How Can We Decide Who Is Wrong?
Here's an email exchange I recently had with a Christian. It's typical of many others. I said:
Him:
Although both of us could be wrong, at least one of us is wrong. How do you propose deciding which one of us is right, if one of us is?His response:
I agree that at least one of us is wrong. Unless one of sees evidence or has an experience to convince us otherwise, neither of us will change our minds. No matter how much you and others want to paint it otherwise, atheism is not a purely scientific conclusion.My response:
It's the method of science that shows your faith to be wrong. There is no other way but to assume a natural explanation for everything. That method has no need of a god. Historians cannot approach the past any other way, nor can scientists. If we cannot know something by the method of naturalism as applied in science and history then we cannot know something at all.
Him:
John,Me:
When you say, “It's the method of science that shows your faith to be wrong,“ that’s just simply not true, no matter how much you want it to be true. There is not a single branch of science that has concluded that there is no god.
Yes, correct. But here's what science does: It offers natural explanations that better explains the phenomena than your theistic explanations, which are no explanations at all (see my next comment below).Him:
All science does is attempt to explain via natural means how physical events occur. Just because botany explain how plants grow or because geology explains rock formations, that does not exclude the activity of a god.Me:
This god of yours ends up being nothing more than the god of the gaps. And at that point any god will do.Him:
The scientific METHOD has no need of a god, and its conclusions are not dependent on a god.Me:
Then your specific conclusions could be derived no matter what method we use and so could any other god explanation.Him regarding a natural explanation of the Bible:
Using simple logic, if you look at the Bible as a whole (in addition to its parts individually), you have to ask certain questions about continuity and about why it reads so much differently than other ancient texts. That’s where a purely natural explanation falls even more into what’s merely possibly rather than what’s probable.Me:
Did you say you read Hector Avalos's chapter on Yahweh in The Christian Delusion: Why Faith FailsHim:? Did you really read it? Say it isn't so, for if you did I'm at a loss for words here. I really think you are ignorant about the Bible and the results of Biblical criticism. That's right, ignorant. Sorry. There is nothing in the Bible nor in how it was written or compiled or canonozied that reveals any divine mind behind this process in whole or in part. There is no statment or series of statements, no book, no prediction, no moral teaching, no lesson of hygene, nothing, that cannot be more credibly explained as the musings of an ancient suprestitious barbaric people living in a high context society. Nothing.
John, be consistent here. Are you willing to apply that standard to every single aspect of human existence? If so, you have lost a lot!! (Including love and all other emotions, beauty and all aesthetics, and most other phenomena that make human life enjoyable.)Me:
Humans evolved from the lower primates so one would expect that with our common ancestors we share with them these emotions. It's NOT HARD TO EXPLAIN AT ALL! There is brain research and psychological studies all showing this is who we are and it can be explained by our cobbled together brain (in three layers, the lowest of which is the reptilian brain) and socializing tendencies discovered by psychology.
I really think that given the way you are forced to argue your case above (very lame) that you are blind. The reason we cannot agree is because you are not willing to be consistent nor cn you allow yourself to even consider that you are living in a cult group surrounded on every side by many other Moonies in a much bigger commune that includes people who have doctorates in Moonieism in a culture that is largely Christian where you speak Christianeze that has a history stretching down two millenia. That's all you are. That's why you believe. That's why you cannot even consider for one minute you are wrong. That's why you must offer one non-sequitur after another and why you fail to understand the implications of what you accept in other areas of life.
572 comments:
"If we cannot know something by the method of naturalism as applied in science and history then we cannot know something at all."
But John, as a former professor of philosophy you must be aware of the fact that you cannot know the above proposition to be true "by the method of naturalism as applied in science and history," so by your own standard, you cannot know it at all.
Yup.
"If something has an effect or influence, you can try to examine it using the tools of science — so when someone announces that gods cannot be detected by observation or experiment, they are saying they don't matter and don't do anything, which is exactly what this atheist has been saying all along." - PZ Meyers
John, I don't think all agree. I've been having a similar email discussion (the one I sent you for input on) with a friend of mine. My 'quest of doubt' has become extremely emotionally agonizing.
In essence, I've presented my case for why I believe it is logical and well-reasoned to conduct the outsider test of faith, namely to try and prove Christianity to myself. I've summarized my 'common sense objections' many times to him, well presented at EbonMusings.
Here is his response which is what he would have said to you after the 'deafening silence' you report:
"To me, the fact that you are seeking truth does not necessarily mean that you will land at the truth. I think it is quite possible for Christianity to be true, but for you not to land at that conclusion, even though you are trying to seek truth. One of the biggest reasons has to do with the way that you're approaching this whole thing. If that happens, I certainly wouldn't blame God. You are the one who has chosen plough your own furrow and not follow the recommended way to approach these things. Plus, who knows what kind of spiritual warfare may be involved here. It reminds me a little of the joke about the guy who was drowning and praying to God. A boat and helicopter came, but he refused and said that he was waiting for God. He drowned, went to heaven, and asked God what the deal was. God told him that he sent a boat and a helicopter - what more did he want? Obviously, this is a bad analogy, and I'm not making an argument with it. I was just reminded of it.
One of the problems with starting with immersing yourself in the atheist stuff, especially since you don't have much background in theology and philosophy, is that I think it has formed how you think about and approach this whole thing. It is not just an information gathering exercise. Rather, it impacts the way that you think and reason, and the criteria that you use to measure things, not to mention your emotional state. It has contributed, I think, to you approaching this area as a skeptic empiricist, rather than in a more nuanced way.
I don't think you're going to get very far if you're trying to prove Christianity to yourself, since it cannot be proven. And I'm not suggesting that you simply assume it is true.
I think that an emotional skew will certainly have a big impact on where one might land on a quest like this, since it is not clearly provable either way - unlike the round earth thing. It is also far more personal a question than the round earth thing, so one's emotional disposition is huge. I think you yourself agreed with this in a different email. If your current disposition is similar to how you wrote in another email, then I don't think you're in a position that is conducive to arriving at the truth.
I agree that you can't really "turn off" intellectual disagreement, per se, but I think you can have a lot less confidence in your own ability to figure all this out than you currently do, and I think you can, to a certain extent, choose to mistrust your methods and your reasoning, or at least trust them a lot less than you currently do, and be more open to going about this a different way. It is quite possible that a.) your method is not a good one, that b.) you have not found the right evidence, that c.) you are not weighing the evidence correctly, and that d.) even if you had done a.), b.), and c.) correctly and that the weight of evidence was contra-Christianity, that this would mean it wasn't true. It is quite logically possible for something to be true, even if there is more evidence against it than for it. (It so happens that I don't think that's the case with Christianity; I'm just making the point.)"
So... there you have it. What does everyone think of the advice to me?
Correction: I respond to your post here: http://ichthyscredo.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/can-god-did-it-be-used-in-history-and-science/
Just to add a slight bit more information:
- He disagrees with me choosing to step 'outside of the bubble' to prove Christianity to myself since it is not recommended
- He has suggested that the 'recommended' approach is to 'have faith seeking understanding.' I have asked him at least three times how this is not the same as 'believe that you may believe more' and he has not answered. I believe this is what he referred to when he says he is not asking that I suppose Christianity to be true...
Anyway, John, I think his response shows his take on how to solve the 'two people arriving at different conclusions thing.'
I find this incredibly unsatisfying. If something is true, it's just plain true. How in the world can god be such that my approach will determine if I find him... at all!? God should be unavoidable, no matter what the approach. Moreso than gravity, in my opinion.
The fact that man has been consumed with inventing gods and that people have their religions in most instances by virtue of their parents' beliefs strikes me as more than enough to warrant a skeptical approach vs. a 'faith seeking understanding' approach.
At least with the sciences, one can continue testing and refining until the hypothesis tests well and forms the basis for a solid explanation. In this case, however, two people can form two completely different answer sets and somehow coexist -- neither able to provide compelling reasons that the other party find convincing.
Instead, my method is suspect? I've just read arguments, listened to debates, and thought about things in order to figure out which seems more convincing.
Though science is not complete in it's answer set, I find that it handles a lot of situations far better than its supernatural counter part. Biblical issues, the existence of both miracles (or inexplicable healings) and horrid accidents where believers are killed, why evidence for Jesus outside of the gospels is so lacking (at least claims of miracles and life details), etc. are all superbly answered by naturalistic means whereas faith answers get stuck in a lot of tough situations.
What gives?
"If we cannot know something by the method of naturalism as applied in science and history then we cannot know something at all."
Then I guess you're just out of luck, John. If you review your philosophy, you'll see that it's been shown that the scientific method, and reason itself, have no grounding. Especially if you're a naturalist.
You cannot use the scientific method to prove the scientific method, nor can you use reason to prove reason. All you can do is show that the scientific method appears to you to be pragmatic, which does not mean it is true.
If you believe Godel, then you'll know that we can't really prove anything until we're outside the system; that is, until we're dead. Which kind of brings us back to Pascal's Wager.
Serious? So nothing can be known to exist if it can't be weighed, counted or measured? Is that what you are postulating? Is that what you mean? Assuming it is I have a two simple lines of questions to ask: How can you prove that your family loves you? How much does their love weigh? How long is it? How wide is it? Better question is if there is no transcendence of this life and no one has any ultimate value (as many consistent atheists believe) than what does it matter? How do you prove you matter period? How do we weigh, count, or otherwise measure your worth or anyone else's for that matter?
Sure would like to hear answers for these. Of course silence would also be an answer.
Eric, I understand Plantinga's critique of foundationalism but it now seems to me it misses the mark. Just insert the word "probably" in what I wrote. "If we cannot know something by the method of naturalism as applied in science and history then we PROBABLY cannot know something at all."
Most statements we make would implicitly include that word since little if anything can be known with certainty.
And once you do that you'll be able to feel the force of this argument.
The scientific method, folks, is based on there being a natural explanation for a phenomenon. All this talk of happiness, love reason and logic is no different. We must look for natural explanations. Evolutionary theory explains human emotions since they are rooted in pre-human emotions. And without learning to think we never would have survived.
In fact, there are natural explanations for EVERY phenomenon that do a better job of explaining it than the theistic hypothesis.
About love and happiness.
Science has always helped me out. Being diagnosed with Schizo-Affective disorder I can honestly say that when I take my meds I am alot happier. Not that I don't use spiritual principles but if I don't take my Depakote those principles just get all jumbled up in my head. I need medicine to help stabilize my mood.
I think Hendy made some pretty good points in his/her second message!
Reminds me of many conversations I had when starting to doubt my faith and pondered the illogical concepts of christianity!
Marcus.
How does one prove that their family loves them?
Well....why dont you prove first there is such a thing as love!
Love is just a name given to a high degree of emotional affection/attachment to something or someone!
Seriously, is it really that hard to find evidence that your family (loves) you???? pretty sure this can be demonstrated and observed!
Marcus McElhaney said... "How can you prove that your family loves you? "
Jump in the river about 200m above niagra falls,and see if it looks like they are at all worried about doing anything much to try to save you.
If they simply stand there laughing smiling and scratching their butt they probably love you a whole lot less, than if they start yelling and running around looking to do something about trying to help save you.
Hendys post said..." I think you can, to a certain extent, choose to mistrust your methods and your reasoning"
We often do this in our everyday life anyway to double check things to try and be more sure we are making the right decisions.
How can that method be any worse off, than simply having belief in faith that cannot be proved
I guess I approach from a different angle. As the piece went on, John's answers became more and more ad hominem and his typing degenerated into more and more mistakes. I guess that speaks volumes about who THOUGHT they were not making their point well, and was increasingly distressed and worried that they might be wrong. (as usual, my posts are usually not posted by John.)
Mostly because you never actually engage the arguments, Shery. You only comment on personally related stuff. Come on now, what did you say just now that merits posting? What you said was not substantive or even on topic, as usual, complain as you might.
Read my comment policy.
Marcus McElhaney wrote:
"Better question is if there is no transcendence of this life and no one has any ultimate value (as many consistent atheists believe) than what does it matter?"
To what does "it" refer? To life? If so, you've answered your own question: life has no "ultimate value."
JOhn wrote, "If we cannot know something by the method of naturalism as applied in science and history then we cannot know something at all."
If you are looking to debunk a nature-made god, then this is true. But God is super-natural, not of the natural realm.
The thing I noticed in this conversation between you two is that you both seem to relegate God to a literary creature, known only through scripture. However, if you use scripture alone to learn about God, you would know that He does not expect us to conjure up an accurate or real vision of Him through oral or written tradition alone.
Okay, I'm being redundant again --- but the same references keep coming up about God and the Bible.
You said,
Assuming it is I have a two simple lines of questions to ask: How can you prove that your family loves you?
Answer: evidence, lots and lots of evidence. In societies like the US where daughters are not bought and sold as chattel, the love of a man or woman must be earned through demonstratable behaviors, some evolutionarily engrained and some societally defined. You provide your love interest with evidence, lots of evidence, and your love interest reciprocates with lots of evidence for you. If the evidence is absent you soon lose interest. Then, too, this evidence exchange is not limited to female-male relationships.
Also, parents teach their children to behave in ways consistent with how we feel about them. We see how these things play out at church potlucks, weddings, funerals. How do your children know you do not like someone? Evidence. How do you teach your children to suck up to Grandma? You teach them to provide evidence, tangible behaviors accepted in our society to reflect one's feelings.
Also, Marcus, we are so susceptible to accepting behaviors as evidence that we are easily duped with them. This is especially the case when we take the behavior of uttering a litany of unreliable words as evidence. Ted Haggard. Jimmy Swaggart. Jim Baker. Jerry Falwell. George Reker. You? Words are weak evidence by themselves and they are even weaker when, as is the case with all all religions, they are spoken without a reliable standard against which their veracity can be assessed. The Bible is a focal point of Christianity but it is not evidence for much of anything. Some people wrote down the prevailing myths, legends, fables, dreams, and superstitions, then peppered it with a big dollop of wishful thinking. Christians do not agree with each other about it, and, as has been pointed out, there exists no way to resolve the disagreements.
How much does their love weigh? How long is it? How wide is it?
Dumb. Just dumb. These are not the metrics of love, but the metrics are there. We see how love whithers away when Christians by the millions violate their marriage vows, abandon their children, abuse their children and spouses.
You said,
Better question is if there is no transcendence of this life and no one has any ultimate value (as many consistent atheists believe) than what does it matter?
Ultimate value is a stupid notion. People do not act as if anyone has "Ultimate Value." Assuming no inbreeding, you have or had eight great grandparents. Can you name all of those people who were of Ultimate Value? How about further back to their sixteen parents? Can you name them? Similarly, your great grand children will have little or not interest in who you were. Imagining Ultimate Value does not make it so. We are all generation-centric. When your children are small they look to you for everything. A few short years later that is no longer the case. A few more years and you become a holiday ornament. Tack on too many more and your Ultimate Value ends up in a nursing home being cared for by strangers.
How do you prove you matter period? How do we weigh, count, or otherwise measure your worth or anyone else's for that matter?
Sure would like to hear answers for these. Of course silence would also be an answer.
Again, evidence, Marcus. Be honest with yourself. You demand it for all things, but what you accept as evidence is horribly flawed.
Marcus McElhaney,
You said,
So nothing can be known to exist if it can't be weighed, counted or measured? Is that what you are postulating? Is that what you mean?
Personally, I certainly hope that's what John means. What's more, I'll bet that that is how you live your life, too: you demand evidence for everything in your life.
Your profile says you're becoming a minister. Does COGIC demand evidence that you are proficient at passing collection plates to pay for miracles? How dare they demand such proof! Are they suggesting that the Holy Spirit in you must be verified?
Compare your profile to that of Harvey Burnett who became a Christian and a COGIC preacherman all at once, no training.
Marcus you require evidence, verification, and proof as much as anyone else. The primary difference between you and those who take their cues from the real world is your exceedingly poor standard for what constitutes evidence. Whereas you accept things like tradition, revelation and authority as evidence, more reasonable people reject those things as routes to truth since throughout humanity there exist thousands of incompatible traditions, thousands of irreconcilable revelations, and millions of authority figures convinced that none but them know the truth. You say some version of Christian Bible constitutes evidence, though it clearly does not. In other Christianities they say some other version of a Bible is evidence. Then, there is the Koran and numerous other holy books declaring themselves to also be the "truth."
Your profile also says that you make a living in the science-based field of software engineering. Your income would not exist if it were not for something far more reliable than tradition, revelation, or authority. Are you also a science-denying YEC? Do you discount or reject the science of radioisotopic dating? Were the YEC's mistaken who claim to have recently found Noah's Ark and also to have determined a 4800 year age of the wood via radiocarbon dating? Are you also correct if you deny it? Then, you contradict your fellow religionists. It's not reliable.
Eric,
How do you confidently feel that your point is received since you discount the veracity of the real world so much? I mean you could just be a brain in a vat, right? Why bother communicating with us.
I'd say it is because you firmly believe in the causative boundaries of naturalism and don't hold much value in any supernatural efficacy at all.
All else is wishful thinking dressed up in pretty language to confuse yourself into believing your superstitions are "properly basic". Your behavior contradicts your theological convictions.
"How do you confidently feel that your point is received since you discount the veracity of the real world so much?"
Chuck, name one time I've ever "discounted the veracity of the real world." Can you provide a single *specific* example? If I "discount" it "so much," you should have no problem providing one specific example.
My point in my first post on this thread was only that John's statement was, as it stood, self referentially inconsistent. I wasn't "discounting" science or "the real world," and never have (which is why you'll never be able to respond with a specific quotation to defend the presupposition of the question you asked).
Eric,
You call into question the veracity of the real world and how non-superstitious grown ups measure with this exchange right here:
"If we cannot know something by the method of naturalism as applied in science and history then we cannot know something at all."
But John, as a former professor of philosophy you must be aware of the fact that you cannot know the above proposition to be true "by the method of naturalism as applied in science and history," so by your own standard, you cannot know it at all.
This is a language game to cast doubt on Metaphysical Naturalism. It is part and parcel of your silly apologetics. A common pose you assume.
"This is a language game to cast doubt on Metaphysical Naturalism. It is part and parcel of your silly apologetics. A common pose you assume."
Chuck, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about if you think my first post on this thread in any way "discounted the veracity of the real world." Try looking up 'self referential inconsistency' sometime, because *that* was the issue I was raising. *Any* proposition, *whatever its content*, that establishes criteria that the claim the proposition itself expresses cannot satisfy is self referentially inconsistent. My point was purely logical, and had nothing whatsoever to do with science, naturalism, the real world, etc. themselves.
Eric,
What was your point in playing that tactic?
Where you doing it for the academic purity of the ideas here or, where you doing it to defend your bias towards the supernatural?
Come on man, be a LITTLE bit honest okay.
Whenever anyone makes an argument for the necessity of naturalistic discipline to create observable verification you retreat to language games to invalidate that inference.
It's a silly yet predictable ploy by a garden variety apologist like yourself.
Eric, I think I've avoided your self-referential inconsistency problem wouldn't you agree, when I insert the word "probably" into my statement?
"What was your point in playing that tactic?"
The fundamental requirement of logical consistency is a 'tactic' if one points out its violation in any utterance that defends your pet worldview?
And you have the chutzpah to call me dishonest?
"Whenever anyone makes an argument for the necessity of naturalistic discipline to create observable verification you retreat to language games to invalidate that inference."
I don't think you know what a language game is. You picked that term up from John, but he uses it in its proper Wittgensteinian sense. That sense of the term is not even close to applicable to my pointing out a proposition's being self referentially inconsistent.
So Eric,
What was your point in pointing this out?
Answer the question.
Or shut up.
I doubt it was for the purity of academic discourse since you have revealed yourself to be an apologist for the Christian superstition here on this site.
You can retreat into your text books some more or, you can grow a pair, be a man, and admit you were looking to undercut John's argument to Metaphysical Naturalism.
Which is it? More lies for Jesus. Or grow some balls and admit you were looking to marginalize an argument for Metaphysical Naturalism in defense of your pet superstition.
For the record I think Eric is trying to make sense of his faith and is in no sense consciously dishonest. Chuck, as much as I love you man, you can learn from him even if you disagree, and disagree we do
John,
Love you too.
I think Eric is a budding professional-liar in the William Lane Craig mold and, as such, I see him as highly dangerous.
I have little to learn from anyone who looks to defend christianity as either viable or authoritative.
He came into the conversation nipping at your heals looking to leverage a technicality to undermine Metaphysical Naturalism once again.
It is predictable and tiring. He comes off as a cocky little boy enamored with his precocious intellect.
I don't like him and I find his arguments highly dishonest.
"Eric, I think I've avoided your self-referential inconsistency problem wouldn't you agree, when I insert the word "probably" into my statement?"
John, I don't think so. Here's your reformulation:
"If we cannot know something by the method of naturalism as applied in science and history then we PROBABLY cannot know something at all."
This still isn't, it seems to me, a proposition that's amenable to scientific or historical methodologies. I mean, how would you formulate it mathematically? How would you test it?
But let's assume you can answer those questions -- are you any better off? I don't think so. Take the mathematical formulations any properly scientific argument requires: the mathematics itself rests on a substantial amount of a priori knowledge, and what we know a priori isn't derived by way of "the method of naturalism as applied in science and history." So you're still stuck relying on knowledge your proposition precludes.
Keep in mind the work the term 'probably' does in your reformulation: it doesn't allow for other means of acquiring knowledge, but rather weakens the claim that those other means exist. For example, if I say, "X doesn't exist," and, on further reflection, reformulate is as, "X probably doesn't exist," I'm not now saying, "if there is an X, it doesn't contradict my claim," but "chances are, X doesn't exist."
So, it seems to me that (1) the fact that the claim the proposition makes isn't amenable to scientific methodologies renders it self referentially inconsistent, and (2) even if you can show that the proposition is properly scientific, the sort of a priori knowledge the mathematics all scientific knowledge presupposes renders it false.
So, at worst it's self referentially inconsistent, and at best it's false. (Unless, of course, you deny the premise that mathematics contains any a priori elements that qualify as knowledge; as I see it, this is your only out.)
Eric, I'm going to bed but in order for you to argue your case you MUST offer a better alternative and you can't. So therefore as I said in WIBA the scientific method (based in methodological naturalism which assumes every event has a natural cause) is PROBABLY the best method available (or something like that).
Again, having no better alternative it IS probable, very probable.
"You can retreat into your text books some more or, you can grow a pair, be a man, and admit you were looking to undercut John's argument to Metaphysical Naturalism."
Chuck, I've never hid the fact that I'm not a metaphysical naturalist, so I have no idea what you're talking about when you demand that I "grow a pair."
But second, I didn't refer to John's *argument* for metaphysical naturalism, but to his *claim* that "the method of naturalism as applied in science and history" is a necessary condition for knowledge.
You must try to be more precise when you address these issues. Small errors early on in an chain of reasoning lead to huge errors later on (as Aristotle wisely said).
"I don't like him and I find his arguments highly dishonest."
You certainly get on my nerves, Chuck, but I don't dislike you (at least not now ;) ). I for one have the humility to admit that another person can disagree with me about almost anything and be perfectly sincere. I'm not so arrogant as to claim that my position is so obviously true, and my arguments so powerful, that no one who is honest could possibly disagree with me.
"Eric, I'm going to bed but in order for you to argue your case you MUST offer a better alternative and you can't."
John, I don't think that's the case. I would say that I indeed agree with you that when we're considering what we can know about natural phenomena, science is the way to go -- period. So in that sense, we have no quarrel. But I would go on to say that we don't think we know things about natural phenomena alone.
Uncontroversially, we have mathematical knowledge that we didn't arrive at via the scientific method. Somewhat more controversially, but I'd say still relatively uncontroversially, we have philosophical knowledge we didn't arrive at via the scientific method (for example, just think about some of the most important distinctions that guide all serious thinking, e.g. the de dicto/de re distinction, the necessary condition/sufficient condition distinction, the a priori/a posteriori distinction, etc.) More controversially, we have ethical knowledge and aesthetic knowledge we didn't arrive at scientifically. And finally (but not exhaustively), we have everyday knowledge we didn't arrive at scientifically (I'm thinking along the lines of Moorean 'common sense' here).
I think part of the problem is that you think I must offer an alternative to science when it comes to knowledge about the natural world, but as I said, I'm in perfect agreement with you here: in this area, science is the way to go. We differ, it seems to me, in this way: I see science as a remarkable tool within its area of competence, whereas you seem to be implying that either (1) everything is within the competence of science, or (2) only what's in the competence of science counts as knowledge. If this is accurate, I think (1) is false (e.g. take mathematical knowledge), and (2) is self referentially inconsistent (is (2) something you can know scientifically?).
In short, while I agree that science is the only way to go when it comes to knowledge of natural phenomena, I don't think that knowledge of natural phenomena comprises all knowledge, and I think that mathematics, philosophy and so on provide us with paths to knowledge that do not presuppose naturalism. So I'm not offering an alternative to science, but complements to it, and so in that sense I'm rejecting the dichotomy you initially set up.
Eric
I don't think you are sincere. I think you are a liar. You lie to buoy a superstition that helps no one. I have no respect for you or your spin doctoring for Jesus.
Eric said....""If we cannot know something by the method of naturalism as applied in science and history then we PROBABLY cannot know something at all."
This still isn't, it seems to me, a proposition that's amenable to scientific or historical methodologies. I mean, how would you formulate it mathematically? How would you test it? "
Hi Eric...To even feel maybe we observed the supernatural,doesnt it all first still have to always flow through the human brain.The human brain being quite a natural thing.
Maybe im way out of my depth here and just misunderstanding the depth of what this stuff is all actually about.Just seemed to me without brains,we humans probably wouldnt really understand much.Which i thought seems to be backed up by folks who get very severely brain damaged in accidents.
No Eric, what is science? When I say if we cannot know something by the method of naturalism as applied in science and history then we cannot know something at all, the next question is what I mean by science, or properly, the sciences.
I am an empiricist influenced by Kant, but it would be better to say we bring to experience a genetic make-up that has evolved to interpret experience in certain ways for survival.
There is no other way but through experience which science is based on to coming to know something, anything.
Check this video out.
John
Eric is playing the old apologist quote mining game. He excerpts part of your argument and places it within an argumentative context not germane to the dialogue as a means of offering doubt to the position that biblical inerrancy and christian belief are ahistorical. What he fails to offer is how his argument has anything to do with the probable trustworthiness of the bible over empiricism. How is christianity's historical claims to truth equal to a mathmatical proof or a philosophical syllogism? He simply picks a sentence out of your dialogue and seeks to discredit it on a technical point without considering the context of the sentence at all. He then seeks a passive aggressive victory in defense of faith on this technicality. It is a common ploy by apologists and it is dishonest. He is a liar enslaved to his cognitive bias and is pursuing higher learning to strengthen his slave status.
"When I say if we cannot know something by the method of naturalism as applied in science and history then we cannot know something at all, the next question is what I mean by science, or properly, the sciences...
There is no other way but through experience which science is based on to coming to know something, anything."
John, perhaps the following question will help me understand what you mean when you refer to "the method of naturalism as applied in science and history":
Do we know that there is no highest prime number by using "the method of naturalism as applied in science and history"?
First, I'm assuming you agree that we *know* there is no highest prime number.
Second, I think you'll agree that we can be much more confident that there is no highest prime number than we can of any scientific (and I'm here using the term to refer to what we commonly call the natural sciences, e.g. physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) conclusion. That is, in science we use evidence to form provisional conclusions that can always be falsified (and if any of you think this is evidence of my "discounting" science, then your quarrel is with Professor Hawking, whom I'm paraphrasing, ABHoT, p.10), but I've just referred you to a conclusion we can *prove* is true.
Third, we know that there is no highest prime number a priori. For example, I take it that most of us are unaware of the fact that 3469 is a prime number, and I take it that if I asked most people for an example of a prime number larger than 3469, they couldn't provide me with one without working it out (or looking it up). However, even though almost none of us could, without the work or the research, provide a prime number larger than 3469, we can, if we've understood the proof that there is no largest prime number, be said to know that there is a prime number larger than 3469. So this is a clear example of a priori knowledge.
Fourth, the proof we use to determine that there is no highest prime number doesn't presuppose naturalism. For example, you could be a proper, card carrying Platonist (as opposed to a proponet of some version of Platonic naturalism) and approach the proof with that worldview and not a single premise of the proof would be affected. Or, you could approach the proof as an Augustinian Platonist and nothing would change. Or, you could approach the proof as a naturalist and nothing would change. So the proof doesn't in any sense "use the method of naturalism" as applied to anything.
I suppose after all that I could reformulate the question in this way:
Assuming you agree that we have a prioi knowledge, by way of a mathematical proof, that there is no highest prime number, in what sense could it be said that this piece of knowledge was gained "by the method of naturalism as applied in science and history"?
Why do we naturalists allow Christians to define God as "super-natural?"
It seems to me if God exists, then He is part of nature--we just need to expand what we think of as "nature."
It also seems to me that a Christian like Eric has to evaluate any external "supernatural" knowledge that he has been exposed to via revelation or the Holy Spirit using some sort of methodology.
This evaluation will consist of the same elements that comprise the scientific method. Was the revelation a demon or God? Was the revelation true or just my imagination? Was the revelation a dream? And so forth . . . What is the evidence for each of these propositions?
In the end, Eric must use the scientific method to evaluate God--which defeats his own argument against the scientific method.
Jim
Or maybe more generally, Christians must use the scientific method to evaluate the "effects" of God, in order to infer that God really did give them "revealed knowledge."
Eric,
How does your essay on prime numbers have anything to do with if empiricism trumps theology when determining who is right in a debate on truth?
You are chasing your tail son and I'm sure you might get a pat on your head from your professors but in the real world I'd fire you for your narcissistic application of technicalities in pursuit of workable truth.
"How does your essay on prime numbers have anything to do with if empiricism trumps theology when determining who is right in a debate on truth?"
Chuck, that's not even the issue. I never said that "theology trumps empiricism," but that philosophy, mathematics, etc. provide us, by means that cannot be identified with "the method of naturalism as applied in science and history," with *complements* to our scientifically derived knowledge. If X complements Y, it doesn't trump Y, but adds to Y by providing its desiderata.
"You are chasing your tail son and I'm sure you might get a pat on your head from your professors but in the real world I'd fire you for your narcissistic application of technicalities in pursuit of workable truth."
Chuck, the answers we reach when considering the big questions often turn on what you're here pejoratively calling "technicalities." The truth is, they're nothing of the sort (at least as you're using that term): rather, they represent the all important foundational issues that underlie all of our 'big question' conclusions. Read John's books: he addresses seemingly small, 'technical' issues all the time before he gets into the big issues because he understands how a chain of reasoning works, and how important fundamental questions are.
Eric, this is an epistemology issue. How do we know what we know? As I said, I'm an empiricist with a modified understanding of Kant. The so-called categories in the mind are brain states we inherited through the process of evolution. Fleshing this out would be lengthy.
All knowledge then is gained by experience through our present brain matter along with reflection upon our experience.
Anything known a priori would be what we've inherited through genetics or a conclusion based on experience. We process information by that which we have been born with. On page 109 of WIBA I affirm "weak scientism." The "weak" in my scientism comes from my modification of Kant, so we accept some things for which there probably is no evidence.
Just to restate what I said, the triune God of the Bible who sent his Son to atone for our sins, rose from the dead, and will come again to reward the saints for believing and condemn the sinners for not believing IS NOT SOMETHING FOR WHICH WE NEED NO EVIDENCE. Just ask yourself this: If the Bible did not exist nor the church would you be able to come up with the content of your beliefs solely from the inner witness of the Holy Spirit? The answer is obvious. Therefore the evidence for God's revelation must be weighed in the balance.
Next I'll comment on prime numbers...
Oops. looks like I gotta go. I'll comment further later. But I see no reason why we cannot conclude there is no highest prime number based on empiricism. It's easy to conclude from experience and reflection on that experience.
"As I said, I'm an empiricist with a modified understanding of Kant. The so-called categories in the mind are brain states we inherited through the process of evolution. Fleshing this out would be lengthy."
John, but isn't this an incidental point? For example, I think you'd agree that not everyone who accepts the conclusion that knowledge can only be acquired "by the method of naturalism as applied to science and history" is in any sense a Kantian. Or are you claiming that it only makes sense on Kantian grounds?
"All knowledge then is gained by experience through our present brain matter along with reflection upon our experience."
As a Thomist, I wouldn't have much of a problem with this.
"Anything known a priori would be what we've inherited through genetics or a conclusion based on experience."
I'd have to see you work this out in reference to the prime number example when you get a chance before I comment.
Eric,
The post that you've hijacked have nothing to do with your interpretation of the "chain of reasoning". It's obvious you are fixating on a very small aspect of the post's topic and seeking to inject doubt around the issue. Comment on the post. Don't quote mine.
Eric, I defend empiricism. A proper understanding of it would account for everything. I see no problem with what you've asked me.
Science progresses based upon a natural method, period. It too accounts for everything we can know.
But let's say you can show me something we can know that isn't accounted for by the scientific method. Well then, I would just re-adjust my understanding of what that method is and still call it the scientific method.
Again, experience and reflection on experience accounts for everything we know. I see nothing about the notion that there is a prime number higher than 3469 that is a priori. Instead, it is reflecting on experience.
You get no traction from this line of thinking with me. For even if there are exceptions to the rule, I defend "weak scientism."
John Loftus,
The big kahuna says:But let's say you can show me something we can know that isn't accounted for by the scientific method.
The laws of LOGIC aren't accounted for by scientific method...PERIOD! We take them and assume their truth and validity, not because they are empirically proven. By the way that the basis and foundation of scientific method isn't it? Prove them and prove it empirically.
I'm out because I don't want to disturb your tender eyes and those of your cheerleaders any longer.
Later!
As an atheist, I can can say that science is the method only for demonstrating empirical facts. Logic is not an empirical fact, and qualia are not empirical facts. But certainly the existence of God is an empirical matter, not a logical one (that is, demonstrable by logic alone), nor a subjective one.
Anticipating objections, I propose that no empirical fact that everyone agrees on is demonstrated purely through logic. Logic is certainly a part of an empircial demonstration, but can't be
Paul,
You said:"Logic is not an empirical fact, and qualia are not empirical facts."
So logic is a "fact" that has no empirical proof for it? So in essence there are facts that both you and I agree upon that cannot and does not qualify to be proven empirically but are yet accepted as fact.
Thank you.
So far as your statements of God having to be proved empirically as he is indistinguishable apart from reason, that was a good try but I beg to differ and have recently been studying Dr. Alvin Platinga's Ontological arguments about the subject. I find his assertions fascinating and although Kant seemed to do some damage, I think he missed the target quite heartily is some aspects.
Thanks anyway and I'm out.
I've responded to Russ' comments here
Debunking Christianity: How Can We Decide Who Is Wrong?
Marcus,
I read your response to what I said over at your blog. I'd suggest that you move what you said over here so you can get some comments on it. It appears that, despite all the effort you pour into it, no one appears to care.
Perhaps, later today I will copy some of what you said and respond to it here at DebunkingChristianity. It's sad to see how many of you will actually lead congregations when your reading, writing and reasoning skills are so poor. But, then, I'm an atheist and I could start my own Christian church if I wanted. As a preacher in a COGIC church you will simply turn off your humanity as you pick the pockets of the poor with your collection plate.
Russ, I posted on my own blog because I knew my response would not fit in this space. I demonstrated that you do not know anything about my church or what I believe. Not all preachers are "fleecing the
flock". I'm not. Neither do any ministers I associate with. Who are you talking to?
Russ, I posted on my own blog because I knew my response would not fit in this space. I demonstrated that you do not know anything about my church or what I believe. Not all preachers are "fleecing the
flock". I'm not. Neither do any ministers I associate with. Who are you talking to?
Marcus.
Why dont you give us the general point of your response to Russ?
Marcus McElhaney said... "Russ, I posted on my own blog because I knew my response would not fit in this space. I demonstrated that you do not know anything about my church or what I believe. Not all preachers are "fleecing the
flock". I'm not. Neither do any ministers I associate with. Who are you talking to?"
Ohh, thats great Marcus .Maybe then its best you dont test fate,and jump in the river 200m above Niagra falls, as a way to measure and test how much love your family has for you.Faith honesty is in very short supply.
Its very true Marcus,even honest priests are in very short supply ....Im sure maybe the Catholic Pope these days would kind of tend to agree with me ,even if pride made it a little,excruciatingly painful and for a long time it been a lot like trying to squeeze blood out of a stone.Which takes extreme faith.
We need many more honest priests popes and cardinals etc, so they dont face that dreadful thing of EVOLVING into extinction .In hope that this rare breed can intellectually procreate with each other and then through real honest ACTION, (rather) than just use of bullsh*t words that almost always ammount to little more than tired old rhetoric,they can then start to mutiply .Its very important for faith, because at present they seem to not care in the least, if other faith leaders through continued abuse ,seem so keen on applying the hangmans rope themselves !, to the complete faith species.
So your are not fleecing the flock Marcus ,wow thats excellent!.Does your ministry promote miracles ?? .If it does, do they come with any guarantees ??
Marcus,
You said,
Russ, I posted on my own blog because I knew my response would not fit in this space.
Your comments would be far more concise if you weren't spewing volumes of Biblical meaninglessness which you seem to think of as evidence. On the floor of the US Senate, the Bible has been used to justify slavery. The Bible was wrong. The Bible has been used to "provide evidence" that black people are not human beings. The Bible was wrong. The Bible has been used to justify countless acts of inhumanity, much of it in persecution of other same-named Christians.
Our society here in the US rejects your stupid holy book, Marcus. Many of our laws are written in direct defiance of what your God commands, and despite all that is said about how good your Bible is for everyone and how much wisdom it is imagined to contain, people don't read it. Most clergy don't read it. Fundamentalist ministers read the Bible the least of clergy from all the US Christianities.
Your comments could be more concise without all the crap you shovel from the Bible.
You said,
I demonstrated that you do not know anything about my church or what I believe.
Marcus, you demonstrated nothing of the kind. What's more you showed off your lack of understanding of the Christianities and instead showed that using the Bible you can make any point you want, for or against any proposition. There is no such thing as a single Christianity, there are thousands, most of which you reject just like I do. You reject:
Mormon Christianity,
Jehovah's Witness Christianity,
Roman Catholic Christianity(with this one alone you reject more than half of all Christians),
Christian Science Christianity,
Seventh-Day Adventist Christianity (they have the highest life expectancy of all Christian sects. COGIC is more than ten years less. I wonder why your God does that since you are, at least in your own mind, the "right" Christianity.)
Lutheran Christianities,
Methodist Christianity,
Christadelphian Christians,
Coptic Christianity,
Shaker Christianity,
Monophysite Christianities,
Plymouth Brethren Christianity,
Eastern Orthodox Christianities,
Presbyterian Christianity,
Westboro Baptist Christianity,
all the Christianities that use free sexual expression as part of their religious lives and rituals,
all the atheist Christianities,
all the voodoo Christianties,
Amish Christianity,
Uniate Christianities,
David Koresh Christianity,
African Independent Church Christianities,
and, of course, you reject all of today's Christianties where Jesus Christ himself, alive and in the flesh, is actively running the church. And there around 40,000 more Christianities that you partner with us atheists in rejecting. In fact, if you reject 39,999 Christianities and you accept 1 Christianity, you are much closer to the atheist side than you are the Christian side. You disbelieve more Christian teachings than you believe, by sheer numbers alone.
You reject most of Christianity, Marcus. I would bet big money that you have essentially no understanding of the numerous distinct Christian theologies you reject. I'm certain you spent no time actually studying the tens of thousands of Christian theologies to determine which is the most correct, yet you will join me in saying you know they are wrong. You know that I am correct when I say, for instance, that Roman Catholic Christianity is wrong.
What you're saying with this, Marcus, is that your God tells other Christians the wrong stuff. You think that only when your God whispers in your ear is it telling the truth, the Real Truth, the Certified Grade A Real Honest to God's Truth. That is, of course, complete bullshit. There are no Christian gods telling anyone anything. People like you are using your imagination, creativity, wishful thinking and desire for power, fame and fortune to decide what you want your version of god to say. You hate homosexuals, so the god you make up hates homosexuals. Other Christians don't hate homosexuals, so, guess what? their version of a Christian god doesn't hate them either. You don't kill witches but other Christians today still do. Did the god change its mind? No. Different people make up different things they want their god to say. This is no different than the Greek, Roman, Celtic, Norse, or Indian pantheons. A god agrees with those who believe in it, or just like Zeus, the god disappears, reverting back to the myths, legends and fables that gave rise to it.
In you blog post you said,
He obviously knows nothing about Christianity in general or the Church of God in Christ in particular. You cannot pay for miracles.
I have studied the Christianities for more than forty years, Marcus. I much the same way that they reject each other, I know they are all wrong for their rejection of each other. For the most part you agree with me. Realize that every Christian is hellbound according to the teachings of some other Christianity. Your buddy the Pope has publicly stated many times that being Christian is not enough; the only way to heaven it to be a Christian of the Roman Catholic variety. You think the Pope to be as full of shit as I think he is.
The above quote tells me that you have rather poor understanding of the Christianities and their history. People have always been told in one Christian sect or another that they can indeed "pay for miracles." Indulgences are payments for miracles. The payments made by grieving mothers to have their child released from limbo are payments for miracles. Money accepted by ministers for casting out demons through exorcisms is payments for miracles. In Africa children are being butchered by their parents as witches because they can't make the payments for miracles to their Pentecostal and COGIC ministers for driving the demons out. Realize it is part of their theology that the imaginary demon cannot be driven out unless the money is paid. Harvey Burnett is a paid COGIC exorcist; many Roman Catholic priests are specialists at exorcisms; will you too be a COGIC exorcist, Marcus? In a recent video John highlighted here at DC, one of the whackjob ministers actually said he could raise a burned woman from the dead. Can you do that too? Can I verify someone is dead and then watch as you resurrect them?
No, Marcus, you do not understand Christianity as a whole. Any understanding you might have is only that necessary to keep your fear-ridden and ignorant congregation in the pews, while you work them into an emotional frenzy to guarantee a few extra bucks end up in the collection plate on their way to your pocket.
You said,
Not all preachers are "fleecing the
flock". I'm not. Neither do any ministers I associate with. Who are you talking to?
Yes, you are fleecing the flock, Marcus. You are fleecing them in many ways. There is, of course, the direct taking of their money like a mini Creflo Dollar, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland or Pat Robertson. The money they give you could pay for their child's education which provably is money better-spent than giving it you the likes of you. When you lie to them about the sciences like evolution, radiochemistry, biology and medicine, you greatly reduce their educational and job prospects, and you leave them ill-equipped to make decisions affecting our whole society. Keeping your congregation stupid, keeping them ignorant of the true nature of the world around them, hurts them and all of the rest of us, while you skim the cream from the collection plate.
The world is a place full of rich opportunities for people to earn respect. You don't need to stand before a trusting congregation, steal their money, and perpetuate ignorance to better yourself. There are moral ways to earn a living and become deserving of respect from others.
Russ, does your ignorance know any bounds? You argued that as a Christian I do not care about evidence or corroborating proof. I demonstrated that as as Bible believing Christian I'm admonished to look for and give evidence. If you disagree with my interpretation that's fine. But you can't throw out my argument by saying that I can't use the Bible because that is very thing you are judging me on!
You say here that the bible was used as evidence that black people are not human beings. Where does it say that? I'm a black man...I can't find find that. The Bible is not wrong. You are. I agree that our society has turned against the Word of God. What is your point? America has always had a "form of godliness yet denying the power of God." Nothing new. This is why our society is in the crapper.
As for different Christianities how do you know what I've studied or what i know. I demonstrated that you don't know anytihing about mine, why do you think I know nothing of others? I've studied many other denominations that claim to be Christians and you know what? you can be saved and not be COGIC. Shock and Awe!!! Do you really think my God is so small that He has only saved people in COGIC. No. While my brothers and sisters in other denominations may do things different or even believe differently on no-essentials things but that doesn't make them "not Christian".
Let's be clear - the essential is the the Character, and nature of God, the person and work of Jesus Christ,
I've studied many of the sects and viewpoints you have listed here and to be honest most of them that i disagree with would be offended to be lumped into Christianity so I think your point is lame and moot. If someone is teaching the life, death, burial, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and the he alone is the way out of sin and the way to reconcile back to God...I have no important disagreement with them. Based on that everything important falls into place. If you got that wrong, you can't get anything important right. There is freedom in Christ to worship in a variety of styles and ways.
Let me cull from your list all the sects that can't be Christian from a Biblical and Historical basis...not my own head!
Mormon Christianity,
Jehovah's Witness Christianity,
Christian Science Christianity,
all the Christianities that use free sexual expression as part of their religious lives and rituals,
all the atheist Christianities,
all the voodoo Christianties,
Unitarian Christianities,
David Koresh Christianity,
If anyone is interested, I'd be more than happy to explain why these are heretical.
Actually, I don't discount that Jesus is alive in flesh running his Church from the right-hand of the Father - expressed in multiple denominations comprised of people who love each other and Him, empowered by the Holy. Spirit! This is part of the Gospel I am called to preach.
Let me point out that "Atheist Christian" is an an oxymoron - and completely logically inconsistent! "Christian" isn't a label or a self-designation. you are not a Christian because you write it on the door of your church. It's about whether or not you are going to submit to what the Bible says and if you will obey God.
I do not reject most Christianity and I certainly do not believe that all people in the sects and denomnations I disagree with are going to hell. I know that anyone who trusts Christ for salvation will not be going to hell even if they get everything else wrong. It's the rejecting of Christ that dooms you not baptizing babies or your eschatology.
Russ, you seem to dislike Catholics, but they are all so different and don;t believe the same thing I'm not going to paint it with a broad brush other than they do believe in Jesus' Death, Burial, and Resurrection. That's official. That makes them more knowledgeable than you.
Not all churches are like Creflo Dollar, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland or Pat Robertson, Russ. Can you really be that blind? What churches do you go to where you think all churches are like them? You need to get out more. I'm a scientist. I'm an engineer. My parents are Christiantns and raised me that way? Could i have been in this career if Christians taught their children to hate science? Tjhink about what you have said? My life is an antithesis of your view. My life is an extreme counter example. Wake up. you don't know what Christianity is. You don't earn respect spouting off nonsense and applying to a whole group of people that it does not fit. Many of the history's and current scientists are and have been people of faith. Get real.Reading you makes me wonder if you are sincere or joking.
Marcus.
I read your comments to Russ and I understand what your saying here. But
you said you were a scientist along with being an engineer and pastor in training.
The thing is, you and I had an extensive conversation awhile back and I found that you tended to twist your science a little to fit with biblical concepts you were trying to defend!
(Namely the length of time it took for species to evolve after the flood). This was a hypothetical belief you held since you believed only (kinds) existed prior to the flood.
It seems to me that, although you are well educated, you are no acception to dismissing scientifically accepted views when it does not align with the bible like all other fundamental believers????
Feel free to correct me if Im wrong.
Marcus.
Sorry that would be exception (acception)
Sorry to hear you still mistaken, Shane. There are plenty of scientist who agree with me about how animals could have spread after the flood. Again, I never said that it was 4 or 5 thousand years ago. I have always said that we cannot prove how long ago the flood is. I have twisted neither history nor science nor scripture.
Marcus.
You say im mistaken, and that you have not twisted science, also that you dont believe that the flood was 4-5 thousand years ago?
What scientists agree with you....?....creation scientists....?
As a scientist, you should probably be at least aware that the evolution of species for most larger animals (specifically mammals) can take hundreds of thousands of years according to majority of evolutionary scientists!
Considering that homo sapiens have only been around for roughly 100,000 years, what was Noah suppossed to be....a less evolved humanoid?
How long ago could the flood have possibly taken place....lol
Marcus,
You said your comment would not fit here, so I suggested using a lot less copy and paste of your favorite Bible verses, while I pointed out the fact the fact that the Bible is evidence for naught except that once people had writing systems what they chose to record was their myths, legends, and fables. It's not true by any standard that would also reject the Koran. You are socially required to maintain that the Bible is true - that's part of the evidence you must provide to get your COGIC minister's license - but you do not accept the Bible as true. You don't.
Why can I say this? You call yourself a Biblical literalist, yet you constantly play with semantics to make the Bible appear to say what you demand it to say. You play semantic games to derive your desired set of conclusions while other Christians assign distinct semantics and arrive at different ends. You treat your Bible like an equation that you can compel to give the "right" answer by tinkering with the variables. When the picture you require of it is not to your liking you morph it to what you insist it be.
The word "day" is a good example. Many Christians use the word day to mean a 24 hour day. Other "day age" types alter the meaning of the word to encompass vast expanses of time. The point here is that Christians do not trust that their version of god has told them what it actually meant, so they feel free to adjust the semantics to make their god say what they "know" their god really meant.
The game is played constantly by Christians: they assign different meanings to words; they put different passages into different contexts; they apply different literary interpretations to whole books or aggregations of books. Some say Genesis is literal(of course they play with the meaning of this, too); some say Genesis is metaphore. Some Roman Catholicisms throw out almost all of the Old Testament, keeping only the most cruel and hateful bits like original sin and hatred of homosexuals. Other Christianities reject the Bible altogether having no use for it at all.
Since anyone and everyone can play this game, the Bible is meaningless. There are no standards for what it means. It clearly does not speak for itself: for every word in the Bible, there are millions of words written trying to explain it...you know, Marcus...give the one true correct interpretation. The vast body of conflicting apologetics is itself proof of the meaninglessness of the Bible. No one is reading the word of a god in the Bible, Marcus. Today, Marcus, there are more words written every day in explanation of the Bible than their are words in it.
It's no wonder almost all Christians, including clergy, ignore the Bible. The guy in the pew doesn't care at all about the Bible, Marcus. People spend their time with things they consider more important. Due to social expectation bias, when polled Christians say the Bible is important and that they think people should read it, but they spend their time watching The Simpsons, Family Guy, Desperate Housewives, and sports; and surfing porn on the web.
You said,
This is why our society is in the crapper.
While we will always have concerns, this is demonstrably the best time in the history of mankind to be alive. Neither your Bible nor your religion are needed for mankind's circumstances to improve. Marcus, societies have always existed which have not had gods or religions. Today, those societies which have largely cast away Christianity are better models of human compassion and generosity than is the US where the Christianity free-market free-for-all pumps hundreds of billions of dollars a year into "costs of doing business" and only a tiny fraction of that into humanitarian aid.
@ Shane. Yes, you are still mistaken. I';m not arguing that Man has been around less that 10,000 years. I'm not arguing against your scientific interpretation. I'm saying that you can't use the Bible to determine how old the earth or universe is or when Noah's flood happened. IT DOES NOT SAY. While interesting and important. we do not have enough information to answer those questions Biblically but science can possibly help. Just like the Bible does not tell us the mass of an electron (9.11 times 10 to the -31st power kg) it dopes not tell us how long ago the earth was made, only what happened when it was.
No, this is just a smoke screen to avoid the main issue: Jesus and what He did. The real issues is what are you going to do about your sin and what you are going to say to Jesus on judgement day when your life is weighed, counted, and measured - and found wanting. On that day, I'll have the propitiation that came from Jesus' sacrifice for my sins. What will you have?
@Russ
Do you even know any Christians? I know a lot of people who claim to be Christians who fit your characterization, but not all. It certainly doesn't describe me or the people I know who love Jesus. I believe the Bible is true. But that doesn't mean we understand everything in it. I'm learning stuff all the time! I care what the Bible has to say about everything because it helps me to understand God.
You accused me of playing with semantics. How? I quoted those Bible verses to show that we are supposed to look for and consider evidence and accept nothing blindly. If you disagree with my exegesis explain why it's wrong.
Does it really matter that people are seeing the Bible differently and calling themselves "Christians". No. I'm only accountable for what I believe and I want to make sure I understand what the Bible is saying. It's not some mess that you can read into it whatever you want and be consistent and honest.
As for this society not being that bad, then that means you can't appeal to the "problem of evil" because according to you there is no evil. Thanks for forfeiting that dead horse. Name one society without a concept of god(s) or no tradition. (This I gotta see.)
Again, it's just a smoke screen so you don't have to deal with your sin. I've got to ask you the same question: what are you going to say to Jesus on judgement day when your life is weighed, counted, and measured - and found wanting? On that day, I'll have the propitiation that came from Jesus' sacrifice for my sins. What will you have?
Marcus.
I never said homo sapiens have been around for 10,000 years, I said they have been around for 100,000 years!
Your totally missing the point.
Im saying that in order for the (kinds) you refer to in Noah's time to evolve into the species we have today could have taken close to 100,000 years to evolve!
So I highly doubt Noah and the flood (if there ever was such a thing) would have occured such a ridiculously long time ago!
Like I said, homo sapiens themselves have only been around approximately 100,000 years.
Your right, the bible does not give us a definite time, but different christian scholars and sects have given time frames anywhere from 1600 BC to 3000 BC. This is nowhere near your guess!
You asked what will I say on judgement day?
I will probably say nothing because it I dont believe it will happen.
And if it did, I would honestly say - "I never asked to born, I never asked you to create me, I tried to believe but I honestly could not convince myself of the truth of the bible and you did not help me by convincing me either".
If honesty is a virtue then why should God find fault with me?
Marcus.
You keep telling Russ he is miss judging you as a christian, and telling him he does not know much about your views!
Yet, you accused Russ and myself, saying that are arguments are only smoke screens because we dont want to deal with our sins!
Here you are also misjudging us.
How do you know why I walked away and dont believe?
Also, if I dont believe in your bible, then why would I put up a smoke screen to defend sins I dont believe in?
@Shane
I'm sorry for the typo. I should have said 100,000 years. Why do you think that flood couold have happened that long ago. We don't know when it happened but it does not mean that it didn't happen. The Christian Scholars and sects that give the dates you have given mean nothing. They dfon't know any more than the atheistic/agnostic evolutionist about when humanity began. I'm not making a guess. I don't know. Neither does anyone else.
Do you really think that it has anything about convincing yourself? Do you really think that your response shows honesty? When you were a child and your mother caught you disobeying her - outright ignoring instructions that she gave youm do you really think saying "Mom, I shouldn't be punished because I didn't ask to be born. I tried to believe that what you told me to do was true, but I couldn't?" Do you really believe this would have flew. It would not have flown with my parents and my children wouldn't be able to use it with me. do you really think it would work for God? That he would just say "You make sense. Come into the rewards I have prepared for those who are mine"?
God would have to find fault - unless He is stupid, inconsistent, and blind. Neither you nor I would serve a god like that.
I'm saying that you and Russ are putting up smoke screens becuase your arguments don't refute the Bible and you don't have an answer for what the Bible says are talking about what humans are and what we deserve. I don't think I'm misjudging either of you at all. Yoou have not given any good reason to deny anything about what the Bible says. we are accountable to God for our sins. We are responsible.
If you have not been able to keep God's standards perfectly then you have sins. Me too. The differencen is that I know Jesus has dealt with my sins. What about yours? You don't believe...fine. We can talk about those issues. We can hash those out. The point is if you don't believe that Jesus is who He claims you are in your sins and the result of sin is total separation from God.
Marcus.
Well....my mother is someone who I know is real and I would have got her instructions first hand.
Her insructions would not have been asking me to accept something that defies my logic and I would have got those instructions in an audible voice that my brain could comprehend.
God has not given me any instruction whatsoever!
The only instructions I know come from a book.
A book which to me was written by superstitious men, a book I cant bring myself to be convinced is real because it makes claims that defy reality and offer no substantial reason why I should throw my view on reality out the window?
I believe I have given many good reasons to reject the bible on this site, but I dont have to, the bible gives enough reason within its own pages to insight the rejection of people!
Marcus.
You may think none of us have given good enough reasons to doubt the truth of the bible.
But, the bible has absolutely nothing within its pages to give it the distiction of being divine!
There is nothing within it that human beings could not have thought up ourselves.
Give me one quote, one line or scripture that could not have come from the imaginations of man!
@Shane...so in effect it is the fact of a relationship with your mother that makes it easier for you to listen and believe her words and instructions. Fair enough. The point I am making is that you can have a relationship with God such that you can know He is real and you can have interaction with him. Face it the only reason you know your mother is your biological mother is because u were told she was. How can you be sure? Sounds like it's an exercise of faith and a revealed fact. God is known, at the beginning of a relationship with God much the same way. You have not shown that the Bible is false but only that you don't understand how it makes sense. That is not the same as showing that it is wrong.
@ Shane
I'll give you five:
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, - Romans 3:23
For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you. - Romans 12:3
34And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. 35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. - Luke 6:34-36
12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. - 1 Cor 13:12
9The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
10I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings. - Jeremiah 17:9-10
@Shane...but again a smoke screen...what are you going to do about your sin!?
Marcus.
Your right, I cant make sense of the bible and neither can many, many other people.
But neither can christians!
If christians know how to make sense of it, then why do we have so many different denominations, why so many different types of christianity?
How do you know you are making the proper sense of the bible....?....other sects would disagree with you on certain subjects.
Jews who still practice Judaism would tell you that your reading into the old testament prophecies wrong and Christ wasn't the Messiah!
Mormons would say your wrong altogether, same with Jehovah's witness!
You can claim that you know how to understand it because you have a relationship with Jesus and He has revealed the truth to you, but all those I mentioned claim the same thing as you!
I heard a saying once which I know is true from personnal experience -
"No one ever believes the bible means what it says.... instead they believe it says what they mean"!
Marcus.
You honestly think these scriptures could not have come from man????
Hmmm....You obviously believe the Muslim religion and the Koran are false, and therefore man made.
You obviously believe the Hindu religion is false and their holy book is man made.
These religions also say that man is evil and in need of their God. They also speak of a hell of terrible torment. They also exalt their God above mankind.....yet according to you the bible could have been written out of the minds of men....?
@Shane...more smoke screens? The bible can't be made sense out of? if it could there would not have been as many conflicting understandings? So your answer is to throw out the Bible. You can only be held accountable for what you understand the Bible to say. It doesn't matter what other people say when we disagree when It is me giving account to God for my life. So that is a real bad argument. Why don't you show me how Mormons are right or the Jehovah Witnesses are right about what the Bible says and I'm wrong. If you are right that their interpretation is logical, consistent, and true then you have a point. Then the Bible can;'t be the Word of God because I, Mormons, and Jehovah Witnesses can't all be right simultaneously because what we say conflicts with one another. I'd settle for you showing that the Bible does not say what I say it does. But I know you can't do any of that. If you can prove it.
@shane...if that is all you gleaned from those scriptures than that shows why your exegesis is weak,. There is a whole lot more in just those verses than all people are evil and we need God. Non e of those other religions you mentioned in any way gives you a categorical way out of the mess we have found ourselves (unless you wanna count suicide bombing Jews and Christians) and be reconciled to God.
@Shane....still waiting to know what you are gonna do about your sins?
Marcus.
Im not defending the authenticity of Mormonism, or Jehovah's witness or any religion.
I asked how do you know your right when they say your wrong.
Im sure their conviction is as strong as yours!
Prove your interpretation is false....?
How?, you would just argue that you are right.
Can you prove your particular form of christianity and interpretation is correct?
Put it this way, the claim is that the holy spirit is the one who is to open up the scriptures to those who believe.
Its the holy spirit who is suppossed to convict and guide believers into all truth (the bible claims this).
If this is the case, then why so many different interpretations?
Why do every differing group claim they have been revealed the truth by the grace of the holy spirit?
I would have to say this is all BS, or the holy spirit is playing games!
@Shane...then let just see if I'm right..let's go through some scripture and compare what other say. I'm saying that you can just sit there and read it and get an understanding that's consistent understanding. Without the Holy spirit you aren't going to get everything, but you should not get something completely different. You want me to prove I'm right and those who agree not because of what we think but because of what the text actually says easy to do. Let's look at the texts and see who is right.
Marcus.
I dont know every different sects absolute doctrines.
I attended a non-denominational church but it was very charismatic.
They were literalists who believed in a young earth, speaking in tongues, laying on of hands, etc.
I found many of them did not completely agree on scripture and I did not agree with many of them.
So Im not sure what there is to compare?
Point is, you didn't answer my question of why the big differences if the holy spirit is suppossed to be guiding all of you in the truth?
@Shane...simple not every one is following the holy Spirit. We would take specific scriptures and then see what they say. I will even let you choose them
Marcus.
I'll tell you what I see, I see amn made religion that needs man to keep it alive.
God did not send the bible via fax from heaven....it was written by the hands of men.
God did not miraculously distribute the gospel around the world for everyone to be saved....instead missionaries spread it around and it took them centuries.
God is not miraculously upholding His church....it is the offering plate that gets passed around that keeps the church alive.
God is not bestowing absolute truth to the hearts of the masses....it is the pious pastors, ministers, and priests who teach (their interpretation) and condemn the others.
Man in my opinion has created God in whatever image suits him.
Marcus.
Sure I have a few, but I dont want to fill up the room on this post even though it would be in regards to "how can we decide who is wrong"
@Shane...I'm offering you the chance to really discus the issues you are bringing up. but you keep dodging. Instead you give me thus:
I'll tell you what I see, I see amn made religion that needs man to keep it alive.
That is your opinion that you can't substantiate
God did not send the bible via fax from heaven....it was written by the hands of men.
I'm not arguing that the Bible was transmitted miraculously. I's the original texts that came from God through men - inerrantly. You need to study textual criticism.
God did not miraculously distribute the gospel around the world for everyone to be saved....instead missionaries spread it around and it took them centuries.
If you study the history of Bible transmission and translation you would come to a much different conclusion. Read the The King James Only Controversy
God is not miraculously upholding His church....it is the offering plate that gets passed around that keeps the church alive.
What churches are you around to have such a skewed view?
God is not bestowing absolute truth to the hearts of the masses....it is the pious pastors, ministers, and priests who teach (their interpretation) and condemn the others.
Absolute truth can only be known by an absolute standard. That is the Bible. that does not make me a literalist because the Bible is not meant to be taken wooden literal for every single verse. You can tell the difference just like you can for any work that employs metaphor snd symbology.
Man in my opinion has created God in whatever image suits him.
then you need to take another look at the God of the bible because no one would make up a God with standards no one could meet if the thought is to control others.
@Shane...u can e-mail the scriptures to my e-mail or you tweet them to mmcelhaney or you can post them here. Or you can comment on my blog
Marcus.
Im not dodging anything, I was in the midst of writting that post when you asked me about the scriptures!
How do you substantiate God that the text actually came from God?
I beg to differ on the inerrancy.
Marcus the gospel did not even reach north america till the 1500's! King James version or not.
I went to a church that asked for tithes and offerings, dont you?
Isn't that how churches fund themselves?
You said "no one would make up a God with standards no bocy could meet if they wanted to control others".
I never said they would make up a God to control others (although in some cases i agree) I meant that people choose to see God in whatever way best suits their own wants, emotions, perspectives!
Marcus.
What is your blog?
@Shane...i know you don't accept Biblical inerrancy...just provide a passage that is wrong. A text from God would not have demonstratable false information.
What is your point that the Gospel did not reach North America untol 1500's? What are you saying?
And what is wrong with a church collecting tithes and offering because that money should be going to keep the church running ans an organization as it reaches out to the community and helps others. Mine does. Didn't yours?
Now you asserted thast the way people see God is dependent on themeselves. I agree that is why we have some many diffetent churches but that does not mean that all who claim to be Christians do that. If you can show that is what I'm doing than your atheism is well-founded.
You comment on the blog post i did on this post at http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2010/05/debunking-christianity-how-can-we.html
Marcus.
Oh man....I gave you reasons I see man as the creator and sustainer of the christian faith in a previous post.
One of the reasons was because it wasn't God who miraculously distributed the gospel around the world for people to be saved, instead it was missionaries who did the work.
You replied by talking about translations and transmissions of the King James version????
You missed the point, I was saying that the work of spreading the gospel was up to man, just like everything else to do with christianity.
And you already confirmed one of my points!
I said "God is not miraculously sustaining His church....it is the offering plate that goes around which keeps the church alive".
You replied "What is wrong with the church collecting tithes and offerings, that money should be going to keep the church running as an organization".
I rest my case!!!!
@Shane...no the "King James on;y controversy" is not about how only the king James version came to us. It's about how the Bible was translated and transmitted. It's about how the KJV is not the only good translation and why. i notice how you cut my quote. I said what the church collects tithes and and offering and what it is supposed to do with them. and then I asked you what did your church do with them. You didn't answer. You obviously have not studied the textual translation or transmission of the Bible or else you would see how God did preserve and propogate His World all over the world sometimes through missionaries and sometime not through missionaries. You really need to read that book and go back to your Bible.
Marcus.
I cut your quote because whether the money goes to the community or not is beside the point.
I was getting at the fact that I dont see any supernatural sustaining power keeping the church afloat.
I see man keeping his belief alive!
As far as the church I attended, the money was suppossed to go to paying bills and outreach programs....etc...but I cant answer that question because I saw more equipment being bought then people being fed or outreach programs in effect....one of the many reasons I lost my belief!
So what about how the KJV came?
It wasn't written until the 15th century, and millions of people lived and died in north america without ever hearing about christ before any version of the gospel came to them.
Marcus McElhaney said... "Again, it's just a smoke screen so you don't have to deal with your sin. I've got to ask you the same question: what are you going to say to Jesus on judgement day when your life is weighed, counted, and measured - and found wanting? On that day, I'll have the propitiation that came from Jesus' sacrifice for my sins. What will you have?"
In the old days sham prophets and priests used the "fear factor" like sham Marcus Mc bullshitartist,to usher people into the fear of the great need for human sacrifice.And it worked.
But such utter crap just dont work on us today Marcus. Take your threats and shove them where the sun dont shine.
By use of such threats you show yourself to be a great sham and a utter disgrace!
What makes it so much worse is im sure you still wish to try and suggests your fearful threats still equal the idea of some kind loving god.
What a great tossa you are.
Marcus said..."They dfon't know any more than the atheistic/agnostic evolutionist about when humanity began. I'm not making a guess. I don't know. Neither does anyone else."
And yet you wish to try and suggest man can know about gods.And you will try and tell us its because of Jesus who was the son of god etc blah blah blah.
Well why couldnt he/Jesus/God simply tell humans when humanity actually began .Its was only a matter of relating a few simple numbers to us right.
Being god he must have known it would surely become a problem later on.
No extra big probblem .Its not like that would have been to hard for gods to relay correct data that could later be matched.
Instead we see a bible book full of a whole lot of other crap.Mega stories,such things like dashing children against rocks etc
Marcus im sure your pitiful threats keep the money flowing and the church coffers full,with minds easily swayed by bullys.
But that tactic is getting old and rather tired and worn out these days with many people.
It really just dont quite cut the mustard anymore.It only tends to make you look more and more like a real great wally
OP =..."How can we decide who is wrong? "
Sad arsed Bullys being seen to be needing to revert to using "fear" and "threat" tactics .Are usually lowly, and surely must have hidden sad arsed reasons
If people are honestly correct, most often usually they dont need to revert to using such lowly measures
@Gandalf
Wonderful. The whole point of the Gospel is that that in Jesus there is no condemnation. I'm not threatening anything...just delivering the message. You don't iike it, take it up with God. If you wanna discuss what the Bible says and if it really says what I'm saying it does then we have room for discussion. If you want to deny the message fine. But you can't deny that is what the message is.
Marcus McElhaney said... "Again, it's just a smoke screen so you don't have to deal with your sin. I've got to ask you the same question: what are you going to say to Jesus on judgement day when your life is weighed, counted, and measured - and found wanting? On that day, I'll have the propitiation that came from Jesus' sacrifice for my sins. What will you have?"
There was a time long ago, and im quite sure still happens in some places like India to this very day,
Where the priestly sham artists tactical crys from these lowly "fear mongers" would be.
So where will you be??, when you havent agreed to let us help you sacrifice your child or that cow ??? ..What will happen when the gods get angry and bestow famine and/or sickness upon your family??.
Verily verily i say unto thee ..you neeeed to ...Heeeeeeeed the words of the lord-ddddd!!!
Woe-eee unto you who refuses ..Where will you-uuuu be????
(if possible to be accompanied by some drum beats or some eerie electric type music,that will hopefully work to help make it all sound and seem all the more convincing)
See http://bethelburnett.blogspot.com/
And for a demonstration of the music/high priest effect click on the (internett radio replay of the gospel message).Situated on the blog on the right top just below pic of Harvey.
Of course Marcus and Harvey would never admit, just maybe these faith threats is all just a "smoke screen" to help keep their preferred type of faith belief selling ! ...So they help keep themselves in a job that also comes with pride ! of place of being "the" pastor
And woe-eeee betide anyone who dares try mess with it
Marcus McElhaney said... "@Gandalf
Wonderful. The whole point of the Gospel is that that in Jesus there is no condemnation. I'm not threatening anything...just delivering the message. You don't iike it, take it up with God. If you wanna discuss what the Bible says and if it really says what I'm saying it does then we have room for discussion. If you want to deny the message fine. But you can't deny that is what the message is."
Marcus hits us with a circular argument once again.It goes like this.
The truth must be the truth...because the bible says it is so
If Marcus and co ever come to some spot that they find hard to explain ..they will also revert to the old tried and trusted claim ...Man is only man,so cannot discern many things about god/s
But that leaves us begging the question !,just what we should have good reason to then believe,maybe? man should be thought to actually ! be able to ever discern about god/s.
This is where the circular biblical christian reasoning comes back into play again.Marcus and co simply RE-ASSERT the christian bible as being some expert opinion
And think none the wiser of it either.
And walk off going... ho-hum tweedle-dee-dee ....That`ll learn em ...Hee hee hee ...I really showed em i know what im talking about
It is my opinion that these folks should ALL be given worthwhile jobs, re employed as comedians
Hey, Gandalf how about actually rebutting something I actually said with a sentence dealing with an argument I actually used.
When will you get tired of the smoke screens. Thanks for the comedy relief.
Marcus,
You asked if I know any Christians. Yep. Lots, just like you. Lots of family members are Christian clergy. Many of them are atheists.
Most US Christians fit my characterization. The numbers support it. Polling by places like Baylor, SMU, Notre Dame, Princeton Theological Seminary and the like support that US Christians are almost entirely social Christians. They don't read the Bible. They don't go to church. They understand that gods do nothing, so they involve themselves in taking political postions and then violating their oaths of office. They know that if they are to make their version of their god's will be the law of the land, then they need to make it happen themselves. Why? Gods, including their own, do nothing. Never have. Never will.
Do you realize what you're saying with the statement "It certainly doesn't describe me or the people I know who love Jesus"?You're simply saying "Those who live by my vision of god's will live by my vision of god's will." You've said nothing.
Marcus, I'm surprised that you seem never to have studied the many Christian works that depict non-whites, but especially black people, as non-human. There are still many Christian groups that use the etiological curse of Ham Biblical narrative to justify their claim that non-whites are not human beings and can thus be exploited or abused with, from their standpoint, impunity. For centuries Christian missionaries robbed, enslaved and murdered native peoples with the clear understanding that anything they did to their victims was Biblically sanctioned. Since their version of a Christian god bestowed them dominion over all the beasts, and Ham's curse provided all they needed to stuff anyone they chose into the "beast" category, the Bible was their guidebook to inhumanity, just as it has been for so many over its history.
Realize, Marcus, that your ancestors were hunted down by Christians. They were stripped of their families, religions, languages, and cultures by Christians. They were enslaved by Christians for Christians, and all of that inhumanity was Biblically justified. Christian clergy preached the Biblical validity of slavery. In the halls of local, state, and federal government, Christian politicians promulgated the inherent inferiority and ineptitude of black people and the resulting obligation to keep them controlled for their own good. The Bible and all those Christians were wrong even though they too were guided by the spirit. Say amen.
Your COGIC preacher buddy, Harvey Burnett, considers his arguments that Charles Darwin was a racist to be sufficient reason to reject evolutionary theory. If that is the case, then is it not also the case that one should reject the Christianities for their same racism and their concomitant reprehensible moral behavior? If On the Origin of Species should be rejected for its author's racism, should not the Bible be similarly rejected for the rampant racism by its purported author, your version of a god? If a written work should be rejected based on its author's morally vulgar attitudes or behaviors, then shouldn't the Bible be rejected based on its author's multiple mass murders and incitement of violence?
Marcus,
Yes, the Bible should be rejected and it's at least some comfort to me that although most Americans claim to believe it they clearly do not. That includes you, Marcus. No sane, moral person can live by the dictates of the Bible. That you remain unincarcerated and uninstitutionalized suggests that you live, at least to a large extent, according to the accepted standards of our society which rejects the vast majority the Bible, yours and everyone else's. Please notice that those things which happen to be mentioned the Bible which are also accepted by our society are also accepted in almost all human cultures. They are not Christian-specific, they are human. Love is human, not Christian. Caring and compassion are human, not Christian. Generosity and humanitarianism are human, not Christian. These things are human, not Christian, and being some form of Christian does not make someone better at any of them.
The Bible contains nothing original. All its fables, legends, myths, fairy stories, indeed everything in it was coopted from similar tales floating about at the time it was fabricated. That thousands of gods have been invented by man, piously worshipped and then dumped without consequence, tells us that gods and their powers are imaginary. That most of the people of the world live out full rich lives without Christian influences tells us that the imaginings of the Christanities are not needed. That most who label themselves Christian, like you Marcus, behave in ways that tell us that they do not believe what their Christian clergy and their Bible teaches, gives us hope that most people don't believe the inherently insane notions in Christianity - human sacrifice, the indebtedness of humans for the imaginary misdeeds of imaginary ancestors, being abused into claiming to love a mass murderer, and myriad others - while embracing those things that Christianity shares with the rest of humanity like finding solace in the company of others and the shared experience of group belonging. But, it's still very sad that to partake of the beneficial social experiences, they must pretend to believe the insane.
Russ...Knowing Christians who are hypocrites does not make the Bible untrue. If anything it shows that the Bible is true. Yes, there has horrible atrocities by people claiming to be Christians. So What? Many off them thought that they sanctioned by the Bible. So what? What Book, Chapter, and verse sanctioned them to do what they did? None.
What difference does that make for your sins? On Judgement day, will you be able to say "I rejected Christ because some white man claiming to be a Christian raped one of my foremothers and enslaved her"? Will that work? No. It will not work for me either. God did not tell them to do any of the things they did to hurt others.
By the way Russ, Elder Bennet is correct. Darwin was a racist and ignorant of genetics. But I reject evolution because it can't be proven. There are many scientists who do not think its true and there are others who accept it. IO invite everyone to look at the evidence and make up your own mind.
Marcus,
You show yourself to be ignorant of both Darwin and genetics when you say that Darwin was ignorant of genetics. Why might that be?
Chuck, Darwin published Origin of the Species before DNA was discovered and he did not write about it. That's why Dawkins in so in love with Darwin because he thinks that genetics supports Darwin's theory although Darwin's theories were formulated without it. I disagree with Dawkins, but I recognize that many folks accept that position. It seem that you are the one who is ignorant.
Marcus,
Do you have any concept of modern medicine? Genetics supports Darwin's theories.
Do you take any medication that has ever made its way through FDA approved clinical trials? Then you support common descent by your trust in that medication.
Darwin knew nothing of genetics because it was not an established area of study.
Wait a minute Chuck, you said I was ignorant because I said that Darwin knew nothing of genetics now you are saying that he didn't know because I wasn't an established area of study. We agree!! Progress!!!! Hallelujah. I deserve an apology from you. You are also wrong that accepting genetics means you have to accept common descent. You have to explain where all the extra information came from to produce all the different forms of life...you also have to provide examples of sweeping positive mutations. I'm waiting.
Marcus,
You paint Darwin as wrong because he knew nothing of genetics when he couldn't have known anything of genetics. It is a weak argument because it is obviously ad hominem.
Answer the flipping question? Do you take modern medicine or not? If you do then you believe in common descent.
And, I work in genomics and genetics affirms Darwin's theories.
Go back to lying for Jesus. Your apologetics offend my intelligence.
Chuck, so you can refute everything in the book "Signature in the Cell"? My point was that you can't show that genetics supports evolution without a fair amount of hand waving. I wasn't attacking Darwin but you said something about me that isn't true. You said that I was wrong that Darwin Knew nothing of genetics and now you say he didn't. The only one making personal attacks is you.
The signature in the cell is a bunch of ad hoc BS. Provide me with a clinical trial that is being fielded right now that uses any of the science in that book to estimate a therapeutic end point.
It is more christian apologetics that only serves to puff up the supersitious. It has no explanatory power.
You were dismissing Darwin's theories by stating he knew nothing of genetics. Read what you wrote. You are a stupid child.
You continually prove yourself to be an arrogant idiot Marcus. You know nothing of how science works and cherry pick data to support your presupposed god explanation (which has absolutely NO explanatory power).
Also, if you are saying that my choices in accepting Darwin's theories are between Dawkins' arguments and yours then you just show your stupidity once again in thinking that I would give your ass-backward arguments credence.
Now, do you take modern medicine or don't you?
@Chuck
hmmm...more name calling. Signs of a failed argument. I didn't dismiss Darwin's arguments because he knew nothing of genetics. I'm saying that he knew nothing of genetics. The fact that he knew nothing of genetics has no part in whether or not he was right. I don't think he was right but I miss the part where I said it is sayign that ignorance of genetics = evolution being wrong. I also never said you think evolution is right because of Dawkins. Are we having the same conversation? You read what I write like you read the Bible.
Also I think it a logical fallacy to conclude that taking medication is consistent with believing in evolution. The Bible says nothing about not taking medication. And medicine development does not depend on evolution any more than you need to believe in Zeus' lightning bolts to be an electrical engineer. I still think you owe me an apology.
Marcus you said,
"Also I think it a logical fallacy to conclude that taking medication is consistent with believing in evolution. The Bible says nothing about not taking medication. And medicine development does not depend on evolution any more than you need to believe in Zeus' lightning bolts to be an electrical engineer."
Which shows you know nothing of how medicines are developed.
Pre-clinical trials are staged in animals to see if the compound safely interacts with the animal's biology. The reason the FDA feels confident that this is a safety benchmark is because animals share common ancestry with the human animal. Common descent. And your analogy to Zeus is a better description of the science behind the signature in the cell than it is to how clinical trials are run.
You don't know what you are talking about.
Do us all a favor and have the guts to oppose evolutionary theory by not availing yourself of any modern medicine (especially anti-biotics) you will help rid our species of the self-defeating hertiable trait known as christianity.
Anything less shows you to be either a very confused intellect or, a flat out liar.
Thanks for being more civil, Chuck, no better arguments, but at least more civility helps.
The fact that we can test medications on other animals because of similarity in physical structure does not imply common descent but common design operating on the same rules. Not a good argument at all.
In your mind, why does rejecting evolution = rejecting medication? That is like mixing apples and oranges - like my Zeus and Electrical engineering example. The principles regarding medicine are true whether or not you think evolution is correct.
Marcus,
Get a biology text-book please. You embarass yourself and show christian apologetics to be an exercise in idiocy.
"common descent but common design operating on the same rules"
Is common descent.
You are a numb-skull.
What diagnostic laboratory is using the theory of intelligent design to practice science in such a way to further human health?
The question is rhetorical. The answer is none.
You don't understand science so please stop using it to assert your superstition.
Chuck, you quoted me
"common descent but common design operating on the same rules"
And then said:
Is common descent.
Thanks for admitting design is real.
Intelligent Design doesn't change the methodology or rules you use in the laboratory to make drugs or study diseases.
Quit mixing categories please.
Intelligent Design has no explanatory power in the realm of biology.
Marcus, you don't know what you are talking about.
I work in the medical sciences, you don't. You are wrong. I know first-hand.
Now please keep denying evolution and stop taking pharmaceutical drugs. You need to die off so we can proceed as a species.
Chuck, you are really great at making assertions without any back up. Unfortunately, you still didn't answer my question: what is the logical connection between denying macro evolution and the medicine
Marcus,
What is "macro-evolution"? That is a made up term by christian apologists who don't understand how science works.
You are an idiot for even asking the question.
Learn some science.
You don't know how clinical trials are run. You don't know the scientific theories under-pinning them. You don't know where the medicine you take comes from and the well-founded confidence scientists have in evolutionary theory in developing them.
You only want to assert your superstition as true.
There is no such thing as "macro-evolution" outside of the christian ghetto.
As long as christianity of your stripe continues our collective IQ will continue to shrink.
I will say this one more time, LEARN BIOLOGY!!!!!
Chuck, Everything is really physics.
Marcus,
You are stupid.
That is all.
Chuck do you really realize how much literature there is making a difference between macro and micro evolution? A lot of your fellow believers disagree with you. You do realize that everything is really mathematics and physics right? Everything else is just applied math and physics in a narrow context.
I know how clinical trials are run, much of the underlying science, and all of that. That is why I can't understand why you bringing any of it up. I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm saying that it's true no matter what you believe about evolution.
ME thinks thou doth protest too much. Are you saying that we would not have any medical knowledge without evolution being true? Are you saying that if there was no evolution Alexander Fleming would have not been able to discover penicillin? I hope not because that would be really dumb and a lot more stupid than I give you credit for.
Marcus,
List the titles that make the distinction you assert.
And don't include the ones from apologetic christian authors.
You don't know how clinical trials are run.
Answer me this. What aspect of Intelligent Design theory drove my client to institute a loading dose of their biologic drug to avoid immunogenicity in RA patients as a means for them seeking a primary efficacy end-point of ACR20. I can show you what they hypothesize about the inflammatory cascade and how this knowledge has been derived through the observation of adaptive selection.
Also, why do certain family members sharing the same genome often find themselves allergic to Penicillin? Is it because they struggle with the irreducable complexity of the compound?
Your "theories" explain nothing and have no actionable intelligence.
That is called solipsism. It is sad you don't see that.
Marcus also,
Here is the wikipedia page regarding Penicillin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penicillin#Discovery
What do you think growing Penicillium notatum in certain conditions indicates? Do you think it might indicate adaptation or irreducable complexity.
Have some balls man. If you don't believe in evolution than take a stand and stop seeking benefits from modern medicine.
You don't understand my argument because you are too ignorant to understand the importance of evolutionary theory to how modern medicine is practiced.
@Chuck
About "macro evolution" google is your friend. Here is a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
I never claimed to be an expert in biology but I haven't studied the basics. Second I haven't made a swipe at your expertise.
By all means post the data you can provide on how evolution is a part developing of drugs.
Why don't you answer the questions I ask? And I haven't made any theories or biological technical assertions of the kind.
I think you are saying that evolution can explain why some people are allergic to penicillin. Is that what you are saying? Can you provide documentation.
Chuck, I'm amazed that you are so deluded that you think evolution and medicine are intertwined to the point that you can't have one without the other. If you are right, then prove it or point to it.
Marcus,
I will not engage you any more.
Read the wikipedia page you linked to.
It confirms what I've stated.
It's obvious you do not seek out truth but rather want to cherry-pick facts to suit your presuppositions.
I couldn't explain how evolutionary theory impacts the practice of medicine nor explain how familial genomics proves common descent because you deny both observed truths.
Get honest and recognize that your entire intellectual pursuit is to defend a non-falsifiable superstition and it is not consistent with men and women who seek after explanations that will help people.
You don't understand evolutionary theory because your superstition has inflated your ego to the point where you don't have the humility to understand it.
Again, read the wiki page you linked to. When did macroevolution go out of favor? Why?
Marcus you said, "Chuck, I'm amazed that you are so deluded that you think evolution and medicine are intertwined to the point that you can't have one without the other. If you are right, then prove it or point to it."
Of course you are amazed. The ignorant usually are amazed when faced with truths that challenge their superstitions.
Chuck, reading is fundamental. I never denied familial genomics nor that all humans of common descent. I just don't see how you can say people and amoeba have common descent. Or you and a ponderosa pine (like Dawkins says). I will look at the link you have given, but I believe that the one with the inflated ego is you.
Here Marcus,
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/11/12/0906224106.abstract
Learn something.
You don't believe the things you cite because you don't understand evolution.
Yes, your Jesus-love blinds you to the fact that you lack the humility to identify the reality of counter-intutitive truths and there are facts out there that exist which you might not be able to comprehend through the rubric of ancient mythology.
@Chuck...or you just might be wrong.
No Marcus I don't believe I am.
Your ideas obstruct the potential for scientific advancement so you can protect your pet superstition which only serves to keep you feeling safe in a chaotic world.
You stand in the way of good ideas and promote useless superstitions by using lies with the expectation that you should be respected because you utter the name of Jesus.
You are a liar. Plain and simple. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Interesting, Chuck. What have I lied about? Which is it? DId I lie or am I ignorant? Make up your mind.
Intelligent Design theory is a lie and the strategy by religionists like you to get it respected by appealing to intellectual liberty is a more evil lie.
You are a liar Marcus.
And yes you are ignorant as well.
hmmm, Chuck. So all of the intelligent and intelligent people all over world who disagree with you are all ignorant liars? My what a humble spirit you have. That doesn't smack of ego at all.
Marcus,
There were no Adam and Eve. There was no original sin. Sin is a religiously-created means to explain the reason clergy can't get people to keep believing stupidity. There was no Biblical Jesus. There were lots of Jesuses at that time, but there was no water-walking wine making son of a deity. Hell, the Jesus you place so much hope in, was as useless a prophet as Pat Robertson or any of the thousands of other second-coming clairvoyants throughout Christian history. Christianity has no basis whatsoever. All the words attributed to one or another Jesus had been floating around for centuries. Nothing alleged to have been said by a Jesus was original. All Jesus words were stolen for what the priests valued. Then, like almost all works of social control which benefit the priests - like you, they were said to be the works of a god.
I'm not a sinner. I'm a human being. I'm a much better person than most Christians, none of whom is a sinner except as defined to benefit the power-mongering and money-grubbing priests like you and Harvey, Marcus. The concept of sin does nothing to make Christians better people and it explains nothing that aids the moral growth and understanding of mankind.
Marcus, I sit back and laugh at your completely stupid fear-mongering about Judgement Day. If there is some god, it surely is not yours. If I ever met something like your god, I would spit in its face regardless of the consequences for all the crime against humanity it has committed and all the crimes against humanity it has allowed, nurtured and supported in the past and continues with today. It was Christians who led most of the Jews to the gas furnaces. Their being Christians did not stop them from committing the socially-accepted horrors, Marcus.
You said,
Darwin was a racist and ignorant of genetics.
So? Your lying and pathetic quote mining Elder Harvey claims racism invalidates evolutionary theory. It doesn't.
Darwin was indeed a product of his time and place, and that included his being a Christian just like you. Among the Christian teachings he learned was the inherent superiority of the English aristocracy and the inherent inferiority of non-whites. He was wrong. He learned that through his experiences on the Beagle voyages and often acknowledged as much after his return.
During his Beagle voyage he also learned that species are not immutable. He gathered much hard evidence to support that fact. Just as science discovered that the molecules in living systems were not exclusive to living systems - and could even be manufactured in the lab, so too did Darwin, among others, discover that populations of organisms change over time. Given enough time and the right mutationally generated variability in descendent populations, the biosphere becomes filled with organisms radically distinct from their ancestor populations.
Was Darwin ignorant of genetics? Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that he did not know the precise processes and mechanisms that we know today. No, in the sense that he knew that if his idea was to be viable, a means must exist for changes to take place in the heritable traits of progeny. Boy was he right! That's genius. That's why he's considered by many to be the greatest scientist who ever lived. That's why he is honored as one of two scientists buried in Westminster Abbey, Sir Isaac Newton being the other.
No Marcus,
Not all. There are bio-chemists that I work with that correct me on science and I listen to them but when a propagandist for a superstition tries to use science to prop up his superstition I call them a liar.
You are a liar and should be ashamed of yourself. If god did exist he would give you a serious smack-down at the pearly gates for propping up an obstructionist superstition which, if successful, would lead smack dab into the dark ages.
I think it's interesting that the ignorant like you who rally your similarly ignorant fellow Christians against Darwin, do so in exactly the same way that Hitler rallied Christians against the Jews. The time-honored authoritarian tactic of unifying the troops by creating a strawman common enemy. Nothing binds religious social groups more than the hatred they focus on an enemy dreamed up by their clergy. The religious social group doesn't give a shit about truth whether it is supposed to have been uttered by some Jesus or Watson and Crick. You provide them an innocent person to hate and they love you for it. That's Christianity? That's moral? Quick! Pass the collection plate while the fires of Christian hatred are hot.
You've said on this thread, Marcus, that you are a scientist. You're not. I've read your blog. When you venture into science related areas you show yourself to be no more scientifically knowledgeable than those earlier Christian idiots who gave us bloodletting and witch burning. You are every bit as wrong now, as your silly excuse for a god was then.
Taking an engineering class does not make you a scientist, Marcus. Taking classes in the Computer "Science" Department does not make you a scientist, either. I have a Master of Science in software engineering and I know that neither today's nor yesterday's curricula in software design or engineering provides the necessary coursework to prepare one as a scientist. Just as political science is not actually science, neither is computer science and the related software design and engineering. They are closer to science than political science is, but they still do not, in general, prepare one to be anything more than a glorified technician. It's a wonderful and useful skill but it doen't qualify you to be a scientist, irrespective of title.
Think of how Creation Science knew that real science is worthy of respect, so they simply hijacked the word in another game of semantic deceit by the religious.
I have a master's degree in software engineering, a master's in mathematics, and bachelor's degrees in biology, physics and chemistry. I worked for many years in industry and academic labs as a research scientist. I also have a lot of religion related academic work in my background.
If you do have adequate academic credentials to be qualified to weigh in on the evidence related to evolution, you certainly hide it well. You know nothing about evolution, even Darwin's fledgling conception of it. The great man was largely correct. What you write about evolutionary theory shows no better understanding than the pathetic lying evolution denier, Harvey Burnett. Your caricature of evolution puts you squarely in the camp of non-intellectual fringe dwellers like Jerry Falwell, Kent Hovind, Jim Baker, Ted Haggard, James Dobson, Henry Morris and, of course, Harvey Burnett. Even the Discovery Institute knows to take its cues from greatness: their approach is taken directly from Darwin's clear elucidation of how we would recognize that evolutionary theory had been disproved in On the Origin of Species.
At a fundamental level, Marcus, you fail the test for being a scientist: if religion worked, if your religion worked, we would see it. You claim your religion gives results aside from those afforded by other social groups, but they are not seen. No supernatural affects are ever observed. People benefit from one another, but not from the supernatural.
With the claims Christians make for their religion, if it worked, it would be unmistakable. It would be so obvious that everyone would make tracks to the nearest Christianity to jump at the chance to be part of the Christian juggernaut. That is not happening. Those from other religions who have deeply studied Christianity do not find truth in it. Biblical narratives compel no one outside the context of a social support system. You have a club, Marcus. You are not pursuing truth. You simply sit about agreeing among yourselves that you are superior, that you are saved and the rest of us are doomed. You're wrong.
Chuck,
I want to thank you personally for your work on the clinical trials on Avastin. My brother-in-law died on May 4, four years after his glioblastoma diagnosis. He was part of a study group through Henry Ford Health System in Detroit. He survived longer than all the others in the study group and his quality of life outcome was much better than the rest.
In January he declined rapidly, and moved in with my wife(his sister) and I. We were his primary care givers until his death. The oncologists were quite happy about the Avastin affects.
Thank you again.
@Russ
First and foremost anyone who tells you that they are sinless and you are a sinner cannot be a Christian. A Christian becomes a Christian because he/she recognizes the need for a savior because of his/her sin. Regardless of whether or not you believe you are a sinner or not...the Bible says you, me, and everyone is. Therefore we need to be freed from this. And we can be.
You have made a lot of assertions without any shred of proof. Very pathetic. Who cares if your life is better than some who claim to be Christians. You still don't live up to the standard. Not my standard but God's. I'm sure that you are almost wonderful according to my standards. We are all wonderful according to our own standard but compared to the Bible you come to an understanding that we are no where close. The bottom line is that the Gospel message is not that you are crap, which you already know in your heart, but that God loves you and has made provision for you to have better than what you deserve.
When I said that Darwin was a racist and ignorant of genetics we seem to agree. That's not my point. Just supplying information.
I don't think that genetics tells us that mutations can explain how species such as fish and frogs can be genetically descended from the same common ancestor. I read Richard Dawkins' explanation for how additional information could have been added to cause such evolution. I don't think you can prove he was right. Feel free to assert it all you like, however. As for Darwin being the greatest scientist who ever lived, I strongly disagree. I think there were many greater scientists. I would say that:
Hiesenberg
Newton
Einstein
Michael Faraday
Maxwell
Schrodinger
and many others
All have done more to change the world and how we look at it than Darwin has done. I know that this question is largely subjective but my opinion is just as good as anyone else's on this point.
Russ,
I'm very sorry that you and your family had to suffer the horrors of GBM (love to hear the religionists explain how that disease is harmonious with god's goodness) but, I didn't work on Avastin. I am currently helping develop a TKI that will be an alternate treatment to Avastin. We are seeking an indication in GBM and in Medullary Thyroid Cancer (MTC). It targets VEGF (like Avastin) but also targets MET and RET so, there may be less anti-angioneic effect than Avastin which could be good in combination therapy with chemo.
Also, I'm certain that Marcus has no idea what that paragraph above refers to but, he will continue to contend that he has some type of authority to speak on biology and genetics.
@Chuck and Russ
I'm glad one can be a good scientist and still be less than a nice person. I'm not against any of the work of designing good medicine. The problem is that there is no reason to think that it could not be done without accepting evolution. Chuck seen a link describing how evolution is being applied today in the medical field. I will be going through it but I've got to admit that its cutting edge science he's referring to while I was referring to the past. What I want to know is how wide spread Chuck's viewpoint is in evolution's role in designing new life saving drugs? I'll be doing more research on that.
As for my scientific background it's in information technology and physics which gives me some background for DNA and how that information is encoded. Face it, disagreeing with you doesn't make one a bad scientist, just one who is thinking outside your box.
I still would like to see a meaningful rebuttal to the book "Signature in the Cell". Know of one?
I admit to not being an expert in Biology, my focus is different, but I know enough to ask questions I have not seen good answers for and neither of you have answered them.
Marcus McElhaney said... "@Chuck and Russ
I'm glad one can be a good scientist and still be less than a nice person "
Yep dont really matter scientist or pastor or sportsman or superstar housewife or husband etc, all simply nothing much more than mere humans, coloured by all the many different genes and experiences of life etc.Still its you here that keeps trying claiming some sort of involvement of some supernatural inteligent design.So why keep hitting us with the old, "repent-tttttt i say repent-tttttt or where-eeee will you be-eee" stick !.If you believe in a supernatural creator,the surely there is one thing for sure, its not our fault he didnt design humans who changed depending on their interests and jobs etc.I for one would have really found it quite handy, if people reading bibles and having faith tended to make some real difference to them.Could have saved us a whole lot of trouble
Marcus said.."What I want to know is how wide spread Chuck's viewpoint is in evolution's role in designing new life saving drugs? I'll be doing more research on that."
I also dont know anything much at all about it either.But for me its not hard to even simply (imagine) it could somehow very likely play a part.Think about it,for instance do you even doubt for a moment that its very likely that flues and viruses etc, are often mutating and evolving?.
Id guess most likely hopefully you dont doubt that.The biggest problem you have is you simply dont really like even hearing that fearsome word "evolve" .It gives you the old faith-hebe-jebes or something.Just mere mention of the word tends to have you feeling all guilt ridden with some imagined infliction of some horrendus unforgivible sin
What about possibilities that the HIV virus jumped from monkeys to man,through some hungry hunters in the jungle somewhere eating monkeys that was infected with a form of HIV.Or how about the presence of Swine flu jumping from pigs to humans.Or bird flu infecting humans.
Is this most likely something mutating and evolving, or is it more likely about some supernatural design?.
When your wife or children get one of these newly evolved sicknesses,do you simply beat them also with the old "thou must repent-ttttt i tell you ..repent---tttt" stick and wait for the inteligent supernatural design god-/s to agree to offer up some forgiveness and healing by way of supernaturally designed drugs
Or do you then all of a sudden most often tend to decide to simply rely on the scientists and doctors, and all the new drugs that have been created, through their knowledge and experience and understanding of how these sicknesses also happen to be mutating and evolving?.
@Gandalf and @Chuck
I'm not claiming involvement in the intelligent design of reality. I had nothing to do with it. No more than you. I'm not sure what you are saying. There are many Christians who do live the life the Bible prescribes. Sorry, you don't seem to know any. I do.
I never denied that viruses or bacteria evolve. "Evolve" does not bother me at all. The thing is that end of the day, no matter how much mutating takes place, a virus is still a virus and a bacteria is still going to be bacteria. There has never been an observe example of anything else.
I still don't get why seeking medical attention is antithetical to believing in God? I mean no where in the Bible does it say that medicine is wrong. Who are you talking to? The Bible says all healing is from the Lord. That means that if I get healed from an illness after being treated by a doctor, God is still the source. The doctor is only practicing medication and does not cannot cure anything or everything.
Luke was a physician remember!? I mean a doctor and medical technology is gift and a blessing from God. What are you talking about? Yes, sorry, Chuck, if you really are working in a lab, finding cures for diseases, you are doing work for God. Yes indeed, thank you.
Chuck & Russ,
Sadly this commentary goes the way of all anti-Christ advocate dogma...evolution is the key right??? Let's us know who we really are???
Yea...and then you WOKE up and realized that you were lied to and believed a lie so willingly and the main support, the fossil record, really is BANKRUPT and what evidence that there is of common descent and macroevolutionary change over time doesn't exist! Everyone agrees with adaptation and microevolutionary change but now the jive you imply...BUNK!
Get real Chuck. We've heard and taken out the garbage hundreds of times before. There's nothing new or convincing about evolutionary arguments. I wrote a nice series or articles geared toward the atheist HERE, HERE, Hyperlink Code, HERE, and HERE.
Russ is on point, Darwin was no more racist than his peers, but he was STILL a racist!
Hey Chuck O,...Now, YOU learn something!
Russelton,
"There were no Adam and Eve."
Just like there was no common ancestor right? I mean we don't have the CA's picture, bones or anything so they don't exist either right...so a CA is just a figment of your imagination isn't it?
"There was no original sin."
Then all of your actions are mere biological processes and things you can't control help or change right? I mean if your pre-programmed with info that comes from Lord knows where there's nothing you can do...in fact how can you say you have anything that resembles free-will under your construct? All of your thoughts are merely preprogrammed reactions to certain stimuli...Yea right!
"Sin is a religiously-created means to explain the reason clergy can't get people to keep believing stupidity."
Let's see...telling people that they are depraved, sinful and not pleasing to God is how to get people to follow....OK...sounds like a very bad marketing strategy IF IT WEREN'T TRUE and IF people didn't know this in their hearts...Sin would be the last thing that a men would create and make up for a religion if he wanted it to control the masses There are much better ways to do that, such as tell people that all existence is material when everyone knows that we live in a world where there is both material and immaterial realities (aka abstracts for the God haters)...your opposition and assertions are ridiculous like the rest of your commentary!
"There was no Biblical Jesus. There were lots of Jesuses at that time, but there was no water-walking wine making son of a deity.
Yea, like there are a lot of Russes??? I mean other Russes exist so YOU don't right??? How ridiculous is that???
Christianity has no basis whatsoever.
Another from the mouth of dumb or is that dumber??? A baseless Christianity comes from practically nothing and envelopes the world so much so until concepts of freedom, government and morality are built upon it...WOW! That's really baseless...
"All the words attributed to one or another Jesus had been floating around for centuries.
But what about the words that he spoke that could only have been spoken in the time and era that he lived??? ooh don't worry about that history doesn't exist, or at least not ACCURATE history right Russ???
Russ 2,
"Nothing alleged to have been said by a Jesus was original. All Jesus words were stolen for what the priests valued."
Well that may give us insight into why NO Jewish teacher ever called God his Father BEFORE Jesus or that no messianic figure ever called himself Son of Man before Jesus, or that no messianic figure EVER called himself eternal, or of having a kingdom that was not of this world....Russ you are totally ignorant of biblical literary history.
I'm not a sinner. I'm a human being.
How about this one...YOU are a sinful human being? Does that one work???
"I'm a much better person than most Christians, none of whom is a sinner except as defined to benefit the power-mongering and money-grubbing priests like you and Harvey, Marcus."
OK,Russ, then on what basis are you "better" than most Christians??? What is the standard, where is it at? Who keeps it and how do we judge it...I mean you've exalted yourself above me and Marcus...now ANTEY UP! HOW ARE YOU BETTER THAN ME??? Don't give me this because you don't believe CRAP...Tell me what makes you better than me Russ????
"Marcus, I sit back and laugh at your completely stupid fear-mongering about Judgement Day.
Russ I just sit back and completely laugh at YOU!!!
"If there is some god, it surely is not yours."
And you know this how??? maybe it's on the same basis that you are "better" than me right???
Russ your commentary is so ridiculous and so off base it's PATHETIC...your brand of baseless and unfounded radicalism should be a staple in every bible study cirriculum, it's beyond belief.
Later
Harvey,
Where did you do your advanced studies in biology or genetics because no scientist I work with makes a distinction between micro and macro evolution?
You come across as nothing more than a run of the mill conspiracy theorists. When I read your posts I was reminded of my friend's paranoid schizophrenic uncle who denied the moon landing and was certain that aliens lived in his shoes.
He had very reasoned arguments for both. His reasoning did not make them real.
Here you go Marcus - a thorough debunking of "Signature in the Cell" by an evolutionary biologist who is kind to faith on a forum that looks to find peaceful intersection between science and faith.
http://biologos.org/blog/on-reading-the-cells-signature/
You asked for a refutation here is one.
Marcus,
None of us needs the silly notion of a Jesus for anything. Tens of thousands of gods and saviors have come and gone, and not a single one has responded to its having been cast aside. Recall that the Father of Gods and men, Zeus was once feared by his pious followers exactly as your Yahweh is by you. People stopped believing and Zeus retreated to a comfortable forever in a mythology book. No lightning and thunder. No consequences at all. Humans reject their gods all the time. Your version of a Christian god and your Jesus are being dumped even now before your very eyes.
Every person in your congregation will have his church-talk and his normal-talk. Few mix the two except in a very casual way. You can't spy on those you know who in church-talk say they love Jesus, Marcus. However, when their church-talk is compared to their behavior and their normal-talk, they more often than not contradict one another. In some studies people have been asked how they themselves would behave to reflect their professed beliefs. Then, their actual behavior was compared to their own standard. They are not even close. People say they believe. People say what they think they should do to reflect that belief, but then they don't behave that way. They intentionally do not live in a way they themselves claim would show their belief. They don't believe, Marcus. They talk church-talk to you, but they do not believe. Observably, demonstrably, they do not believe.
People need things in their lives that produce real tangible results. Churches and imaginary gods and saviors don't produce anything. The money poured into churches would benefit people far more if it went toward education for themselves and their children. Knowledge and understanding are so much better than faith that you went that route yourself, didn't you, Marcus? You weren't going to put your future livelihood into an imaginary god's hands.
You got your degree in software engineering because you know that your god doesn't actually take care of anyone. I often hear Christians say, "God helps those who help themselves," but they don't like it when I respond with, "No. People help themselves and by social convention they credit their work to their imaginary god. Gods do nothing." Your god will not take care of you or anyone else, Marcus. Why do churches, Muslim and Hindu and Christian ones, do humanitarian work? Because their god is a no-show, that's why. Why do churches use 100 percent supernatural-free means to do that humanitarian work? Because their gods are imaginary just like Odin, Mithra and Jupiter.
You said,
A Christian becomes a Christian because he/she recognizes the need for a savior because of his/her sin.
That's a lie, Marcus. That's especially the case for someone claiming to have the acute observational skills of a scientist. People become Christians almost exclusively due to family influences, then to complete the hazing and initiation ritual, they are socially abused into responding to alter calls where they publicly beg for Jesus to come into their life. It's social, Marcus. It's part of the ritual, Marcus. It's not supernatural and the only spirits involved are the need for acceptance and the desire to avoid losing the love of family and friends.
I shudder to think what kind of physical and/or psychological abuse you or your pal, Harvey, would mete out on your children if they refused to accept your imaginary friends. Sad, but true, Christian Fundamentalists are the most criminally abusive types of Christianities in the US, the authoritarian clergy more so than the general membership.
On your blog profile you say, "God saved me at a young age." That, too, is a lie. What would be more proper is "As a child you were badgered to endure the public humiliation of church hazing. You knew that your parents and other church members would have thought less of you, maybe even shunned, ostracized or hurt you if you hadn't done it." Church-going adults conspire against the children in the congregation including their own in an effort to sustain the superstition and keep the clergy fed. You were abused into "being saved." It's ugly; it's cruel; it's immoral; but, hey, that's Christianity: an array of repulsive institutions perpetuating themselves by abusing children.
Your parents would have promoted you getting an education for exactly the same reason. They, too, know in their heart of hearts that the version of a god they worship does nothing at all for anyone.
Everyone knows that you can't pray for anything and have that prayer answered by supernatural means. If we could would there be wars? Famine? Gods are a useless concept, Marcus. The 9/11 hijackers knew it. Their "answered prayer" was answered by the hijackers and their supporters. They knew no god was there. We respond with the pure naturalism of increased security measures.
"In God We Trust" is a string of empty words. It is meaningless. We do not trust in gods of any kind. We all succeed or fail by our own efforts and other natural factors, and we all know that. But, the social conventions of the religious go that extra step to make false attributions: successes are chalked up to a deity and the failures are tallied for themselves, sinister supernatural forces, or the mysterious "will of God." Success or failure is determined by a number of factors, but gods are not one of them.
Billions of prayers went up before Katrina made landfall, but they made no difference. Was the US response natural or supernatural? It was all natural. Prayers did not help the victims. 100 percent supernatural-free naturalism did all the work. Prayers did not make the levees hold. For that matter the levees were no better for having been built by hoards of Christians.
@Chuck
Thanks for the link. We'll see how it holds up
@Russ
You don't really know anything about Christians. I see the people from my church outside of church also. We see each other's short-comings and love each other anyway. The ones that are truly putting their trust in Christ say and behave the same way when I am in their homes and when I run into them at the store or on the street as they do on Sunday Morning. You need to get out more.
It's been 2000 years and Christianity is growing all over the world even in places where it's not part of the society. God is gathering His people to Himself. Sometimes through missionaries and sometimes in other ways.
God has tangibly and unmistakenly reached into my life and affected it. You just can't see how God has done the same things in your life.
Not all who claim to be Christians believe, true. But some do. Some make decisions and base their actions on that belief. In an age where people are loosing their lively hood at any moment, why would you think your job does not hinge on the mercies of God? It does. God has shown me that no matter what God will take care of me and my family. Time and Time again. MY education has done nothing but shown me more about who God is. I have my 3 college degrees becasue God blessed me and empowered me.
I have a BS in Engineering Physics and a MAsters in Mechanical Enginerring from UC Berkeley and a BS in Information Technology from AIU Online and I'm only 35 yrs old. I have a beautiful wife and children. Blessed is what I am. No matter what happens, I've seen God give me piece as promised in the scripture. What have you got?
I grew up in East Oakand...I'm supposed to be dead not alive and educated...if you accept the statistics. I'm a walking, living billboard for God's love and mercy. I can take credit for nothing.
You don't even seem to know what a Christian is or anything about who Jesus is.
My parents never hazed me but just showed me love and how to live this life according to the Bible by living it themselves. They have been married for 52 yrs. I have lived a life and come from a family that the world says no longer exists. IT's a lifestyle my wife and I, with only the help of God, will pass down to our own Children. God answers prayers. He will lead and guide just as He promised us. I know I was saved from a young age because God changed me. I wanted to stop living for myself and live for Him...please Him. I know you have no idea what I'm talking about because you never knew Jesus. If you did you would never want anything else.
Chuck O,
Where did you do your advanced studies in biology or genetics because no scientist I work with makes a distinction between micro and macro evolution?
This only displays your radicalism. No sientist that YOU work with knows the difference ey?
How about these that teach and educate scientist regarding biological science such as
Berkley
Indiana University
Nature Weekly Journal
Dr. Edward O Wilson of Harvard University
Dr. Dennis O'Neil, Behavioral Sciences Department, Palomar College.
I mean that only scrapes the surface. Not to mention all the publication in non-Christian sympathetic magazines....What is that???
You mean to tell me...you are the only one who work with scientist that don'ty distinguish the difference?
That's SAD and I would have been ashamed to admit that if I were you.
I'll cut you some slack because it could be because evolution is a farce on it's own premise anyway:
"That's because the theory of evolution maintains that living things can acquire new genetic information through the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection. But as we have already seen, variations can never give rise to any new genetic information and therefore, cannot lead to evolution. Referring to variations as micro-evolution reflects an ideological preference on the part of evolutionist biologists"[The Error of The Evolution of Species~ Harun Yahya]
Either way your denial of this is astounding...and you question my scientific knowledge and integrity...laughable!
Harvey,
Did you read the links you provided? None of them deny common descent. They don't support your thesis.
The distinction you are making between the terms is not the distinction made in those links. The link from Indiana is a survey course on conflicts in science and religion and has nothing to do with the practice of science.
Most of them deal with internal debates of gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium. Gould and Dawkins disagreed on that mechanical aspect of natural selection but neither man denied common descent and both men were atheists.
I don't see how your evidence validates your presupposition.
I still mock your understanding of science because it is so obviously clouded by your religious presupposition.
No scientist I work with uses Intelligent Design Theory to approximate a null hypothesis but they do lean on the consitant explanatory models of biology driven by Darwinian Evolution.
And they create medications that help people.
Also Harvey,
If you discredit Darwin due to his racism why do you lean on a quote by an anti-semite to validate your creationism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Oktar
Adnan Oktar is not a credible source when discussing the explanatory model known as Darwinian Evolution.
Harv,
Do you adopt the same methodology Oktar uses to deny the holocause to deny evolution?
Marcus,
You said,
The problem is that there is no reason to think that it[developing medications] could not be done without accepting evolution.
You are not a scientist, Marcus, so you can't be expected to see the bigger picture of science. All of the mathematics, chemistry, physics, biology, and other sciences that provide evidence for and otherwise support medical advances of all sorts, also support evolution.
Science uses nature as its standard. To introduce a different standard, one accepting of supernatural causation, would permit literally anything to be called science - alchemy, astrology, card reading, palmistry, phrenology, divining from scattered entrails, and whatever other bizarre notions someone arbitrarily dreamed up. Michael Behe admitted as much on the witness stand at the 2005 Dover Intelligent Design trial. He actually said he wanted to change the standards for the sciences in a way that would permit astrology to be science...under oath he said that.
Then, of course, we would be confronted with the impossible task of deciding whose supernaturalism do we permit. By the US Constitution what you allow to one religion, you must not deny from the others, so which religious notions would we allow? Science as it currently stands is reliable, but that would no longer be the case. Your version of Christianity says that witchcraft is a real means of causation. Members of your COGIC kill their children as witches on a regular basis. If we permitted your religion to be thrown in with science we would be attributing criminal acts to witches and demons and incarcerating or killing people based on your faulty assumptions. Saying "God told me to drown my children" then becomes an acceptable defense.
You and Harvey would be permitted by law to kill with impunity since your acting to stop supernatural consequences would be accepted. "I had to kill her since her unborn child would have been the anti-Christ" or "I had to kill her because she was going to put a curse on me. It was self-defense." Remember this has already been tried. Christianity proved itself to be completely useless during the 1500 years when it had complete control in the west. The supernaturalisms of the Christianities did not work then and they do not work now.
Marcus,
Using the standard of naturalism, we have progressed scientifically and economically, but also morally. If supernaturalism has the effects Christians claim for it, we would be able to determine it through science. Since Christians claim to be praying to the one true real deal God, and they claim that said God answers those prayers, if it did answer them, we would see it. We don't. Christians lie about the affects. Prayer is superstition. That's all.
Christians manufacture miracles and answered prayers using ignorance, coincidence, and medical misdiagnosis as raw materials. As my wife says, "They make their own miracles." She points out that when a plane crashes, they ignore most of the data points, the 200 dead, choosing instead to claim the lone survivor is evidence for miracles. That's really dishonest, but that's how Christianity works.
When Chesley Sullenberger III piloted all 155 of his passengers to safety, the event wasn't hailed as a miracle since Mr. Sullenberger was an atheist. It would probably have been a miracle if he could have gotten most of them killed. If only one baby survived, I'm sure it would have been a miracle. It was far better for those passengers to have had a clear-headed and skilled atheist pilot, than it would have been for them to have had a praying idiot who would gotten them all killed.
Science has provided us with reliable information about who we are, how we got here, how we're related to the other living things on this planet, and how we're dependent on the entire planet for our well-being.
Fact: the earth is more than 4 billion years old. Fact: cellular life has existed on earth for nearly 4 billion years. The science that gives us these results also is used in the pharmacology. Do some poking around for information on radiochemistry in pharmacology.
The chemical techniques used to sequence proteins and polynucleotides in determining enzyme and so genetic defects also allow us to verify our relatedness to all other living things. Genetics all by itself proves the fact of evolutionary theory. All the natural sciences converge on the veracity of evolutionary theory. Some, genetics and paleontology, for instance, make a complete case themselves while others provide foundational evidentiary support.
Science advances our morality whereas the conservativism of religion stultifies our moral growth. Science showed us that epilepsy was all-natural and not to be feared as a manifestation of a god's vengeance. Science stopped us from chaining innocent diabetics to a wall or killing them as witches. Science stopped bloodletting by showing its ineffectiveness. Millions were killed by the Christianity-justified practice, and millions more have been spared that fate by science. We are morally much better off for science. We are morally better off because science ignores the supernatural assumptions of the Christianities and all other religions.
Where religions are allowed to run roughshod because strong secular systems are not in place to curtail them, the Christianities still resort to killing people. Their Bible and their Jesus teach killing as a legitimate way to rid society of those persons deemed to be supernatural threats by the clergy.
You are not a scientist, Marcus, so you can't be expected to see the bigger picture of science. All of the mathematics, chemistry, physics, biology, and other sciences that provide evidence for and otherwise support medical advances of all sorts, also support evolution.
Russ, Do you have any degrees in science or engineering like I do? Doesn't seem like it.
Science uses nature as its standard. To introduce a different standard, one accepting of supernatural causation, would permit literally anything to be called science - alchemy, astrology, card reading, palmistry, phrenology, divining from scattered entrails, and whatever other bizarre notions someone arbitrarily dreamed up. Michael Behe admitted as much on the witness stand at the 2005 Dover Intelligent Design trial. He actually said he wanted to change the standards for the sciences in a way that would permit astrology to be science...under oath he said that.
So you think that i want to change the standards for science like Behe? I don't. so what is your point?
Then, of course, we would be confronted with the impossible task of deciding whose supernaturalism do we permit. By the US Constitution what you allow to one religion, you must not deny from the others, so which religious notions would we allow? Science as it currently stands is reliable, but that would no longer be the case. Your version of Christianity says that witchcraft is a real means of causation. Members of your COGIC kill their children as witches on a regular basis. If we permitted your religion to be thrown in with science we would be attributing criminal acts to witches and demons and incarcerating or killing people based on your faulty assumptions. Saying "God told me to drown my children" then becomes an acceptable defense.
Russ, what planet are you living on? A gain you don;'t know anything about COGIC. The scenario you paint is not bible based at all. No wher ein the bible does it sayi should drown my children and if i thoought that god told me that, i wojld know it wasn't god because god does not tell us to do that in the Bible. God says the exact opposite.
You and Harvey would be permitted by law to kill with impunity since your acting to stop supernatural consequences would be accepted. "I had to kill her since her unborn child would have been the anti-Christ" or "I had to kill her because she was going to put a curse on me. It was self-defense." Remember this has already been tried. Christianity proved itself to be completely useless during the 1500 years when it had complete control in the west. The supernaturalisms of the Christianities did not work then and they do not work now.
You are legally able to kill with impunity now...remember abortion is legal. And we can't kill the anti-christ because the bible does not tell us who or when. I think you watch to many movies. You need to read what the Bible really says and turn the TV off...you are too impressionable.
Marcus,
you said, "So you think that i want to change the standards for science like Behe? I don't. so what is your point?"
Your appeal to the "Signature in the Cell" says you do want to change the standards for science.
Are you unaware what your allegiances intimate?
I would expect that you don't since most religious expression depends on solipsism and tautology.
You're not even aware of the philsoophical school or political movement you tacitly support with evolution denial. Sad.
@Russ
You wrote:
Science has provided us with reliable information about who we are, how we got here, how we're related to the other living things on this planet, and how we're dependent on the entire planet for our well-being.
When have I denied that? The Bible says nothing in conflict with y9our above statement.
Fact: the earth is more than 4 billion years old. Fact: cellular life has existed on earth for nearly 4 billion years. The science that gives us these results also is used in the pharmacology. Do some poking around for information on radiochemistry in pharmacology.
So? When have I denied this?
The chemical techniques used to sequence proteins and polynucleotides in determining enzyme and so genetic defects also allow us to verify our relatedness to all other living things.
almost fine, i won't quibble you said more stupid stuff than this later.
Genetics all by itself proves the fact of evolutionary theory. All the natural sciences converge on the veracity of evolutionary theory. Some, genetics and paleontology, for instance, make a complete case themselves while others provide foundational evidentiary support.
There we go. Prove this. Where is your proof? U made a lot of assertions prove each one.
Science advances our morality whereas the conservativism of religion stultifies our moral growth. Science showed us that epilepsy was all-natural and not to be feared as a manifestation of a god's vengeance. Science stopped us from chaining innocent diabetics to a wall or killing them as witches. Science stopped bloodletting by showing its ineffectiveness. Millions were killed by the Christianity-justified practice, and millions more have been spared that fate by science. We are morally much better off for science. We are morally better off because science ignores the supernatural assumptions of the Christianities and all other religions.
Started well, but got worse. Where does the Bible tell us to do blood-letting for medical purposes? Where does it say to chain witches to walls?
Where religions are allowed to run roughshod because strong secular systems are not in place to curtail them, the Christianities still resort to killing people. Their Bible and their Jesus teach killing as a legitimate way to rid society of those persons deemed to be supernatural threats by the clergy.
Prove this if you can. And where does Jesus tell us to kill anyone?
@ Chuck. Thanks for the link about Meyer's book. But I've got my own comments http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2010/05/on-reading-cells-signature-biologos.html
Marcus,
I can't access your link. It keeps kicking me out. Care to post your observations here?
Marcus:
How do you decide WHICH of the numerous supernatural explanations that believers postulate are CORRECT? What is your methodology to justify YOUR supernatural explanations and REJECT those supernatural explanations that contradict your own?
Just wondering.
Marcus,
You said,
As for my scientific background it's in information technology and physics which gives me some background for DNA and how that information is encoded.
That is complete bullshit! Neither physics nor information technology gives you a means for understanding anything about the encoding of information in DNA. That the word information shows up in these two outstandingly different contexts does not suggest that you have been prepared to understand how DNA encoding relates to living organisms. So don't suggest that it does, and don't try to deceive people who you think might not understand your lack of qualifications.
Your information technology might have prepped you to install a network or a disk array or to set up a distributed processing system or do some Java programming, but you will not understand the difference between nuclear and mitochondrial DNA's and what the significance of that difference is. You will know nothing about the translation from DNA to protein and how a one nucleotide mutation can spell a foreshortened life struggling against cystic fibrosis.
Morally, how can you claim that your educational background gives you "some background for DNA and how that information is encoded"? Have you had coursework dealing with DNA? Did your parents homeschool you through high school to be sure you were never exposed to heathen science?
Marcus, on this blog, John Loftus over and over makes the point that the truly ignorant do not know what they do not know. You are a perfect example of that. You seem truly ignorant of the fact that you can't know what you're talking about from the background you describe. Plus, you constantly underscore your ignorance of evolution-related matters on your blog.
You really do need to inform yourself, Marcus. Education is an ever ongoing process. Ignorance is not shameful; failure to recognize, at least with yourself, that you are ignorant is very shameful. If you can't recognize that you don't know something you are lost. You can't improve if you truly think there is nothing more to learn. Admitting your ignorance is the simple admission that you have more to learn. You should recognize that what you have learned to date does not include an understanding of evolutionary theory. Saying "I don't know" should be a fundamental part of everyone's lexical repertoire, but among the religious it seems to be absent.
You're in your mid-thirties and Burnett is in his mid-fifties, but your minds appear to be about the same age. He cannot admit error. On his blog he has even tried to argue that Stephen J. Gould denied evolution. Harvey's twenty years older than you, but you appear to have allowed your mind to be as ossified as his. I hope you have not lost the capacity to learn. For now, you seem unwilling to grow out of some of your intellectual weaknesses. Having an inflexible mind like Harvey is not a sign of wisdom or maturity but is instead a sign of having abandoned the chase. It's as though you've given up. I hope not.
Marcus, you sound like one of those seriously mind-fucked children from the Jesus Camp documentary being taught to be an evolution denier at the age of 5 or 6 or 8. As a nation our future depends on science, but the Christian religions like yours ruin science for millions of young people every year. Sadly, people like you force jobs overseas. You force the immigration of intellectually capable workers to take good jobs you have scared your members away from. Your religion hurts us all.
Russ,
Well said.
Both Harvey and Marcus remind me to be aware of the very human error known as cognitive bias.
They misrepresent evolution as if their definition is its meaning and then dismantle their misrepresentation as if they are falsifying the theory.
And the do this defend their belief in Jesus.
It is nothing more than that.
Just run-of-the-mill irrational belief justifying conspiracy theories and a very odd persecution complex.
It is truly sad.
@chuck.
My response won't fit here. Here is the link again. you could always Copy/paste it into an ew browser window
http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2010/05/on-reading-cells-signature-biologos.html
District Supt. Harvey Burnett said... "Hey Chuck O,...Now, YOU learn something!"
Yeah that`ll learn ya ...tee hee hee ... hallelujah ! luckliy the gods have provided his advocates Marcus and Havardo and all other creationists with special supernaturally acredited science degrees.Its just no use arguing with that type of fire power Chuck O
Russ trys meddeling to intervene with this unstopable force,but really its fruitless of course.The christian science crew is just one step ahead and right on top of every move .They are right on the ball park and there just no fooling these folk when the gods are on their side,they know exactly what is known as micro and macro evolution.
Chuck O, you need-ddddd to repent-ttttt your transgresions of daring to argue the point, doing so only goes the way of all anti-Christ advocate dogma .And where-eeeeee will you-uuuuuu be??.Give it up for pastor Harvey or you-uuuu will-lll burn-nnnn in eternity-yyyyyy-yyy
Now please-eeeee read the whole scripture of Adnan_Oktar, you will gain much more insight like Harvey has recieved.Its a pity Adnan_Oktar isnt so very able to provide a little more of these science observational scriptures, but he`s probably still in jail at the moment somewhere for something like fraud .But then we know the lord--dddd tends to work in some very mysterous ways.
Now while you are at it please-eee take a look at what we know is expected of "macro" evolution.
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Crocoduck
Scientists might have a special "agenda" thats been intelligently designed to try to deceive,but its just not so easy to pull the wool over the eyes of believers who "pray" and follow the ways of the lord.
Russ...Russ...are you really that blind as how much alike information storages is in DNA and digital technology? And you call me ignorant. Computers and our digital information use binary code - 1's and 0's for encoding information. In DNA, it's more complex but similar. It's based on 4 possible proteins - mathematically based on 4. not 2. I'm not the only one to speak of the similarities of information technology and genetics. You need to educate yourself. Many scientists and mathematicians woiuld agree with me. i know that many biologists who don't have a background in mathematics and informations sciences don't see the connection, but some biologists do. Richard Dawkins wrote an etire essay explaining DNA from the point of views of math and information.
I blogged about it a few daysd ago. Read it here
I admit to surprise that you can't see it. Some how we have developed a technology similar to our phyisology is way that we are only now discovering.
I'm constant;ly growing and learning...are you doing the same. I wonder considering that you did not know this. I'm not even sure what you are blathiering about. Wnen did i say that I don't have more to learn. What are you accusing me of? I'm part of the reason why America can still compete in the global markert place due to my eduaction adnt eh job I hold. The problem is that fewer and fewer people are going into the sciences and technical fields and no where to the level I have. I love it. It's exactly what God made me for. Whadt doi godf make you far. I guarantee its for more than what you are doing.
@Chuck...I don't think you know what you are talking about at all. I mean why would you assume that i would endorse trying to make America a theocracy. show me in the bible where it says I or anyone should be trying to do that. Who are you guys listening to? Sarah Pallin? I'm laughing at her too. No one who unmdestands what the Bible says believes that rhetoric.
@dguller... That is a great question and "i want you to know i appreciate your civility and respectful tone. I want to be clear: it doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't matter what they think. What matter is what the objective standard says. I don't understand everything about the Bible and I'm learning still. Throughout my life, i've had to reexamine what I thought the Bible said because it dind't say that. For example: Now where in it will you find "God helps those who help themselves." If you can find it let me know. And many other theings. I realize, from the way you asked the question that you think you can get anything you want out of it - that anyone can therefore you can't trust it as an objective standard. I respectively disagree. If you read the Bible in context and honestly draw out of it what is there and not what you want is there, you will get an understanding. If you disagree, why not test it out? Take a disputed passage read it for yourself, study the historical and cultural context, even read different translations and see what it really says.
Russ...Russ...are you really that blind as how much alike information storage is in DNA and in digital technology? And you call me ignorant. Computers and our digital information use binary code - 1's and 0's for encoding information. In DNA, it's more complex but similar. It's based on 4 possible proteins - mathematically based on 4. not 2. I'm not the only one to speak of the similarities of information technology and genetics. You need to educate yourself. Many scientists and mathematicians woiuld agree with me. i know that many biologists who don't have a background in mathematics and informations sciences don't see the connection, but some biologists do. Richard Dawkins wrote an etire essay explaining DNA from the point of views of math and information.
I blogged about it a few daysd ago. Read it here
I admit to surprise that you can't see it. Some how we have developed a technology similar to our phyisology is way that we are only now discovering.
I'm constant;ly growing and learning...are you doing the same. I wonder considering that you did not know this. I'm not even sure what you are blathiering about. Wnen did i say that I don't have more to learn. What are you accusing me of? I'm part of the reason why America can still compete in the global markert place due to my eduaction adnt eh job I hold. The problem is that fewer and fewer people are going into the sciences and technical fields and no where to the level I have. I love it. It's exactly what God made me for. Whadt doi godf make you far. I guarantee its for more than what you are doing.
@Chuck...I don't think you know what you are talking about at all. I mean why would you assume that i would endorse trying to make America a theocracy. show me in the bible where it says I or anyone should be trying to do that. Who are you guys listening to? Sarah Pallin? I'm laughing at her too. No one who unmdestands what the Bible says believes that rhetoric.
@dguller... That is a great question and "i want you to know i appreciate your civility and respectful tone. I want to be clear: it doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't matter what they think. What matter is what the objective standard says. I don't understand everything about the Bible and I'm learning still. Throughout my life, i've had to reexamine what I thought the Bible said because it dind't say that. For example: Now where in it will you find "God helps those who help themselves." If you can find it let me know. And many other theings. I realize, from the way you asked the question that you think you can get anything you want out of it - that anyone can therefore you can't trust it as an objective standard. I respectively disagree. If you read the Bible in context and honestly draw out of it what is there and not what you want is there, you will get an understanding. If you disagree, why not test it out? Take a disputed passage read it for yourself, study the historical and cultural context, even read different translations and see what it really says.
Marcus,
You constantly reinforce your lack of scientific credentials, your seeming lack of curiosity, and your profound intellectual laziness. To this passage of mine,
Genetics all by itself proves the fact of evolutionary theory. All the natural sciences converge on the veracity of evolutionary theory. Some, genetics and paleontology, for instance, make a complete case themselves while others provide foundational evidentiary support.
you responded,
There we go. Prove this. Where is your proof? U made a lot of assertions prove each one.
You have a degree in information technology, do you not? If I had a degree in information technology, I would know how to get good answers to the questions raised by that excerpt. With this response you tell me that you lack the capabilities to formulate a question, type it into a search engine and follow the links. You also tell me you are very, very lazy. If you wanted to know these things you could google 'evolutionary theory' and get a fine overview of the topic(almost three million hits). You could go to amazon.com and search for 'theory of evolution'(3500 results). You could go to the UCB library and start with On the Origin of Species; move on to Watson and Crick; then, go through Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory; read some Dawkins like The Greatest Show on Earth; read some Eldridge; read some John Maynard Smith; add in Kenneth Millers' Finding Darwin's God(he's devout Roman Catholic); then, maybe read Coyne's Why Evolution is True. You could get on youtube.com and search for 'theory of evolution' and get 44000 results including cartoons, comedy, serious scholarship and even religionist's feeble attempts at refutation. Here's a lecture by Jerry Coyne[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1m4mATYoig]. If you wanted to learn rather than spew ideology, you could do so. By not having done so, you have proven that you are content to projectile vomit nonsense at those even less well-informed than you are. That is immoral, Marcus. Is the perpetuation of ignorance really part of your religion?
You have the gall to say what amounts to: Prove it! Force me to understand. And, oh, by the way, I've already made up my mind that you are wrong(I was saved at a young age) and you will not change it. Period.
What are we to make of your obvious lack of understanding mated with your also obvious unwillingness to learn while you insist that you are a trained scientist capable of accurately assessing the evidence related to evolutionary theory? You don't understand. You're not interested in understanding. Yet, you are no doubt morally content with passing off your ignorance as comprehension. If you'e going to be the person your church members go to for answers they deserve someone better than you. They deserve someone honest enough to admit they do not understand and someone far more willing to work at understanding than you are.
Marcus while you get busy working up google to give you knowledge on evolution you should look up Howard Ahmanson and Philip Johnson. They were your forefathers in the ID movement and they had specific political aims tied to Christian Theocracy. You prove yourself continually ignorant, dishonest, or gullible. Very sad.
Marcus,
You're an damned idiot! You said,
In DNA, it's more complex but similar. It's based on 4 possible proteins - mathematically based on 4. not 2.
DNA is not based on proteins. So, since I'm so ignorant, perhaps you can enlighten me, Marcus. How do we get from the structure of DNA to a protein or a specific amino acid in an enzyme? Yes, the encoding is digital, but when you say based on 4 what do you mean? 4 what?
Your religion makes you a stupid man, Marcus.
Let me reiterate something I said earlier.
I have a master's degree in software engineering, a master's in mathematics, and bachelor's degrees in biology, physics and chemistry. I worked for many years in industry and academic labs as a research scientist. I also have a lot of religion related academic work in my background.
I find it sad that you do not know enough to realize what understanding means.
Marcus,
You're an damned idiot! You said,
In DNA, it's more complex but similar. It's based on 4 possible proteins - mathematically based on 4. not 2.
DNA is not based on proteins. So, since I'm so ignorant, perhaps you can enlighten me, Marcus. How do we get from the structure of DNA to a protein or a specific amino acid in an enzyme? Yes, the encoding is digital, but when you say based on 4 what do you mean? 4 what?
Your religion makes you a stupid man, Marcus.
Let me reiterate something I said earlier.
I have a master's degree in software engineering, a master's in mathematics, and bachelor's degrees in biology, physics and chemistry. I worked for many years in industry and academic labs as a research scientist. I also have a lot of religion related academic work in my background.
I find it sad that you do not know enough to realize what understanding means.
Marcus:
I'm sorry, but you failed to answer either of my questions. Why choose to focus on the Bible and attempt to read it in context, etc.? Why not the Hindu Vedas? Or the Qur'an? Or the Mormon Bible? Or Buddhist texts? Or Zoroastrian texts? Or ancient Greek mythology?
By what methodology do you decide to focus upon the Bible as a source of divine wisdom and knowledge rather than any other divine text?
Thanks.
@Russ
Well, I'm going to do something you cannot do: Admit that I made a mistake. I know DNA is not made of proteins. I meant amino acids. I ask all to forgive my mistake. At the same time I think asking you to prove that all natural sciences support evolution is being lazy at all. I've looked at the evidence and I disagree. I'm not asking you because I haven't looked it up but because I have. Why should I trust you as an authority when my own research disagrees?
Ignorance isn't part of Christianity at all. You can assert that all you want but you can't prove it. And you haven't proven yourself more moral or honest than anyone else. You also haven't answered my question. Just because I've chosen to think for myself and not accept your opinions, why am I wrong? I'm not alone. Lots of people, intelligent and educated people, agree with me. If you truly have credentials as you have said then great. Denying my education don't make you smarter. I bet you even been working in the field longer than I. What kind of religion background do you have? You have misrepresented Christianity in everything you have written. Gotten much wrong. And in all of your issues I haven't personally insulted or belittled you as you have done me. IT's really sad that you are just that low.
@ Chuck...It's really interesting to me that you are so blind by your own ego that you can't see that other people just as intelligent and informed as you have come to a different conclusion. And you accuse me of being close minded.
Marcus
Don't you think it's high time you don't know what you speak of?
@dguller
I thought I did answer your question. You asked what standard I use and why. Now you are asking another question. You are asking why I choose the Bible over other options. It's simple none of the other options stand-up to scrutiny or examination. When I have examined them I could not find anyway to reconcile them to reality. I realize that many folks say the same things against the Bible, but when I apply the same examinations it passes those tests. I'm more than willing to discuss issues and thoughts for why you or anyone thinks the Bible is not true.
@Chuck
Don't you think you need to learn what you are talking about yourself. I've seen so much error and mistakes from you. Funny thing is when it comes to the science dealing with genetics and biology outside of evolution, I agree with you. It's the theology and politics I think you need to work on. Just because other Christians who accept intelligent design think that America should be theocracy doesn't mean that I should. Why should? And you accuse me of being ignorant.
Marcus your argument to self pity is illogical. You've proposed arguments here that Judge Jones in the Dover case pronounced "inanity" and he called those making those claims liars. This is not about coming to a different conclusion based on honest examination. This about you forcing your religion onto science and demanding it be respected. I consider that inane lying. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Marcus
You do realize there would be no Intelligent Design without the wedge document right? Learn a little about the ideas you promote.
@dguller
I thought I did answer your question. You asked what standard I use and why. Now you are asking another question. You are asking why I choose the Bible over other options. It's simple none of the other options stand-up to scrutiny or examination. When I have examined them I could not find anyway to reconcile them to reality. I realize that many folks say the same things against the Bible, but when I apply the same examinations it passes those tests. I'm more than willing to discuss issues and thoughts for why you or anyone thinks the Bible is not true.
@Chuck
Don't you think you need to learn what you are talking about yourself. I've seen so much error and mistakes from you. Funny thing is when it comes to the science dealing with genetics and biology outside of evolution, I agree with you. It's the theology and politics I think you need to work on. Just because other Christians who accept intelligent design think that America should be theocracy doesn't mean that I should. Why should? And you accuse me of being ignorant.
@Chuck
Self-pity? No, just calling you out on your baseless assertions. I've been studying these issues my whole life...who are you to tell me that I should just accept your opinions. Not everyone agrees with you.
Again, I know what the WEDGE thing is. But what is the point? I don't endorse all of it. Why should I? Just because I see Intelligent Design as a valuable does not mean I think everything about the Discovery Institutes is viable. Why should I?
Marcus you are back peddling and are doing more lying. You couldn't have studied ID your whole life because before Philip Johnson's wedge document it was known as creation science and before that it was creationism. It isn't science Marcus. It is a movement by christians to eliminate the secular protections in the constitution so theocratic rule can occur. Philip Johnson was a lawyer, not a scientist and he is the father of Intelligent Design.
Chuck,I didn't say that I've studied ID my whole life. I said that "I've been studying these issues my whole life...who are you to tell me that I should just accept your opinions. Not everyone agrees with you." IF you think "issues" means ID, you are wrong. I was referring to all of the science we have been discussing. Why are you keep bringing up things I don't believe? I don't see how God has commanded a theocracy for the United States. I don't care about what Phillip Johnson thinks anymore than I care about what you think. I haven't back pedaled at all and you keep blindly going forward.
Marcus you defend ID without knowing its history or purpose. Your only evidence in this debate has been ID literature. You have not shown you understand evolution outside of ID propoganda. If you have been studying these issues your whole life then you are a rotten student.
Actually, Chuck, I don't think I've given you a single link to Discovery Institute literature or ID Literature. I'm not trying to defend proponents of ID just that the science holds. As far as I can tell Stephen Meyer doesn't agree with them either. And there are many who don't but agree that Intelligent Design is viable, like David Berlinski - who isn't even a Christian. Not all ID scientists are Christians and you can't prove that Creation Science = ID. I agree that for me it does, but that's not true for everyone.
Signature in the Cell is ID literature.
Frankly Marcus, everything you've posted here about your credentials have been contradicted by your ideas. You continue to exhibit a mind that does not understand the scientific method. Good luck to you. You only seem like a garden variety science denying evangelist. I'm certain the ideas I stand for will win out and yours will be assigned to the scrapheap of pseudoscience.
Marcus
Stephen Meyer is a Director at The Discovery Institute.
His book is the only evidence you've used to deny evolution.
CHuck O,
You said"Did you read the links you provided? None of them deny common descent. They don't support your thesis"
That wasn't the point Chuck. I was presenting information for ONE singular issue. The issue was that you said this:
"Where did you do your advanced studies in biology or genetics because no scientist I work with makes a distinction between micro and macro evolution?"
You specifically stated that scientists that you know have no clue as to the differentiating terminology between microevolution and macro-evolution...
I presented 5 links unsympathetic to Christian ideals and biblical creation that AFFIRM that scientists that study evolution CLEARLY know the difference between micro and macro evolution.
You made a statement to discredit, I proved your statement only discredits your assertion and your scientific circle.
Common Descent wasn't the argument the difference between micro and macro evolution was...Now where are those scientists that YOU work with that don't distinguish or know the difference??? Who are they and WHY, most importantly do they not know what is commonly taught regarding both micro and macro evolutionary change???
That would be interesting to know.
Russelton says"Members of your COGIC kill their children as witches on a regular basis."
Russ you must smoke eat and drink humongous BONGS all day long...you come up with more LIES, CRAP and GARBAGE than anyone I've ever seen...you never cease to amaze me! You're REALLY messed up in the head! There's not a sane and or rational person in the zoo that believes your GARBAGE! Especially radical human hating mess such as this...So why don't you do this...PRODUCE ONE artice where a COGIC member has killed their child as a witch??? Since you have some inside information PRODUCE IT YOU CLOWN! Newspaper article, news report, radio excerpt...SOMETHING aside from your sick and twisted imagination!
Please do so...I'm very interested to see this.
Incase it interests anyone here.
"By Mano Singham
There is a new war between science and religion, rising from the ashes of the old one, which ended with the defeat of the anti-evolution forces in the 2005 "intelligent design" trial. The new war concerns questions that are more profound than whether or not to teach evolution. Unlike the old science-religion war, this battle is going to be fought not in the courts but in the arena of public opinion. The new war pits those who argue that science and "moderate" forms of religion are compatible worldviews against those who think they are not.
The former group, known as accommodationists, seeks to carve out areas of knowledge that are off-limits to science, arguing that certain fundamental features of the world—such as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the origin of the universe—allow for God to act in ways that cannot be detected using the methods of science"
http://chronicle.com/article/The-New-War-Between-Science/65400/
@chuck Let's define ID literature. If you are saying that ID literature as documents of pseudo science masquerading as real science with the hidden agenda of taking over America and the world - replacing democracy with a theocracy...that's not ID that is the plot for a bad movie. And I have seen zero evidence that Stephen Meyer wants to do any of the things you are afraid of.
LIAR ALERT, LIAR ALERT!
Russelton stikes again,
He(referring to me)cannot admit error. On his blog he has even tried to argue that Stephen J. Gould denied evolution.
Sick and twisted is the game. Stephen Jay Gould certainly didn't deny evolution, he denied AFFIRMED that the fossil record was the bankruptcy of Darwin's theory. This is what he said:
"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism 1) Stasis. most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2)Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed"~[Stephen Jay Gould, 'Evolution's Erratic Pace' Natural History 86(1977) pg. 13-14.]
What did he deny here Russelton??? He denied gradualism, he denied the tenets of the faith of evolution that you hold so dearly based upon the fossil record and the evidence extracted from the Precambrian paleontology.
Oooh he was an evolutionist, only not quite like you and he undermines most of the lies that are perpetuated on this site by you and others.
Get the story straight before you lie next time!
Marcus:
I specifically asked you what criteria you use to justify your supernatural explanation over other supernatural explanations.
You replied that your justification is the Bible, which requires diligent study and a deep understanding of its context to derive accurate interpretations that one can use to guide one’s life.
In response to the obvious question of how you chose the Bible as your objective standard, you replied that you have examined and scrutinized the Bible and other religious texts, and that only the Bible has met your criteria.
Could you specify what criteria you used to justify the Bible as your standard? Obviously, you used some methodology in your critical examination of religious texts. What was this methodology? Where did this methodology come from? How do you know that it is a valid methodology?
Thanks.
Anyway,
It's been real as always. BTW, you know this is me DSHB. I forgot to sign off the other account...
Anyway...PEACE...I've read about as much misinformation and lies as I can stand for a month.
Gandy, I ain't mad-atchya, at least not yet-LOL!
One more thing,
Dguller,
I've noticed that you're asking about epistemological certainty...let me ask you this...
If someone presents information that you did something and you claim that you did not, and there is no scientific or methodological way to prove whether you were guilty or not, (as often is teh case) and IF a Christian, says to you by the knowledge of what the Lord has told them regarding you (supernatural intervention)that you're innocent, will you deny your freedom based on how the Christian knows your innocence?
I'm interested to know based on your worldview.
Post a Comment