|
|
|
verso
Skeptic Friend
USA
76 Posts |
 Posted - 06/18/2004 : 22:39:47 [Permalink]
|
Flip a coin, Dude. If you get something besides
"EITHER heads OR NOT heads"
Then I will believe you. |
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 22:39:55 [Permalink]
|
"Either the Bible is God's word, or it's a book of lies." - verso
I'm not sure if anyone replied to this, I haven't been able to keep up with all the posts here, it was from page 3.
If the Bible is not in God's word, it is a book of lies, is true. However, the reverse, if the Bible is not a book of lies then it was written by God, is not true.
To show that Genisis is correct without any other evidence besides the argument "God wrote the Bible", you would first need to show that there is a god, and that he actually wrote a book (good luck). Otherwise, you must stick to evidence.
Is there evidence that shows young Earth? Or that the world was created in 7 days? All evidence that I have seen for these have been debunked. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
verso
Skeptic Friend
USA
76 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 22:43:38 [Permalink]
|
Ricky,
quote:
I'm not sure if anyone replied to this, I haven't been able to keep up with all the posts here, it was from page 3.
If the Bible is not in God's word, it is a book of lies, is true. However, the reverse, if the Bible is not a book of lies then it was written by God, is not true.
Actually it has been quite a point of contention! And you, with your "If the Bible is not God's word, it is a book of lies, is true" statement, are in the minority. But that's ok! Because... in this case... the minority is correct. 
The rest of your post, however, I will ponder a bit - along with filthy's previous post on "The Flood." |
| Edited by - verso on 06/18/2004 22:44:58 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2004 : 01:43:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verso
Flip a coin, Dude. If you get something besides
"EITHER heads OR NOT heads"
Then I will believe you.
Hehe  |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2004 : 06:04:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The rest of your post, however, I will ponder a bit - along with filthy's previous post on "The Flood."
Refute the Leipzig if you can. I'd love to see it tried. 
Back when I was wasting my time arguing at TheologyWeb, I put it up over there. Dr. Sarfati, (yes, he of the Ozzy branch of AiG) posting as 'Socrates' took one look and immedatly went ad hom. It gave me a laugh at the time, but it was also one reason I dropped out of TWeb. Too much ad hominim and straw-man, and not enough substance.
If you wish to see it, I have another article by Dr. Leipzig and a few others that might be of interest.
 |
"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! 
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2004 : 14:59:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Flip a coin, Dude. If you get something besides
"EITHER heads OR NOT heads"
Then I will believe you.
The coin lands on it's edge. (not probable, but possible)
And the bible is not a coin anyway....
You fail to get my point, and you fail to see that either/or is a trap when faced with choices. If you take time to think about it there is never a situation you will be faced with that has only two options. There is never a question that has only one of two possible answers when all cirumstances are considered. |
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 - 06/19/2004 : 16:21:56 [Permalink]
|
Dude,
quote:
The coin lands on it's edge. (not probable, but possible)
That would be "NOT heads," would it not?!
And you missed my point - that when the two choices presented are negates of each other, the situation can be strictly either/or.
So far, my general argument that:
"EITHER 'the Bible is the Word of God' OR NOT 'the Bible is the Word of God'"
Still stands. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2004 : 18:35:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verso
So far, my general argument that:
"EITHER 'the Bible is the Word of God' OR NOT 'the Bible is the Word of God'"
Still stands.
What if it's only partly true. What if your god really did dictate a bunch of crap to Moses who duely wrote it down, but then later, when the People Who Decided What Books Go Into the Bible and What Books Don't were doing their thing, they accidentally included stuff that wasn't the word of God. Like Proverbs. Or maybe they thought that The Revelation was the word of God, but really is was just the ramblings of some coked-up out of work fisherman? Is it still the Word of God? Or should you alter your statement to include the word "entirely" in there somewhere?
AND, since I've not been following this thread with the kind of zeal that I apparently should have, once we resolve the question of It Is or It Is Not, what's your point?
(Edited because the o and the p are right next to each other on my keyboard) |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 06/19/2004 18:38:29 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2004 : 19:50:45 [Permalink]
|
verso wrote:quote:
So far, my general argument that:
"EITHER 'the Bible is the Word of God' OR NOT 'the Bible is the Word of God'"
Still stands.
That's not an argument, that's an axiom. It's so self-evident that it requires no thought. EITHER 'this pizza is purple' OR NOT 'this pizza is purple'. There are two kinds of people in this world: those who restate axioms as arguments, and everyone else.
Here's another way to think about the problem. If you were to prove to yourself tonight that the Bible is not the Word of God, there would still be over two billion people in the world tomorrow who think it is. What, if anything, do you think you could or should do about that?
I'm also still interested in how well - or poorly - you think I interpreted your 2 Timothy citation. And I'm still working on that list. Maybe I'll have it done tonight. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2004 : 22:09:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dude,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The coin lands on it's edge. (not probable, but possible)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be "NOT heads," would it not?!
What Dave W said..... |
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2004 : 23:49:16 [Permalink]
|
Verso, let's set a few things straight:
1) The idea that I had that not a single working biologist denied evolution was not "bad logic," but simply a mistaken premise. Fault me for ignorance, if you must, but faulting me for "logical errors" in my premise is just bizarre. Especially since I prefaced that premise with "the last time I read an article about" creationist biologists, admitting my lack of specific knowledge.
2) You wrote:quote:
That I would not do, however, as the reasoning is flawed. In order for me to make your arguments, I would first have to assume that every “professional biologist” was a creationist.
When I attempted a quantification, I did not use the word "all," but instead clarified my meaning by saying,I only claim that the vast, overwhelming majority (99.99% or more) of those who have up-to-date expert knowledge about biology agree that evolution has and is happening. Yet you still argue as if I said "all." You, sir, are a hypocrite.
3) You say that you know there are "many" biologists who deny evolution. Define "many" as a percentage.
Now, then. You presented this page as evidence that there are scientists (including biologists) who deny evolution. The basic part - that there are scientists who deny evolution - is not in question. How many biologists do, is. The ICR, unfortunately for them, presents this list as "Creation Scientists in the Biological Sciences," as if they are all currently in those sciences. Just to be sure we're all on the same page regarding what a "professional (working) biologist" is, let's examine the list in detail:- Duane T. Gish - Professional Experience (PE) ends in 1971. Hasn't published a biological research article since 1976.
- Ken Cumming - PE ended in 1979. Last Published (LP) in 1977.
- Frank Sherwin - LP 1988.
- Robert Franks - This guy is a medical doctor, not a biologist.
- Robert H. Eckel - Another M.D.
- Bert Thompson - Appears to have given up a biology career years ago in order to publish apologetics and lecture.
- David Menton - LP 1995.
- Raymond V. Damadian - LP 1990, M.D.
- Joseph A. Mastropaolo - He's a physiologist.
- Andre Eggen - Geneticist.
- Lyubka P. Tantcheva - Toxicologist.
- Walter J. Veith - "Professor Veith's research field is nutritional physiology..."
- John K.G. Kramer - LP 2000.
- Benjamin L. Aaron - LP 1995, M.D.
- Sharon K. Bullock - She's got a doctorate in pathology and laboratory medicine. She's taught introductory biology to people who aren't majoring in biology. She's not a biologist.
- Jonh R. Meyer - AiG says he's a physiologist.
- Lane P. Lester - Rumored to be the one-man biology department of Emmanuel College, he's a geneticist who doesn't understand genetics.
- Alan Gillen - LP 1996. Job is "Primarily teaching, advising and working with Premed and Nursing students. August, 1997 - Present"
- Carl B. Fliermans - Microbial Ecologist.
- David DeWitt - LP 1998. This guy appears to have published little (if anything) outside of his Alzheimer's Disease specialty.
- Roger W. Sanders - LP 2001.
- Kelly Hollowell - Lawyer.
- Donna O'Daniel - LP 1999.
- Glen W. Wolfrom - LP 1991.
- Mark H. Armitage - PE 2002, LP 2001.
- Richard D. Lumsden - Dead for seven years.
- David A. Demick - Pathologist.
- Randy Guliuzza - Flight Surgeon (M.D.).
- Keith Swenson - M.D.
- David A. Kaufmann - Retired professor of Exercise Science.
- Jonathan B. Scripture - Great name, but LP in 1995.
- Inis J. Bardella - M.D.
- Gary A. Eckhoff - Doctor of Veterinary Medicine.
- Donald Hamann - Food Scientist.
- Joseph Henson - Head of the Science Division at Bob Jones University, entomologist.
- John N. Moore - Science Teacher.
- Raymond G. Bohlin - LP 1991.
- George Marshall - Ophthalmic Scientist.
- Bob Hosken - Perhaps a theistic evolutionist.
- James Allan - Reitred for 12 years.
- Dwain Ford - Chemist.
- Angela Meyer - Horticulturalist.
- D.B. Gower - Biochemist.
- Wayne Frair - LP 1971.
- Geoff Downes - Tree Physiologist.
- Don Batten - Plant Physiologist.
- John Silvius - Plant Physiologist.
Granted:- Gary Parker - Not much to be found about this guy, except that his doctorate is in teaching biology. There are too many "G Parkers" in the world for me to be able to find his published research, if any, without knowing at least one middle initial.
- Todd C. Wood - In 1999, he co-authored Evolution of protein sequences and structures, in which he appears to say that things have evoloved. Also, his write-up within the list you provided differs from the description at the bottom of an article of his elsewhere on the ICR website. Who's got the wrong data? But, the man is undoubtedly a creationist, and a teaching biologist (at a liberal arts college dedicated to "educating students to be servants of Christ").
- Gregory J. Brewer - Can't find anything to say he's not a working biologist.
- Arthur J. Jones - Ditto.
- George F. Howe - Gotta grant him, even though I can't find a single paper he's published after his doctorate in 1959 (!), and he stopped being CRS President way back in 1983.
- Richard Oliver - Can't find out squat about him.
- Jean Morton - Ditto.
- John Marcus - Ditto.
- George Javor - Ditto.
- Nancy Darrall - Ditto.
And granted, with a special note: Ariel A. Roth. If the preface to Origins: Linking Science and Scripture is any indication, this man is an exemplar of part of the problem with anti-evolutionism. Not content to think that the theories of evolution explain how the biodiversity we see today came about, Roth demands that those same theories explain why life exists in the first place. He demands that these scientific theories give meaning to life. Apparently, the idea that the theories of evolution don't even try to explain the why of life isn't taught in graduate school, even at the PhD level.
Anyway, I think it's very important to note that most of the people I've granted as professional biologists who deny evolution have been due to my not being able to find out information about their careers easily. In other words, I am categorizing these people in ignorance, based upon an "absence of evidence" argument, and to the benefit of your position, verso. The ICR page you provided, from which these names come, doesn't even have any biographical information about them. If you can find out more - like what they've been doing with their degreed education - it would help to further quantify the issue.
Actually, unless you find out more about everyone but Ariel Roth, you would also be arguing in ignorance, which is what you faulted me for in the first place. As above, Roth is a working |
- 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 - 06/20/2004 : 03:28:28 [Permalink]
|
I was going to put up Project Steve yeaterday, but got lazy. I'll do it now:
quote:
The catch is that the NCSE tied an arm and two legs behind its back by making an arbitrary requirement that the scientists be named "Steve," "Stephanie," "Stefan," or some other form of "Stephen." It estimates that about one percent of the population of the United States has such a name. When the Project was first publicly announced on February 16, 2003 it had 220 Steves, which corresponds to about 22,000 scientists with doctorates agreeing with the statement. By May 23, 2003 that number had increased to 367 Steves which corresponds to about 36,700 scientists. The current total can be found by consulting the Steve-o-meter. The NCSE expresses the hope that in the future when lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" are presented that it will be asked "but how many Steves are on your list!?"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/
Edited to note that there is not a single Steve on the ICR's list.
Edited further (boy, am I drifty this morning) to add that there are currently 435 Steves, brave and true, on the list.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/meter.html |
"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!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 06/20/2004 03:42:48 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2004 : 07:23:20 [Permalink]
|
Like Dave W, I also read through the ICR's page of biological scientists who are not evolutionists. And like Dave W, I found much of the list wanting.
In addition to the rather curious fact that many of the biggest names haven't published in years (or even decades), there's the nature of those publications that makes me wonder.
Take Dr. Gish for example. His C.V. is quite impressive-- B.S. UCLA, '49; PhD Berkley '53 (damn the sciences where a person can geta PhD in 4 years!); Postdoc at Cornell University Medical College '53-'55; Asst. Prof at Cornell University Medical College '55-'56, and so on.
He also has a long list of publications. But notice some of the titles. I (tried to) read this article, published in 1972: "Immunosuppressive, Antiviral and Antitumor Activities of Cytarabine Derivatives." It was co-authored by Gish and about 6 other people.
I admit that I didn't understand much, but I did notice that the thrust of the piece was, actually, about various immunosuppressive, antiviral and antitumor activities of cytarabine derivatives. Other similarly titled articles (e.g. "Nucleic Acis. 16. Orally Active Derivatives of Ara-Cytidine") were mostly concerned with the very small pockets of sub-fields of the discipline-- just like one expects in a peer-reviewed journal. What one doesn't find in his (admittedly partial) list of publications is a book or article with a title something along the lines of "Such-and-such chemical process: Toward a New Understanding of the Origins of Biodiversity on Earth."
And if you don't have this, then what's the point of bragging about your degreed staff? I mean, if you're going to make an appeal to authority, you want that authority to have, well, authority. And while touting a biology PhD who disagrees with evolution is certainly better than touting a lawyer, what good is the PhD's authority when all his validated research either a) doesn't challenge evolution, or b) works within an evolutionary framkework?
Again, the website says that Gish's list is only partial. And I admit to having skimmed only a handfull of that list. Still, I never got the impression that any of Gish's work ever challenged evolution. If so, wouldn't we expect that work to be something creationists whipped out at every opportunity?!? Imagine: "Not all biologists accept evolution-- look at this article by Gish in Biochimica et Biophysica Acta where he talks about how evolution couldn't have happened." But alas, there is no such thing.
So to summarize: while it's great that the ICR can claim to have a bunch of experts in biology and related fields on their staff, their claims to authority mean little when their accepted scholarly work never bothers the challenge evolution. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2004 : 10:12:25 [Permalink]
|
This discussion may be better suited for the Creation/Evolution thread. Oh well...
I think this was touched on briefly but it is important to point out that
to be a member of one of the ICR "research" groups one must have an advanced degree in some field of science and sign a statement of faith. The statement begins as follows:
quote:
ICR:
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.
What that means is that they have sworn these "scientists" to a conclusion no matter where their research takes them. What scientist of integrity would agree to abandon the scientific method? It is my opinion that the moment a "scientist" signs the above statement of faith, he ceases to be a scientist and for all practical purposes has become, instead, a working member of a religious ministry.
Also, they except engineers, computer technicians, aerospace workers and any other kind of scientist on their scientific research staff. They may have a couple of biologists on staff but so what? They stopped doing science the moment the they agreed that any evidence that is in conflict with the statement they have sworn to must be wrong...
quote:
Cuneiform:
while it's great that the ICR can claim to have a bunch of experts in biology and related fields on their staff, their claims to authority mean little when their accepted scholarly work never bothers the challenge evolution.
Bingo! Of course, there are lots of in-house publications, but that is mainly for preaching to the choir. Sadly, there are many people who regard these books as bona fide scientific publications.
I'm sorry that I didn't challenge Duane Gish to an arm wrestling contest when I met him. I'm pretty sure I would have won. We could have settled the whole matter that way. A winner take all kind of thing employing a method of science that Gish could relate to...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2004 : 16:55:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verso
Flip a coin, Dude. If you get something besides
"EITHER heads OR NOT heads"
Then I will believe you.
I have coins that will NEVER give heads, because there are no heads on it.
And then there is the unlikelyhood of the coin actually landing on the rim.
Edited to add: I should have read the whole thread through before posting. This was redundant. |
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 06/20/2004 17:54:48 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
