|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
leicsmac
Joined: 07 Jul 2010
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 2:48 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Junior...may I ask you a question, just to clarify things?
What view do you have on the arrival and development of living organisms on this planet? Obviously you don't believe in the evolutionary process, but what do you believe in instead? I ask only because I would like a clearer idea of your train of thought on the whole thing...if you don't mind. I am keenly interested.
Of course, if you wish to ask me the same question in reciprocation I'd be more than happy to answer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
brento1138
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
You still haven't replied to about 100 points I posted against you earlier in the thread.
|
And which points were these? I thought I addressed each and every point you brought up against evolution (at least in our threads, or ones which you addressed to me).
Please be my guest and tell me what these unaddressed points are, and I will respond. Even one will do, but I encourage more. I've responded to many of your points/claims/etc.
There were many times I proved your points wrong. (I think I must at least get the title for 'person who has responded to Junior's points the most')
Here is a list of points which you totally messed up and went quiet on. Please note that there are more points, but I am limiting it to 55:
| Quote: |
Points Which Junior Got Wrong / Has Gone Silent On
#1)
Junior: Xiaotingia (newly discovered bird-dino fossil) topples a foundation stone for evolutionist theory-building (that dinosaurs evolved from birds).
Science: Wrong. This new transitional fossil (Xiaotingia ) merely adds to our understanding of the bird-dino family tree. Archaeopteryx isn't suddenly gone, it's become a part of a richer picture of bird evolution. Archaeopteryx is now considered a kind of second cousin, a little less closely related to the birds than previously thought, merely a taxonomic detail. Archaeopteryx still represents a beautiful example of a transitional form.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/xiaotingia_zhengi.php
#2)
Junior: Archaeopteryx is a forgery.
Science: No, it�s not.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/forgery.html
#3)
Junior: Losing an unneeded organ confirms creationism.
Science: It confirms the Theory of Evolution, too.
#4)
Junior: I can accept micro-evolution within species, but not macro-evolution.
Science: They are not really separate things. Macro-evolution is merely a whole lot of micro-evolutions which eventually leads to a different species. Also, it depends on where you draw the line on what a �species� is. The line is not so clear.
Saying micro-evolution exists but macro-evolution exists is like saying you can add 1+1+1 etc. to get 100 but it is impossible to add 1+1+1 etc. to get 100,000. This is because micro-evolution and macro-evolution are the same thing, just in different quantities.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-microevolution-and-macroevolution.htm
#5)
Junior: Only birds possess airflow lungs, unlike any other animal.
Science: Actually, alligators have them. Archosaurs and dinosaurs did too.
http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/3379/gators-breathe-like-birds
#6:
Junior: There has been plenty of manipulation of data to fit standard evolutionary theory, when it comes to dating rock and placing creatures on a time line.
Science: The dating of rock is a well-established scientific fact. There is no reason for paleontologists to work in collusion with geologists.
Logic: This sounds like a denialist conspiracy theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php
#7:
Junior: Creationism holds up entirely to the evidence.
Science: No, it does not. Not at all. Firstly, creationism is a religious belief, not a science. Secondly most or all of the predictions made by creationists have been found to be either scientifically impossible or logically extremely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
#8:
Junior: Einstein was a creationist.
Science: Incorrect. He never stated so. In fact, Einstein did not believe in the Judeo-Christian God, but in Spinoza�s God, who does not concern himself with the fate and doings of mankind. Moreover, Einstein�s belief system recognized a �miraculous order which manifests itself in all of nature as well as in the world of ideas.� Furthermore, he was not educated in biological science. He was a physicist.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_religious_views
#9:
Junior: Two of the worlds greatest scientists were people who assumed and believed in creation.
Science: Those two scientists were not educated in evolutionary biology. It is important to note here that Charles Darwin believed in creationism too, at first, but eventually changed his mind after overwhelming observational evidence.
#10:
Junior: Overall, evolutionism is a deceptive lie, made all the more subtle by the fact that there are elements of truth woven into it.
Dictionary: The proper terminology is �Theory of Evolution� and not �evolutionism.� The term �evolutionism� to refer to the biological discipline is considered both redundant and anachronistic. Currently, the term is being used by Creationists to imply through language that accepting the Theory of Evolution is a matter of religious belief, not science.
Science: Here you admit to the parts of evolutionary science as "truth" yet denying parts of it as "lies." The way you reconcile this? By saying truth is woven into lies. But the reality is that you just cannot accept certain parts of it. The mere fact that you say yourself that there is "truth" in evolutionary theory should signal to you that you may indeed be accepting part of it, yet denying other parts of it.
#11:
Junior: Nothing is allowed to challenge the evolutionists family tree.
Science: Actually, the Theory of Evolution, like all sciences, is falsifiable. There are numerous examples of potential (indirect) ways to falsify common descent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Evolution
#12:
Junior: Everything complex must need a Creator.
Logic: Then wouldn�t logic follow that a Creator would then need a creator too? Is the creator not complex?
#13:
Junior: A biased lapdog media is deceiving the pubic about evolution.
Science: 99.98% of the paleontologists and biologists accept evolution as science. This is because it is the only valid theory. No other alternates are viable. The reason the scientific community has not accepted creationism or intelligent design is because it is simply bad science.
Weekly World News: The Weekly World News is not a biased lapdog media. They report on that other 0.02% of "scientific" stories like Batboy, UFOs, Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot... etc. Maybe you should get your stories at the website below:
Weekly World News: http://weeklyworldnews.com/
#14:
Junior: Evolutionists constantly stress that they don't claim to know how life initially appeared, only how it developed. I don't see much difference between that, and the fact that creationists do not claim to know exactly how it is that God has always existed.
Science: The Theory of Evolution is not concerned with how life initially appeared. There are other theories out there, like the theories of abiogenesis which get into that.
Logic: Also, it is important to note that the above comparison is a false dichotomy, as we have physical proof of life, but not of God. We can study one, while we cannot study the other. God is a supernatural entity, and science studies the natural world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
#15:
Junior: Evolutionists tend to have a religious zeal about their theory and their faith in it is undaunted, no matter how contrary the evidence actually is.
Science: If what you mean by �evolutionists� are evolutionary biologists, molecular biologists, paleontologists, and geologists, they are actually scientists. Yes, all humans are capable of bias. But scientists are working in the field of science, which cannot be biased due to the very way in which science works. The scientific method is the best method we have. Your comment demonstrates a total ignorance, or misunderstanding of the most basic concept of what science is.
#16:
Junior: The Theory of Evolution is not an objective cold, hard science they're pedaling, its the foundation of how they view the world and all that they believe in.
Logic: But isn�t that a better description of Creationism? The foundation of all that your particular sect of religious people believe in? Many scientists who accept evolution also believe in God. Similarly, many in the Catholic church and other faiths who believe in God accept evolution.
#17
Junior: The problem with accepting the Theory of Evolution is that it lacks evidence.
Science: Not true. There is such an overwhelming amount of evidence for this theory that it is now considered as �fact� by 99.98% of the scientific community.
#18
Junior: The real world evidence -the fossil record- says quite blatantly that evolution never happened. Fully-formed species appear and disappear suddenly, without intermediaries.
Science: Actually the fossil record overwhelmingly points to evolution. There have been many transitional fossils discovered. You're also confusing the idea that a transitional fossil is only a fossil which is a missing link to a currently living species.
#19
Junior: Real world evidence does not phase evolutionists. They simply force it to fit their theory, or they discard it if it won't.
+
Junior: Evolutionists deliberately avoid adverse evidence and if by accident they actually happen to read some, they do their best to forget it.
Science: This is a common creationist misunderstanding of how science works. Science does not force evidence to fit their theories, or discard good evidence that doesn�t. For example, when scientists found a major potential stumbling block to the Theory of Evolution (that the human cell only had 23 pairs of chromosomes instead of 24 pairs as seen in gorillas, chimps, etc) but they never discarded the new information which flew in the face of the Theory. They instead investigated further, and upon further investigation, discovered the fusion of two chromosomes and thus confirmed the theory even more. The Theory of Evolution predicted that there would be a sort of �scotch tape� holding together the two chromosomes together, and they were indeed correct. The Theory made a correct prediction on information which had originally threatened it! So scientists were not �forcing� the evidence to fit their theory, merely observing real-world evidence which unexpectedly happened to complement the theory just fine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CexojNPz2cU&feature=related
#20
Junior: The fossils of all hominids discovered to date are fabrications & do not stand up to close scrutiny.
Logic: Why would scientists fabricate them? Again, refer to the conspiracy theory section of denialism. They have stood up to scrutiny by thousands of scientists. Are they all in on some big conspiracy, together?
#21
Junior: Evolutionists are more in the category of creative writers or imaginative storytellers.
Science: The fossils are actually telling the story and it matches perfectly with the Theory of Evolution.
#22
Junior: Evolutionism does not really deserve to come under the noble umbrella of science I'm afraid, the two are not the same. Chemists and physicists for example are real scientists, they work with what is materially demonstrable...
Science: Actually, the evidence for the Theory of Evolution is just as good, if not better, than the Theory of Gravity.
#23
Junior: I don't consider Catholicism as the true church at all.
Logic: All other religions that have ever existed, currently exist, or will exist, do not consider your church the true church either.
#24
Junior: A loving God endowed his creation with all that they would need to adapt to a world he knew would change.
Science: You are making a claim which is not scientifically verifiable because we cannot verify the existence of God.
Logic: This statement is incorrect (if God exists) because several species of animals have gone extinct. If he endowed his creation with all that they would need to adapt to survive in a changing world, then why did so many species totally die off?
#25
Junior: The bible is probably the most archaeologically-verified historical document on earth.
Invisible Unicorn: Good thing you threw the word �probably� in there!
Science: No, there is no scientific evidence for any of the events described in the Bible. In fact, there is a whole lot of evidence AGAINST the events.
#26
Junior: Actually the positioning of fossils in strata conforms to what you would expect from a global flood.
Science: The positioning of fossils in strata definitely do not come close **at all** from what you would expect from a global flood. We would expect to find complex creatures that we have today in the oldest strata where we find only less complex creatures. Let�s see what happens when you test out the two theories:
Test of Two Theories: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V_2r2n4b5c
#27
Junior: Remember many of your universities, schools and hospitals were founded by Christian creationists, and their motivation for their scientific research (finding cures for diseases or whatever) stems from Christian faith.
Ignorant Person: Wow, Junior must have a point there....
Logic: This point is irrelevant. Just because there are �nice people� in the Christian faith does not mean we should subscribe to their particular beliefs. Anyways, Bill Gates is an atheist and currently runs the largest charity organization in the world.
#28
Junior: You're at more like 0.1% of the answers.
Logic: Isn�t it better to have 0.1% of the correct answers than none at all?
#29
Junior: All the evidence already clearly indicates that Sahelanthropus is an ape.
Science: Not quite. The current scientific consensus on the matter is that there is no consensus. Sahelanthropus may represent a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. The original placement of this species as a human ancestor but not a chimpanzee ancestor would actually complicate the picture of human phylogeny.
Logic: You are jumping to conclusions based on pre-conceived beliefs. In science we do not say �I know� until we know for sure, based on observational data. So we do not �know� it is an ape yet. It�s OK sometimes to say �I don�t know.�
#30 - A
Junior: Saying that micro-evolution leads to macro-evolution is like saying birds can fly, therefore they can fly to the moon.
Logic: This is a false comparison. We know birds cannot fly to the moon since there is no atmosphere for them to fly in. A better comparison comparing micro-evolution to macro-evolution is done simply with basic math. Again: we can add 1+1=2 (micro-changes), therefore 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 for millions of years (macro-change) is possible.
#30 - B
Junior: Even I accept bits of the Theory of Evolution, just not the wider claims, etc.
Logic: Again, if you are referring to accepting micro-evolution but not accepting macro-evolution, this is comparable to a person saying they can accept 1+1 = 2 yet they cannot accept 2 + 2 = 4.
#30 - C
Junior: Evolution does not show us that single cells could morph into blue whales
Logic: Well, it is obvious we cannot watch one single cell morph into one blue whale in front of our eyes. It takes several gazillions of generations of organisms to reproduce over a very long period of time, millions or billions of years, to get these results. Just because you cannot sit around for a few billion years to observe the ancestors of a single-celled organism slowly mutate into multi-cellular organisms doesn�t mean it doesn�t happen.
#31
Junior: The biblical account predicts a gradual degeneration of living things and loss of genetic material since the fall of creation.
Science: Scientists do not believe that the Bible contains any scientific information or even mention of genetic material.
Logic: The Bible is open to many creative interpretations, including Harold Camping�s about the end of the world and Judgment Day. How do you know that your interpretation is correct, if so many others who interpret the Bible are found out to be wrong?
#32
Junior: 11 of the fossils of Ardipithecus found were of single teeth identical to chimpanzees, (yet automatically assumed to be different because they were fossilized). In appearance and measurements this tooth looks identical to a chimpanzee (Pan paniscus) tooth.
Science: Wrong. The upper canines are not the long, sharp pointy ones that are seen in chimpanzees and related species, but rather blunt stubby teeth more like modern humans.
99.98% of Scientists: It is inappropriate to use sources (like creation.com) which are considered inaccurate or religiously biased when trying to present valid evidence.
#33
Junior: Your mafia-run institution relies on protectionism.
Science: Huh?
Logic: Who is being run by the mafia, exactly?
Mafia: We'll stick to strip joints, casinos, weapon trafficking, and drug trade thank you very much.
#34
Junior: Many creationists have doctorates and so forth.
Logic: People with PhDs can make mistakes, especially if the source of their education is questionable. Check out Kent Hovind (currently incarcerated) for questionable credentials. Or the interview with Dr. Georgia Purdom (creationist research scientist) where she clearly illustrates her religious bias:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_CLIGJW6Ic
#35
Junior: Who decides that Creationist science is wrong? How convenient for evolutionists.
Science: Science has long-ago decided Creationist science is not a science. After finding out the world was round and not flat, discovery after discovery has led 99.98% of scientists to change their minds regarding creationism. 99.98% are more convinced about the Theory of Evolution now over the religious belief in creationism. Remember, Darwin was once a creationist too until he made observations which falsified his previously held beliefs.
#36
Junior: You believe in �evolutionists� instead of creationists, so you must also believe whatever is in Rodong Shinmun.
Logic: False comparison. Science is open, there is no censorship going on; that would be antithetical to science. Creationism on the other hand is not open to new ideas (evolution being the new idea), not open for debate (God did it, now stop asking questions!), and routinely provides misinformation either knowingly or unknowingly (thanks to ignorance) in the hopes of creating enough distraction to keep people from discovering the truth regarding the origin of species.
#37
Junior: In some cases creationists have slipped up and had to withdraw certain lines of argument.
Logic: That is an understatement. Ever heard of banana man, or the video series entitled �Why Do People Laugh at Creationists� on Youtube? Those are some pretty big �slip ups.� In fact, it seems all claims by Creationists eventually lead to slip ups. You serve as an excellent example of this!
#38
Junior: The Polish tracks serve as evidence against evolutionists.
Science: Not at all. The discoverers of Tiktaalik never argued that Tiktaalik's status as a transitional form depended on slotting it in precisely in a specific chronological time period as a 'link' between two stages in the evolution of a lineage.
#39
Junior: The transitional fossil status of the Tiktaalik is being debated.
Science: It is not being debated within the scientific community whatsoever. The "debate" is only in the imaginations of creationists who do not understand the meaning of the word �transitional fossil� or how the branch family system works in the Phylogenetic tree. See for yourself: type in "debate over tiktaalik transitional fossil" into Google and you get results from creationist websites, fundamentalist Christian-run organizations, or newspapers reporting on how creationists think there is some "debate" going on here, with scientists responding that there isn't. Other than creationist websites, there is nothing to see.
#40
Junior: And what scientific tools did Darwin have exactly? Almost nothing. His simplistic guesses were based on scientific ignorance.
Science: While it is true that Darwin did not have all the tools of modern science available to him, his ignorance (belief in creationism) was extinguished when he came across enough overwhelming evidence to give up his previously held �ignorant� beliefs and develop a new Theory.
#41
Junior: Please stop your ridiculous effort to label evo-fantasists as scientists.
Science: Who are these evo-fantasists you speak of? The scientists we speak of are the scientists out in the field doing the research and writing the reports: biologists, paleontologists, etc. They are physically out there, physically digging up fossils, physically grabbing pens and writing up reports, looking through microscopes, making observations, writing things down, and presenting it openly to the entire scientific community. Are these the people you speak of?
#42
Junior: Atheists have finally secured the education system, they have stormed the tower and are holding the fort.
Logic: There are several reasons why a Christian-run education system would be detrimental. Firstly, not all people are Christian. As for teaching Intelligent Design in schools, that is simply sneaking religion into the classroom. One cannot teach a non-scientific theory in a science class. There's nothing to teach other than "Well, it looks pretty complicated so God musta done it."
#43
Junior: Your portrayal of me believing that all insects were created with resistance to all pesticides is a straw man argument.
Logic: Actually, no, you are confusing yourself. Logically speaking, if you believe that all creatures were created with all existing genetic information present, then you should believe that all insects were originally created with resistance to all pesticides. That�s your argument, not my straw man.
#44
Junior: Mutation and natural selection, thought to be the driving forces of evolution, only lead to a loss of functional systems.
Logic: So then, how is a human tail �functional?� Why is a tail encoded into our genes, and why are some children born with tails? Why the tail during the embryonic stage of development? Did all humans once have tails? It�s present in our genes and during our embryonic stages of development. Some human babies are born with tails. Did God originally create men with tails? Or just a few of them? Did Adam & Eve have tails?
#45
Junior: Darwinists regularly make the following objections to the teaching of ID: there are no �peer reviewed journals� with ID Published research
Science: Peer reviewed journals exist only for scientific research, not religious philosophies like Intelligent Design. Creationists are free to create their own �peer reviewed journal� sites if they wish, however, due to creationism being a religious belief and not a science, it is more suited for priests, lawyers, and politicians than scientists to actively take part in.
Logic: Using the term �Darwinist� or �Darwinism� is misleading. The term is used by promoters of creationism, notably by leading members of the intelligent design movement, as an epithet to attack evolution as though it were an ideology (an "ism") of philosophical naturalism, or atheism.
#46
Junior: What makes you think I am going to wade through 300 pages of a pdf file to try and find something on supposed whale limbs??
Logic: Actually, you were told which were the correct pages to look at (only 4 pages). Logically speaking, to know what you are arguing about, you must at least do the proper research first. Arguing about a topic in which you have not tried to educate yourself in, and then vehemently sticking to your position (stifled in ignorance) is illogical.
#47
Junior: Can you prove to me humans descended from pufferfish?
Logic: This is a straw man argument. The Theory of Evolution does not predict that humans evolved from pufferfish.
#48
Junior: A mutation involves damage to the organism, usually a switching off of function. In certain local and temporary conditions it may be beneficial, but it is at a greater overall cost to the organism. It is unsustainable in fact. Mutational resistance comes at a greater cost to the organism. It reduces its overall fitness. As soon as possible, it switches back to unmutated (normal) individuals.
Science: Not always. The Lenski experiments have confirmed that bacteria have evolved and keep their beneficial traits, beating out the older generations. They have transcended the usual definition of E. coli as a species.
Source #1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUhYGgtwNkE
Source #2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxdEjjkqhjY
#49
Junior: Fossils, including of dinosaurs, support creationism.
Logic: Really? Where in Genesis does it mention dinosaurs? Or have we found humans fossilized with saddles sitting next to the dinos? Or a dino-skeleton stabbed with an ancient sword, spear, or human tool of some sort sitting next to it? How could dinosaurs possibly support creationism?
#50
Junior: Humans have lost genetic diversity according to a study where researchers estimated that the genetic diversity of hominins living one million years ago was between 1.7 and 2.9 greater than among humans today.
Science: Modern homo-sapiens did not exist one million years ago. The source where you got your information from was looking not at modern homo-sapien species but ancient ape-men whose fossils you earlier (in #20) claimed were fabrications.
Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=early-human-population-size-genetic-diversity
#51
Junior: There is no debate left within the evolutionist monoculture. They cut off and persecute anyone who does so. They don't admit dissenters and have been eliminating/ ridiculing/ discrediting them for decades.
Science: By evolutionist monoculture, do you mean the scientific community?
Logic: Obviously this is more true with fundamentalist religious groups as exemplified by the firing of Professor William Crenshaw who thought that real science should be taught in college.
#52
Junior: Ah yes... Hitler, the godfather of the ape-cult. When he was an angry young man he read Darwins eugenics manifesto and then plagiarised it to write "Mein Kampf". Finally he instituted his death regime, otherwise known as applied evolution.
Logic: Actually Hitler's motto was "Gott Mit Uns" which translates as "God With Us." During the Nazi rise to power, Hitler was just another religious man making various new translations of the Bible. He didn't get his ideas for the Holocaust from Darwin. It is incredible to blame Darwin while overlooking the role of Christianity in fostering anti-Semitism over the centuries. Although his exact interpretation of Christianity is in some dispute, the writings found in Mein Kampf are very clear.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_views
#53
Junior: Neanderthals were genetically superior to us.
Science: Then why did all of the Neanderthals die off, and Homo-Sapiens remain?
#54
Junior: Neanderthals are well within the normal range of human variation.
Science: there is now a sizeable gap between the human and Neandertal results. Analysis of the assembled sequence unequivocally established that the Neandertal mtDNA falls outside the variation of extant human mtDNAs, and allows an estimate of the divergence date between the two mtDNA lineages of 660,000 � 140,000 years.
You need to look at the distributions of pairwise sequence differences among Humans, the Neandertal, and Chimpanzees. It shows that the Neandertals are indeed our closest relatives, but no, they are not human beings �just like us.� Just look at the chart on the following page:
Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mtDNA.html
#55
Junior: We agree that all the lizards in the family share a common ancestor
Logic: You agree that the lizards in the family (Lacertidae) led to two different genera (Gallotia and Podarcis) which in turn both churned out different "cousin" species G. bravoana (on the Gallotia side) and P. sicula on the Podarcis side.
Yet, you do NOT accept that the primates in the family (Hominidae) led to two different genera (Homo and Pan) which in turn both churned out different �cousin� species H. Sapien (on the Homo side) and Chimpanzee (on the Pan side).
So rather than have any logical formula to go with, or accept the science / observational data, you just decide what's right. For you, 1+1 can equal 2 when you want it to, and at other times, 1+1 can equal whatever you darn well want it to. Interesting, Junior. Very, very interesting. I suppose you can pick and choose what to believe in only as long as it supports what you say.
|
Junior, you cannot win against logic, reason, and science. You might think you are in some battle against a singular person here, but I merely represent what has already been said and done before many times by scientists. Creationists are no more different than a crazy man on the street with a speakerphone saying "The World is Gonna End!" You are now getting into conspiracy theories and loony statements claiming that evolutionary biologists and other scientists are members of some ape-cult. You fail to listen to logic and reason. I doubt you entertain or absorb information relating to the Theory of Evolution from valid sources. Instead you want to stuff you head into the sand, or rather, into dubious religious websites masquerading as scientific websites (Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, etc.).
I represent the scientific consensus when it comes to evolution. You can deny evolution all you want, but the reality is out there, not inside your head.
I've attempted to get you to see beyond your bias, establish an understanding of denialism, and what it means to actually be skeptical of something. But I wonder if this is futile.
I also think you do not understand that it isn't religion vs. atheism. It's fundamentalist readings of ancient biblical texts vs. hard, cold facts.
The problem with literal readings of the bible are many. I've explained this at length, and some (such as Hijacked Twilight) get agitated enough into making personal attacks and dirty tricks.
You can get around this problem by simply accepting evolution in the rational part of your brain, and believing in whatever you want in the faith-side of your brain. Just don't let your faith step on the toes of science.
There are several theists who accept evolution. There are several theists who do not read the myths in the Bible as literal, historical, fact. Why not continue on with your theism and accept valid science? They can co-exist peacefully. You do not have to give up all you have learned, and/or become an atheist. Other faiths (such as the Catholic church) have given up arguing against evolution because they know the equation, and realize to battle cold hard facts is futile and will only damage them in the end. Maybe they are starting to learn from their past mistakes...
Why not lead others in your church to accept evolution? You'll only make your church stronger. The lies / misinformation can then stop, and you will have much less chance of people in your church discovering the truth and then leaving the church(they will -- we live in the age of the internet and the age of information). Also, how could you ever hope to gain new members if people become more aware of the lies, denialism, etc?
So as I said earlier. Why not evolve your church, mutate it, start the movement to accept evolution. The environment has changed, and your religion will slowly die out as it loses members who do not like being lied to. You don't want your faith to go extinct, do you? You don't want to end up like the members of Harold Camping's followers who have left their church, lost their faith, all in the name of lies (caused by literal readings of the Bible).
Time is on the side of scientists. As more evidence comes in (more fossils are discovered, more transitional fossils, better preserved specimens, better techniques to study bacterial life, more studies in cell evolution of tiny cell machine-parts, research on pre-life chemical reactions, abiogenesis theory, and much much more.) the Creationist / Intelligent Design movement looks crazier and crazier, just like the crazy man on the street.
Why do people laugh at Creationists? Only the Creationists don't know why... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 4:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NowhereMan wrote: |
| And, for being Gnostic, the Gnostics got what was coming to them: death by a conspiracy of dunces. |
..sounds a bit like the Cathars. Similar beliefs as well.
| Quote: |
| -Stone aged dudes building ships the size of aircraft carriers |
The Ark was slightly larger than the largest recorded Egyptian obelisk barge
http://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/the-genesis-flood-44/
And was built over many decades by multiple workers.
| Quote: |
| -Ken Hovind ending up in jail |
Huh?
| Quote: |
| The saddest thing is that this tripe is reflected in our national politics. |
Actually it has served you well. You really do have christianity to thank for your constitution, prosperity and superpower status. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| leicsmac wrote: |
Junior...may I ask you a question, just to clarify things?
What view do you have on the arrival and development of living organisms on this planet? |
-that God created the first original forms- eg the original big cat or elephant-type. These created types had superior genetic ranges compared to their descendants today.
Over the millenia, the descendants of these forms became geographically isolated and thus inbreeding began within local communities, reshuffling and concentrating genetic material to suit the changing local environments.
| Quote: |
| Obviously you don't believe in the evolutionary process |
I have never said that, its just that brento and others have constantly assumed this.
I believe that natural selection does act to select for, and select out, pre-existing genetic information. But that no new or novel genetic material is created. Its an ongoing process of loss.
I believe in a limited level of change, via a sort of "devolution". Creatures are shuffling the cards they were dealt to produce minor adjustments. But they can't become entirely different creatures.
| Quote: |
| Of course, if you wish to ask me the same question in reciprocation I'd be more than happy to answer. |
By all means. Do you subscribe to molecules-to-man darwinism? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Brento all those points have been fully tackled and you have been blown out the water on every last one of them. Yet you somehow have managed to deliberately misconstrue just about everything I told you. Which just shows that debate with you is a waste of time because you are determined to ignore, misrepresent and twist uncomfortable facts.
I see you have mutated selective hearing.
Either way you are living proof of creationism because you have lost a lot of information. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pucciniphile
Joined: 23 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| The only thing you've kicked away is any credibility you may have formerly posessed. |
Junior, I understand you to say that one or more people on the thread--besides yourself--used to believe Brento but don't believe Brento now.
Yet I don't remember seeing any messages to that effect on this thread.
What do you base this statement on?
Have you received any private messages to this effect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have recieved Private messages, yes.
The contents of which I am honour-bound not to divulge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HijackedTw1light
Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You don't know how to quit while you're behind, do you, Brento? 
Here's why I'm not going to do a line-by-line refutation:
1) Debating you is like playing whack-a-mole at an arcade. As soon as one of your arguments goes down, another pops up, and you pretend that the new argument was the main one to begin with.
2) Our argument has become mostly meta-argument, so it's probably only interesting to those who like watching you squirm.
3) Your attempts at making me looking bad are transparent enough that I think most observers can see through them without my help.
4) The prospect of slogging through another one of your marathon posts to sort through all the distortions is about as appealing to me at this point as sifting through detritus at a garbage dump.
So I�ll just highlight the topics in dispute and assess where we are.
1) You claim you�re attacking only a literal reading of sacred books, but not religion/belief itself.
To say your attacks are only against fundamentalist religion/literal readings is absurd. It *is* attacking religion to compare the Bible to Peter Pan, lecture us on Islamic gas attacks, link to videos making fun of believers, speculate about the effect of belief on brain circuitry, disparage sacred texts, and write multiple posts about Mbombo vomiting the world into existence.
If you actually believed you were only attacking a literal reading, I would doubt your sanity. But of course you�re lying through your teeth. You know quite well that comparing someone�s sacred book to Peter Pan is disparaging even if he doesn�t believe every word is the literal word of God.
2) You lumped the creation story of Genesis in with a host of creation myths, disputing key conceptual differences between Genesis and other traditions.
In most creation stories, there�s a physically existing god creating in an unspecified environment, a "playground of the gods" from which the god creates, and the god begins his work in some pre-creation time period. But in the Genesis creation narrative we have no physical god, we have creation ex-nihilo, and we have a true beginning.
Your constant refrain since I wrote this has been that it's still not science. But I never claimed it was science. That�s just your strawman argument (by the way, since you're confused on this point, that�s the meaning of a strawman: when you pretend your opponent made an argument he never made and attack that argument instead of his real one).
You also said there is corporeality of God in the Bible. You listed a passage from Genesis 3 about Adam in the garden. That�s not part of the creation story, hence irrelevant, but I went ahead and debunked it anyway (you were using a translation far from the original Hebrew).
You tried to say it�s debatable that there�s a beginning of time in Genesis, as that isn�t exactly spelled out (other than �In the beginning...�). But a true beginning is the intuitive and common reading. Overall you�re trying to chip at the edges, claiming it�s debatable if these issues are absolutely defined or absolutely agreed to or absolutely consistent throughout the whole Bible. But my point doesn�t require that. These are clear, generally accepted, key conceptual differences between Genesis and other ancient creation narratives (I didn�t even bother mentioning monotheism), and out of all ancient creation stories it�s the most consistent with our understanding of cosmic origins.
You�ve chosen to fight these assertions tooth-and-nail. Apparently you�re under the impression that if these points are accepted, your mother will be hog-tied and dragged through the street. You�re lucky that�s not true, because you�ve been feeble in defense.
3) You cited an encyclopedia entry dishonestly.
Here�s what you wrote:
| brento1138 wrote: |
Even the Jews (the very people that wrote the book) admit that it's just ancient thinking:
The Jewish Encyclopaedia describes the firmament as follows:
| Quote: |
The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse. |
|
Here�s my original response:
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| The Jewish Encyclopedia was largely the intellectual product of a splinter group within Judasim called the Wissenschaft des Judentums...It wasn't mainstream Jewry. To claim that an interpretation made by one or two writers of the Jewish Encyclopedia is an admission by "the Jews" as a whole that a given Torah passage is "just ancient thinking" is a distortion of breathtaking scope and daring. I think I'm actually impressed! |
You�ve since gone through all sorts of contortions trying to explain your deception.
You�ve claimed you only meant �some� Jews believed that. But you wrote �the Jews,� which should refer to consensus at a minimum. It would be dishonest, for example, to say that �the English teachers in Korea think evolution is a fraud,� and then as �proof� link to one of Junior�s posts.
You�ve said your real point was that theists can read things non-literally (irrelevant), that many Jews do in fact take the text non-literally (doesn�t demonstrate consensus, and even if it did it�s still irrelevant, since there�s a distinction you fail to recognize between �non-literal� and �just ancient thinking.� Jews believe the Torah to be divinely inspired at a minimum, hence not merely a product of human thought, ancient or otherwise), and finally you claimed that I distorted your words (baseless).
Here�s your latest attempt to squirm out of it:
| brento1138 wrote: |
| Your original accusation was that I was trying to say "all of the Jews" read a particular passage referring to the "firmament" literally by presenting an encyclopedia passage from a sect within Judaism. |
You're a liar, Brento. You're putting words I didn't write within quotes ("all of the Jews"). This is an outright lie.
And get it straight: When you refer to �the Jews� it doesn�t need to mean all Jews, but it should refer to a consensus at the minimum, something that could fairly describe the Jews as a whole. Read my original critique again and note the exact words.
Actually, on second thought, don't. It�ll just lead to more lies, more distortions, more strawmen, more moving the goalposts...
In short, more whack-a-mole action.
You�ve already been whacked on the head enough in the past few days, haven�t you, Brento?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pucciniphile
Joined: 23 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| 1) You claim you�re attacking only a literal reading of sacred books, but not religion/belief itself. |
I don't know about Brento, but I don't put much stock in sacred books.
We are always hearing that "God created the the universe in six figurative days."
Or "Satan figuratively took Jesus to the top of a mountain."
Figurative this, figurative that.
But figures symbolizing what?
| Quote: |
| You know quite well that comparing someone�s sacred book to Peter Pan is disparaging even if he doesn�t believe every word is the literal word of God. |
That may have been undiplomatic of Brento.
But what's the difference, except that Peter Pan's creator admitted that he was writing fiction?
| Quote: |
2) You lumped the creation story of Genesis in with a host of creation myths, disputing key conceptual differences between Genesis and other traditions.
In most creation stories, there�s a physically existing god creating in an unspecified environment, a "playground of the gods" from which the god creates, and the god begins his work in some pre-creation time period. But in the Genesis creation narrative we have no physical god, we have creation ex-nihilo, and we have a true beginning. |
That one difference disqualifies it as a Creation myth?
| Quote: |
| You also said there is corporeality of God in the Bible. You listed a passage from Genesis 3 about Adam in the garden. |
No, he didn't, I did.
| Quote: |
| These are clear, generally accepted, key conceptual differences between Genesis and other ancient creation narratives (I didn�t even bother mentioning monotheism), and out of all ancient creation stories it�s the most consistent with our understanding of cosmic origins. |
Nevertheless, it contradicts science by saying that "the great whales" preceded "the beasts of the earth" and that "the fowls of the air" preceded "the beasts of the earth."
| Quote: |
| 3) You cited an encyclopedia entry dishonestly. |
I don't know, so I'll stay out of this one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pucciniphile
Joined: 23 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Let me tell you a little bit about the hidden meaning and symbolism in Peter Pan:
When J. M. Barrie, the creator of Peter Pan, was a boy, his brother got killed in an accident. His mother never adjusted to the tragedy, but rather laid in bed for the rest of her life.
J. M. tried to take the place of his brother by staying by his mother's bedside and telling her entertaining stories. She, in turn, told stories of her own childhood. Barrie later compiled these stories in a book entitled Margaret Ogilvy, which was his mother's maiden name.
As a result of all this trauma, Barrie could never grow up. into a healthy heterosexual. He was romantically attracted to a group of brothers in a family, whom he probably saw as peers. He got married, but his wife said that he was about as sexy in bed as a wet dishrag.
At the time that he was writing the story, Barrie did not realize that he was writing about himself. Just as he was a "boy who couldn't grow up," so was his fictional hero. It was only years later that he saw the autobiographical elements in the story.
At first, it may seem that Barrie was blessing his protagonist with a lovely harem, consisting of Wendy, Tinker Bell, and Tiger Lily. Yet when Wendy asks him what his feelings are, he says that they are those of a devoted son. And what is Wendy's role in Never Never Land? That of a devoted mother!
Now do you think we could learn any more from the Bible than from Peter Pan?
If so, why?
Last edited by pucciniphile on Sat Oct 01, 2011 6:16 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pucciniphile
Joined: 23 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It was only two months ago that Hijacked Twilight joined the thread,
making it very clear that he had no interest in joining one camp and shooting missiles at the other camp.
But that didn't stop him, that didn't stop me, and that didn't stop Brento.
Good job, Wormwood,
your uncle must be very proud of you! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wormholes101
Joined: 11 Mar 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Is Junior the greatest troll in the Current Events Forum? lol at you guys getting riled up by him... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HijackedTw1light
Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pucciniphile wrote: |
| I don't know about Brento, but I don't put much stock in sacred books. |
That's fine, you don't have to. At least you're honest enough to admit it. But Brento says he's not attacking religion when he clearly is.
| pucciniphile wrote: |
| That one difference disqualifies it as a Creation myth? |
I not asking you to admit it's not myth. Again, at least you acknowledge the differences, but Brento is not.
| pucciniphile wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You also said there is corporeality of God in the Bible. You listed a passage from Genesis 3 about Adam in the garden. |
No, he didn't, I did. |
I know, but he referenced your post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pucciniphile
Joined: 23 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wormholes101 wrote: |
| Is Junior the greatest troll in the Current Events Forum? lol at you guys getting riled up by him... |
That's because he's the only Creationist on the thread.
We attack ANY Creationist! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brento1138
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In response to HijackedTw1light:
I want to start off with the most blazingly obvious example of you trying to make me look bad:
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
3) You cited an encyclopedia entry dishonestly.
|
Dishonest? I cited it just fine. And I think I've already explained myself clearly here.
This is simply another example of you nitpicking my writing in order to make me look bad. But let's look at your accusation more clearly:
Yes, I wrote "the Jews." Now, I will explain why it is OK to do that.
You insist that I am somehow being dishonest with the Jewish encyclopedia reference. You are taking the spotlight off the fact that probably 99% of Jewish people likely do not believe in a firmament (a support separating our Earth from two oceans, one below and one above) and my example pointing to the Jewish encyclopedia (as one example) was valid. Saying "the Jews" is completely fine. If I had included a disclaimer that the Jews as a whole do not agree with the particular encyclopedia I quoted, then you would have been happy? We all know of varying sects, and varying beliefs. I've stated this several times. You are shifting attention to the fact that the Jewish Encyclopedia was not followed or believed in by every Jew. I never said that, even though I used the Encyclopedia as one example of how 99% or so of Jews would agree that the whole "firmament" and "flat Earth" belief is just ancient thinking.
If you are accusing me of being deceptive, then I could accuse you of the exact same thing when you wrote this:
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
It wasn't mainstream Jewry. To claim that an interpretation made by one or two writers of the Jewish Encyclopedia is an admission by "the Jews" as a whole that a given Torah passage is "just ancient thinking" is a distortion of breathtaking scope and daring.
|
On one hand, you are getting angry at me for implying that all Jewish people interpret the firmament as ancient thinking. Yet you then say that the interpretation that the firmament is just ancient thinking was made by only "one or two" writers, implying that they are the only two people in all of Jewish faith that make that particular interpretation!
Do you really think so many Jewish people think that above the sky rests an ocean??????
More people than just those "one or two" writers of the Jewish encyclopedia believe that the firmament is not real, and that it is just ancient thinking. More people than even that particular Jewish sect think that the firmament is an ancient view of the world.
In reality, we both know that different Jews in different sects interpret things differently. Yes, there will be some who think differently.
Your endless nit-picking of my writing is ridiculous and takes the spotlight off of what I meant anyways: we all know that there is no firmament. My example was completely valid. I will say it again: "the Jews" do not believe in a firmament above our heads. They do not believe there are two waters, one below us, one above us. I will use the word "the" because the vast majority of them do not. If some Jewish people believe that there really is a firmament above our heads right now, then good for them. But if they start trying to teach that in science classes, then I have a problem with it.
The conclusion? Of course if you ask most Jewish people in the world "Is there a firmament, is the world flat" I will make a bet with you that more than 99% of them would say "No, I do not believe there is a firmament. The world is not flat. There is no ocean above the sky." If they believed the passages in the Bible literally, then they would be reading the ancient Jewish myth of the structure of the world literally, as in the passage I included as an example, as that Jewish encyclopedia demonstrates. Yes, even the Jews do not interpret that passage literally. They interpret it as "ancient thinking" just like the Jewish encyclopedia states.
HijackedTw1light. Nice try... Now let's look at how you called me a liar:
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
You're a liar, Brento. You're putting words I didn't write within quotes ("all of the Jews"). This is an outright lie.
|
Nit-picking again. It doesn't matter if you said those exact words or not. It doesn't make me a liar. You *did* in fact write "the Jews as a whole" and I didn't write exactly what you wrote. I wrote "all of the Jews" which has the exact same meaning as "the Jews as a whole." Are you saying that I am lying because of a slight change of words which mean the exact same thing? This is not a university essay.
When I quote people exactly, I do exactly like I did above by using the Quote button on the message board menu. The use of quotes was not meant to quote you word for word, nor was it meant to change the meaning of what you said. If I had done that, it would have been dishonest. But I did not. It was meant to refer to your idea. Sometimes I will use quotes, not when I am referring to the ideas without checking the exact words you used in past posts. Deal with it. It doesn't make me a liar. It just makes you look like a nit-picker who is desperately trying anything to make me look bad. Shame on you again.
The funny thing here is that you do not in fact make me look bad at all. It is yourself who you are making look bad.
Below, you paint me as some intolerant, angry, anti-religious figure. But allow me to retort.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
To say your attacks are only against fundamentalist religion/literal readings is absurd. It *is* attacking religion to compare the Bible to Peter Pan, lecture us on Islamic gas attacks, link to videos making fun of believers, speculate about the effect of belief on brain circuitry, disparage sacred texts, and write multiple posts about Mbombo vomiting the world into existence.
|
To me it seems as if you are just having an emotional knee-jerk reaction to my assessment that literal readings of ancient myths are silly. And you bring up my illustrative points and try to knock me down by using sensationalist tactics: "Oh! Look at him! He's attacking religion! I don't like his examples because they make me feel uncomfortable!"
I have made it clear in the past that all I am doing is defending science. And I am free to make fun of fundamentalists/myth-reading literalists if I wish: they are fair game, they deserve it. Let's look at these one-by-one:
1) I used Peter Pan to illustrate the silliness of people reading fictional books and actually believing in them as non-fiction. If you feel offended, too bad, so sad. I really do not care. You see, both books are works of fiction yet some people read one as non-fiction. That is problematic because it leads to big problems when they deny scientific facts and try to bring their mythical books into the classroom. I have made this as clear as day. You never really reveal your position on the matter to play it safe. If you disagree with me that Genesis is fictional, then say so.
2) The examples of Islamic fundamentalist attacks on schools serve as very valid examples of the extreme side of how religious fundamentalists are indeed guilty of causing so much misery throughout the world based on their own warped literalist interpretations of the Koran (condoning killing people to protect Islam). In that example, Islamic fundamentalists were taking the modern Christian approach of trying to stop their children from learning uncomfortable truths one step further, to the extreme: actually physically attacking schools and killing people there because they do not agree with what the children are learning. If the children learned about the real world, then they would threaten the fundamentalist's pillars of their religion as their world-view/beliefs are incompatible with educated children, especially educated females. It truly is similar to what the Christian fundamentalists in the USA are doing, minus the bombs and gas (at least when it comes to schools, not so much abortion clinics). The same motivation is there: get children to *not* learn about evolution, or at least provide a distraction away from it. My example/comparison here is very valid.
In both cases fundamentalists are trying to stop their children from learning and then knowing uncomfortable truths which are incompatible with their belief systems. Belief systems based on words which you can interpret any way you wish.
We've already seen attacks in the USA on abortion clinics. We just saw a crazy fundamentalist shoot up children in Norway this year. In the case of death threats against PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins from Dennis Markuze (who does not like the Theory of Evolution very much), it serves as an example how insane fundamentalist Christians who believe they are on a mission from God can be very, very dangerous. It's a good thing Markuze was arrested. Who knows what he could have been capable of. Bombing a Rational Thinkers meeting? Opening fire on a National Center for Science crowd?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/08/time_to_institutionalize_denni.php
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dennis_Markuze
As the links show above, police took Markuze's death threats seriously enough to arrest him (charged with 16 counts) and have him undergo a psychological evaluation.
It all goes to show the argument tactic of the fundamentalist religious brute: care not for reason & logic, but instill your beliefs through fear and violence. As you can see, my linking to information about Islamic fundamentalists attacking schools is absolutely related to the discussion and very valid. Fundamentalist religion is dangerous, because they interpret their books far too literally.
3) Most video links I have provided are educational. If believers are being made fun of in the videos, it is for very good reasons! If you think I am making fun of believers by posting links about critical thinking and skepticism, then you are plain wrong and it shows me that you are just having yet another knee-jerk reaction.
I am certain that none of my video links make fun of believers who would interpret ancient myths in the Old Testament as just that: mythical. People who read fictional books and think that they are literal historical truth are fair game. To me, they are just as crazy as those who would believe in Star Wars or Peter Pan being non-fiction. Saying that I cannot point out the absurdity of their beliefs is only your opinion, HijackedTw1light. You are trying to make me look politically incorrect, saying that I am only making fun of believers. The truth of the matter is that believers who believe stupid things are being made fun of (believing dinos walked the Earth with humans, Noah's Ark was real, Grand Canyon created in five seconds, etc.). Such beliefs contradict reality and the believers should be mocked endlessly until they come to their senses. Should we leave them to their own little world? Should we just leave them alone? The answer would be "yes" if they were not threatening science education. But the mere fact of the matter is that they are not keeping their beliefs inside their church. They are bringing them out into the open, and threatening the very foundations of human progress (aka science).
4) I have no idea why you brought up the examples of how being a believer can change one's brain chemistry as some mark against me. Again, more knee-jerk reaction. More sensationalism on your part. This is valid ongoing research by a number of scientists looking at why the brains of believers work so differently, and show totally different patterns in activity, than non-believers. I find the research very interesting, and I hope it will shed more light on why believers (some of them) can't accept certain aspects of reality which conflict with their already established fantasy. If you find the research offensive, don't get mad at me. Get mad at the scientists doing the research. Get mad at the science journalists. Not me. As you can see below, it's a very valid research field:
Researchers find brain differences between believers and non-believers
http://www.physorg.com/news155404273.html
Brain Study Shows That Thinking About God Reduces Distress -- But Only for Believers
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100804110337.htm
Scientists investigate if atheists' brains are missing a �God Spot�
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/science/scientists-investigate-if-atheists-brains-are-missing-a-god-spot/article1521557/
5) By disparaging sacred texts do you mean that I am claiming they are not actually real stories? I quite enjoy reading Genesis (my favorite book of the Bible by far) and several other mythical texts. I am a fan of the Mbombo creation myth for sure. I love it. I have read all the Greek myths. Just because I am telling you not to take them literally, does not mean I am disparaging them. Again, this is just a knee-jerk emotional reaction on your part. I bet it's because you are a member of a religion that has an emotional connection to Genesis.
6) If you are still upset that I brought up Mbombo, it's not even my original idea to bring it up anyways. Why don't you watch the TEDtalks video where Dr. David Eagleman brings up the exact same myth with the exact same message I am telling you: that taking myths seriously is silly!
Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LENqnjZGX0A
Look at 6:50 of the video. He gets into the same Congo creation myth of Mbombo.
That's where I got the idea from anyhow. You can get mad at me all you want, but it's a valid example to illustrate my point. The "vomiting up the universe" myth is so absurd to take literally, it serves as a great example to showcase how we should not take ancient myths literally! If you feel that Dr. Eagleman was mocking religion there, why don't you write him a nasty letter saying why you are so offended with his comparing the Mbombo creation myth to the Adam & Eve myth (you know, the naked people, talking snake, prohibited produce)?
So, get angry at him while you're at it.
Again, you are just trying to make me look bad. But I think I've explained myself very clearly regarding the above points, and do not care to debate them further with you. You're wasting space on this thread trying to attack me personally. Everyone sees it. It's futile. I am not representing my own views here, but the views of science.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
1) You claim you�re attacking only a literal reading of sacred books, but not religion/belief itself.
|
I think I've already shot down your assessment here. I will heartily admit to my atheism, and that this leads to bias. But I try my best not to make fun of believers in general. Why would I want to polarize the crowd? Nope. I am only exposing the absurdities of literalist readings of holy books and how this leads to science denial.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
2) You lumped the creation story of Genesis in with a host of creation myths, disputing key conceptual differences between Genesis and other traditions.
|
This is merely your bias speaking. If you were a member of the Kuba clan in the Congo, you would be complaining that I am lumping the creation story of Mbombo with a host of creation myths. You would be saying how different your creation story was from others. The fact of the mater is: I don't care about the differences you noted, nobody cares. A myth is a myth is a myth. Deal with it.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
Your constant refrain since I wrote this has been that it's still not science. But I never claimed it was science. That�s just your strawman argument (by the way, since you're confused on this point, that�s the meaning of a strawman: when you pretend your opponent made an argument he never made and attack that argument instead of his real one).
|
It's certainly not a straw man. You yourself brought up examples of how the Genesis myth is apparently more scientifically superior than other creation accounts. Let me copy & paste exactly what you said earlier:
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
If you insist on playing this game, you should at least have the intellectual honesty to note conceptual differences with other creation stories and the things it gets right.
In most creation stories, there's a physically existing god (corporeal), operating in some unspecified environment (playground of the gods), during an unspecified pre-creation time period (a time before the universe).
But in Genesis there's a non-corporeal Creator, bringing the universe out of nothing, at a specified beginning of time. This is unique among ancient cosmologies. We have together non-corporeality, ex-nihilo, and an absolute beginning of time. Out of the thousands of ancient cosmologies it's the closest to our scientific understanding. Time itself grabbed a hold at the Big Bang. We know this now, but until halfway through the 20th Century, a majority of scientists agreed with Aristotle that the universe was eternal. When evidence for the Big Bang came in, many scientists felt uncomfortable.
|
You said that quotation above, not me: "The things it gets right." "Out of the thousands of ancient cosmologies it's the closest to our scientific understanding." It sure appears to me as if you are saying that Genesis contains a more scientific account of Creation than other creation myths. By saying that it is more scientific than other myths is silly, and I've mentioned that. It's not my straw man, it's your position.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
You also said there is corporeality of God in the Bible. You listed a passage from Genesis 3 about Adam in the garden. That�s not part of the creation story, hence irrelevant, but I went ahead and debunked it anyway (you were using a translation far from the original Hebrew).
|
Firstly, that was pucciniphiles post I was referring to. Second, yes, I still interpret that passage as corporeality. (My interpretation of a voice walking through the garden and looking around for Adam & Eve, amongst the bushes, this seems very corporeal to me. I am not the only one who interprets it this way.) From what I've seen, you can interpret it both ways. This just illustrates my point further that you one can interpret ambiguous passages any which way one wishes.
Anyhow, the entire mythical structure of the Bible does include one very striking example of God as corporeal. God becomes very corporeal when he comes down to Earth in the form of Jesus. Ask any Christian, and they will tell you that Christ is the Lord, their God.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
...a true beginning is the intuitive and common reading. Overall you�re trying to chip at the edges, claiming it�s debatable if these issues are absolutely defined or absolutely agreed to or absolutely consistent throughout the whole Bible. But my point doesn�t require that. These are clear, generally accepted, key conceptual differences between Genesis and other ancient creation narratives (I didn�t even bother mentioning monotheism), and out of all ancient creation stories it�s the most consistent with our understanding of cosmic origins.
|
Again: your "intuitive" or "common" reading is just one reading: an interpretation. Genesis never mentions the creation of time, and I am not the only one who interprets it this way. I am sure there are those who the creation of the Heavens as the creation of time. The point is that it is ambiguous and open to interpretation. That's what stories are: open to interpretation. That's what makes them interesting. And it is also why they should not be considered any more scientifically accurate than other myths.
Again: I do not care about the differences between the Genesis myth and the other myths, especially in understanding our cosmic origins. How many times must I tell you: a myth is a myth is a myth. Please, get that through your head.
We can understand our cosmic origins through astronomy, not ancient holy books. I am not interested in fighting over your interpretations of Genesis as being even slightly similar to reality. Not whatsoever. It's a myth.
Let me tell you just one more time: a myth is a myth is a myth.
Got it?
| pucciniphile wrote: |
It was only two months ago that Hijacked Twilight joined the thread,
making it very clear that he had no interest in joining one camp and shooting missiles at the other camp.
But that didn't stop him, that didn't stop me, and that didn't stop Brento.
|
That's ever-so correct, pucciniphile. Good observation. Hijacked Twilight is no different than a supposed "third party" observer who continually only attacks one side of the argument... wait... not even the argument, but one person making the argument. The one person who is doing most of the anti-fundamentalist/literalist/creationist writing here: myself. How sneaky...
To prove this fact more clearly, HijackedTw1light only recently divulged that he is religious in a rather questionably-timed attempt to accuse me of being "condescending" (when I was providing links about a religious faith in which he suddenly tells me he is apparently a part of). This 'reveal' was no coincidence. It was a poor attempt at making me appear condescending, as if I think the lurkers, the readers, and him, are dumb.
Later on, HijackedTw1light plays dumb about it, claiming he "doesn't even know" what I am talking about. Right.
His depiction of me amounts to an ad hom attack as he tries to represent me in an inaccurate, exaggerated, misleading way. He uses my examples I present (logical, rational, creative examples) and sensationalizes them to make it appear like I am some intolerant, angry person out to get religion. He gets angry when I cut and paste links, disparages my long posts which I find to be incredibly useful and descriptive (others have commented that they appreciate my informative posts). He says I am rambling.
Straw men, logical fallacies, sensationalizing my position, depicting me in an inaccurate, exaggerated, misleading way, saying I have given up 'rational arguments, nit-picking language, accusing me of irrelevant information within our conversations, butting his head into my discussions with others yet not understanding them, harping on stupid points I don't care about (like the corporeality of God, that Genesis is a better scientific account in comparison to other myths), accusing me of dishonesty with quoting an encyclopedia written by members of the religion I wanted to provide an example of, being offended by my rational assertion that myths are not reality, saying I am rambling... etc. etc.
I ask these questions:
Is HijackedTw1light helping out the thread at all?
Is HijackedTw1light just trying to make one person look bad?
Why doesn't HijackedTw1light challenge Junior?
Why doesn't HijackedTw1light challenge creationism?
What is HijackedTw1light's motivation here, really?
Why hasn't HijackedTw1light brought up anything interesting about evolution, science, religion which is not meant to somehow discredit me?
Oh, I see. Because HijackedTw1light has joined one side of the camp, but won't say so.
Not joining one camp, yet shooting off missiles at the other camp...
Very nice observation pucciniphile.
As for you, HijackedTw1light, let me do a little interpretation of my own.
I do not interpret our back-and-forth as "hit the mole." I interpret it as one of severe *** kicking and, quite frankly, I am tired of kicking your ***.
You've now severely degraded the thread down to personal attacks, deception, false accusations, nit-picking language, etc. There's no real discussion going on here. You aren't adding to this thread. You haven't mentioned a single interesting point about evolution or religion or anything except how "brento is wrong." Be proud of that, Hijacked Twilight. Be very proud.
I'm merely sticking up for myself. I've made no mistakes, I've done nothing wrong, and I've stuck to my guns all along. Period. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
