Jump to content


Photo

Circular Reasoning: Evolution Is A Fact


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#41 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,444 posts
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 03 February 2016 - 05:57 AM

Goku, sorry if I say, "we" as that was the wrong word that implies I have an "us and them" mentality.

 

As for me - I want to be a dude-being, just so I can call myself a "dude-being". :D

 

(I hope you said that on purpose Mike, "dude being", I like that a lot but not as much as Piasan's tongue-twister of, "regurgiquoting" ) :D



#42 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,745 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 03 February 2016 - 12:16 PM

Mike,
It's hard to convey emotions such as warmth for another being via code. Body languge (non verbal cues) plays a huge role in the human communication process.

Constructive confrontation which is what we are attmpting with Fjuri and Goku is often difficult to do via wtitten prose. Moreove, most people are "set up" to respond to certain words as if an attack on an idea they espouse is an attack on them as a being.

As Samuel Cooleridge wrote, "The happiness of life is made up of minute fractions, the little soon forgotten charities of a kiss, a smile, a heartfelt compliment and the countless infemetesimals of warm and genial feelings".

I used to think that God was on a big ego trip, when he commands us to worship him. And then I figured out what worship means. It means he wants us to like Him. So if a person tells himself what an amazing wonderful being another being is, they will feel affection. Affection is to a relationship what gas is to an automobile. Emotions are great encouragers of behvior. Feeling affection allows us to put up with and tolerate the inevitable conflict that will be available in any relationship. Negatiive emotion fuels negaative behavior.

Atheism is a negative. The point I am trying to make by using the term "alleged atheists" is to try to get the individual using it to describe themselves to realize that they might as well hang a sign around themselves warning others that to attemp a relationship with them has perils. Existence is a core idea to all of us.

Trying to have a relationship with someone who reserves to themselves the "right" to determine
who can and can't exist sends a strong nuannce level message. It's like the sword of Damocles hanging over any one that attempts a relationship with the alleged athist. "Oh by the way, I reserve the right to determine anytime I wannt that you have a defective existence".

Anytime I say anything to another being, I like to assess what level of risk I am taking with them. I want to pretty much know if I say something to corect them if they will use it to harm themselves. I'm sure you realize for bullying to work it takes the fomration of a neurotic ageement.

On the other hand if we observe what God did to Job in the Bible, he got on Job's back and rode him like breakig a horse. Since the majority of people are self-righteous like Job, I often, depending on the symptoms they present with, will ride them like a bucking bronco! lol One thing to both Fjuri and Goku's credit is they have pretty thick skin!

In psychology we call this "en vivo desensitization". It's an interrupt pattern function. I am trying to teach the client to deliver to himself sane lines instead of the linnes that he has rehearsed over and over ad nausea. If, for example, someone called me a complete idiot, I have to process their statement (determine its goodness or badness). But, I fully realize I control what it means to me not their words. I don't have to take what they say, sharpen it up, stick it in my own breast and then viciously twist! Instead, I might think, "Oh well this person sees some traits in me they don't like. But it's not the end of the world. I don't have to become upset with myself for not being a perfect person. I can assess if what they say has some merit to it. If so, I can change and apologize. If they forgive me. fine. If not there is still 7 billion other people which I can try and build a friendship with! Odds are I will find someone that wants a "good" friend"!

As the actress Betty Davis once said, "Hold on to your hats! It's going to be a bumppy ride"! lol :)

 



#43 keysi

keysi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 164 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Zooloogy, Anthropology, Psychology, Books, Video Games, Martial Arts.
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United Kingdom

Posted 03 February 2016 - 12:31 PM

Moreove, most people are "set up" to respond to certain words as if an attack on an idea they espouse is an attack on them as a being.




Yup

#44 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 449 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 04 February 2016 - 12:34 AM

But be fair, Goku, I have highlighted the fallacy with such an argument.

 

You could say it is valid to believe Jesus was an alien if enough followers of him are from the UFO camp, does this then mean that such a belief is not mutually exclusive to what the bible says?

 

It doesn't matter what, "most" theologians do or do not believe, as deciding whether evolution fits with scripture is decided by an evaluation of the contextual historical narratives therein, logically it has 0% to do with what the " claim-to-be followers of X" say.

 

Would you "get" what Jesus meant from such people, or from Jesus's words? You would "get" what He said from his words. 

 

I have also addressed this whole statistical-argument and the weaknesses with statistical arguments. For example, there is no way to know what percentage of the "majority theologians" are actually genuinely, born-again Christians meaning they may well have such a theology because of modern evolutionary influence. (highly probable, given the impact science has on people these days, as science defines our times)

 

so it's begging-the-question to simply assume they are genuine Christians, and assume that it doesn't mean anything to be a genuine Christian.

 

Once again Goku, you repeat your unsound arguments ad-nauseam, as though I will forget what I told you the last time. Quite bizarre really, are you just parrotting this stuff, like a young brainwashed radicalized muslim would? :P

 

Fact is you don't accept theistic-evolution but tell others to while rejecting it yourself. "Friend, it's okay to eat pork, I recommend it, but I don't myself, as I don't think it's good health. Friend I think it is okay for you to shoot yourself with a bullet I don't think it will harm you, but I can't do it myself as it will harm me".

 

Lol

 

:)

 

As I've said numerous times I agree the correct interpretation of scripture comes down to the content and context of scripture. I just happen to think those best equipped to evaluate the content and context of scripture are those that have studied scripture professionally, and by focusing on clergy we are looking at those that have not only studied scripture professionally but also made it their life work to minister to the Christian community. I am not looking at social, cultural, or layman Christians; this is not a random sample of supposed believers or a single sect with outlier beliefs. 

 

No one can guarantee to any reasonable degree that everyone in a large enough group is a genuine believer, but I think given the modern era if someone spends the time and effort to make a career out of studying scripture and ministering to the Christian community the chances are quite high that they are sincere in their faith. So I don't really think it is begging the question on their genuine faith. If you mean "genuine" to be "believe exactly what I believe" then this line of dialogue is pointless and I respectfully disagree. 

 

In addition I do think religious exegesis is primarily an academic question and not one of who can yell 'true believer' the loudest. Of course popularity among relevant experts is not a deductive proof (nor have I ever said it was), but as I've been saying since the beginning it is an indirect way to assess where the preponderance of evidence does lead while mitigating individual bias. So when there is a clear majority consensus I think it is a mistake to blow it off as irrelevant unless you have a very good reason, and I don't think "that doesn't deductively prove it" is a very good reason. Who do you think is best equipped, or what skills etc. best equips someone, to properly interpret religious texts? 

 

I agree science influences people, even those of the cloth. Notice that I say my method reduces "individual" bias and not "group" bias. This is why I referenced Saint Augustine who lived well before Darwin yet advocated an allegorical interpretation of Genesis as a common sense reading. The idea that Genesis can and should be read allegorically is more than a thousand years older than Darwin's theory within the Christian church itself. If you have read the article I keep posting from My Jewish Learning you may recall that many Jewish scholars believe that even their ancestors who wrote and compiled these narratives were not particularly zealous with a literal interpretation. Of course TE has only been around since ToE, kind of by necessity. But, the idea that Genesis is fundamentally non-interested in a dogmatic YEC interpretation is factually much older than ToE and science itself. 

 

What I am doing is pointing out the clear false dichotomy of only creationism or atheism. I advocate TE insomuch as TE accepts ToE which is what this entire website is meant to debate. 

 

(I think this following short article is well written Goku, you would benefit from understanding our very coherent logical argument which basically boils down to the position of arguing that the bible is saying what the bible is saying. Obviously "true" followers of the bible would accept what it is saying, which is a strong sign of genuine Christianity because it shows that hearing what God's word says is the thing first on our list, and genuine followers of God put God first. Don't you agree that is elementary logic? You should have enough critical thinking skills now from your time here, to realize that).

 

http://creation.com/...tations-genesis

 

(and from the link within that link: (hmmm, now why would it be a modernist invention - that is hard to figure out.  :rolleyes: ..Fact is those majority theologies were invented AFTER evolution, in order to accommodate it for fear of extinction of biblical beliefs.

 

I understand full well that you think you believe what the Bible says and that's that. I think you would benefit from realizing that TEs also believe they are accepting the true meaning of the Bible. I agree with your article in that the Bible doesn't promote billions of years or evolution, but that is not really the argument from TE in my experience. In brief overview, as I understand it, the TE position is summed up as Genesis is a vehicle for spiritual truths done in such a way as to be accessible to those living approximately 3,000 years ago. A time when no one knew what a germ was or where the Sun went at night. 

 

I'll just reiterate that allegorical interpretations of Genesis are much older than ToE and science itself if we take science to be a product of the Renaissance. I'll also note that your own article says that creationism or evolution is not a salvation issue, which is my whole point. So thank you for supporting my underling position.  :yes:



#45 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,745 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 04 February 2016 - 03:35 AM

Goku said:

As I've said numerous times I agree the correct interpretation of scripture comes down to the content and context of scripture. I just happen to think those best equipped to evaluate the content and context of scripture are those that have studied scripture professionally, and by focusing on clergy we are looking at those that have not only studied scripture professionally but also made it their life work to minister to the Christian community. I am not looking at social, cultural, or layman Christians; this is not a random sample of supposed believers or a single sect with outlier beliefs.

I often object to the use of the word "just" as is it often canotes "magic" implying little or no cognitive synthesis.

Ah yes the masses are icnouragebly ignorant and so you ignore the teachngs of Jesus arguing "that in as much as you have done it unto the least of the

se my brthern you have done it unto me". So much for your attempt to minimize the individual.
 

And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.



How did you miss that Jesus did not think that much of the Phariseees (the religius establishment of his time)?
"At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children". So much for another formation of your "neurotic agreements" with the relgious authorities. Apparently the fouder of Christianity, Jesus disagrees with your appeal to authority. lol


King James Bible
But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
He continues;
Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant

No one can guarantee to any reasonable degree that everyone in a large enough group is a genuine believer, but I think given the modern era if someone spends the time and effort to make a career out of studying scripture and ministering to the Christian community the chances are quite high that they are sincere in their faith. So I don't really think it is begging the question on their genuine faith. If you mean "genuine" to be "believe exactly what I believe" then this line of dialogue is pointless and I respectfully disagree.

More of the same "ill" logic.
 

In addition I do think religious exegesis is primarily an academic question and not one of who can yell 'true believer' the loudest. Of course popularity among relevant experts is not a deductive proof (nor have I ever said it was), but as I've been saying since the beginning it is an indirect way to assess where the preponderance of evidence does lead

Once again--magic. Evidence is an effect and can not talk or lead. Must I always result to being irrationally rational to make this point.

while mitigating individual bias. So when there is a clear majority consensus I think it is a mistake to blow it off as irrelevant unless you have a very good reason, and I don't think "that doesn't deductively prove it" is a very good reason. Who do you think is best equipped, or what skills etc. best equips someone, to properly interpret religious texts?

Wow. Don't you remembe what your teachers told you to read for comphrehension? The Bible clearly pits Jesus against the relgious authorities of his time. Ever heard of the San Hedron?

Who is best equpped?
The individual readng it. There is no "group think"!

Once again you disagee with what the Bible says!

"You shall not follow the masses in doing evil, nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after a multitude in order to pervert justice. Ex 23:2

And Elijah came unto all the people and said, “How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God, follow Him; but if Baal, then follow him.” I Kings 18:21
Reads like a dichtomy to me. Truly your claims represent a mixture of good and evil--just lie the father of lies promoted with his tree!! This time I am not buying it!



Goku:
I agree science influences people, even those of the cloth. Notice that I say my method reduces "individual" bias and not "group" bias. This is why I referenced Saint Augustine who lived well before Darwin yet advocated an allegorical interpretation of Genesis as a common sense reading. The idea that Genesis can and should be read allegorically is more than a thousand years older than Darwin's theory within the Christian church itself. If you have read the article I keep posting from My Jewish Learning you may recall that many Jewish cholars believe that even their ancestors who wrote and compiled these narratives were not particularly zealous with a literal interpretation. Of course TE has only been around since ToE, kind of by necessity. But, the idea that Genesis is fundamentally non-interested in a dogmatic YEC interpretation is factually much older than ToE and science itself.

What I am doing is pointing out the clear false dichotomy of only creationism or atheism.

It is a dichotomy! They are opposites!
We have th words of Jesus so why not quote him?

I advocate TE insomuch as TE accepts ToE which is what this entire website is meant to debate.

 

And so you conflate Daarwinian evo with thesitic evo fully aware that theisitc evo belongs in the ID camp. That seems awfully deceitful to me! Soundss like double talk. "I am not saying what I am saying! lol Nice try to mix good with evil. But NO!


 


  • mike the wiz likes this

#46 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,444 posts
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 04 February 2016 - 07:48 AM

 

 

Goku:  I think you would benefit from realizing that TEs also believe they are accepting the true meaning of the Bible.

 

Goku, your post is a house-of-cards created to divert everyone from an obvious fact - that believing the plain and clear interpretation of what the bible says, is to support the genuine biblical position. It is not "my" position that Joseph literally went to Egypt and was a real person that existed, it is what is written as historical narrative in Genesis, in the exact same style as the first chapters of Genesis, which clearly mean is to read that Adam was a real person, the first person.

 

 

 

Goku:  I think you would benefit from realizing that TEs also believe they are accepting the true meaning of the Bible.

 

And that is adequately described as SELF-DECEPTION. Nowhere in the bible does it indicate we evolved from pond scum.

 

You should also know you are repeatedly committing Argumentum Ad Verecundiam by appealing to what the majority-theologians say. I have noticed this style of debate before, first you appeal to authority then you attempt to compound your argument by telling me that it is the "majority position". I call this "double-bandaging a broken arm, in order to argue that it isn't broken".

 

Two fallacies don't make a sound argument, Goku. Verecundiam + populum = you're foxed.

 

It proves ZILCH, logically, for it is fallacious reasoning meaning it has no baring on the debate issue, for I could find many, many theologians that argue that the bible clearly says there was a six-day creation by God. To just rhetorically imply we are fringe-lunatics won't change the fact that educated theologians with the correct qualifications would agree with my arguments.

 

Secondly, you don't need the majority of mathematicians to say that 2 add 2 is 4. All you need is the ability, or are you saying you are struggling to understand Genesis when it says that Joseph went to Egypt? Do I need a theologian to know whether this was an allegorical Egypt or the real, literal place? So your argument works from a false assumption that only a qualified MAJORITY theologian can interpret basic text. (Lol)

 

When we look at the majority of theologians BEFORE Darwin, they did not accept an allegorical interpretation, they only accepted that AFTER evolution, which logically proves that the reason those theologians accept an interpretation of Genesis that incorporates an allegory of evolution is because of the evolution theory.

 

Sure - you can have disdain for logical notation if you like. Forgive the rest of us for living by non-contradiction by believing we cannot be Bob while at the same time being Jane.

 

The whole, "scientific study means we can ignore logic" argument, belongs to half-witt trolls like Mr Chopper. I humbly request you don't go there. :P

 

SUMMARY:

 

Nobody questioned the obvious meaning of Genesis before Darwin. If young-earthers were not outspoken, that is because evolution did not exist. We would no more expect them to discuss how long a day is in Genesis, than we would expect them to discuss what a day meant in the book of Peter.

 

Lol.

 

The only real thing you can technically argue is that the bible doesn't explicitly say that there was not eons of time involved in some way, or that it didn't mean literal days. Even so that does not negate a clear account of creation, so even if you had an argument that could somehow accommodate deep time, this would not put evolution on the cards because of the literal existence of the first people, and a clear separation from the animals, as being made in God's image. Other things that are clearly literal is that vegetation was for food, and there is no allegorical meaning for such things...Are you seriously saying that because the majority evolutionist-theologians argue a local flood that that is the best explanation of what the text means? If you do then seriously, lay off the alcohol and drugs. :D

 

To my mind, you have been brainwashed into only believing what authority tells you. Anything I say is the ravings of a fringe-lunatic.

 

But to think people in authority have a special cleverness, a special insight we don't have, is really special-pleading fallacy.

 

Are you saying if I believe 2 add 2 is 4 then I need educating? That is the implication of your argument. It is a patronising implication for my intelligence should be evident to you by now. Just as I understand the context your posts are written in, I also understand the context Genesis is written in, and so do you, but you are in denial. 

 

Why is it all of your arguments on these forums depend on you jumping on the bandwagon? Why is it you can only ever appeal to what most educated people accept and say? No matter what we discuss your argument is basically this, "doesn't matter what you say as most men disagree".

 

If I have an illness, and I know it is genuine, but the authorities don't recognize it, are you saying that I should simply walk without legs? Or simply accommodate their view and simply function as a fit person would because they as the majority authority, have decided I am well? If your only basis of wisdom in this life, is the things you have been told by people, then basically you are cutting off your own abilities to think. You are BANNING thinking. You are also being indolent. You are not really thinking through what I have said because to your mind I am a fringe-lunatic, I am a small minority-view, so you forget that we as individuals are unique and have our own things to teach. Until you actually do the homework and figure out why the things I say are correct, you will also fall under the "lazy parrot" in my mind. I don't mean that in a mean-spirited way, you are not stupid Goku, but you are a lazy intellect and are almost stroll-ish sometimes in your incessant repetitive ad-nauseam style. You don't want to think about anything I am saying incase I am right, so you simply tell me what Mr Scientist says.

 

"Gee, I never thought about what the world says, Mom - that had never entered my evaluation. Oh well, I better be a good puppet then, and simply accept the majority-authority. Oh well, that means evolution happened, and the bible is just another religious myth. And let's not let a little thing like what an omniscient God says, get in the way, or all of the wise teachings of Christ that have led us to an understanding and fellowship with God, because humans are obviously smarter than God in their stories about how the world got here." :rolleyes:


  • Mike Summers, Enoch 2021 and Bmaxdlux like this

#47 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 449 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 06 February 2016 - 06:43 PM

Goku, your post is a house-of-cards created to divert everyone from an obvious fact - that believing the plain and clear interpretation of what the bible says, is to support the genuine biblical position. It is not "my" position that Joseph literally went to Egypt and was a real person that existed, it is what is written as historical narrative in Genesis, in the exact same style as the first chapters of Genesis, which clearly mean is to read that Adam was a real person, the first person.

 

The "plain and clear interpretation" is not always the correct interpretation; ever heard of A Modest Proposal - eat Irish babies? I understand the Bible is not satire, but Genesis is categorically myth and poetry told through a narrative. The "plain and clear interpretation" can be different for different people; recall that in my link from My Jewish Learning that many biblically educated believers think the clear intent of Genesis is uninterested in a literal reading of the text. 

 

I myself find it ludicrous that the people that wrote Genesis, specifically those that started the oral tradition, literally thought that Genesis' creation story is an inerrant teaching from God on how he physically created the universe. To me that is just common sense that I afford to nearly all myths from around the world. Of course you will always have literalists in every culture, and I am aware of the ultra-orthodox position in Judaism as well as the ultra right-wring of Christianity. However, my entire point of these posts is not to say that literalists are wrong, but that the non-literal interpretation is not antithetical to the religious teachings, except in the view of the ultra right-wing. 

 

And that is adequately described as SELF-DECEPTION. Nowhere in the bible does it indicate we evolved from pond scum.

 

You should also know you are repeatedly committing Argumentum Ad Verecundiam by appealing to what the majority-theologians say. I have noticed this style of debate before, first you appeal to authority then you attempt to compound your argument by telling me that it is the "majority position". I call this "double-bandaging a broken arm, in order to argue that it isn't broken".

 

Two fallacies don't make a sound argument, Goku. Verecundiam + populum = you're foxed.

 

It proves ZILCH, logically, for it is fallacious reasoning meaning it has no baring on the debate issue, for I could find many, many theologians that argue that the bible clearly says there was a six-day creation by God. To just rhetorically imply we are fringe-lunatics won't change the fact that educated theologians with the correct qualifications would agree with my arguments.

 

Secondly, you don't need the majority of mathematicians to say that 2 add 2 is 4. All you need is the ability, or are you saying you are struggling to understand Genesis when it says that Joseph went to Egypt? Do I need a theologian to know whether this was an allegorical Egypt or the real, literal place? So your argument works from a false assumption that only a qualified MAJORITY theologian can interpret basic text. (Lol)

 

If the point of Genesis is to teach spiritual truths through a vehicle meant to be accessible to those living 3,000 years ago then it is no surprise that ToE is not mentioned; these are people that did not know where the Sun went at night. Assuming biological evolution is true, then from a spiritual point of view what would be the point of introducing molecules to man evolution? - they wouldn't even know what a molecule was. It would become a huge, laborious waste of time that would detract from the infinitely more important spiritual message as I understand it. Why didn't Genesis confirm that the Earth went around the Sun, or speak of microbes (what day did God create E. coli?), or differentiate between bats and birds, etc etc etc etc? 

 

Of course majority consensus among relevant experts doesn't prove anything; it is a proxy, not a deductive proof. It isn't a logical fallacy at all because I am not saying it proves it or demonstrates that it is true. Notice that the logical fallacy is that the argument doesn't "prove" the conclusion true, not that it cannot be used as a reasonable proxy as I've been doing since the very first time I brought this up. I agree you can find at least 85 clergy that interpret Genesis literally, and to be fair I do think the number is much higher in reality, but honestly what the Creation Letter Project did was a gift to the TE position. However, recall that I was never arguing that an allegorical Genesis is the only reasonable interpretation, only that it is a reasonable interpretation. 

 

My argument doesn't even allude to the phrase "only a qualified majority theologian can interpret basic text", so of course it is funny you made it up. Since the beginning I've been saying that those with the relevant expertise are 'best equipped to evaluate the data' all else being equal. What if 2+2=11, not 4? Sometimes even basic questions that we think we know are more complicated than we realize. We all intuitively know the value of expertise. Who do you think is "best equipped" to evaluate the content and context of scripture if not believers that professionally study scripture and minister to the Christian community as spiritual leaders? 

 

When we look at the majority of theologians BEFORE Darwin, they did not accept an allegorical interpretation, they only accepted that AFTER evolution, which logically proves that the reason those theologians accept an interpretation of Genesis that incorporates an allegory of evolution is because of the evolution theory.

 

Sure - you can have disdain for logical notation if you like. Forgive the rest of us for living by non-contradiction by believing we cannot be Bob while at the same time being Jane.

 

The whole, "scientific study means we can ignore logic" argument, belongs to half-witt trolls like Mr Chopper. I humbly request you don't go there:P

 

Correlation does not equal causation; we could be looking at the result of a confounding variable. A correlation doesn't logically prove anything; it suggests to varying degrees depending on how strong the correlation is among other factors. I don't have a disdain for logic, I just don't think you are very good at applying logic to real world issues. That said I do agree with the general idea that modern science has forced main-stream Christianity to interpret Genesis allegorically. Historically it wasn't really ToE that did it, it was geology/paleontology and the recognition that those sciences demand that the Earth be at least millions of years old. 

 

Lucky for them they were able to reinterpret their scripture to not contradict science. I don't think that is an adulteration of scripture, at least not anymore than reinterpreting scripture so as to not contradict the Sun-centered solar system. The reason I say that is because while there was always literalist wings of Christianity and Judaism, there are also several lines of evidence indicating that such literal interpretations are not central, inerrant, teachings from a historical perspective. If you have read the article I keep talking about from My Jewish Learning they talk about how many ancient rabbis were not opposed to 'science' that showed literal interpretations are scientifically wrong, rather they were open to such truths as a catalyst to delve more deeply into the heart of scripture. 

 

SUMMARY:

 

Nobody questioned the obvious meaning of Genesis before Darwin. If young-earthers were not outspoken, that is because evolution did not exist. We would no more expect them to discuss how long a day is in Genesis, than we would expect them to discuss what a day meant in the book of Peter.

 

Lol.

 

That is just factually false. I know I mentioned Saint Augustine at least twice before, and IIRC someone mentioned him before I did. Saint Augustine lived more than a thousand years before Darwin and as one of the most influential (bible) scholars of all time he questioned a literal interpretation. As the link from My Jewish Learning says, the days in Genesis were not meant to be a chronological time frame of any length, rather it was a significant number alluding to the perfection of God's work. 

 

The only real thing you can technically argue is that the bible doesn't explicitly say that there was not eons of time involved in some way, or that it didn't mean literal days. Even so that does not negate a clear account of creation, so even if you had an argument that could somehow accommodate deep time, this would not put evolution on the cards because of the literal existence of the first people, and a clear separation from the animals, as being made in God's image. Other things that are clearly literal is that vegetation was for food, and there is no allegorical meaning for such things...Are you seriously saying that because the majority evolutionist-theologians argue a local flood that that is the best explanation of what the text means? If you do then seriously, lay off the alcohol and drugs.  :D

 

You have completely missed the entire point of my posts in regard to interpreting scripture. The story is a vehicle for spiritual truths made by people that lived approximately 3,000 years ago. Not a semi-scientific account for educated Westerners in the 21st century. 

 

To my mind, you have been brainwashed into only believing what authority tells you. Anything I say is the ravings of a fringe-lunatic.

 

But to think people in authority have a special cleverness, a special insight we don't have, is really special-pleading fallacy.

 

Are you saying if I believe 2 add 2 is 4 then I need educating? That is the implication of your argument. It is a patronising implication for my intelligence should be evident to you by now. Just as I understand the context your posts are written in, I also understand the context Genesis is written in, and so do you, but you are in denial. 

 

Why is it all of your arguments on these forums depend on you jumping on the bandwagon? Why is it you can only ever appeal to what most educated people accept and say? No matter what we discuss your argument is basically this, "doesn't matter what you say as most men disagree".

 

I think people with specific expertise do have a special insight in their respective field compared to those who do not have such expertise. We all intuitively know this. That isn't a special pleading fallacy. A special pleading fallacy is when you use something as an exception to the rule without properly demonstrating why the general rule does not apply. If someone is an expert in X, then it logically follows that they have a special insight into X that those who do not have expertise in X do not have because of the time, training, and effort the expert put into studying X which the non-expert (by definition) lacks. 

 

Not all of my arguments depend on popularity. I do, however, recognize the limits of my own understanding as well as the understanding that few people are experts at anything and no one is an expert at everything. So when experts, because of their expertise, have a general consensus I would be a fool to ignore it without a good reason. In the real world expertise matters whether you like it or not. If you're going to build a bridge you want an actual engineer, not someone who builds bridges with legos. 

 

If I have an illness, and I know it is genuine, but the authorities don't recognize it, are you saying that I should simply walk without legs? Or simply accommodate their view and simply function as a fit person would because they as the majority authority, have decided I am well? If your only basis of wisdom in this life, is the things you have been told by people, then basically you are cutting off your own abilities to think. You are BANNING thinking. You are also being indolent. You are not really thinking through what I have said because to your mind I am a fringe-lunatic, I am a small minority-view, so you forget that we as individuals are unique and have our own things to teach. Until you actually do the homework and figure out why the things I say are correct, you will also fall under the "lazy parrot" in my mind. I don't mean that in a mean-spirited way, you are not stupid Goku, but you are a lazy intellect and are almost stroll-ish sometimes in your incessant repetitive ad-nauseam style. You don't want to think about anything I am saying incase I am right, so you simply tell me what Mr Scientist says.

 

"Gee, I never thought about what the world says, Mom - that had never entered my evaluation. Oh well, I better be a good puppet then, and simply accept the majority-authority. Oh well, that means evolution happened, and the bible is just another religious myth. And let's not let a little thing like what an omniscient God says, get in the way, or all of the wise teachings of Christ that have led us to an understanding and fellowship with God, because humans are obviously smarter than God in their stories about how the world got here."  :rolleyes:

 

As I've been saying from the beginning expert consensus is a proxy, not a deductive proof. If you have enough evidence to call the proxy into question then by my standards you are free to do so. That said I do not think being a genuine believer and your automatic impression of Genesis' literalness being an inerrant teaching of the text is enough. 

 
Also, it is begging the question to assume that the Bible was written by an all-knowing God. Why do you not accept what God has revealed in the Bhagavad Gita, are you an atheist?  :P


#48 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,745 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 07 February 2016 - 12:47 AM

Goku,

Aside from all your rhetoric, do you "literally" believe in evolution? Or  do you  just mean it allegorically?

Please answer.
Thanks
Mike S.


  • Enoch 2021 likes this

#49 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,007 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 07 February 2016 - 04:54 PM

 

Lucky for them they were able to reinterpret their scripture to not contradict science. 

 

 

Fairytale Science already contradicts itself without anyone's help...

 

Originally, Science = "To Know".
 
It has, over the past couple centuries (up until circa 1925, SEE: Quantum Mechanics), become to be directly associated with Metaphysics... "Materialism" or "Realism", it's Philosophy; which postulates that there is a world of physical objects outside perception/consciousness.  
This was/is merely an "a priori" assumption "Meta-Physics" that was never verified (How could it be, lol...since "To KNOW" something you have to be "Conscious"); and up until the advent of QM, considered apodicitic. 
 
The Scientific Method arose as a systematic study and modeling of the patterns and regularities of Nature (Material Objects) that manifest to our 5 senses.  Inherently, it can not breach "The Cause" or the fundamental 'nature' of the entity/entities behind those patterns.  e.g.,
 
My 8 year old son is a Video Game Master/Champion of many games and can identify the patterns and regularities... but is absolutely CLUELESS of the underlying fundamental architecture of the computer and/or software that runs the game.
The 'patterns and regularities' are not "The Cause" of the GAME !!!! 
 
Basically 'Mainstream Science' incoherently conflates these two (Science and Meta-Physical World-View) as complimentary and mutually inclusive... which are simple category errors.
The new word "Science" NOW via utterances of it's 'Priests', puts limitations on "To Know" by artificially erecting pseudo-boundaries based on an "a priori" philosophy that restricts an open-minded investigation of "Reality".
These "Priests" and accompanying 'Religion' were unequivocally quashed IN TOTO (SEE: 1925/QM) but have managed to somehow not only stay afloat but now hold the highest seats in the Temple.  They are what I like to call..."Fundies", "pseudo-Intellectual Fundamentalists".
 
What's absolutely mind-boggling to me is the discipline (Quantum Mechanics) that sealed their fate is now used as the "pseudo-Intellectual Fundamentalists" mandate/ justification to maintain their position. How??  Well they accomplish this by more or less an Equivocation (Fallacy) with "Real" Science".  Without the practical uses/applications of Quantum Mechanics, we would be basically back in the Stone Age, technologically speaking.
BUT....Technology isn't Science...
 
What Science Isn't, Part III: Science is not Technology:
 

"One of the mistakes many people make in thinking about science is to confuse it with technology. As a result, science often either receives undue credit (for the "miracles of modern science" in one's kitchen) or undue blame (for everything from overly firm tomatoes to nuclear war). In fact, science doesn't make things. Scientists developed the understanding of radiation sufficient for the invention of the microwave oven, but neither making a microwave oven nor using it are science. Scientists are in the business of generating knowledge, whereas engineers are in the business of generating technology.  

People doing science often use sophisticated technology, but science doesn't require it. Our ecologist observing natural bird behavior and our geologist examining an outcrop neither use particularly sophisticated technology. In fact, the only technology in common to all science is the notebook in which observations are recorded.

In short, science often leads to technology, and it often uses technology, but it isn't technology, and in fact it can operate quite independently of technology."

http://www.gly.uga.e...22science3.html

 

So they incoherently staple themselves (Lipstick on a Pig scenario) to all these advancements via "It's Science" which apparently gives them justification for their Temple Seats and Carte Blanche authority to dream up and pass off as "Science" all sorts of "Just So" Stories.  The mindset, since transistors work; Therefore...multiverses/dark matter/evolution/big bangs/billion of years, ad nauseam, are Scientific FACTS!!!  :laugh_point:
 
Here's what they don't tell you...
 
1. There is No OBJECTIVE REALITY "Matter" beyond what we Observe/"KNOW".
 
SEE: Bell's Inequality and Leggett's Inequality Violated: 
Gröblacher, S. et al; An experimental test of non-local realism Nature 446, 871-875 (19 April 2007) | doi :10.1038/nature05677.
 
"Now physicists from Austria claim to have performed an experiment that rules out a broad class of hidden-variables theories that focus on realism -- giving the uneasy consequence that REALITY DOES NOT EXIST WHEN WE ARE NOT OBSERVING IT (Nature 446 871)". {Emphasis Mine}
Physics World, April 20 2007
 
1a. Quantum Eraser Experiments show that the measuring device alone does not cause Wave Function Collapse unless a conscious observer is able to obtain the "which-path" information.  SEE: Thousands of Experiments without Exception!!...YH Kim et al 1999, Walborn SP et al 2002, Scarcelli G et al 2005. 
 
1b. Delayed Choice Experiments show us that the wave or particle behavior is not dependent on space-time and violates causality: 
 
"NO NAIVE REALISTIC picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum could be seen as showing particle- or wave-like behavior would depend on a causally disconnected choice. It is therefore suggestive to abandon such pictures altogether."
Xiao-song Ma, et al; Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice; Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 1221–1226, doi: 10.1073/ pnas.1213201 110;  2013.
 
"The presence of path information anywhere in the universe is sufficient to prohibit any possibility of interference. It is irrelevant whether a future observer might decide to acquire it. The mere possibility is enough."
Xiao-song Ma, et al; Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice; Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 1221–1226, doi: 10.1073/ pnas.1213201110; 2013.
 
**Ergo, The LACK of Path Information anywhere in the Universe is sufficient enough to prohibit any possibility of Wave Function Collapse i.e., "Matter Existing"!! 
 
2.  The Outcome Observed Reality depends on the Measurements @ that time and can't be PREDICTED prior to that.
Confirmed by Validating the Kochen-Specker Theorem: 
Lapkiewicz, R; Zeilinger, A: Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system:  Nature 474, 490–493, June 2011.
 
“There is no sense in assuming that what we do not measure about a system has [an independent] reality,” Zeilinger concludes."
 
"Kochen, now at Princeton University in New Jersey, is also happy. “Almost a half century after Specker and I proved our theorem, which was based on a [thought] experiment, real experiments now confirm our result,” he says.'
Steinberg [Quantum Physicist] is impressed: “This is a beautiful experiment.” If previous experiments testing entanglement shut the door on hidden variables theories, the latest work seals it tight. “It appears that you can’t even conceive of a theory where specific observables would have definite values that are independent of the other things you measure,” adds Steinberg.
Ananthaswamy, A: Quantum magic trick shows reality is what you make it; New Scientist, June 2011.
 
 
Materialists/Realists are....."Science Deniers".  To refute Idealism; and thereby VALIDATE Realism...
 
Please take up the Quantum Randi Challenge (arXiv:1207.5294, 23 July 2012)....
A Nobel Prize is being offered:  All you have to do is...
 
Prove Naive Realism or Local Realism is True and not Observation Dependent.
 
I'll monitor the "Presses" over the next few days.  :kaffeetrinker:  I've been monitoring for 4 Years now and not a PEEP!
 
In summary, they conflate "Science" with Meta-Physics. Then they conflate Science and Technology via Equivocation (Fallacy). Then Texas Sharpshooter (Fallacy) via derivatives of the discipline (QM) that chops their own legs off by Imploding their First Principle... (Conflating Science with Meta-Physics...Materialism/Realism).
It's a Potpourri of mind-numbing in-coherency.
 
Welcome to ShangRi-La. 

 

As the link from My Jewish Learning says, the days in Genesis were not meant to be a chronological time frame of any length, rather it was a significant number alluding to the perfection of God's work. 

 

 

Relevance?  Where in Scripture does it say to follow your "Jewish Link" for Scriptural Truths?

 

 

That is just factually false. I know I mentioned Saint Augustine at least twice before, and IIRC someone mentioned him before I did. Saint Augustine lived more than a thousand years before Darwin and as one of the most influential (bible) scholars of all time he questioned a literal interpretation. 

 

 

And, So what....?

 

 

I don't think that is an adulteration of scripture, at least not anymore than reinterpreting scripture so as to not contradict the Sun-centered solar system.

 

 

Where in Scripture does it say otherwise to begin with?

 

 

The story is a vehicle for spiritual truths made by people that lived approximately 3,000 years ago. Not a semi-scientific account for educated Westerners in the 21st century. 

 

 

Support....?


  • Mike Summers likes this

#50 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,745 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 07 February 2016 - 08:09 PM

A Great post Enoch!

My role as a therapist has consisted over the last 30 something years of trying to convince myself and others to stop creating psychological misery for ourselves and blaming it on something outside our mind (external to our mental or spiritual state). We seem to think the wave form causes itself to collaapse. Too bad we all are mental (spritual beings ) and thusly can collapse our own wave forms. We do it so well!

Without us touching him, the so called terrorist convinces himself that we have somehow violated his world. So, instead of ruling himself, he seeks to negatively control others (us) by using his mind's (mis-using) powers (cretivity) to attempt to destroy what he thinks is "offending" him--an external cause, "it" or "us". And so "us" and/ or "it" gets blamed for the conflict he has created in his mnd via his powers of observaton (collapsing the wave form). He becomes  another arbiter of existence just like alleged atheists.

It's like thinking, "If I put a brand new tire on the back of my car 'it' will fix the flat tire on the front of my car".

After talking to Satan (the original tree of good and evil) Adam and Eve blamed nakedness insead of their own mind for creating their embarassment. They blamed "it". As Jesus so wisely said, "Why behold you the splinter in your brothers eye and consider not the plank in your own".

The poet Langston Hughes, in his poem entitled, "Fianal Curve" evoked the same meaning when he said:

When you turn the corner
And run into yourself
Then you know you have turned
All the corners that are left

 

Mom often cited the old Quaker proverb; "I do believe everyone is crazy but me and thee.  And  lately I have been wondering about thee"?  lol :)


"Oh!" thinks the terrorist whose name could be legion, 'If' 'they' would only think and do what I want them too, god would be happy and so would I! They have got to see it my way or it's awful terrible and horrible, I can't stand  and they need to die so, I will kill them!"

Sometimes a client will tell me he wants to move to a new location and start over--perhaps a distant city. I inform them while that's an option, "it most likely will only delay solving your problems. You can't start over only continue from where youl are now! Moreover, you no doubt, will take your screwed up (non awareness wave collapsing belief) philosophy with you!"



"You, Mike Summers, you, self-righteous sanctimonious, religius vigilante! Who do you think you are? You just don't know how I feel--what I have to deal with. Don't give me your psycho babel! I am not creating my own misery! I either have a defective mind or those horrible people and circumstances outside my mind are causing my upsetness. 'Nobody knows the trouble I see! Nobody knows my sorrow!'" Whine! Whine! Whine!

"Fate really owes me the things I miss
It has to grant me eternal bliss
And if must settle for less than this
Whine! Whine! Whine!"

Most human disturbance consists of whining and complaining--just like the children of Israel did in the wilderness.

This whining takes the form of the three D's.
!. Daming and condemning the self.
2. Damning and condemning others.
3. And Damning and condemning the unicitetie of life.

If you are disturbed, look for the 3 D's!

The trouble is, we are doing it to ourselves and the only way to stop is to quit!






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users