Piltown Man (which is only one of many frauds). Science can theorize all it wants, I do not mind. As you said, “it cannot prove…”
In the way you use language, the bible has been proven wrong, evolution has been proved beyond any doubt and there is no proof for the existence of any gods. It is not the way I use language but if you insist on using the wrong word, then these things are proved beyond any reasonable doubt. The kinds of doubt that fundies have is unreasonable.Quote It has been proven in historical acounts, witness statements,
and experiences of those who were there. Your rejection of the record is not valid disproof.
You have not demonstrated it true, and for the third time, you have not addressed the fact that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I say there are fairies at the bottom of my garden and the burden of proof is on you to show that I am wrong. Is that fair, do you think?Stuu:That is exactly the status of you god: it is undiscovered in any world-wide sense (ie: Hindus have not discovered it and they have been given no good reason to believe in it).
Quote Hinduism the common religion of India, based upon the religion of the original Aryan settlers as expounded and evolved in the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Bhagavad-Gita, etc., having an extremely diversified character with many schools of philosophy and theology, many popular cults, and a large pantheonsymbolizing the many attributes of a single god Buddhism and Jainism are outside the Hindu tradition but are regarded as related religions.
They get the “single God” concept. It is you who struggle with it.
So what? They do not believe in YOUR god! That was my exact point, which once again you have not addressed.
You need to lift your game here Seeking, you are being walked all over and you are not quite realising it.
You probably know your scripture, better than me. How about you learn your philosophy of science and evidence for cosmology and biological origins and get back to us when you know something about them.Stuart
Stu,July wrote:[/quote]
Quote Not sure I have much more patience for you Seeking. You seem to have no commitment to your username at all. Quote You cannot answer my points yet you persist in misrepresenting things and speculating on stuff YOU know nothing about. I have to say it is getting a bit tedious. Quote You need to lift your game here Seeking, you are being walked all over and you are not quite realising it. Thank you for your vast array of admiration.
Quote You probably know your scripture, better than me. How about you learn your philosophy of science and evidence for cosmology and biological origins and get back to us when you know something about them. How about I do that when you learn scripture. Get back to us when YOU know something about them.
Quote You have educated me about the handwashing thing, I am permanently changed in my thinking about that. I am glad you learned something from our time together. Keep reading on Heaven Net you have more education open to you here.
Seeking
Seeking
Here are some questions I have posed to you that you have not been able or willing to answer:
Are you foolish for denying the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
How is your god not exactly as fictional as the FSM (bhna)?
How is [Paul’s] testimony not completely corrupted by his blindness to all but what he preached?
What evidence supports [the “creation theory”], what falsifies it and what predictions does it make?
Did you read the links I posted or do you exclusively consume Discovery Institute propaganda?
Who is to say all your historians and witnesses know any better than me?
Can you give me a single example of a falsifiable creationist claim that has not been falsified?
Why do you disagree with Dembski and Behe so vehemently about evolution?
Do you understand the difference between proof and disproof?
Do you think it is honest to try and have it both ways [you like science confirming scripture but hate when it negates it]?
Have you read the thread called “The too hard basket” yet?
When did the flood happen, and what evidence is there for it being global?
Stuart
Stu,July wrote:[/quote]
Quote Seeking Here are some questions I have posed to you that you have not been able or willing to answer:
Rather, you have ignored any answers given stating they are by “fundies” “Fiction” etc.
Quote Are you foolish for denying the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Not at all. You have admitted FSM is fictional and the inventors of this myth have plainly stated it was their offer to oppose another theory.
Quote How is your god not exactly as fictional as the FSM (bhna)? No one who has attested to God, Jesus, the resurrection has come forth and said I lied or created something in my mind. No one has ever stated they “invented” God to oppose something else. Not true of your FSM. There is no comparison.
Quote How is [Paul’s] testimony not completely corrupted by his blindness to all but what he preached? Here again you make an authoritative statement about something YOU know nothing about. YOU believe he is closed minded and his testimony is corrupted. In fact, the record indicates he was willing to have his preaching scrutinizied by others – Gal 2:2 I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain.
Quote What evidence supports [the “creation theory”], what falsifies it and what predictions does it make? Again, the internet is replete with this information. That you reject it as valid is clear, but the answers you seek are there.
Quote Did you read the links I posted or do you exclusively consume Discovery Institute propaganda? Yes. No.
Quote Who is to say all your historians and witnesses know any better than me? My response to this was “and vice versa.”
Quote Can you give me a single example of a falsifiable creationist claim that has not been falsified? My response to this was that it was double talk. You later admitted that the statement “In the beginning God” was not falsifiable.
Quote Why do you disagree with Dembski and Behe so vehemently about evolution? I posted a counter theory and you deem that “vehement disagreement.
Quote Do you understand the difference between proof and disproof? In who's opinion? You have labeled me as quite uninformed if not nigh unto ignorant.
Quote Do you think it is honest to try and have it both ways [you like science confirming scripture but hate when it negates it]? As with all the others, I have answered this one too. Science poses an alternate conviction which does NOT negate
any more than when Creation Theory poses an alternative to Evolution. It is only validated or negated in the mind of the one considering the evidence.Quote Have you read the thread called “The too hard basket” yet? No.
Quote When did the flood happen, and what evidence is there for it being global? About 2348BC. Evidence: the Bible and people you deem as
ignorant fundies such as Henry Morris.Stu,
Your game is quite interesting. Discredit, ignore, and refuse to consider all opposing evidence. Then present yours as the only valid, sane, concrete understanding. From that foundation you ask others to “prove” something. Cute! Forgive me for not playing. Must be my ignorance.
Seeking
'Scientism' infects Darwinian debates
An unflinching belief that science can explain everything about evolution becomes its own ideology
By Douglas Todd, Vancouver
Sun April 4, 2009There are two major obstacles to a rich public discussion on Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and what it means to all of us.
The most obvious obstacle is religious literalism, which leads to Creationism. It's the belief the Bible or other ancient sacred texts offer the first and last word on how humans came into existence.
The second major barrier to a rewarding public conversation about the impact of evolution on the way we understand the world is not named nearly as much.
It is “scientism.”
Scientism is the belief that the sciences have no boundaries and will, in the end, be able to explain everything in the universe. Scientism can, like religious literalism, become its own ideology.
The Encyclopedia of Science, Technology and Ethics defines scientism as “an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of natural science to be applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences and the humanities).”
Those who unknowingly fall into the trap of scientism act as if hard science is the only way of knowing reality. If something can't be “proved” through the scientific method, through observable and measurable evidence, they say it's irrelevant.
Scientism is terribly limiting of human understanding. It leaves little or no place for the insights of the arts, philosophy, psychology, literature, mythology, dreams, music, the emotions or spirituality.
In general, scientism leaves little or no place for the imagination, which Albert Einstein, after all, said is “everything.”
Many people have been falling into the trap of scientism this year as commentators, including myself, have examined the legacy of Darwin, whose book, On the Origin of Species, was published 150 years ago.
While I am not at all persuaded by Creationists who believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, I also have trouble with those who claim science can only support the atheistic proposal that evolution is a result of pure chance.
Such people maintain orthodox science cannot contemplate the possibility that the evolutionary process may include elements of purpose. This is an example of scientism.
One of the scientists who appears to illustrate this view is Patrick Walden, who works at the TRIUMF Cyclotron Laboratory on the University of B.C. campus.
Walden had a punchy opinion piece published in Monday's Vancouver Sun in which he began by applauding my proposal that public schools and universities expose more students to Darwin's evolutionary theory.
While I greatly appreciate Walden's willingness to step out of the confines of academia and take on the role of public intellectual, I disagree with the second part of his commentary.
Walden was bothered by my recommendation that the education system and the media help the public learn there is more than one operative theory of evolution — that there are at least 12.
Walden assumed I was challenging the general validity of Darwin's theory of evolution. I wasn't.
I think the proposal that humans evolved over billions of years from simpler life forms is a no-brainer.However, I don't believe either Darwin or neo-Darwinists have yet devised a complete picture of how evolution happens, or what drives it.
I detected more than a hint of scientism when Walden declared that neo-Darwinism (which he called “the modern evolutionary synthesis”) is the only theory accepted by respectable scientists.
Walden said four of the other scientific theories of evolution outlined by Phipps in his article in EnlightenNext journal, including biologist's Lynn Margulis theory of cooperation, are mere “additions” to neo-Darwinism.
Beyond that, Walden said the other seven proposed theories of evolution, some of which included philosophical and spiritual perspectives, are nothing more than “pseudo-scientific speculation.” As such, he said, “they are nonsense.”
In other words, Walden, whose viewpoint represents that of many scientists, appears to believe that any discussion of evolution that does not uphold chance as the only driving force is ridiculous.
This is blinkered.
It defaults to atheism. And it assumes incorrectly that what we believe, and the way we live, is always based on provable “facts,” which do not include conjecture, speculation or imagination.
Science has always had a speculative component, as we see with theories about quantum physics and the Big Bang and evolution.Arguing that any theory about what drives evolution that is not essentially neo-Darwinistic is “nonsense” reflects blindness to the insights that have been offered by philosophy, cosmology and metaphysics, let alone the arts.
In addition to suggesting Walden's approach reflects scientism, I would also say it is a manifestation of “disciplinolatry,” which is the conviction that one academic discipline contains everything that needs to be known about a subject.
Walden attempts to mock the idea that philosophy and even spirituality could be considered when trying to understand what fuels evolution. He acts as if I am arguing for Madame Blavatsky's 19th-century esoteric theories (and her anti-Semitic views) to replace Darwin in public school science classes.
By creating this red herring, Walden ignores the great 20th-century thinkers who have embraced evolutionary theory while offering innovative non-atheistic understandings about how it happens.
They include Alfred North Whitehead, Charles Hartshorne, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Marshal McLuhan, John Cobb, Ken Wilber, Charles Birch and countless other scientists and philosophers who are not as easy to write off as the eccentric Blavatsky.
The truth is that many scientists are slowly becoming more open to at least discussing the possibility that elements of purpose, not just chance, are inherent in the evolutionary process.
They include the noted biologist Lynn Margulis, the first wife of the late astronomer Carl Sagan, and their science writer son, Dorion Sagan.Walden appears to think highly of Margulis as an evolutionary theorist. But he fails to appreciate Margulis is willing to expand her mind beyond scientism.
Margulis and Sagan took part this year in an interdisciplinary conference on evolution with philosophers, scientists and theologians at the Vatican.
They have also contributed to books with spiritually inclined scientists and philosophers, including Back to Darwin: A Richer Account of Evolution (Eerdmans), edited by John Cobb.
Back to Darwin says the lively exchange Margulis and Sagan join in on in the book “presents a holistic case for evolution that both theists and nontheists can accept.”
I would like to think Margulis and Sagan would also be willing to have some of the 12 theories of evolution discussed in public schools — if not in biology classes, at least in courses on the history of science or the philosophy of science, as well as in classes on philosophy, world religions and metaphysics.
The general theory of evolution has been widely accepted by both atheists and thinkers with spiritual sensitivities.
Everyone would agree, however, that evolution is also a theory that is incomplete.
When more evolutionary scientists open up to the insights of philosophers and those from other disciplines, I believe their beloved theory will itself evolve. It will become more complex and more elegant.
Seeking
Quote No one who has attested to God, Jesus, the resurrection has come forth and said I lied or created something in my mind. No one has ever stated they “invented” God to oppose something else. Not true of your FSM. There is no comparison.
That is not true. There are many thousands of former christians who have said words to exactly that effect.Quote Here again you make an authoritative statement about something YOU know nothing about. YOU believe [Paul] is closed minded and his testimony is corrupted. In fact, the record indicates he was willing to have his preaching scrutinizied by others – Gal 2:2 I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain.
Did he ask a philosopher or a skeptic? No of course not, his attitude always was:Gal1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
In Corinthians he gives the game away:
1 Cor 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord:…
Sorry? Who do christians follow?
Here is the answer! Paul claims to follow Jesus, but YOU should follow PAUL:
1 Cor 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
Is Paul an atheist by Ps 14:1??
11:23 Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more;
Stu: What evidence supports [the “creation theory”], what falsifies it and what predictions does it make?
Quote Again, the internet is replete with this information. That you reject it as valid is clear, but the answers you seek are there.
I have never read a creation theory on the internet. Can you please give me a link to a theory of Divine Breathing into Dirt or Theory of Divine Speaking Things into Existence[/I] that is falsifiable, evidence-based and makes predictions for future observations?You could find the hypotheses about talking snakes and solid firmaments while you are at it.
Stu: Did you read the links I posted or do you exclusively consume Discovery Institute propaganda?
Quote Yes. No.
Just for the record, can you give me an example of a source that deals in real science that you have consulted?Stu: Who is to say all your historians and witnesses know any better than me?
Quote My response to this was “and vice versa.”
OK. I accept your concession that my word is just as good as theirs. Of course we have already been over how revealed knowledge is pathetic in the face of modern science.Stu: Can you give me a single example of a falsifiable creationist claim that has not been falsified?
Quote My response to this was that it was double talk. You later admitted that the statement “In the beginning God” was not falsifiable.
So can you give me a single example of a falsifiable creationist claim that has not been falsified?Stu: Why do you disagree with Dembski and Behe so vehemently about evolution?
Quote I posted a counter theory and you deem that “vehement disagreement.
I saw no theory. You like their arguments but you must loathe their adherence to Darwinian natural selection. What strange bedfellows you have kept.Stu: Do you understand the difference between proof and disproof?
Quote In who's opinion? You have labeled me as quite uninformed if not nigh unto ignorant.
Can I have an opinion about the meaning of ‘cat’ or ‘fallacy’? I know christians try to have it both ways with definitions of words. I’ll take your answer as a “no”.Stu: Do you think it is honest to try and have it both ways [you like science confirming scripture but hate when it negates it]?
Quote As with all the others, I have answered this one too. Science poses an alternate conviction which does NOT negate any more than when Creation Theory poses an alternative to Evolution. It is only validated or negated in the mind of the one considering the evidence.
That is where you are wrong. Firstly, WHAT CREATION THEORY?, and secondly, while religious revelation is indeed no more than a matter of opinion, science is no matter of opinion at all. The evidence does ALL the talking, and if the conclusions cannot be agreed upon then judgement is suspended.Now, do you have an answer to the question about the honesty of using science to support your beliefs on the one hand and denying it on the other?
Stu: When did the flood happen, and what evidence is there for it being global?
Quote About 2348BC. Evidence: the Bible and people you deem as ignorant fundies such as Henry Morris.
OK. Progress. Mr. Morris has gone out on a limb by making a falsifiable claim about his religion: that there was a global flood in 2348BC. What evidence is there for it being global? Once you have provided that then we can disprove it properly.Quote Your game is quite interesting. Discredit, ignore, and refuse to consider all opposing evidence.
You have not presented any evidence. I have. You have not refuted MY evidence. So who is the hypocritical one?Quote Then present yours as the only valid, sane, concrete understanding. From that foundation you ask others to “prove” something. Cute! Forgive me for not playing. Must be my ignorance.
Must be.Stuart
Seeking
Quote Scientism is the belief that the sciences have no boundaries and will, in the end, be able to explain everything in the universe. Scientism can, like religious literalism, become its own ideology.
I am not one of them. Science has its boundaries clearly defined by the boundaries of the empirically observable world. There definitely are things we cannot know about. The inside of a black hole, and what is happening on a scale smaller than 10^-35 metres are two examples. Those who would hide gods in those gaps are disingenuous, because they cannot know anything more about them than anyone else.
[quoteWalden was bothered by my recommendation that the education system and the media help the public learn there is more than one operative theory of evolution — that there are at least 12.Walden said four of the other scientific theories of evolution outlined by Phipps in his article in EnlightenNext journal, including biologist's Lynn Margulis theory of cooperation, are mere “additions” to neo-Darwinism.[/quote]
He is right. Do you understand the work of Lynn Margulis? You would not agree with it.Quote The truth is that many scientists are slowly becoming more open to at least discussing the possibility that elements of purpose, not just chance, are inherent in the evolutionary process.
And yet they have not one scrap of evidence for their speculation, and more often than not the scientists listed under this category are in the 4% of scientists who reject Darwinian evolution, almost all of whom are fundies working in some non-biological field.Quote Margulis and Sagan took part this year in an interdisciplinary conference on evolution with philosophers, scientists and theologians at the Vatican.
Back to Darwin says the lively exchange Margulis and Sagan join in on in the book “presents a holistic case for evolution that both theists and nontheists can accept.”
So they cosied up to the pope. Some christians love them for it. Big deal.Stuart
Second attempt at the post above:
Seeking
Quote Scientism is the belief that the sciences have no boundaries and will, in the end, be able to explain everything in the universe. Scientism can, like religious literalism, become its own ideology.
I am not one of them. Science has its boundaries clearly defined by the boundaries of the empirically observable world. There definitely are things we cannot know about. The inside of a black hole, and what is happening on a scale smaller than 10^-35 metres are two examples. Those who would hide gods in those gaps are disingenuous, because they cannot know anything more about them than anyone else.Quote Walden was bothered by my recommendation that the education system and the media help the public learn there is more than one operative theory of evolution — that there are at least 12. Walden said four of the other scientific theories of evolution outlined by Phipps in his article in EnlightenNext journal, including biologist's Lynn Margulis theory of cooperation, are mere “additions” to neo-Darwinism.
He is right. Do you understand the work of Lynn Margulis? You would not agree with it.Quote The truth is that many scientists are slowly becoming more open to at least discussing the possibility that elements of purpose, not just chance, are inherent in the evolutionary process.
And yet they have not one scrap of evidence for their speculation, and more often than not the scientists listed under this category are in the 4% of scientists who reject Darwinian evolution, almost all of whom are fundies working in some non-biological field.Quote Margulis and Sagan took part this year in an interdisciplinary conference on evolution with philosophers, scientists and theologians at the Vatican.
Back to Darwin says the lively exchange Margulis and Sagan join in on in the book “presents a holistic case for evolution that both theists and nontheists can accept.”
So they cosied up to the pope. Some christians love them for it. Big deal.Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
