Jump to content


Photo

Ken Miller


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#81 Ibex Pop

Ibex Pop

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Louisiana, USA

Posted 28 July 2009 - 03:40 PM

That's good. You just keep letting the scientists sort out your worldview for you. They've already done it. I'm sure they're right about evolution and old age theory. Well... whatever the truth is we know the Bible doesn't have it, so we'll just kick that out of the running right off the bat.

View Post

Science is seeking the truth, but will never find all of it. Religion claims to already have it, and no longer seeks it. What would convince you the Bible is wrong? You're willing to believe that animals talked, that the world was created in 6 days, and that God made thorns on the spot to punish people, all in the face of what is naturally possible in this universe, because you can satisfy the dissonance by saying "God did it." What aren't you willing to believe miraculously happened so that the Bible is still literally true wherever you prefer it? Believers in Allah and Joseph Smith and Krishna all do no better, invoking miracles to cover the impossible. Your truth is proclaimed as being out of the reach of society -- it cannot be gathered by man but through the self-proclaimed holy book -- which conveniently explains why it is free to be at odds with the knowledge of society. It is not evident. It is a dogma. Even if it is completely true, I cannot rationally expect it to be. It was written by men who had no large amount of knowledge about the world, and even less access to it. It doesn't read like a book a super-being would dictate. It exhibits no special knowledge of reality except where it is reputed to be 100% accurate. It offers nothing that isn't claimed by dozens of other religions (all of their members are having supernatural experiences, or so they would have me believe). And finally, I've been there before. I was so sure God was real, but I realized that I had nothing backing that up. Just faith. Faith is not the truth, and it could not fill my desire for it. I stopped having faith and started seeking the truth. When the evidence did not make it apparent to me that there was an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god watching over me, I stopped taking it for granted that there is one. If I see evolution dismantled, I'll move along. What this forum has attempted to wield is nothing more than information we do not yet have. In any situation where I cannot provide information, it is implicitly taken as supporting you when all it actually does is indicate my own ignorance or that of mankind.

Maybe you're right, but I'm not willing to take it on just faith when it's far, far more likely you're wrong. The problem for me is not the Bible, per se, but that, for it to be true, it would require gross apologies for breaking so much of what I regard as established. I do not consider the stars high in the firmament, for example, because there is no firmament (I think that is established) and the stars are not at uniform distance, and it is physically impossible for Sisera to have fought with stars because of what they actually are (this too), but the authors clearly thought he did, meaning they didn't know what or where a star was. What concessions do you make for the non-manifest foundations of Earth and the the foundations of the non-existent firmament? These things might be read as metaphor now, but they certainly weren't always. You can always believe them as much as anything else. "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." Of course, anyone that values their image as a reasonable person will default to saying it was just speaking in metaphors and that science has enriched us with the knowledge of what God meant as metaphorical, which he never intended to be taken any other way. Well, now it looks like the biblical creation was a metaphor or even an allegory.

Ignoring pre-acceptance of the Bible for a moment, and supposing I wish to approach it for answers science has not yet given, I do not desire to say the physical mechanics of the universe were broken so that I can explain the otherwise (and still) unexplained, and then to posit the existence of an unobservable god responsible for breaking them, and then that this god is Yahweh. There is no "how" to be found for anything God supposedly did or does, only that it is or was done, and all incidents of supernatural interaction are handily fleeting so that they cannot be observed, or are said to be unobservable in the first place. There are no answers in the Bible, unless you wanted to know whether the Biblical God exists. It can't even prove that, but if you're willing to trust it, you can say that God exists and then you can move on to establish just what it did, does, doesn't, and didn't. Not with evidence, but via interpretation of text written about not just what we cannot observe now, but about what is actually supposed to be unobservable to anything, minus a few choice individuals. So take humanity's ignorance on the origin of Aves and bask in it. Throw your criticism for how gullible I am for taking the word of scientists, and slam me for not taking your even less-evidenced concept as my own. Do you really mean I should be persuaded to your view by the fossilized tracks? Just that? What if birds did originate in the Triassic, as much as we doubt it now? Is it reasonable to assume they have always existed because of the fossilized tracks? If birds have existed since the dawn of time, science will keep finding evidence supporting you and I'll eventually be persuaded to a different point of view.

Sorry for going off topic (by a huge amount), but I would not simply endure an attempt to vex me for my willingness to see what the future brings.

#82 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 28 July 2009 - 03:52 PM

Science is seeking the truth, but will never find all of it.  Religion claims to already have it, and no longer seeks it.  What would convince you the Bible is wrong?  You're willing to believe that animals talked, that the world was created in 6 days, and that God made thorns on the spot to punish people, all in the face of what is naturally possible in this universe, because you can satisfy the dissonance by saying "God did it."  What aren't you willing to believe miraculously happened so that the Bible is still literally true wherever you prefer it?  Believers in Allah and Joseph Smith and Krishna all do no better, invoking miracles to cover the impossible.  Your truth is proclaimed as being out of the reach of society -- it cannot be gathered by man but through the self-proclaimed holy book -- which conveniently explains why it is free to be at odds with the knowledge of society.  It is not evident.  It is a dogma.  Even if it is completely true, I cannot rationally expect it to be.  It was written by men who had no large amount of knowledge about the world, and even less access to it.  It doesn't read like a book a super-being would dictate.  It exhibits no special knowledge of reality except where it is reputed to be 100% accurate.  It offers nothing that isn't claimed by dozens of other religions (all of their members are having supernatural experiences, or so they would have me believe).  And finally, I've been there before.  I was so sure God was real, but I realized that I had nothing backing that up.  Just faith.  Faith is not the truth, and it could not fill my desire for it.  I stopped having faith and started seeking the truth.  When the evidence did not make it apparent to me that there was an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god watching over me, I stopped taking it for granted that there is one.  If I see evolution dismantled, I'll move along.  What this forum has attempted to wield is nothing more than information we do not yet have. In any situation where I cannot provide information, it is implicitly taken as supporting you when all it actually does is indicate my own ignorance or that of mankind.

Maybe you're right, but I'm not willing to take it on just faith when it's far, far more likely you're wrong.  The problem for me is not the Bible, per se, but that, for it to be true, it would require gross apologies for breaking so much of what I regard as established.  I do not consider the stars high in the firmament, for example, because there is no firmament (I think that is established) and the stars are not at uniform distance, and it is physically impossible for Sisera to have fought with stars because of what they actually are (this too), but the authors clearly thought he did, meaning they didn't know what or where a star was.  What concessions do you make for the non-manifest foundations of Earth and the the foundations of the non-existent firmament?  These things might be read as metaphor now, but they certainly weren't always.  You can always believe them as much as anything else.  "God said it, I believe it, that settles it."  Of course, anyone that values their image as a reasonable person will default to saying it was just speaking in metaphors and that science has enriched us with the knowledge of what God meant as metaphorical, which he never intended to be taken any other way.  Well, now it looks like the biblical creation was a metaphor or even an allegory. 

Ignoring pre-acceptance of the Bible for a moment, and supposing I wish to approach it for answers science has not yet given, I do not desire to say the physical mechanics of the universe were broken so that I can explain the otherwise (and still) unexplained, and then to posit the existence of an unobservable god responsible for breaking them, and then that this god is Yahweh.  There is no "how" to be found for anything God supposedly did or does, only that it is or was done, and all incidents of supernatural interaction are handily fleeting so that they cannot be observed, or are said to be unobservable in the first place.  There are no answers in the Bible, unless you wanted to know whether the Biblical God exists.  It can't even prove that, but if you're willing to trust it, you can say that God exists and then you can move on to establish just what it did, does, doesn't, and didn't.  Not with evidence, but via interpretation of text written about not just what we cannot observe now, but about what is actually supposed to be unobservable to anything, minus a few choice individuals.  So take humanity's ignorance on the origin of Aves and bask in it.  Throw your criticism for how gullible I am for taking the word of scientists, and slam me for not taking your even less-evidenced concept as my own.  Do you really mean I should be persuaded to your view by the fossilized tracks?  Just that?  What if birds did originate in the Triassic, as much as we doubt it now?  Is it reasonable to assume they have always existed because of the fossilized tracks?  If birds have existed since the dawn of time, science will keep finding evidence supporting you and I'll eventually be persuaded to a different point of view.

Sorry for going off topic (by a huge amount), but I would not simply endure an attempt to vex me for my willingness to see what the future brings.

View Post


Everyone wants to see what the future brings, so don't think your the only one because your an atheist. As creationist we strive to search and see how GOD made things, and how they work. We do not sit idle, we are just like you, because like you, we are human as a whole. Therefore all and every single one of us strive for the gain of knowledge. Not just you, not just some atheist who hates God, who wants push a faith based religion such as evolution upon everyone else. As far as I am personally concerned, evolution itself has no solid foundation, and I can't lay my hands on it, I can't with my perception find it, I simply can't because it does not exist in this world. Evolution hasn't been proven. Evolution is not an absolute.

To have an absolute, one must have absolutely no faith. Absolutes are what make up solid known truths. No one, not you, not me, no one can live without faith, because no one can know all things. You seem to think that evolution is a solid fact that you don't have to have faith in it, because it seemingly has hands on evidence that simply does not exist as so. So don't tell me, or anyone that you simply don't have faith, because that in and of itself is a lie.

#83 Ibex Pop

Ibex Pop

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Louisiana, USA

Posted 28 July 2009 - 09:43 PM

Evolution is a process. You cannot lay your hands on gravitational attraction or photosynthesis, either; it must be observed, the mechanism described. So much the worse that evolution is a generational mechanism, a byproduct of the environment in both mutation and selection.

While I have no doubt you want to see the future at large, you have no interest in any bits challenging your faith (but then, you won't let it, because it is taken as granted the challenge is not Truth). While I have no doubt you would like to understand things as God made them, you would consider it heretical to ever suggest we were learning how God made them. You have no problem inquiring as to how nature made something (in accordance with God's intent), where you don't presume God's supernatural influence, but if it is suggested that those supposedly supernatural domains of history were naturally governed as much as anything else, you'd likely kick up a cloud of skepticism that you would never apply to the creation mythos.

I get that you're human, and you still have a need to understand the world you live in, but I also realize that, because your belief in a six day creation is entirely dependent on your one interpretation of the Bible, you are giving a non-answer. Your "answer" for the origin of the universe and life is only given as defacto while stemming from an unverifiable belief. This is obviously the case, you and I would agree, with Hindus and Zoroastrians, the Greek and Egyptian pantheons, and the various minor and disparate religions now or previously peppering the Earth, but when you think Yahweh just did something, that makes it different. Worthy of being an answer, even, so that we might proceed to investigate something else with no reservations or puzzlement. Yahweh creating the Earth in six days is not remotely bared out by the evidence, no more so than Brahma.

Finally, what is my faith? That I can properly assess that ERVs are indicative of a shared ancestor or a deceptive creator? That I can properly assess that atavisms are displayed in a hereditary pattern or as unnecessary structures allowed for only in a pattern of what would otherwise indicate heredity by a deceptive creator? That I can properly assess that similarities in morphology indicate either shared development or a deceptive or unimaginative creator? That I can properly assess that the absence and appearance, as well as the great differences in variety of species throughout the fossil record indicates either continuous alteration by a creator or biological divergence? That I can properly assess that bacteria becoming able to digest nylon in a lab either indicates an adaptation which takes hundreds of generations to unlock (and which is then only inherited . . .) or a proper mutation which was then selected for? Look, if someone is lying to me about what the evidence is, I want to know, but I'm pretty sure I'm understanding what it means, as surely as a man holding a smoking gun nearby a dead body shot with the same caliber bullet indicates that he was the killer. I try to limit my faith to trust in people, never letting it be hope for what I cannot perceive, if I can help it. You may play evolution as faith, or say that faith in minor things is necessary and constant, but you do yourself a disservice because you are so critical of the so-called faith of evolution, indicating that faith is not to be trusted as truthful information, when it is surely far better to take as faith evolution than it is to take as faith the identity of the god, especially when faced with the question that if evolution is poorly backed, how much more so is the Bible?

I'm done sidetracking a thread made about Ken Miller. No matter the reply, I'm still letting this thread alone (and much later than I should have). Hopefully it's been educational, at least into what makes me tick, because is definitely hasn't been relevant.

#84 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 29 July 2009 - 11:36 AM

No, you don't properly asses, you assume. When you say properly asses, you are implying that evolution is already a proven absolute. It is not.

Your pride has clouded your mind to think that Creationist simply assume God just created as is. Even if God created as is... there is still a how.

No it's only far better to take faith in evolution for you because you are an atheist. You must feed off something that does not require a God for origins. That is the truth of the matter.

You are extremely critical of the Bible, and I am extremely critical of Evolution, so don't think you win by majority default. You must present your evidence, and not rest on the shoulders of others work, you must show it true. So far you haven't.

#85 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 29 July 2009 - 01:37 PM

I can see how much it terrifies you to even contemplate giving up your "foundation."

It's okay, you can let go of the feather, and everything will be okay.  You can still fly without it.

View Post


Judy,

If your foundation isn't in truth, all the feathers in the world won't help you fly.
So, go ahead, let the feathers go. You're not flying with or without them.

#86 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 27 August 2009 - 01:41 PM

I really think that Ken Miller's claim to fame is how authoritatively and seriously he's able to expound on his pseudoscience:

oeGobRxLrN4

#87 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 27 August 2009 - 05:23 PM

I really think that Ken Miller's claim to fame is how authoritatively and seriously he's able to expound on his pseudoscience:

View Post

Rofl. That was fantastic :lol: I think that one falls under the 'ask a stupid question get a stupid answer' response.

#88 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 27 August 2009 - 06:19 PM

I really think that Ken Miller's claim to fame is how authoritatively and seriously he's able to expound on his pseudoscience:

oeGobRxLrN4

View Post



Yes I was actually amazed at the actual evidence--or lack thereof--of Ken Miller's scientific argument against irreducible complexity in the bacterial flagellum. There are more 40 parts to the flagellum, anyone of which could be removed and it would not function. Simple concept made difficult by special interest science. Maybe Miller could make partial flagellum tie clasps or half flagellum spit wad shooters!

What is funny is that it took intelligence to designate a mousetrap as a tie clasp. Could he do the same with an engine that was missing the crankshaft? Of course not. So then, intelligence uses intelligence to produce a bogus argument of non-intelligence. Jesus said "Can you not even of your own selves discern what is right?"

Back to the evidence--he tries to compare an injector on some bacteria as the precursor to the flagellum. Because why? Well, the same proteins are in the base of both appurati!!

SO if I have a hypodermic needle made of aluminum and an engine made of aluminum, the engine was at one time a hypodermic needle? Someone by all means melted it down and made an engine.

So what if things are made up of the same proteins? What on earth does that prove? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Chevy cars are all made of the same common design and have similar components.

There's absolutely no argument (as usual) for the numerous precursors of the 40 parts of the flagellum--all of which are equivalent to a proton motor.

Another big jump for evolution. It's called desensitization. Keep hitting them with the same stuff guys, and they'll go for anything.

The fact is that the flagellum was a motor when man was riding in chariots. I am sorry to say that people are so arrogant as to think the flagellum is a "real motor" and our "lately discovered" man made motor is "artificial." I have had evos tell me this in debate. What a coincidence.

You can not convince someone that refuses to admit when they are obviously wrong.

#89 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 27 August 2009 - 06:56 PM

Knowing the extreme age of the earth is essential to understanding how slow evolutionary change has produced such diversity of life.

View Post


Keith, when you can prove to us that lead 206 was not in rocks which also contain U238 at their formation, or that their were no rocks dated that have been contaminated by ground water. Or if you can answer why there is helium in rocks (a sign of U decay), a very small slippery element, which most of it should have long ago dissipated into the atmosphere, then we'll accept that the earth is 4.5 B.

Or tell us how heme and blood vessels were preserved in dinosaur fossils for 68 m years, then we will give you all attention. But as it is your popular uniformintarian theory is yet dogma for atheists, and the universities your congregation.

Let the people make their own choice only on origins. The public education system has them 40 hours a week by law. The church has them at most 2 hours in they choose. So you shut out all reasoning of the opposition and declare victory by our forced forfeiture.

My pastor is a retired MD. I have friends one of which is a chemical engineer and one a geologist for an oil company. Their creationist view is no hindrance to their job. The only place it is a problem is academia and the media.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users