|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 12/06/2003 : 19:47:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Dave:
Sorry about my presumptiveness over the whole screen-name thing. Anyway, I'm about a quarter of the way through a high-school textbook on physics, but so far I've studied calculations for gravity due to mass, et cet. I'm sure you'll all have a field day with this info, but I'm a seventeen-year-old living in Wasilla, Alaska, population approximately 5,000.
As for 'disproving my faith' my faith says that the world was created 6,000 years ago, and that's what I'm attempting to find out. As for my skepticism of faith in scientists, the whole Archeoptryx fraud made me wary of trusting them. I'm not saying that we shouldn't believe something that we can't prove, I'm just saying that Christians who don't know their faith is just as bad as atheists who don't understand how scientists get their answers.
Time's up, gotta go.
Hippy
I'm envious. I've always wanted to visit Alaska.
I couldn't find my Archeoptryx link and Talk Origins seems to be on the hawg, but here's another early flier:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0121_030122_dromaeosaur.html
It seems that China has become a treasure trove for these fascinating fossils of several species.
As you progress in your studies, I wonder how you'll deal with the impossibility of a 6,000 year-old earth. When we get TO back, I reccomend it.
I really have no desire to disprove your faith. I am not an evangelical atheist. But if you have a serious interest in science, you will find a way to reconcile it. Many respected scientists, including such as Joe Meert and Glenn Morton, et al, have managed it.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2003 : 21:48:15 [Permalink]
|
Hippy wrote:quote:
Sorry about my presumptiveness over the whole screen-name thing.
Cool, don't worry about it.quote:
Anyway, I'm about a quarter of the way through a high-school textbook on physics, but so far I've studied calculations for gravity due to mass, et cet. I'm sure you'll all have a field day with this info, but I'm a seventeen-year-old living in Wasilla, Alaska, population approximately 5,000.
Nah, we won't have a field day with that. What we have field days with are teenagers who come here, make baldly incorrect assertions about evolution, and then taunt us by saying something like, "you look real funny being stumped by a 14-year-old." You haven't done that, so no field day.  quote:
As for 'disproving my faith' my faith says that the world was created 6,000 years ago, and that's what I'm attempting to find out.
I'll just begin with: "what Les said." It's important to figure out what, to you, are the vital parts of your faith. I know of several "liberal fundamentalists" who consider Jesus' message to be the most important thing in their lives, ever, and yet who would consider a truly literal reading of the Bible to be a "legal" matter, and more-or-less beneath them. Jesus has some really important things to say about how we should live, worship, and treat each other. To get bogged down in the pre-Jesus details seems to me to be missing the point of what Jesus taught.
But I'm no theologian, and could be all wrong. Instead, I'd be very interested if you could tell us why your personal faith hinges (at least in part) upon the age of the Earth.quote:
As for my skepticism of faith in scientists, the whole Archeoptryx fraud made me wary of trusting them.
Again: "what Les said."
A better example might be Piltdown Man, which was accepted by some percentage of scientists for decades until it was found (by other scientists) to be a hoax. And then there is the case of the guy who had to give himself a stomach ulcer to prove that a bacterial infection can cause them. But perhaps the best example is that of Plate Tectonics. The proponent of that idea was laughed at and treated with much scorn by his fellow geologists until enough data was collected (again, after decades), and he was shown to be correct. This is a case where the vast majority of scientists were wrong, yet believed otherwise, and openly ridiculed the one guy who was right ("The continents move? What an idiotic thing to say!").
But what do these three examples have in common? They demonstrate science's self-correcting nature, its ability to figure out what's right, even when what's right is unpopular. It might take some time, but eventually the evidence wins out over the dogma. Those people who call themselves scientists but who refuse to acknowledge the evidence, and instead continue to believe the incorrect dogma are known (in the physics world, at least) as crackpots. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2003 : 05:36:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But what do these three examples have in common? They demonstrate science's self-correcting nature, its ability to figure out what's right, even when what's right is unpopular. It might take some time, but eventually the evidence wins out over the dogma. Those people who call themselves scientists but who refuse to acknowledge the evidence, and instead continue to believe the incorrect dogma are known (in the physics world, at least) as crackpots.
Thanks, Dave!
'Crackpots' gave me a chuckle, it did, probably because, in my reading, I've stumbled across much of it.
ICR, hmm. Wasn't it one of the Morris boys who said (paraphrasing a bit), "If the data is not consistant with my interpretation of the Bible, then the data is flawed." Or perhaps it was Philip Johnson -- I don't remember. Whatever, this is not the sort of statement that inspires confidence in the research, if research it be.
ICR, AiG, Hovind (I would love to attend one of Dr. Dino's lectures. He truly has the gift of gab, I'm told), and others do no real research. What they do is attempt to mold the work of others to fit their own views, thereby debunking the ToE. Or trying to. Their papers, only peer reviewed by other creationists, not mainstream science, are filled with bits and pieces of selective facts, fictions and fantasies. And occasionally, sadly, outright lies. An harsh inditment, perhaps, but true as any careful comparison will show. They also publish a lot of fluff pieces in the guise of science. They are usually quite well written and can often mislead the layman.
My favorite ICR story (If you want to read it today, you'll have to buy a book. It was published on the site when I saw it) concerns a couple of guys who went to Alaska in search of unfossilized dinosaur bones  . It was a fun read, but to cut a long story short, after many exciting adventures, they were in a canoe going rapidly down stream, when one spotted what turned out to be the nice, all-but-fresh, 80# jaw of a dino, I forget the species, lodged in a sandbar. The guy grabbed it on the fly, without tearing a rotator cuff or swamping the canoe, and hauled it in. Great rejoicing! 
You won't find that in some stodgy old science rag!
These organizations howl with outrage at publications such as Science and Journal of Nature because they won't publish virtually unsupported claims. So, they are pretty much restricted to their own and each other's publications, usually sold through their own stores. They do get a fair amount of mostly unwarrented newspaper and web coverage. They are also expert beggars, requesting donations at every oportunity.
Both ICR and AiG require a statment of faith not unlike the paraphrased quote above, from all of their staff.
This is as I see it, but one must make up one's own mind.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2003 : 11:23:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Filthy:
Both ICR and AiG require a statment of faith not unlike the paraphrased quote above, from all of their staff.
You are correct. Here is some of the actual wording with a few comments I made. This comes from "A Few Words about Creation Science." An essay I wrote years ago and posted on this site at:
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showquestion.asp?faq=2&fldAuto=35
quote:
To be a member of one of these "research" groups one must have an advanced degree in some field of science and sign a statement of faith. The statement begins as follows: "1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and we believe it to be inspired throughout, all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all the original autographs. To students of nature, this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths." The statement concludes with other points, involving God's direct creation of the Earth and all things in six days, Noah's flood, Adam and Eve, sin and salvation through Christ.
The members include mostly engineers, chemists, technicians, aerospace workers and such... Not many biologists, geologists or anthropologists would be willing to sign such a statement of faith. A degree in engineering or computer science hardly qualifies an ICR member to speak with knowledge about biology, geology, astronomy or anthropology.
Naturally, if you have sworn to a conclusion before testing your hypothesis, you must forgo the scientific method. You cannot make a claim to a science where none exists.
That they take anyone, and call them researchers for the ICR with even the most remote degree in science (computer science, for example) makes sense. That way they can claim that many scientists agree to whatever silliness they are pushing. It's good for sales.
quote:
Filthy:
These organizations howl with outrage at publications such as Science and Journal of Nature because they won't publish virtually unsupported claims. So, they are pretty much restricted to their own and each other's publications, usually sold through their own stores.
They do howl at scientific publications for not publishing their stuff, but they do not offer their stuff for publication. That way they can claim that the scientific world has conspired to keep their "research" out of the mainstream of science. Of course, their papers probably would be rejected for review because they have no science. And they know it. Again, they use this "conspiracy" as a selling point.
quote:
From a Few Words About Creation Science:
No empirical, experimental, or theoretical evidence for Scientific Creation has been published in peer-reviewed science journals. Nor are they offered for publication. They prefer in house publications that avoid the messy ordeal of peer-review that real scientists must endure.
The bottom line is that they are a pack of liars without a science of their own. I think of them as Liars for Christ. Unfortunately, their publications do get around... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2003 : 14:45:52 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
Part of my faith hinges on the Earth's age because the Bible says that the Earth was created in 6,000 years ago and I haven't yet seen anything in the Bible modifying that. I believe that what the Bible says is real. Now, it may be that I'm wrong and that solid scientific proof of an old Earth has been around for years, but I've only started thinking about these things for a couple of years.
It is a good thing to have faith, but not blind faith. Let me show you a passage that you might not have heard of: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) 1 John 1:1-2. I believe that the people who wrote the Bible believed in what they were writing, not just from faith, but also from experience. It may be that the Bible is mostly figurative and mythological, but if it isn't, I really want to know how it isn't.
For another example on why I'm skeptical of scientists, I recently read a newspaper article on how they determined that being gay was a biological thing. They said that they took 16 men(Strike one, small sample), 8 hetero and 8 homo. The hetero had never had sexual thoughts about men and homo had never had sexual thoughts about women(Strike two, how could they possibly know that for sure?). They then gave them some kind of drug that stimulates one of the glands in the brain(I think it was either the pituitary or the hypothalamus) to produce sex chemicals. The levels of these chemicals was higher in the homo men than the hetero men, presumably because the homo men were turned on by the other men, and the hetero men weren't. Strike three, how do they that the arousal is from a difference in biology, and not because the homo men decided to like other men? They may have a reason, but there conclusion does not convince me. A man I know says that he has looked for the very studies that gave us the age of the earth, and has not been able to find them. I'll look over the web, but other than that there aren't many places I can go. I'll check out those Archeoptryx sites.
Later
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2003 : 15:06:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
A man I know says that he has looked for the very studies that gave us the age of the earth, and has not been able to find them. I'll look over the web, but other than that there aren't many places I can go. I'll check out those Archeoptryx sites.
If that man could not find any scientific data on the age of the earth he may be a homo man.
quote:
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) 1 John 1:1-2
Well that paragraph pretty much clears it up for me. |
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Paladin
Skeptic Friend
USA
100 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2003 : 17:26:59 [Permalink]
|
As far as I know, there hasn't been any scientific test or experiment that has conclusively determined that sexual origin is purely genetic in nature. From what I've seen, each set of results is full of qualifying "maybe's" and "possibles." If I'm wrong, please correct me (with adequate references, of course).
There has been, however, no shortage of folks on both sides of the issue who've endeavored to spin and skew whatever data there is to suit their own purposes. And it's all the more easy when the news media is sloppy with misleading headlines.
|
Paladin |
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2003 : 23:55:15 [Permalink]
|
Hey, Hippy.
I'd like to see a link to the article you're talking about because I don't think any respectable scientists would declare that they KNOW what makes people homosexual.
You SHOULD be skeptical of scientists. Scientists are humans and possess all the faults and weaknesses that humans do. Science, however, is a different matter. It's the most successful tool humans have ever devised to determine objective truth. It's why we're communicating like this, it's why we can cross the country in five hours instead of five months, it's why people who not long ago would have died of illness can live long lives. When practiced precisely and scrupulously, it just works. When it's not, the people who expose the sloppy or dishonest work are usually scientists.
Les |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2003 : 05:08:15 [Permalink]
|
Unlike religion, science is self correcting. Scientists, being human, 'get it wrong' all the time, but sooner or later, peer review and further study always makes the necessary correction(s). The Fleisman(sp?) and Pons claims of cold fusion, back in the late '70s are a prime example, and this time the correction was a 'sooner'. For a 'later', the Piltdown hoax comes to mind, however in all fairness, some doubt was expressed at the time of discovery. Also, the alledged fossil was kept locked away for some years.
Religion, on the other hand is not so flexible. To take the Bible literally, word-for-word, one must necessarly reject the ToE, the ancient age of the earth and so forth, and accept such impossibilities as the Garden of Eden, the Noachan Flood, et al. All of this on faith, without the least, physical evidence to support it.
I would suggest a study of AiG and ICR articles as compared to the heavily referenced papers published at Talk Origins. You might also read a little Kent Hovind, as well. For a for a comedy break, you understand. Some of the info from these sites is pretty dry stuff and an occasional chuckle helps. Don't worry about the references (ICR and AiG too, use them, mainly from each other and other YECs), look them up later, just study the content(s) and compare. It'll take a little time and effort, but what the hell; it is worth it gain the most accurate insites.
What the whole thing sugars off to is: Never Go In Blind Unecessarly -- good advice for most any occasion.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2003 : 08:50:13 [Permalink]
|
Hippy, you said:
quote:
For another example on why I'm skeptical of scientists, I recently read a newspaper article on how they determined that being gay was a biological thing.
Here are some reasons not to be sceptical of scientists:
Your computer.
Your car.
The TV you use to watch the 700 club on.
Planes you fly on.
The Radio you use to listen to christian music.
Antibiotics, heart bypass surgery, vaccines...
Space craft.
I would not base my acceptance of an entire segment of the population (scientists) based on one questionable study by some yaho doctor.
Just like I would not say all religious leaders are leacherous money grubbers based on that rev. Baker and rev. Swaggert. |
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
nukular
New Member
USA
10 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2003 : 10:02:09 [Permalink]
|
Hippy,
First off, as other have said, you should be skeptical of scientists but you should also realize that what is presented in the media is often not correct. Journalists (and most scientists) are poor in conveying their finding to the language of the layperson. I would attribute this to the specialization that has occured in science. It is difficult to explain quantum mechanics in a two semester course, it is much more difficult to explain to the layperson in an article which is 500 words or less. The upshot of this is that a thorough understanding only comes from actually digging in your heels and doing the research yourself, which often a long and arduous process for which there is no substitute.
In regards to your comment on "blind" faith, I would point you to the philosopher Soren Kierkegaard. In a short work titled "Fear and Trembling", he addresses in an interesting manner the notions of rationality and faith. His motivation for the work is a reaction against the idea that faith can be justified by scientific methods. His primary goal is to destroy the rational behind Pascal's wager and is an argument well worth understanding.
While I applaude your efforts in reading through a physics text, I would suggest that you enroll in a physics course and lab at a local college. Not only does it provide people like me with a job , but because there is no substitute for attempting to understand the scientific method other than actually doing some lab work. It is in the lab where science begins. Note this does not mean that mistakes can be made, scientists are human, but by understanding how things happen in a lab you can begin to understand the difficulty involved and the care needed for science to progress.
Also I would like to offer an opinion somewhat opposite that of Filthy's, namely that religion is not static or rigid. Religion is highly flexible and changes over time and with society. The religion you practice is quite different from that practiced in the 1st century Anatolia. Not only is the technology different, but the culture would be complete "foreign" (for lack of a better word). It is perhaps easier to how religion can be shaped or mutated by looking at something a little closer to home. Upstate New York in the early 19th century provides a nice (documentable) illustration of how religions can mutate. The Millerites and the Mormons offer an interesting case studies of how Anglo-american biases and misconceptions can used to change a seemingly standard doctrine.
As a final comment, which relates to a separate post but being lazy, I will address it here. Your comment on the King James version of the bible strikes me as naive. I find it implausible that all of idiosyncrasies and nuances of the Hebrew language and culture can be expressed in an English version of the Bible. I would argue that those who argue that the KJV is "the most beautiful work of literature in the world" or the most "pure" understand only one language and have trouble understanding the difficulty and error that arise in translation. On a personal note, I was really unaware of this problem until I read Baudelaire in French and then in English. It has since become obvious to me that poetry (and other literary forms as well) is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to translate accurately. Note this is not a personal jab, but is rather intended as advice because learning another language (like science) can be rewarding and life chaning experience. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2003 : 10:31:00 [Permalink]
|
Hippy wrote:quote:
Part of my faith hinges on the Earth's age because the Bible says that the Earth was created in 6,000 years ago and I haven't yet seen anything in the Bible modifying that.
Well, not really. The Bible lists a bunch of genealogies between a datable event and Adam's creation. If those Old Testament lists of "begats" are wrong at all, it throws the 6,000-year figure into doubt. I emphasize OT because your later quote of a passage from John was surely written by a different author with different religious views than the OT "begat" lists. Do you have equal faith in both the New and Old Testaments?quote:
I believe that what the Bible says is real.
Consider this: scientists understand very well the atmospheric and optical conditions required for the creation of a rainbow. If what the Bible says is real, then God changed either water, air, or the laws of physics when entering into His Covenant with Noah after the Flood, since rainbows allegedly did not exist prior to the Flood.
While it is surely possible for God to remake nature on a large-scale basis as He sees fit, if He does so, it makes it impossible for anyone (including devout Christians) to do anything resembling science. In an environment in which conditions can change at random and without warning, "knowing" anything about the world will only be valid until the next time God has a whim.
Personally, I don't like the idea. If, on the other hand, we find solid evidence that God has done such things, I'll learn to live with it, quit trying to learn how the world works, and start trying to kiss up to God in the right ways.
I'm curious: have you seriously considered how you would react if your faith were sucessfully challenged?quote:
Now, it may be that I'm wrong and that solid scientific proof of an old Earth has been around for years, but I've only started thinking about these things for a couple of years.
We've counted and verified tree rings back to at least 13,000 years ago. Stromalites, which have a similar annual growth pattern, go back even farther, if I remember correctly. Blows the lid off the 6,000-year limit, unless you're willing to go the extra step of claiming that God "planted" (bad pun, sorry) the evidence.quote:
I believe that the people who wrote the Bible believed in what they were writing, not just from faith, but also from experience.
Well, certainly no authors of the Bible (nor anyone after Adam and/or Eve, for that matter) had any direct experience of the Creation. I, also, believe that the authors believed what they wrote, but whether or not what they believed was also correct is often an open question. On the other hand, rabbits, for example, do not chew cud.quote:
It may be that the Bible is mostly figurative and mythological, but if it isn't, I really want to know how it isn't.
Same here.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2003 : 13:27:22 [Permalink]
|
Les: It was a newspaper article.
nukular: I don't think that KJV is a correct translation, it's just that it's the most common Bible in print that uses the Received Text. Incidentally, I do have long-range plans to learn Hebrew, after I finish with Greek.
All: I appreciate your advice, and I probably won't respond to this thread since I'll be doing some research on this subject. I'll still be on my "Common Misconceptions about the Bible" thread.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2003 : 14:45:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I'm curious: have you seriously considered how you would react if your faith were successfully challenged?quote:
Now, it may be that I'm wrong and that solid scientific proof of an old Earth has been around for years, but I've only started thinking about these things for a couple of years.
We've counted and verified tree rings back to at least 13,000 years ago. Stromalites, which have a similar annual growth pattern, go back even farther, if I remember correctly. Blows the lid off the 6,000-year limit, unless you're willing to go the extra step of claiming that God "planted" (bad pun, sorry) the evidence.
This is the one crucial point which I think is the most important when facing YECs. Young Earth Creationist have a very serious problem getting support for a 6000 year old Earth unless they fall back on the premise that God planted the evidence to look older than it really is.
The problem is that once you accept that evidence is supernaturally planted (by God or someone else), any pretence of being scientific goes down the drain, with sanity quickly following.
If you accept that some things upon which you base your reality, are planted, how can you be sure not all of it is?
Everything you see around you is just props for a stage play where you are the only living being and the people you interact with are just actors called in to play whatever is necessary to get the response out of you that the playwriter was looking for. You are just a psychological guinea-pig for the playwriter, subject to His every whim. People around you is directed by Him to say and do exactly what they do just to keep you at the brink of insanity, without letting you cross the border.
Isn't there a psychological term for that condition? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
