[psi42]

But don't the mutations happen at random, with no intelligent direction? My point is, how likely is it that a series of random mutations would cumulatively produce the human eye? Or any other complex system?

But, like I said before:

It is not a succession of random mutations, but the cumulative effect of those mutations in relation to the environment, that is important in the long run.

You aren't taking into account the "natural selection" bit. It is not a series of random happenings, it is a series of changes that are selected for by the environment.

That takes a lot of faith to accept, In my opinion.

Faith has nothing to do with it. Faith has no place in the scientific method.

Especially when there is precious little physical evidence to support it. Where is the broad spectrum of intermediate organisms? The fossil record should be THICK with such links, but it is not.

Meet the Punctuated Equilibrium model.

The big question is, how is a partly-formed eye "advantageous" and worth keeping? Did some poor species of beast have a half-formed cornea hanging off their face? Would it not be a disadvantage, prone to infection and injury? And then eons later, by chance, the next mutation developed the optic nerve, which then had to wait until... Well, you get the idea. To me it is obvious that all of human experience and common sense argues against this. Science can theorize all they want but it doesn't overcome common sense.

You are assuming a primitive eye would be exactly like a modern eye with bits and pieces carved out.

Try this on for size:
A primitive organ used for sensing the presence or absence of high-intensity light. This would serve a useful purpose. Let's say this is your starting point. It could very well be a precursor to the modern eye, but it is certainly not a half-formed cornea.

And how often has yesterday's scientific fact become today's discredited theory?

Well, considering you are mixing inherently incompatible terms (scientific fact and scientific theory), your question can not really be answered.

Come on now, that's a bit extreme, isn't it? The eye is a miracle! To say the eye is inefficient is, I think, uninformed. Ask an optometrist if he would agree with your opinion. The eye is mind-bogglingly complex and man has yet to make a visual device that even comes close to it.

I never said man had made anything better than the eye. I never said the eye was not incredibly complex. I never said the eye was not a good thing. What I did say was that the eye was not perfect, because it cannot sense the entire electromagnetic spectrum and can be easily damaged.

I say that the eye is a marvelous gift from a loving Creator.

But couldn't he have given you a better one that was not susceptible to diseases like glaucoma?

Still, the Bible teaches that we are currently imperfect and the eye surely reflects that. But God has promised that mankind (and their eyes) will eventually be returned to perfection.

So, by enduring glaucoma and friends, we are glorifying God? Sorry, I'm not making the connection here.

It is another example of our Creator's loving kindness that we can enjoy food. Sure, we could have been sustained by some other means, but do you really argue that life would be better without the joy of eating?

Ask the child who is starving to death.

On what basis do you profess to know what is perfect and what is not? Are your standards of perfection what everyone should accept? We are imperfect beings--for now--and we do well to recognize and accept our limitations.

I have no basis to state what is a perfect form. However, I can state what is clearly _imperfect_ -- and that is the human eye.

The Bible teaches that God provided sexual relations as a privilege of marriage. And yes, the Bible teaches that it is meant to be pleasurable. It also serves as a means to populate the earth. But the Bible teaches us to be responsible and the prohibitions on fornication are a protection. Consider all the heartache, broken families and even death that result from disregarding those guidelines. They are a loving protection to mankind, much like a father teaching a child the proper use of matches or a knife.

But your God is omnipotent, is he not? Could he not just modify the structure of the World so that knives could only cleave food and wood but not flesh?

Again, what is the basis for this claim? Do you know what would be the most efficient means?

Sexual reproduction requires a mate. Asexual reproduction does not. Sexual reproduction requires intercourse. Asexual reproduction does not.

According to the scientifically accepted model, sexual reproduction allows the genetic makeup of the offspring to be different from that of the parents, for the simple reason that there is more than one source of DNA.

What is the creationist assertion here?

And why does it need to be efficient in the first place? Efficiency is not the overriding consideration in all things.

You are right, it does not. But why design something that wastes so many human resources if it has no other purpose than to be inefficient and to allow for the convenient transmission of certain communicable diseases. Surely your omnipotent God could devise a better way to reward marriage.

Anyway, your whole argument seems to be that God doesn't do things the way you think they should be done. That's not a strong basis for argument.

I'm just looking for answers. I cannot hope to shake faith with the scientific method. They are, by their very natures, incompatible.

Because the Bible stands on its own as a unique book that contains overwhelming evidence that it is divinely inspired. Have you really looked at it with an open-mind? Or do you approach it with all the baggage of those who oppose it? Or even worse, those who claim to follow it but who distort its meanings? The Bible does not contradict proved science. I think the worst anyone can say is that it contradicts many theories.

Better brush up on your definition of theory.

If it was "divinely inspired," then why does it claim the World was created in six days? If it is the Word of God, it would be correct to the letter, no? No allegory, no nonsense, no "ancient society interpretations'" you said it was "divinely inspired." But Genesis contradicts the fossil record and carbon dating. How do you reconcile this?

But in the past when science claimed that the Bible was wrong, the Bible's record of vindication is perfect. Did you know the Bible stated the earth was round centuries before mankind accepted it? (Isaiah 40:22)

You are referring to this, correct?

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Granted there could be mistakes in the translation (I will come back to this later), but I see only the word "circle," not "sphere."

The Bible is not a science textbook, but it reveals astounding knowledge and understanding of the natural world far in advance of science.

How is this evidence of divine inspiration? How do you profess to know the state of the ancient sciences at the time the book was written?

It is little things like this, added with unerring prophecy, that convinces me the Bible is authentic.

To what "unerring prophecy" do you refer?

Even Isaac Newton said he found more evidence of truth in the Bible than in any other work. If he thought it was accurate and worth a look, why don't you?

I would be interested to see this in his words, and in context.

In short, because my God--Jehovah--is the author of the Bible, and the Bible is reliable. I have come to understand the Bible and learned about Him from it. The Bible says there are other gods, but only one true God. He is the one I worship because he is the one who made me and everything I see.

Ah... but you've stepped into a circular logic trap. In order for God to be the author of the Bible, he must exist. But you base his existence on the word of the Bible.

Are you _sure_ you know the origins of that book? It has been translated. Can you read Hebrew?

It has been edited and restructured over time as well.

Regarding, the religions of mankind, what fruitage do you see in all of them that make you think they are all acceptable to God?

Why should they be acceptable to your God? You are stepping in to this issue already assuming you are not only correct but also hold the moral high ground, when in fact you cannot even concretely tell me the origins of the Bible.

And if (for example), the ancient Greek religions were the "correct" ones (in this case I am referring to Mount Olympus and friends), then _your_ religion would have to be wrong, and your God and your Bible would hold no weight.

[psi42]

You claim to be a logical person. What has been the fruitage of the followers of the world's religions? Do we have peace, or security?

Funny you should bring this up. Christianity isn't exactly famous for holding the world together in peaceful harmony over the centuries.

Surely you can't argue that all of mankind's religions are correct? Some have to be wrong.

I was not arguing that. I was asking you to prove your religion to be _the_ correct one.

How do you tell? The Bible says to look at their fruitage, or the behavior of their adherents. That tells the whole story. Or at least, it did for me.

Again, you are assuming the Bible is both the Word of God and infallible.

Don't get me wrong. I admire the strength of your faith. But you can hardly hope to convince a non-Christian of the existence of your God by quoting scripture.

:)
~psi42

[chrisl]

It is not a series of random happenings, it is a series of changes that are selected for by the environment.

You miss my point. Yes or no: are the mutations that are "selected" assumed to occur randomly?

Faith has nothing to do with it. Faith has no place in the scientific method.

I agree that it has no place in real science. But consider the primary definition of faith in the Houghton Mifflin dictionary: "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing." Is that not how you feel about these theories?

Meet the Punctuated Equilibrium model.

A model--another theory. Theories are a dime a dozen and many suffer from a logical fallacy called "Argument from Ignorance," which in one form basically says, "If you can't prove it's false, then it must be true." Even the scientists themselves don't agree on the validity of all the theories floating around! How can any of them be used to prove a point? Just because someone can find theories to support a given claim doesn't make that claim true.

And did you read that Wikipedia article? Not only does it reveal the lack of agreement in the scientific community but it contains the statement: "The lack of substantial gradual change of perhaps most species in the geologic record, from their initial appearance until their extinction, is well known among paleobiologists, and has long been noted." I found it interesting that while the scientific community does not agree on evolution or the punctuated equilibrium model, they do agree on the lack of fossil evidence.

A primitive organ used for sensing the presence or absence of high-intensity light. This would serve a useful purpose. Let's say this is your starting point. It could very well be a precursor to the modern eye, but it is certainly not a half-formed cornea.

I think this is a gross oversimplification. There is a vast gulf separating a light-sensing cell from even the simplest eye. Explain to me how the optic nerve and the eye evolved independently and then came together so that the brain could process the information? It's absurd. If it weren't for that fact that denying it would mean admitting the existence of God, no reasonable person would accept it.

Well, considering you are mixing inherently incompatible terms (scientific fact and scientific theory), your question can not really be answered.

You quibble over definitions. History is filled with examples. The earth-centered universe comes to mind first but there are many others. Do you disagree?

But couldn't he have given you a better one that was not susceptible to diseases like glaucoma?

The Bible says that we were given one that was not susceptible to glaucoma. We are currently imperfect, though.

Ask the child who is starving to death.

Hmm. An appeal to pity that totally ignores the point...

Could he not just modify the structure of the World so that knives could only cleave food and wood but not flesh?

Yes, he could have, but he didn't. He could have made us all robots with no freewill too, which is the logical end of your line of reasoning. Your argument leaves no room for freewill. I wouldn't be surprised to find others who would argue that if knives were that way that God was unfairly restricting their freedom of choice. Once again, what's your point? That the Creator who had the power and intelligence to produce the wonders of nature got it wrong and should have done things the way you think they should have been done?

What is the creationist assertion here?

I don't know what you're asking. Please clarify.

... it has no other purpose than to be inefficient and to allow for the convenient transmission of certain communicable diseases...

Sigh

I'm just looking for answers. I cannot hope to shake faith with the scientific method. They are, by their very natures, incompatible.

No they're not. The scientific method is incompatible with what many so-called Christians are spouting but not with the Bible.

Better brush up on your definition of theory.

From this Wikipedia article: "According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time...'Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.'"

If it was "divinely inspired," then why does it claim the World was created in six days?

I just knew you were judging the Bible on the basis of other's bogus claims! Don't confuse me with those who claim that those were six 24-hour days. The Bible uses the word translated as "day" in many ways. Depending on context, it can mean almost any amount of time, kind of like saying "In my grandfather's day they did things differently." The length of the creative days are not specified but Bible chronology indicates that the minimum figure for a creative day is about 7000 years.

If it is the Word of God, it would be correct to the letter, no?

Do not put words in my mouth! The Bible as it was given to mankind is correct to the letter but I do not claim that human copyists and translators have reproduced it perfectly across the centuries. But scholarship has revealed very little significant change in the text. You can argue about punctuation or words, but the Bible has come down to us with the message intact. The integrity of the Bible when compared with the Dead Sea scrolls is tough to explain if you argue that the text was forged or distorted.

This opposition to the Bible is more of the fruitage of hucksters and extreme fundamentalists. I've heard their claims that the King James Version is the authoritative Bible. Some even call it the "King James Virgin"! What a crock. Every translation must be carefully evaluated for bias. Today, we have several high-quality translations of the Bible, but the KJV is not one of them.

But even so, the KJV is not so bad that it cannot be used. You just have to keep in mind its limitations.

But Genesis contradicts the fossil record and carbon dating. How do you reconcile this?

Genesis does NOT contradict the fossil record and carbon dating. Where is the proof of that statement? Again, you base that statement on the claims of others, not what the Bible actually says. Carbon dating is not the "end-all-and-be-all" either. It has its critics too. And consider this statement from Wikipedia:

"Since it is assumed that the cosmic ray flux is constant over long periods of time, carbon-14 is assumed to be continuously produced at a constant rate and therefore that the proportion of radioactive to non-radioactive carbon throughout the Earth's atmosphere and oceans is constant"

If the flood account is true, what effect would all that water in the atmosphere have on the radiocarbon dating? There's no knowing how great the distortion would be, but very likely things would look older than they are. At the very least, the RC dating system would be very untrustworthy.

Granted there could be mistakes in the translation (I will come back to this later), but I see only the word "circle," not "sphere."

Again, I think you quibble, although the Hebrew word here does actually convey the idea of a sphere. But even if it didn't, the Bible still had it right at a time when most were in ignorance.

How is this evidence of divine inspiration? How do you profess to know the state of the ancient sciences at the time the book was written?

Come on, now, you're being argumentative! My point is that the Bible had it right at a time when this wasn't known for sure. That is a piece of evidence that supports inspiration rather than contradicts it, right?

To what "unerring prophecy" do you refer?

Wow, where to begin? How about the dozens of prophecies fulfilled by Jesus? How about the succession of world powers in Daniel that reach up into our day? The destruction of Jerusalem, Babylon and Tyre?

I would be interested to see this in his words, and in context.

This quote is common knowledge--Google it. Newton's respect for the Bible was well known. Check the Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_N...eligious_views

It has been edited and restructured over time as well.

This comes from Higher Criticism which, like many other theories, does not enjoy widespread support. The fact is that the Bible is astonishingly consistent despite that fact that it was written by 40 people over a period of about 1600 years. You can't even get two or three scientists to agree on a theory. How do you explain 40 different authors producing a consistent document like the Bible?

[chrisl]

Funny you should bring this up. Christianity isn't exactly famous for holding the world together in peaceful harmony over the centuries.

If you substitute the word "Christendom" for "Christianity", then you are absolutely correct. Do not confuse the two, they are separate and distinct. Christendom professes to be Christian but is not.

It was Christendom that formed the Inquisition and later put Galileo before it (finally admitted their error centuries later) and who throughout their sordid history have meddled in politics, killed each other in countless wars, insisted on literal 24-hour creative days and made other absurd claims about the Bible.

They may claim to be Christians but their actions expose them as hypocrites.

The Bible does not support them. In fact, Christendom has denied the Bible by its actions. If all mankind actually followed what the Bible teaches as true Christianity, there would be no war, no violence, no crime, etc. Gandhi once said that the solution to the world's problems lay in the simple truths of the Sermon on the Mount. But true Christianity requires self-sacrifice and few are willing to abandon their selfish lifestyles to live it. Many want the benefits that the appearance of righteousness brings but are unwilling to make the changes it truly requires.

So beware of words with no actions to back them up. It is especially dangerous when someone claims, "All you have to do is believe!" The Bible says otherwise. (Matthew 7:21; 1 John 5:1-3; James 1:22; James 2:14-26)

And before you object that you don't recognize the authority of the Bible, I'm only providing scripture references to show the hypocisry of Christendom, who profess to follow it.

I was asking you to prove your religion to be _the_ correct one.

What proof could I possibly give you that you would accept? All I can tell you is to study the Bible with an open mind--not biasing your opinion with hearsay or the prejudices of others--and see for yourself if it is the truth or not.

The Bible is a book that encourages reasoning, not credulity, and it can be reasoned on if you are open-minded. I think that the churches of Christendom have poisoned the well in this regard. Their wacky claims have made people hyper-critical of the Bible.

Don't get me wrong. I admire the strength of your faith. But you can hardly hope to convince a non-Christian of the existence of your God by quoting scripture.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, then! The Bible stands on its own. You are free to ignore it, if you choose. The Bible says that not everyone wants the truth. My concern is for others who are genuinely searching for the truth because, while you are free to do as you wish, others are harmed when they hear untruths about the Bible or are encouraged to dismiss it because the latest scientific theory is being tossed about as if it were a fact.

Chris

[psi42]

Apologies for the delay. ;)

You miss my point. Yes or no: are the mutations that are "selected" assumed to occur randomly?

As far as I know, yes.

I agree that it has no place in real science. But consider the primary definition of faith in the Houghton Mifflin dictionary: "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing." Is that not how you feel about these theories?

No. Science is not a religion, we do not adhere to scientific theories because we consider certain scientists to be infallible. We adhere to scientific theories because they are explanations with a multitude of evidence, supported through the scientific method.

If a better _scientific_ explanation was found, then it would surely displace the evolution by natural selection explanation. Have you got one?

A model--another theory. Theories are a dime a dozen and many suffer from a logical fallacy called "Argument from Ignorance," which in one form basically says, "If you can't prove it's false, then it must be true."

I've often seen this fallacy used s an argument against Strong Atheism...

Even the scientists themselves don't agree on the validity of all the theories floating around! How can any of them be used to prove a point? Just because someone can find theories to support a given claim doesn't make that claim true.

You're talking about these theories like "someone" just conjured them up during their lunch break.

Scientists do dispute _how_ speciation occurs, but that does not mean that speciation does not occur at all.

And did you read that Wikipedia article? Not only does it reveal the lack of agreement in the scientific community but it contains the statement: "The lack of substantial gradual change of perhaps most species in the geologic record, from their initial appearance until their extinction, is well known among paleobiologists, and has long been noted." I found it interesting that while the scientific community does not agree on evolution or the punctuated equilibrium model, they do agree on the lack of fossil evidence.

You asked how the lack of "intermediate forms" in the fossil record could be explained, I pointed to the punctuated equilibrium model, which is a well-thought out and well-respected theory to explain it.

I think this is a gross oversimplification. There is a vast gulf separating a light-sensing cell from even the simplest eye. Explain to me how the optic nerve and the eye evolved independently and then came together so that the brain could process the information? It's absurd.

What about the Compound eye?

If it weren't for that fact that denying it would mean admitting the existence of God, no reasonable person would accept it.

No, it wouldn't. I believe this is the "Either/or fallacy" (A is false, so B MUST be true).

You quibble over definitions. History is filled with examples. The earth-centered universe comes to mind first but there are many others. Do you disagree?

How does the earth-centered universe idea qualify as science?

The Bible says that we were given one that was not susceptible to glaucoma. We are currently imperfect, though.

So you are saying God just _chose_ to give us glaucoma?
... How does glaucoma glorify God?

Hmm. An appeal to pity that totally ignores the point...

How does it ignore the point? In order to sustain ourselves, we have to consume organic matter. In order to do so, we have to destroy other organisms--other Creatures of God, so to speak. If we do not eat, we not only die, but suffer incredible pain. Why impose this requirement--surely we could have been given the pleasure of eating without having to destroy other life or fear starvation.

Once again, what's your point? That the Creator who had the power and intelligence to produce the wonders of nature got it wrong and should have done things the way you think they should have been done?

If there is a Creator, why would he do things that simply do not make sense? How does a cattle slaughterhouse glorify God? How do starving infants glorify God?

Let's take a look at sex.

Sex is good because:
It is pleasurable
It forms bonds between people
(etc... )

Sex is bad because:
It allows the transmission of disease
It allows for unintentional procreation
(etc... )

Admittedly this is a very brief and shallow list, but that isn't the point.
Now why can't we have the good things without the bad things? How does gonorrhea glorify God?

No they're not. The scientific method is incompatible with what many so-called Christians are spouting but not with the Bible.

Explain.

I just knew you were judging the Bible on the basis of other's bogus claims! Don't confuse me with those who claim that those were six 24-hour days. The Bible uses the word translated as "day" in many ways. Depending on context, it can mean almost any amount of time, kind of like saying "In my grandfather's day they did things differently." The length of the creative days are not specified but Bible chronology indicates that the minimum figure for a creative day is about 7000 years.

Interesting.

Now, as I'm sure you know, some animals and plants exist in symbiotic relationships (for example, some bees and some flowers). If bees and flowers were created on separate 7000+ year "days," then how did they survive without their symbiotic counterparts?

Do not put words in my mouth! The Bible as it was given to mankind is correct to the letter but I do not claim that human copyists and translators have reproduced it perfectly across the centuries. But scholarship has revealed very little significant change in the text. You can argue about punctuation or words, but the Bible has come down to us with the message intact. The integrity of the Bible when compared with the Dead Sea scrolls is tough to explain if you argue that the text was forged or distorted.

But you don't have a copy of the perfect Bible you speak of that was given to mankind. So you cannot know what changed between the time the Bible was handed out and the time the Dead Sea scrolls were written?

Genesis does NOT contradict the fossil record and carbon dating. Where is the proof of that statement? Again, you base that statement on the claims of others, not what the Bible actually says. Carbon dating is not the "end-all-and-be-all" either. It has its critics too. And consider this statement from Wikipedia:

"Since it is assumed that the cosmic ray flux is constant over long periods of time, carbon-14 is assumed to be continuously produced at a constant rate and therefore that the proportion of radioactive to non-radioactive carbon throughout the Earth's atmosphere and oceans is constant"

If the flood account is true, what effect would all that water in the atmosphere have on the radiocarbon dating?

I don't claim to be an expert on radiometric dating, but it seems an awful coincidence that such "mixing up" of carbon isotopes would create a coherent geological timeline.

Carbon dating is not the only way to date an object. What about uranium-lead dating?

And does the flood explain the fossil record. Did organisms decide to line themselves up by geological strata and wait to be buried, just for kicks?

Come on, now, you're being argumentative! My point is that the Bible had it right at a time when this wasn't known for sure. That is a piece of evidence that supports inspiration rather than contradicts it, right?

Even if this particular author was speaking literally and not metaphorically, the Bible got many other things very wrong.

Wow, where to begin? How about the dozens of prophecies fulfilled by Jesus? How about the succession of world powers in Daniel that reach up into our day? The destruction of Jerusalem, Babylon and Tyre?

But how do you know the prophecies weren't written _after_ the events transpired?

[psi42]

If you substitute the word "Christendom" for "Christianity", then you are absolutely correct. Do not confuse the two, they are separate and distinct. Christendom professes to be Christian but is not.

It was Christendom that formed the Inquisition and later put Galileo before it (finally admitted their error centuries later) and who throughout their sordid history have meddled in politics, killed each other in countless wars, insisted on literal 24-hour creative days and made other absurd claims about the Bible.

They may claim to be Christians but their actions expose them as hypocrites.

The Bible does not support them. In fact, Christendom has denied the Bible by its actions. If all mankind actually followed what the Bible teaches as true Christianity, there would be no war, no violence, no crime, etc. Gandhi once said that the solution to the world's problems lay in the simple truths of the Sermon on the Mount. But true Christianity requires self-sacrifice and few are willing to abandon their selfish lifestyles to live it. Many want the benefits that the appearance of righteousness brings but are unwilling to make the changes it truly requires.

But a while ago, didn't you say:

Surely you can't argue that all of mankind's religions are correct? Some have to be wrong. How do you tell? The Bible says to look at their fruitage, or the behavior of their adherents.

What proof could I possibly give you that you would accept?

Exactly.

My concern is for others who are genuinely searching for the truth because, while you are free to do as you wish, others are harmed when they hear untruths about the Bible or are encouraged to dismiss it because the latest scientific theory is being tossed about as if it were a fact.

And I feel people are harmed when creationists try to redefine science and twist logic in order to bring it into line with an aging religious text.

And such is life.


Have a nice day, :)
~psi42

[chrisl]

BTW, I have nothing to do with anyone's efforts to change what is taught in schools. As the Bible directs, I stay out of such worldly affairs and teach my children the truth on my own.

Anyway, debate like this takes up too much time so let me ask a simple yes or no question:

If God did exist and had provided information about Himself and His purposes that explained the condition of mankind, would you want to know?

If yes, then we can keep on with this for a little while more. If no, then there's no point in continuing because spiritual matters must be considered with an open mind.

Chris

[psi42]

Anyway, debate like this takes up too much time so let me ask a simple yes or no question:

If God did exist and had provided information about Himself and His purposes that explained the condition of mankind, would you want to know?

Yes, of course... IF He proved that said information was genuine.

[chrisl]

Yes, of course... IF He proved that said information was genuine.

Cool. I sometimes get carried away with arguing and debate, so let's try a more reasoned approach to see if we can find something genuine to agree on. Let me lay out my case and see what you think. Bear with me...

Based on your statements about glaucoma, starvation and suffering, is it safe to say that you can find no reason why an omnipotent Creator would permit such things to exist?

Would you think it reasonable that if an an omnipotent Creator did exist, He might sometimes do things in a way that is not always immediately understandable to His creatures, or that might take some effort to fully grasp? A good analogy would be the way a caring parent might explain to a child why he must undergo a painful medical treatment: "I love you and I'm acting in your best interest. You will understand my reasons in time."

I'm not asking you to accept any particular explanation at this point. I'm only asking if you can even consider that there might be another way to look at these issues?

Chris

[mike145k]

Its great to worship god but not anthony roberts

[mike145k]

Hank most sane people worship god not Anthony Robbins

[mike145k]

Appreciation lies at the core of the notion in our language of 'respect.' Invoking the notion of 'respect' is sometimes easier to do than either acting on it in concrete situations or UNDERSTANDING its ethical and social implications.

HANK :eek:

Ladies and gentleman here is a fine example of gargelyguk

[fredg]

Hi, Hank,
You really know how to come up with them, don't you.
God is the answer, in all things.
Best wishes, and Happy 4th of July, where it all started with Independence Day, the independence of Worship.
fredg

[chrisl]

Faith has no place in the scientific method.

Hey psi42--

Did you see this at CNN?

Harvard to explore origins of life

Here is the "scientific method" in action. Notice Professor David R. Liu's statement in the article:

"My expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention." (Italics mine)

Maybe it was a slip of the tongue but it certainly is curious. Is Professor Liu perhaps over-confident? Do you think he intends to be open-minded and let the facts lead where they may, or will his "expectation" affect his methodology and analysis?

This highlights a critical flaw in the scientific method: it's never purely scientific. Consciously or not, personal prejudice, bias and pride are always involved. What outcome does someone--or a whole group of someones--want? How much do they want it, and how does this affect their research?

But I have little doubt that when the conclusions of this "research" are published, the scientific community--and those who put their faith in the integrity of the scientific method--will present them to the world as the latest "facts"!

Whose faith is the problem here?

Chris

[psi42]

Here is the "scientific method" in action. Notice Professor David R. Liu's statement in the article:

"My expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention." (Italics mine)

Maybe it was a slip of the tongue but it certainly is curious. Is Professor Liu perhaps over-confident? Do you think he intends to be open-minded and let the facts lead where they may, or will his "expectation" affect his methodology and analysis?

There is no problem here. A key component of the scientific method is the creation of a hypothesis -- this is his hypothesis. He is hypothesizing about what might have occurred and then is going to devise an experiment (not necessary a "classic laboratory experiment") to help support or disprove this hypothesis.

This highlights a critical flaw in the scientific method: it's never purely scientific. Consciously or not, personal prejudice, bias and pride are always involved. What outcome does someone--or a whole group of someones--want? How much do they want it, and how does this affect their research?

I understand what you are saying, and you do have a point. However, this is not a flaw in the scientific method.

But I have little doubt that when the conclusions of this "research" are published, the scientific community--and those who put their faith in the integrity of the scientific method--will present them to the world as the latest "facts"!

Ah... you are missing something here. Scientists do not have "faith" in the scientific method. Faith, put simply, is the sincere belief in something for which there is no proof or evidence. The scientific method has been used time and time again and has proved itself a useful tool over the past few centuries.

Whose faith is the problem here?

Those of the so-called "creation scientists" who, by faith alone, declare their allegiance to the dogma of a Judeo-Christian style religion, and then, in a hopeless mockery of science, try to "prove" the existence of God.


Now, on to the old stuff (which I seem to have forgotten to answer, my apologies ;)):

Based on your statements about glaucoma, starvation and suffering, is it safe to say that you can find no reason why an omnipotent Creator would permit such things to exist?

I see no reason why the omnipotent Creator described by Christianity would permit such things to exist.

Would you think it reasonable that if an an omnipotent Creator did exist, He might sometimes do things in a way that is not always immediately understandable to His creatures, or that might take some effort to fully grasp? A good analogy would be the way a caring parent might explain to a child why he must undergo a painful medical treatment: "I love you and I'm acting in your best interest. You will understand my reasons in time."

Yes. But we could go on like this for hours ("If we are to accept there is a giant antique human-built refrigerator in orbit around Saturn, would it be possible that it might have an attached ice-cube dispensor and AM-FM radio?"). I'm sorry, but I can't see why this can be accepted on faith alone.

[chrisl]

There is no problem here. A key component of the scientific method is the creation of a hypothesis -- this is his hypothesis. He is hypothesizing about what might have occurred and then is going to devise an experiment (not necessary a "classic laboratory experiment") to help support or disprove this hypothesis.

I think that's a bit of a stretch. It doesn't sound so much like a hypothesis as it does presuming the final outcome of the research. I guess my point is, why presume anything? It makes more sense to say, "We are going to see if the evidence points to creation, spontaneous generation or some other explanation."

Instead, he has already ruled out one possible outcome. With that prejudicial mindset, how do you think he will interpret evidence?

Faith, put simply, is the sincere belief in something for which there is no proof or evidence.

That is not faith--that is credulity, which many "creationists" and so-called Christians suffer from. They are dogmatic about their interpretations and do not allow the Bible to speak for itself. Consider how the Bible describes faith:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen -- Hebrews 11:1 (NKJV)

You (and many professed Christians) may be surprised to learn that the Bible links faith to evidence. True scriptural faith is not blind and unreasoning. It comes from considering and weighing evidence. What evidence?

The entire physical world is evidence and so is the Bible. Together, they make a powerful case. The earth and the universe are filled with complex, interrelated systems that no reasonable persons would assume "just happened somehow." And the Bible contains logical explanations that match what we observe.

Mankind's explanations, on the other hand, require accepting staggeringly complicated scenarios, incomprehensible odds and endless new theories to explain problems with existing theories. Furthermore, they change with each passing century, or even decade! The Bible's explanations have withstood the test of time--for millennia. Why?

The simplest explanation is, because it's the truth.

Those of the so-called "creation scientists" who, by faith alone, declare their allegiance to the dogma of a Judeo-Christian style religion, and then, in a hopeless mockery of science, try to "prove" the existence of God.

I agree that such ones have no credibility. But again, they do not speak for the Bible. They disown it by their actions.

Do not fall victim to ad hominen prejudice. Just because these folks have no credibility and their logic is absurd does not necessarily mean that their conclusions are false. Remember that the world-changing issue of the existence of a creator is not determined by the character of such people.

I see no reason why the omnipotent Creator described by Christianity would permit such things to exist.

You keep qualifying all your statements with "Christianity or Judeo-Christians say..." I agree that what most of these groups believe and teach about the Bible is nonsense--even laughable. But you must understand there is a difference between what they say the Bible says, and what the Bible actually says.

Anyway, the Bible account shows that God temporarily permits suffering to exist so that the issue of rulership, or sovereignty, can be settled to mankind's eternal benefit.

The earth and mankind were at one time perfect with no suffering or death. Mankind would live forever in perfection if they stayed obedient to God's benevolent rulership. God even warned about the consequences of disobedience. But the Bible explains that there was a rebellion and mankind chose to reject God's rulership and rule themselves. (I'm guessing you recognize the account of the Garden of Eden--Genesis 1-3)

What would God do? Being all powerful, he could have just destroyed them all. But the Bible shows that God handled the matter like a caring father who permits an errant child to learn from his mistakes for his long-term benefit. He permitted the rebels to temporarily rule themselves, but he did not shield them from the consequences of their actions.

Keep in mind that the rebellion challenged the rightfulness of God's rulership, not his power. To settle that issue--the issue of sovereignty--all creation would need to see the results of mankind's rulership. Would it be better than God's rule? History and present world conditions provide the answer.

But it's also important to know that the Bible promises a permanent end to suffering in the near future and a restoration for the earth and mankind, even bringing the dead back to life. God's original purpose for the earth will be fulfilled. And until then, he teaches mankind through the Bible how to avoid many problems and find happiness and joy.

I could refer you to scriptures for all of this but I don't know if you care. I just wanted to defend the Bible to show it's not just a bunch of gobbledy-gook like many say. It does give reasons and explanations--and even evidence--to those who are sincere and open-minded.

Chris

[eawoodall]

Why should people believe that all religious understanding is relative and that no one interpretation is absolute?

HANK :confused:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is your question is not about religion but about philosophy.
Rewording the question: what pivotal value would allow religious relativity?

religion has to do with belief of theology (worship).

philosophy has to do belief of physical science (reality).

certainly the belief structure of a group who practices and shares :
core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology, as a group as well as a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith can be considered in a religion, but the reasons they hold are a philosophy.

religion is scrupulous conformity (belief about who holds the power) .
philosophy is attitude toward reason to (or not) worship (belief about reality).

pivotal value is the core belief and logic of a person or group.
The reason people believe in a religion is philosophy.

[Hope12]

Hello Everyone,

We live in a world or syetem of injustices. People who recently suffered a loss of electricity in South Florida have been plagued now with a 400 dollar deposit added to their electric bills. We are doing our best here just to get back to "some kind of normal life." Why would FPL as well as the gas companies make more of a burden on us who are already burdened? By the way a gallon of gas in south Florida is not up to $3.69.

How many of these company owners charge these outrageous prices and then turn around a claim to be religious people? Where is the justice?

In my home town alone there are some who are disabled and given SSI checks of the sum of $375 dollars a month to live on. That amount of money is for their rent and food and electric. Then companies turn around and charge these people $400. Deposit to keep their electric running. Many of these people are depended on their electricity to aid in their care of their health problems. What is this world coming to? The rich get richer and the poor get killed with the rich perosons greed.

What is the solution? Do you believe their will ever be a solution for such greed? I have a solution but I would love to hear yours, if you have one??

Take care,
Hope12 :(

[arcura]

In religion a relativist thinks it is relative.
And absolutist thinks his/hers is absolute.
For the religious attitude of each they are personally right for their own spiritual needs.
I'm a former Lutheran and now a Catholic. I believe much of what both denominations teach. Therefore I am an absolutist in most of the teachings and a relativist in others.
You might say that with me it is relatively absolute.
Think on this...
If you think you can, or you think you can't, either way you are right."
It applies somewhat to the above.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)


:)

[Morganite]

Having read this thread, I am surprised to find experts ranting at each other, but no one saying anything of substance. Is this the vagrant opinion board?



Morganite