|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 06/13/2004 : 15:46:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Do you view the fact that one believes he or she has found the only truth as inherently a bad thing?
Yes. The result of such a belief is a closed mind and an unwillingness to see any evidence that you might be wrong.
quote:
11. Homosexuality can be cured through prayer
Cured? No - it's not an illness. It is, debatably, a choice (if anyone would like to challenge that - let me know).
There is an incredibly strong argument for the heritability of homosexuality. There is also some new evidence (forgive me for not being able to find a reference online for this one...) that suggest the human brain may have a gender, and that a genetic (and brain structural) reason for same-sex preference may be real. (Genome, by Matt Ridley)
quote:
13. Evolution (deliberately misspelled Evilution) attacks Christianity
Evolution and fundamentalist Christianity are mutually exclusive. And reading some of the Evolutionary literature out there it is no wonder that some view it as an attack. You don't have to look any further than these forums to see that. You don't even have to look further than this thread. Evolution and anti-fundamentalism often go hand in hand - much as Creation and anti-atheism often go hand in hand.
Well, evolution is not debated in scientific circles now. It is, because of a preponderance of evidence, accepted as fact. The debate lies in the mechanism/s that cause evolution. At this point in the game if you continue to deny the reality of evolution it's as if you still believed the earth were flat.
quote:
I believe I have found the truth, yes. But that does not in any way mean that if overwhelming evidence was produced against it, I would not realize I was wrong.
And further, it does not mean I would not be willing to change my beliefs accordingly.
Why do you require overwhelming evidence? You require no evidence to believe in the tenets of your religion, but would require overwhelming evidence to change your beliefs? I'm not trying to be inflamatory.... but I truly do not understand how a rational mind can accept that type of thinking as valid. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2004 : 16:50:13 [Permalink]
|
Just to interject at this point; the Theory of Evolution is not a faith or belief system and nobody thinks Darwin was the son of God. Let's put that nonsense to bed right now and get it over with.
The ToE is no more than the best explanation for certain biological process' discovered thus far. If someone comes up with a better one, with as powerful a body of empirical evidence, we will chuck the ToE and never look back. But that's not likely to happen. All the evidences, old and new, continue to support it.
Just thought I'd toss that in.
 |
"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! 
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2004 : 17:20:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verso
I would like to offer a different set of criteria for a true Christian fundamentalist.
1. They honestly seek the truth.
2. They are willing to examine their beliefs and change accordingly if there is substantial evidence to do so.
3. They are humble.
4. They are accepting of all people, but not of immorality or conflicting beliefs.
5. They do not force their beliefs on people.
I'm sure I could think of more, but those are the important ones. Not to mention I'm freaking tired, and this took forever to write. 
I'll accept that you were freaking tired when you wrote this, because I think I found a logical flaw in it.
2. They are willing to examine their beliefs and change accordingly if there is substantial evidence to do so.
4. They are accepting of all people, but not of immorality or conflicting beliefs.
These to seems to me to be partially (at least) mutually exclusive.
If you have a belief, then according to §4 you can not accept conflicting beliefs. If the are presented with evidense that contradict this belief, then you will have a conflicting belief.
How do you avoid this conflict of logic?
|
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. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2004 : 18:16:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verso
The only one I really want to address is “5. Believe in Universal Truth and that they've found it,” because there is often a misconception about what that fact entails. The misconception is that because we believe we have found the truth, we are not open to it being proven wrong.
I believe I have found the truth, yes. But that does not in any way mean that if overwhelming evidence was produced against it, I would not realize I was wrong.
And further, it does not mean I would not be willing to change my beliefs accordingly.
This is also some acrobatics of Logic I don't understand.
If you have found The Truth(tm), then there's no point in letting someone else produce overwhelming evidence against it, because since The Truth(tm) is already known, then any evidence against it must be false.
If you have The Truth(tm), why bother examining any evidence at all, or question your belief?
Unless, of course, The Truth(tm) is not the truth, but a belief that some esoteric knowledge you have is the truth. But then you will also have to acknowledge that what you think is The Truth(tm) might in fact be wrong. In which case you are in doubt.
Now, trying to be a skeptic, I myself realise that I don't have The Truth(tm) because it is an illusion. None of us have the capability of knowing "the whole truth", as in knowing everything about anything. We are desperately trying to learn as much as we can about our surroundings using science as a tool. Lots of knowledge has been assembled this way, and much more is forthcoming. There is no such thing as absolute truth, but in the eye of the beholder. Science could be seen as the art of having as objective an eye as possible.
quote:
Now I have a question for you – more of a curiosity actually. Do you view the fact that one believes he or she has found the only truth as inherently a bad thing?
Perhaps not, but too many bad things come out of it to justify it, in my not-so-humble opinion.
Because, like I've stated above, "the Only Truth" as in The Truth(tm) is an illusion, and is in the eye of the beholder.
The problem is that the result of acting upon such a belief have a tendency to affect surrounding people. It is forgivable if the acts have benevolent effects, but too many times it has also shown to have a very negative effects. Especially when charismatic people with bad ideas have such a revelation. I'll take this ass-hole, Rev. Fred Phelps that Filthy referred to earlier. Through his charisma and rhetoric, he managed to seduce people to follow his evil teachings, and make them believe it is the true will of God. Some 60 years ago, a guy in Germany did something similar. And this goes beyond Christianity. Judaism, Islam and Hinduism is affected too.
All you have to do is turn on CNN, and you'll get daily reports.
How right John Lennon was when he wrote "Imagine".
quote:
Do you believe it is wrong (even if only by societal standards) for a man to lust after multiple women, or a women to lust after multiple men? Or for a man or women to love someone besides their opposite-gendered spouse?
I am guilty of lusting after other women than my spouse. Well, we're actually not married, just engaged. But the day I got my ring, it didn't change my feelings toward other women. I don't believe Lust and Love are feelings I can just choose to have or not. They are more than that. But my ring signify the promise I made to stay with her. If she would accept me being with other women, I would be ever so happy. But since she does not, my promise binds me to abstain. As to your question: No, I don't think it is wrong. And I believe it is natural to do so. It is a beneficial survival trait of our species.
Edited to add: However, this is also a subject better discussed in the Social Issues Forum. |
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. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 06/13/2004 18:17:30 |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2004 : 18:57:02 [Permalink]
|
Verso, I must say that I do think that believing that one has found The Truth (tm) is inherently a bad thing. Please forgive the pretentious use of "one" but I'm tired and I didn't know how else to phrase it.
If you (general "you") belive that you have The Truth (tm), then by definition, others are wrong, right? You therefore have access--special privilege, really--to information that apparently others don't have. Those others, by the way, could be equally sure that THEY have The Truth (tm)...so who's right? To me, this feels intolerant and judgmental.
Also, if you believe you have The Truth (tm), then it's easy to justify all kinds of bad behavior, right? After all, God is on YOUR side, you've heard the Lord's word, etc...?
I believe in the concept of personal truth: that we all have answers inside us and that art, dialogue, reading, discussion, asking questions, and the like help us find the truth inside us. But The Truth (tm) doesn't exist, IMHO.
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2004 : 19:28:27 [Permalink]
|
Well said Dude, filthy, Dr. Mabuse, and Ranae. Even though verso is well written and I believe sincere you have exposed verso's personal feel good thoughts to be contradictory. Having found an absolute Truth and claim to be willing to challenge that Truth seems disingenuous to me. Verso could prove me wrong.
Perhaps verso is sincere, but he has quite a challenge ahead of him. After, what I suspect, are years of christian programming it will be difficult to honestly evaluate any evidence contrary to the Truth. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2004 : 20:37:21 [Permalink]
|
A word in Verso's favor.... he/she is well spoken and articulate. There is a distinct possibility of actually having some meaningfull discourse here. 
A bit off topic maybe...
quote:
None of us have the capability of knowing "the whole truth", as in knowing everything about anything.
But I am not convinced there is any evidence that would lead anyone to a conclusion that suggests a limit to what we (we in this instance meaning all humans and our collective efforts) are capable of. Call me an optomist, but I think we have barely scratched the surface of what we are capable of as a whole. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
verso
Skeptic Friend
USA
76 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2004 : 22:51:32 [Permalink]
|
Due to sheer time constraints I will have to be selective in which responses I address. I will try to pick out the recurring themes.
Ricky:
quote:
"I would like to offer a different set of criteria for a true Christian fundamentalist.
1. They honestly seek the truth.
2. They are willing to examine their beliefs and change accordingly if there is substantial evidence to do so.
3. They are humble.
4. They are accepting of all people, but not of immorality or conflicting beliefs.
5. They do not force their beliefs on people." - verso
By your definition, even though I am an atheist, I am still a Christian fundamentalist?
I would think an assumed prerequisite for being a fundamental Christian would be that one adheres to fundamental Christian beliefs. But to be safe, I will make it explicit, and add a point 6.
6. A fundamental Christian subscribes to fundamental Christian beliefs.
Dr. Mabuse:
First, I like your motorcycle.
Second:
quote:
Do you look down your noses at them? Of course you do!
Does that effect how you treat that person? It shouldn't. But it does.
I do not presume to know more about you than you do, and I expect the same in return. I have said I do not look down on others who partake in what I classify as “sinful behaviors.” If you can't take my own word about myself, then obviously we won't get anywhere.
quote:
This has been much debated in the Social Issues Forum, but no-one has written in that particular thread for quite a while. A new thread might give a fresh restart.
This has been echoed several times. As soon as this thread is wrapped up, I would love to take part in such a discussion.
quote:
Do you mean Evolution-chauvinism attacks Christianity, or evolution attacks Christianity?
And again the comma-ambiguity rears its ugly head. My apologies for a truly ambiguous statement. I meant that scientific chauvinism attacks Creationism and scientific chauvinism attacks Evolution. I don't believe Creationism and Evolution, exclusive though they may be, can be thought to “attack” each other.
quote:
This does not describe the kind of people we, or at least I, classify as Fundie(tm).
Again, that is the whole purpose of this discussion. I believe you have misclassified fundamentalists. Why do I say that? Because:
A true Christian Fundamentalists will strive to follow Christ's example in love and humility – those are NOT characteristics compatible with the original set of criteria in post #2.
Dude:
quote:
quote:
Do you view the fact that one believes he or she has found the only truth as inherently a bad thing?
Yes. The result of such a belief is a closed mind and an unwillingness to see any evidence that you mig |
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2004 : 03:08:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verso
Your questions happen to be exactly what I was addressing. For example, “My question then must be, is sin an abomination before your God?” was explicitly addressed in the very quote you posted!
I am more than happy to discuss any of these points, but only if the “challenger” has carefully read my post. Otherwise the discussion deteriorates into a typical hit-and-run discussion with everyone talking past each other instead of to each other.
So either it's ok to be sinful, or, sins are not abominations. I could read your post again, but how that would make you explain what you mean, is a mystery to me.
quote:
Let me give you some examples of chauvinism.
“Science does not attack anyone's literal belief in fantasy sories.”
Calling someone's beliefs fantasy stories is not a good way to get a point across.
No, especially when people refuse to see that some of these stories are fantasy stories, myths and legends. Are you saying that the creation myth, for example, is absolutely true as it says in the Bible? Tell me why it is true, and what might support it.
quote:
“I have realized that when people say they are open to science, they are open to a certain extent, very carefully avoiding anything that might contradict their beliefs which they already made their minds up with.”
If you know that is true, then you know more about me than I do.
I didn't say that you did so, it's just what I see and hear when I'm in a debate with someone who believes in a religion. They assume that the Bible (or whatever) is the truth. They have decided that it is true. Therefor they have no other choice than to disregard everything that goes against it. Silly, isn't it?
quote:
“Also, a great many people seem even more open to pseudoscience, such as astrology, homeopathy and creationism.”
Etc etc.
A primary symptom of chauvinism is a constant barrage of inflammatory remarks. If we can't be objective, and keep emotion out of our discussions, then we may as well not even try.
Again, this is what I have seen, everywhere where there are people who believe in these kinds of things. They *think* something is science, when it's not. Surely that's not my fault...?
quote:
If you want to see an attitude conducive to discussion, please refer to Filthy's or Renae's post. They don't have what I like to call the “sneer factor” :)
Blah blah blah. Very well, then:
I apologize for expressing my opinions.
I apologize for telling you about my observations regarding people who decide that pseudoscience and fairytales are better than science.
Do you think I should lie, instead, just to make you happy? Indeed, now when I think about it, that strategy could work very well. |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2004 : 03:15:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verso
6. A fundamental Christian subscribes to fundamental Christian beliefs.
This would of course be incompatible with some of the other points. This is what I mean. Fundamentalists have decided what the truth is, and therefor they will, of course, not follow the other points in the list you gave us. They would not seek the truth, because they have found it already. They would not change their beliefs according to new evidence. If they did, they would no longer be fundamentalists. |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2004 : 04:11:35 [Permalink]
|
Except for the ending, the Pocono race was a pretty good one. I spent yesterday afternoon at the clubhouse watching it. Again, I did not win the pool, maintaining my perfect record in that regard. I did drink more than was good for me. Oog. 
quote:
And again the comma-ambiguity rears its ugly head. My apologies for a truly ambiguous statement. I meant that scientific chauvinism attacks Creationism and scientific chauvinism attacks Evolution. I don't believe Creationism and Evolution, exclusive though they may be, can be thought to “attack” each other.
I agree that Creation/Evolution "attacks" (I think you missed a word in the above quote. Shouldn't it read. "Creation chauvinism attacks Evolution?") are ridiculous, but they are all too common. A browse through such sites as Answers in Genesis or Institute for Creation Research, both highly respected organizations in Creationist circles, will quickly demonstrate that these folks feel severly threatened by the ToE. Quite the opposite is true in evolutionary science.
Incidently, I've had some conversations with AiG's Dr. Jonathon Sarfati (yes, he really does hold a PhD from a secular university) and found him to be a master at straw man and ad hom arguments. Pretty good quote-miner, too. I understand that he plays chess almost at a Grand Master level. But, I digress. Digression is fun and I too often do it.
AiG and ICR have a statment of faith (I'll look it up if asked) required for all associates. What it amounts to is that the Bible is literally true, word for word, and that's all there is to it, inquiring minds need not apply.
I think that it was Henry Morris of ICR (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that stated something to the effect that, "If the data does not agree with my interpretation of Scripture, then those data are flawed." I refrain comment.
On the scientific side of the coin, some scientists get a mite testy, at being relentlessly quote-mined, protions of their writings being used out of context. Odd paragraphs of the late Dr. Stephen J. Gould's work often show up in odd places trying to support concepts that the doctor (who had the ill grace to die before I got to hear him lecture) had no interest in and indeed opposed. It often made him snappish, understandably.
Our new friend verso has stated that he takes the Bible literally, which is ok as long as one believes that, "those data are flawed." But if one regards the Bible as, I dunno, a metaphore perhaps, of the Story of Creation, one would have no problems accepting the ToE. It would in no way threaten their beliefs.
As it is I fear, I and others will be again scrounging through the chaotic disorder of our references (I gotta sort that mess out, someday) to make or refute points of discussion. But this time, I look forward to it as I think that links will be opened and references will actually be read. And of course, the same goes on my/our end.
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2004 : 06:27:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
On the scientific side of the coin, some scientists get a mite testy, at being relentlessly quote-mined, protions of their writings being used out of context. Odd paragraphs of the late Dr. Stephen J. Gould's work often show up in odd places trying to support concepts that the doctor (who had the ill grace to die before I got to hear him lecture) had no interest in and indeed opposed. It often made him snappish, understandably.
Perhaps a bit off topic, but met me say that I now think it's important that more scientists get "testy" regarding creationism and other crazy religion/politics-inspired science.
Some have made the argument that we should ignore creationists, as even debating them lends some validity to their claims. But I'm now worried that if we (OK, so I'm not a scientist. But I play one on TV) just leave creationists to themselves, we'll end up with more people like, for instance, our President, who are utterly clueless on all things scientific and yet are in charge of funding (to some extent) science! (Witness this UCS press release)
The more we convince people early on about science, the scientific method, and the worthlessness of religion in relation to scientific investigations, the better off this planet is.
Edited to improve my hypertext link |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 06/14/2004 06:33:01 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2004 : 07:27:34 [Permalink]
|
Indeed.
And this is why only science belongs in science classes, not religious speculations such as Dembski's Intelligent Design booshwa. If the subject is not falsifible it has no place in science.
The ToE is of course, entirely falsifiable. All you gots to do is find the Devonian Bunny, or it's equivelent. Then fame and fortune shall surely be yours, and Darwin and his ilk will be consigned to the Fleisman and Pons Bin of Balderdash and Blather.
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2004 : 07:55:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verso
As a fundamental Christian myself, I'm glad to see it has been recognized that the occasional blathering fool making badly-written hit-and-run posts is not necessarily representative of the Christian community as a whole.
It's extremely unfortunate that the most arrogant Christians tend to be the most vocal.
Hello, verso. I would like to reiterate that the behaviors that I listed were indicative of Fundie(tm) behavior and not that of mainstream fundamentalist Christianity. I have seen the behavior most prevalent in the Charismatic and Fundamentalist Evangelical fringe sub-sects.
quote:
What I'd like to do is go through the 15 points mentioned in the second post (the ones that I can, anyway) and try to give you an accurate picture of sincere fundamentalist views.
1. Homosexuals are an abomination before the Lord
No human is an abomination "before the Lord." Any sin, however, is. As a fundamentalist, obviously I take the Bible literally and in full. And it says rather explicitly, that homosexuality is a sin. If someone wants to take me up on that point, that is fine. But that's not what I'm concerned with at the moment. What I'm concerned with is how that "fact" is handled by those who take it as fact.
There are certain very visible "Christians" out there that do preach hatred towards the person, but that is far from the Christianity of the Bible. Simply looking at how Jesus lived will demonstrate that. Many "Christian" groups (i.e. the Pharisees) in his time were disgusted with him because his company often included prostitutes, dishonest tax collectors, and all manner of thieves and other more-or-less morally corrupt people.
So Jesus obviously accepted the people. And we, who are to strive to be like Christ, are to do the same.
So that should be the end of it, right? Not quite. Fundamentalist critics often point to the story where Jesus says "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." But they - without fail - leave off the end of that story, where Jesus says "...neither do I condemn you. Go now and leave your life of sin." Jesus does accept people, but he desires they change - to conform to his morals. And we are to have the same view. To accept the people, but desire that they change.
Does that mean we look down our noses at them? Not at all! A sincere Christian will recognize that he or she is just as sinful as anyone else. We are no better. And with that attitude, we are to welcome anyone who comes into our presence. Do we accept the sin? No. Does that effect how we treat the person? No - it does not.
While a majority of Christians consider homosexual behavior to be sinful, the do not advocate hatred towards them, as you have mentioned. I do, however, question the status of homosexual activity as sinful in light of the New Covenant. The only place in the Bible which condemns homosexuality as a sin is in Leviticus. All other passages which have been pointed to in arguements on this point tend to be admonitions to live a moral life. Jesus, the Christ, never directly condemns homosexual behavior.
quote:
2. Their particular brand of Christianity is the only "right" way and all other denominations are damned
To say Christianity should accept other "pathways" as "correct" is to say that Christianity should contradict itself. Jesus himself said "no one comes to the father but by me," and also in |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2004 : 10:05:20 [Permalink]
|
Verso wrote:quote:
Well, that is why I am here. Because I am a very skeptical "Fundie," and given what is at stake after death, am very intent on testing my faith. You will have plenty of opportunity to demonstrate that it (evolution) can legitimately be accepted as fact. And my promise to you and everyone else here is that if it is indeed clearly fact, you will have a new agnostic among you.
Why would you become agnostic? The only thing that evolutionary theory contradicts is a literal interpretation of Genesis (which is an old Jewish story, anyway). Evolutionary theory doesn't speak to any other substantive part of the Bible, nor to the existence (or non-existence) of a deity.
And if your faith is so rooted in a literal interpretation of Genesis that were it to be shown to be wrong, you would lose your faith in God, it says to me that you don't have faith in God, anyway, but only in a book. That, it seems to me, is a far cry from the truly fundamental principles of Christianity.
To be charitable, however, allow me to say that perhaps you've just been mislead about the implications of evolution. Specifically, evolutionary theory deals with what happened once life began on this planet. It does not address the origins of that life. Also, despite what many creationist web sites will tell you, there are plenty of devout evolutionary biologists alive today. Of course, considering the fact that they reject a literal reading of Genesis, you may not consider them to be "Christians," but they think of themselves that way. The idea that all "evolutionists" are atheists is simply a lie spread by those who are so unsure of their faith that they scream about it from the rooftops, to convince themselves more than anybody else.
Anyway, let me get back on track, here... What sort of demonstration would convince you?
Here's one: if evolutionary theory were incorrect, scientists would be falling over themselves attempting to do the experiments which prove it incorrect. Scientists gain money and fame not by going with the status quo, but by being innovators, taking fields in entirely new directions, or by showing that previous thought on a subject was garbage. This is what the Nobel Prizes are all about.
So, the "money and fame" motivator says that scientists should disagree about a subject if it is at all controversial. Yet professional biologists agree that evolution is true. They base their work upon it, and have nothing to gain by continuing with a sham (if evolution were false). And such a conspiracy would require that millions of people over the last 140 years keep quiet.
And, as I said, evolution speaks to the events as laid out in Genesis. Specifically, the age of the Earth, as calculated by Bishop Ussher. Genesis "says" (according to Ussher) that the Earth is now almost 6,008 years old. But, evolutionary biologists can (and have) made measurements of how quickly genetic material changes over time, and even small differences (on average) take longer than 6,000 years. Evolutionary theory and measurements tell us that humans and chimps last had a common ancestor about five million years ago. They also tell us that humans and mice last had a common ancestor about 80 million years ago.
Also regarding the age of the Earth, there is a separate line of evidence that Genesis should not be read literally: geology. The processes which have shaped the Earth have taken a very long time, indeed. We can "read" hundreds of magnetic-pole reversals across the floor of the Atlantic Ocean, each one coming thousands of years after the previous. Again, geologists should disagree about these things if they were not true, but there is near-universal agreement. (Note also there is no geological evidence for a global flood of Biblical proportions.)
Another example: professional cosmologists and astronomers should disagree about the apparent age of the universe if Genesis is literally true. They don't. They all agree that the universe is well over ten billion years old, and that the order in which things happened conflicts with the order as given in Genesis. Again: there is a Nobel Prize waiting for the astronomer who proves that the evidence for an old universe is false.
The above is, really, three independent lines of evidence that the historical value of the book of Genesis is close to zero (the three that I know off the top of my head). I stress "independent" because while I wouldn't trust my mechanic to do dentistry, I wouldn't trust an astronomer to be well-versed in evolutionary theory (or geology), either. The point is that these different fields of study agree with each other with regard to the age of the Earth, but aren't based upon the same pieces of evidence nor upon the same theories.
To use an analogy, what we've got is a car of a certain age. We get a tire expert to look at it, and she says that the wear on the tires is consistent with 50,000 miles of driving. We get an engine expert to tear open the crankcase, and he says that the wear on the timing chain is consistent with 4,500 hours of use. We get an upholstery expert (bear with me, please) to look at the interior, and he says that the wear on the seats indicates the car's been well-used for five years. And the point is that none of them, looking only at evidence within their respective fields of expertise, claims the car was driven off the dealer's lot last week. It's an older car, and the evidence shows it.
We have an old Earth, and numerous lines of evidence show it, contrary to a literal interpretation of Genesis. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
