Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Modern creationism makes no sense

Page 20 of 29 [ 456 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 ... 29  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

30 May 2010, 4:10 am

Orwell wrote:
Quote:
And when it comes to the Bible, you are willing to contort your thoughts just so you can have your cake and eat it too

No, I just disagree with how you interpret the Bible. I am continually astounded at how dense conservative Christians can be on this topic. You have to recognize that it is possible for people to read the same passage and come to different conclusions.


To a degree, yes. However, there are only so many possible interpretations of what was intended by an author based upon historical and grammatical context. I dare you to interpret any one of your textbooks in the same flimsy manner you'd interpret the Bible. And not just interpret it for yourself, make a paper based upon such manner of interpretation and turn it in as such.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

30 May 2010, 4:21 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
I dare you to interpret any one of your textbooks in the same flimsy manner you'd interpret the Bible. And not just interpret it for yourself, make a paper based upon such manner of interpretation and turn it in as such.

Oh gee, that's exactly what I do as a history major. My professors haven't had any complaints about my work.

Where do you get off referring to my interpretation of the Bible as "flimsy?" As far as I know, the only place where you even know my opinion on the Bible is the fact that I am not a Biblical literalist, and it's not as though Biblical Literalism is the only or the most respected way of interpreting Scripture.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


01001011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

30 May 2010, 4:24 am

Orwell wrote:
01001011 wrote:
Have we ever seen a single new specie being created out of nowhere?

Out of nowhere? We have not observed abiogenesis, if that is what you're asking. We have observed the evolution of new species on many occasions, though. Plants can branch into a new species in a single generation. Drosophila species have diverged in the laboratory several times. We've seen speciation in rodent population several times.


Supposedly created by the creator. Isn't that what the creationists believe?



PLA
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Sweden

30 May 2010, 5:48 am

01001011 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
01001011 wrote:
Have we ever seen a single new specie being created out of nowhere?

Out of nowhere? We have not observed abiogenesis, if that is what you're asking. We have observed the evolution of new species on many occasions, though. Plants can branch into a new species in a single generation. Drosophila species have diverged in the laboratory several times. We've seen speciation in rodent population several times.


Supposedly created by the creator. Isn't that what the creationists believe?

Yes, but God conveniently lost his superpowers over the centuries, or began losing interest and/or need for using them.


_________________
I can make a statement true by placing it first in this signature.

"Everyone loves the dolphin. A bitter shark - emerging from it's cold depths - doesn't stand a chance." This is hyperbol.

"Run, Jump, Fall, Limp off, Try Harder."


greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

30 May 2010, 8:01 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
However from your posts on WP, you are all "consensus this, majority that" in regard to evolution

You seem to constantly misuse the concept of the appeal to authority fallacy to suit your purpose here but it doesn't actually work towards the justificacion repeatedly proposed to you.

Depending on how arguments are made that could actually be the case, however AG and Orwell's positions are not.

One question comes to mind though, would that be worse than rejecting a scientific theory because it poses a theological problem for biblical literalists? (to put it simpler, because "it contradicts scripture"?) I mean, you have admitted that "Evolution poses a theological problem" therefore the need to reject it, I see a great issue here.

Quote:
and the other items claiming to be science but rather are a form of just-so mythos taught as science.

It's funny how few creationists accuse evolution of the failure creationism actually is. It reminds me somewhat of this: "Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?" Mathew 7:3

In any case, can you propose a valid empirical evidence (not biblical nor theological) on why evolution is a "mythos thaught as science" (without an alternative that appeals to the supernatural)?


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


Last edited by greenblue on 30 May 2010, 9:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

30 May 2010, 8:28 am

PLA wrote:

Supposedly created by the creator. Isn't that what the creationists believe?

Yes, but God conveniently lost his superpowers over the centuries, or began losing interest and/or need for using them.[/quote]

You are confusing cause and effect. In only seems this way, because more and more we realize that the notion of a god that intervenes in the affairs of man is a nonsensical notion. As science advances, our belief in an interceding loving god who gives a damn about us, recedes.

ruveyn



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

30 May 2010, 11:45 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
To a degree, yes. However, there are only so many possible interpretations of what was intended by an author based upon historical and grammatical context. I dare you to interpret any one of your textbooks in the same flimsy manner you'd interpret the Bible. And not just interpret it for yourself, make a paper based upon such manner of interpretation and turn it in as such.

Textbooks and the Bible are not the same kind of literature at all period. In fact, if Orwell interpreted the Bible like a textbook, it is likely he would be making other hermeneutical errors. I mean, the non-literal interpretation of Genesis is pretty old, and even Augustine had a non-literal interpretation.

Secondly, as most scholars today believe, interpreting the Bible as an inerrant document is neither required, nor is it even correct. In short it is a flimsy hermeneutic, and one that nobody would grant to a textbook of any sort. The major basis for it tends to be 2 Tim 3:16-17, but the problem is that 2 Tim 3:16-17 certainly wouldn't refer to itself because canonization is a process that Paul has no control over. 2 Tim 3:16-17 also wouldn't refer to other scriptures in the New Testament because Paul is unlikely to have known about any of them given that they are usually dated much later, and also weren't canonized until much later. Finally, any argument that 2 Tim 3:16-17 must be true would be circular, the best that could be argued is that Paul's word is evidence in favor of the idea, but this does not prove anything and must be weighed against other evidence.



Yupa
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 May 2005
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,520
Location: Florida

30 May 2010, 1:18 pm

Creationism has never made any sense, "modern" or otherwise.



PLA
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Sweden

02 Jun 2010, 12:58 pm

ruveyn wrote:
PLA wrote:

Supposedly created by the creator. Isn't that what the creationists believe?

Yes, but God conveniently lost his superpowers over the centuries, or began losing interest and/or need for using them.


You are confusing cause and effect. In only seems this way, because more and more we realize that the notion of a god that intervenes in the affairs of man is a nonsensical notion. As science advances, our belief in an interceding loving god who gives a damn about us, recedes.

ruveyn[/quote]
I know.


_________________
I can make a statement true by placing it first in this signature.

"Everyone loves the dolphin. A bitter shark - emerging from it's cold depths - doesn't stand a chance." This is hyperbol.

"Run, Jump, Fall, Limp off, Try Harder."


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

02 Jun 2010, 1:42 pm

The real theory is the Satan is a dick theory:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlqDu2cDT0A[/youtube]
(somewhat inappropriate, PG-13 or so)



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

02 Jun 2010, 2:29 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
The real theory is the Satan is a dick theory:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlqDu2cDT0A[/youtube]
(somewhat inappropriate, PG-13 or so)

The sad thing is how accurate that parody of Liberty University is. They actually do make you sign a paper when you come in affirming that you believe exactly the same as they believe, and it's pretty strongly indicated that this includes their bizarre notions in regards to science.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,672
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

02 Jun 2010, 2:42 pm

Orwell wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
The real theory is the Satan is a dick theory:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlqDu2cDT0A[/youtube]
(somewhat inappropriate, PG-13 or so)

The sad thing is how accurate that parody of Liberty University is. They actually do make you sign a paper when you come in affirming that you believe exactly the same as they believe, and it's pretty strongly indicated that this includes their bizarre notions in regards to science.


If that's true, it must be a pretty crappy university.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

02 Jun 2010, 3:19 pm

Jono wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
The real theory is the Satan is a dick theory:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlqDu2cDT0A[/youtube]
(somewhat inappropriate, PG-13 or so)

The sad thing is how accurate that parody of Liberty University is. They actually do make you sign a paper when you come in affirming that you believe exactly the same as they believe, and it's pretty strongly indicated that this includes their bizarre notions in regards to science.


If that's true, it must be a pretty crappy university.


I don't know anything about LU. But I don't see a problem with that, the reason being is I chose a grad school based upon its ideology. It was a secular, state school, but as a musician and master's candidate in composition, it's more important that who you study with is aligned with your musical vision. Things like that really go a long way towards pushing students in achieving their goals, maybe even stretching their boundaries a bit. If I ever do go back to school for a doctorate, I want to choose a place that is idealistically contrary to where I am artistically. Where ever you go/whatever you do, it shouldn't be just another "status quo" decision. By ensuring that their students are in agreement with their ideals, they guarantee that the students will get all that the school has to offer, IMO.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

03 Jun 2010, 2:37 pm

AngelRho wrote:
I don't know anything about LU. But I don't see a problem with that, the reason being is I chose a grad school based upon its ideology. It was a secular, state school, but as a musician and master's candidate in composition, it's more important that who you study with is aligned with your musical vision. Things like that really go a long way towards pushing students in achieving their goals, maybe even stretching their boundaries a bit. If I ever do go back to school for a doctorate, I want to choose a place that is idealistically contrary to where I am artistically. Where ever you go/whatever you do, it shouldn't be just another "status quo" decision. By ensuring that their students are in agreement with their ideals, they guarantee that the students will get all that the school has to offer, IMO.

The problem is not just that you need to agree to a bunch of nonsense to enter, but also that you have to do the same to leave. The issue with the leaving part is that this denies people the ability to freely explores ideas and invalidates all of their efforts if they ever come to believe a different set of ideas, even if they make the grades. This is unlike anything that other universities do.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,672
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

03 Jun 2010, 2:53 pm

AngelRho wrote:
Jono wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
The real theory is the Satan is a dick theory:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlqDu2cDT0A[/youtube]
(somewhat inappropriate, PG-13 or so)

The sad thing is how accurate that parody of Liberty University is. They actually do make you sign a paper when you come in affirming that you believe exactly the same as they believe, and it's pretty strongly indicated that this includes their bizarre notions in regards to science.


If that's true, it must be a pretty crappy university.


I don't know anything about LU. But I don't see a problem with that, the reason being is I chose a grad school based upon its ideology. It was a secular, state school, but as a musician and master's candidate in composition, it's more important that who you study with is aligned with your musical vision. Things like that really go a long way towards pushing students in achieving their goals, maybe even stretching their boundaries a bit. If I ever do go back to school for a doctorate, I want to choose a place that is idealistically contrary to where I am artistically. Where ever you go/whatever you do, it shouldn't be just another "status quo" decision. By ensuring that their students are in agreement with their ideals, they guarantee that the students will get all that the school has to offer, IMO.


I don't know whether or not that's OK in the arts like when you're studying something like music. In the sciences though, it is definitely not OK. In particular, having to sign to that you agree to anything regarding what ideas you have to believe in limits something called intellectual freedom with regards to research. This is even more true if you have to sign that agreement to leave as well. Intellectual freedom is important in the sciences and allows it advance more rapidly because people are able to explore different ideas freely and do research in anything they passionate about. Furthermore, signing a paper like that means that you can't explore the alternative ideas even if the current one is wrong. That is very bad for science.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

03 Jun 2010, 4:46 pm

Jono wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Jono wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
The real theory is the Satan is a dick theory:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlqDu2cDT0A[/youtube]
(somewhat inappropriate, PG-13 or so)

The sad thing is how accurate that parody of Liberty University is. They actually do make you sign a paper when you come in affirming that you believe exactly the same as they believe, and it's pretty strongly indicated that this includes their bizarre notions in regards to science.


If that's true, it must be a pretty crappy university.


I don't know anything about LU. But I don't see a problem with that, the reason being is I chose a grad school based upon its ideology. It was a secular, state school, but as a musician and master's candidate in composition, it's more important that who you study with is aligned with your musical vision. Things like that really go a long way towards pushing students in achieving their goals, maybe even stretching their boundaries a bit. If I ever do go back to school for a doctorate, I want to choose a place that is idealistically contrary to where I am artistically. Where ever you go/whatever you do, it shouldn't be just another "status quo" decision. By ensuring that their students are in agreement with their ideals, they guarantee that the students will get all that the school has to offer, IMO.


I don't know whether or not that's OK in the arts like when you're studying something like music. In the sciences though, it is definitely not OK. In particular, having to sign to that you agree to anything regarding what ideas you have to believe in limits something called intellectual freedom with regards to research. This is even more true if you have to sign that agreement to leave as well. Intellectual freedom is important in the sciences and allows it advance more rapidly because people are able to explore different ideas freely and do research in anything they passionate about. Furthermore, signing a paper like that means that you can't explore the alternative ideas even if the current one is wrong. That is very bad for science.


Intellectual freedom is important, certainly, therefore don't waste time in college but study subjects on your own and come up with original thoughts or freely associate with those whom you agree with. However, if you do want to go to college in order to get an hundred thousand dollar vocational assistance paper, you can still exercise Intellectual freedom, but be sure that your papers and laboratory journals have the correct number of words and proper formatting, as that seems to be what matters... at least for Florida instructors of Crapmussen.