Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > How is the Bible consistent with science?

Pages: (6) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 >

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,06:44    Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 23 2006,12:31) I don't. Does Bozeman also believe creating and refuting obvious strawmen is going to work here? If not it might be him who's smarter. I think MOST people are smarter than Josh Bozeman, but what reminded me of JB here was the brief dip into snide, fratboy "real brilliant, guys" type sarcasm. You'll notice that JB pretty much can't argue a position for any length of time without the devastating argument of calling anyone who disagrees with him 'crazy'.  I don't think he could create and refute a strawman even if he wanted to. Heddle at least has a basic understanding of the broad outlines of how evolution works, even if his likely purpose for hanging out here is to undermine it all and replace it with a diluted formulation of IDC. JB lacks the basic education to even do that. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,06:52    Yeah, what I was referring to was his obvious strawman of turning "You're an idiot if you think people should go to he11 for ignorance" into "You're an idiot if 1500 years ago that's what you believed the bible said".

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,06:53    As Heddle points out, this notion of "predetermination" is at odds with Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc. (another instance of a clock being right twice a day ) and, well, mainstream christianity in general. A lot of the haranguing that evo-philes get from creationists (including those of the ID strain) is that "Darwinism" renders free will meaningless, and that spells the death of personal responsibility, and chaos and lawlessness necessarily follow. It seems to me that "Heddle-ism" is more antithetical to free will than "Darwinism" ever was. Those of us that drew the short straw before we were even conceived - I guess the only reason we have for not lying, cheating, stealing and going on murderous rampages is the fear of legal retribution. IIRC, there are some fundamentalist christians whose interpretation - excuse me - objective reading of the bible puts the number of humans selected to be God's eternal companions at 144,000 (i.e. an infinitesimal fraction of humanity). If that's the case, it seems like a pretty weak buttress for ethical conduct, the whole christianity message being irrelevant to 99.9999...% of us. Does Heddle-ism similarly estimate the fraction of us destined to be God's pets? -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

gregonomic Posts: 44 Joined: Dec. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,07:10    Heddle. I had a quick look at your blog. The predetermination stuff was a bit too Bible-centric for me, and you know how I feel about the Bible. Well, it's not surprising how I feel about the Bible, given today's revelations - I'm clearly not a member of the target audience. Is your book semi-autobiographical, by any chance? Anything in it that might clue us in to your "rebirth"? Leila, the undergrad beauty, maybe? You old horn dog, you! Actually, you look kinda young in the pic on your blog. I'd picked you as being much older. Congrats on jumping from #882,354 to #103,368 in the Amazon.com sales rank overnight, BTW.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,07:14    Quote (gregonomic @ Jan. 23 2006,13:10) Actually, you look kinda young in the pic on your blog. I'd picked you as being much older. I went thru the same thought process, too -- after reading several of heddle's posts to PT, I first thought he sounded like a cranky 65-year old. Then I saw the picture on his blog, and he looks like he's around 30. Not many young people write like Heddle.  (Except when he gets sarcastic. Then he sounds like his age.) -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,07:17    Quote (Chris Hyland @ Jan. 23 2006,12:29) I have read your posts on predetermination, although I have been told many times that all of my actions are selfish and sinful, i have never been told that this is all preditermined and there is nothing i can do about it. Is a good act then defined as one that is done in pursuit of god, or one that is done by someone who is preditermined to follow god? I asked a similar question, that if a Christian runs into a burning building to save a child, is that action seen as good or bad and whether that changes if it is a non-Christian.  The answer was that all actions are bad.  Here's the actual quote: Quote Given that the bible says that in our fallen state all our righteous acts are filthy rags, and that nobody can please God--I would say that even the best acts of fallen man are tainted by sin, and that makes those acts of no merit before God.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,07:19    Quote (GCT @ Jan. 23 2006,13:17) Given that the bible says that in our fallen state all our righteous acts are filthy rags, and that nobody can please God--I would say that even the best acts of fallen man are tainted by sin, and that makes those acts of no merit before God. And to think that Christians are always claiming that atheists 'have a dismal, bleak worldview'... -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,07:21    Quote all our righteous acts are filthy rags, and that nobody can please God--I would say that even the best acts of fallen man are tainted by sin, and that makes those acts of no merit before God. I could never find life as grim and worthless as some of these religious people, that's for sure.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,07:54    Hey Mr. Chatfield, I hear that you're supposed to be some sort of language expert.    Two questions: 1) Have you heard of John McWhorter, and if so, how would you rate The Power of Babble? 2) Has any modern language ever increased its number of declensions and conjugations over time? Languages always seem to trim extraneous grammar as they mix with others. I know that McWhorter uses the [pidgeon -> creole -> language] model of language evolution, but attic greek and Latin seem "too" complex (yes, the Greek city-states were often geographically separated, but I don't think this fully explains the complexity). I'm not looking for a debate - just your opinion. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,07:57    stevestory: Quote could never find life as grim and worthless as some of these religious people, that's for sure. If you read carefully, you'll notice that life is grim and worthless only for YOU , and only in THEIR opinion. They themselves, doing exactly the same acts but armed with "right" irrational beliefs, are uplifted instead, in their opinion. Back to a question I asked earlier: Has anyone here every known anyone's god to answer his prayers by telling him his opinions are incorrect?

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,08:01    Ghost: I can answer your question to your satisfaction: Ancient Latin and Greek are much too complex to have happened naturally. God must have bequeathed them to those who Believed, who were able to spread them because they were superior people, as are all God's chosen people. Did I get it right?

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,08:14    The 'scientists' say Greek came from ProtoIndoEuropean, but of course they're wrong, because there is no missing link language which is exactly half ProtoIndoEuropean and half Greek. Anyway, similarity doesn't imply common descent. The Intelligent Linguist could have made them similar for other reasons.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,08:25    1--> Quote (Flint @ Jan. 23 2006,141) [quote=stevestory,Jan. 23 2006,13:21]Let me turn that around—are you admitting that you are unaware of research into the genetic causes of aging? [/quote] Nice try, Heddle, but let ME turn THAT around: are you faulting me for not having heard some theory (which you evidently don't understand anyway) that states that 'long ago', someone or something (ever specified?) was able to turn off the genes for aging such that people really could live to be 900 years old -- in absence of any real evidence of anyone ever living to be anywhere near that old? Is THAT what you're getting on my case for here? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

heddle Posts: 126 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,08:29    Russell, Quote It seems to me that "Heddle-ism" is more antithetical to free will than "Darwinism" ever was. Those of us that drew the short straw before we were even conceived - I guess the only reason we have for not lying, cheating, stealing and going on murderous rampages is the fear of legal retribution. It [predestination]  is not at odds with free will, although that is a reasonable and common first reaction. Not easy to explain in a few lines, I have a post coming up soon on that topic. He is the briefest sketch: Free will is taken to be that you always choose based on your strongest inclination at the moment. You choose to pay taxes, for example, because even though you may not "really" want to, given the choose between paying taxes or going to jail, you prefer to pay taxes. This means you are free but determined. You are not controlled by a puppet master, it is not fatalism—you can choose whatever you want. In fact, you always chose what you want. The unbeliever’s dilemma is he does not want God. The bible teaches that nobody in their natural state seeks God. Nobody. Being reborn means that you are given, as a divine act, a desire for God. So, with your own free will, you eventually choose God. Free will is never sacrificed. Note: this is a thumb-nail, zeroth order sketch, but I think it gets the idea across. BTW, you don’t know for certain that you will not be drawn by God. I was much like you, and would have thought it impossible. Gregonomic, Quote clearly not a member of the target audience. Is your book semi-autobiographical, by any chance? Anything in it that might clue us in to your "rebirth"? Leila, the undergrad beauty, maybe? You old horn dog, you! Actually, you look kinda young in the pic on your blog. I'd picked you as being much older. Congrats on jumping from #882,354 to #103,368 in the Amazon.com sales rank overnight, BTW. You, just like Russell, might be. I hope so. The book is somewhat, though not trivially, autobiographical. Leila has an important role, but she is not the source of being reborn.  The jump on Amazon means one or two people bought the book overnight. Amazon has a decay law for book rankings that is a bit depressing to behold. Arden, Quote Not many young people write like Heddle.  (Except when he gets sarcastic. Then he sounds like his age.) A fair criticism—I hate being sarcastic even as I do it. -------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,08:30    Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 23 2006,14:14) The 'scientists' say Greek came from ProtoIndoEuropean, but of course they're wrong, because there is no missing link language which is exactly half ProtoIndoEuropean and half Greek. Anyway, similarity doesn't imply common descent. The Intelligent Linguist could have made them similar for other reasons. You're right, language change could never happen. I mean, I've never seen Spanish change into Chinese. I mean, it's just not believable. Besides, if Italian is descended from Latin, how come we still have Latin?   -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,08:56    Quote You're right, language change could never happen. I mean, I've never seen Spanish change into Chinese. I mean, it's just not believable. Besides, if Italian is descended from Latin, how come we still have Latin? You guys are just a' teasin me... C'mon. Don't you find attic greek a little much? Was the speech a lot less complicated than the written form? Perhaps the literati contrived the complexity to separate themselves from the masses. Just looking for your opinion - and are you familiar with McWhorter's work? -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,08:58    Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 23 2006,13:54) Hey Mr. Chatfield, I hear that you're supposed to be some sort of language expert.    Two questions: 1) Have you heard of John McWhorter, and if so, how would you rate The Power of Babble? 2) Has any modern language ever increased its number of declensions and conjugations over time? Languages always seem to trim extraneous grammar as they mix with others. I know that McWhorter uses the pidgeon -> creole -> model, but attic greek and Latin seem "too" complex (yes, the Greek city-states were often geographically separated, but I don't think this fully explains the complexity). I'm not looking for a debate - just your opinion. Ghost: 1) Yes, I've heard of John McWhorter, and in fact I know him personally.However, while I've read several of his linguistics articles, I've never read any of his popular linguistics books (such as "Power of Babel") nor any of his sociopolitical books. I don't object to them for any reason, I just haven't gotten around to reading them. 2) while it's not real common, there are known cases of languages which increased their number of declensions and conjugations over time. In fact, McWhorter is one of the main people who is writing books about this, and he's pointed out that when a language simplifies drastically, it basically is always caused by language contact and second-language learning. This is the reason why English is so much more grammatically simple than German and Icelandic. As far as the complexity of Latin and Greek go, many languages are just a complex as them and haven't lost any of their complexity. For example, the Slavic languages are every bit as complex as Latin and Greek and none of them have lost more than a fragment of their complexity (except Bulgarian). And besides, as these things go, languages can get WAY more complex than Latin or Greek. Just open a grammar of, say, Finnish, Mohawk or Navajo and you'll see what I mean. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,09:08    Quote Miracles have a certain flavor about them i.e.,—short duration, clearly written as miracles and most importantly recognized as miracles by the witnesses. oh?  prove it.  you're just backpeddaling, there davey boy. Why do Carol/Landa, who claim to be expert on OT transliteration, and involved in publishing on the topic, have less expertise on the subject that youself? do you think your opinions on the subject more authoritative? like i said... prove it. Quote You guys want this too-simplistic criticism—that anything that is shown to be unscientific can simply be declared a miracle—but that is unthinking. my logic is perfectly clear.  the unthinking part is a pure projection of your own making.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,09:22    Quote BTW, you don’t know for certain that you will not be drawn by God. If so, the Big Guy better get his invitation in the mail pretty soon. (Either that, or your bible-based researchers will have to figure out how to fix the broken Methuselah gene pretty soon.) So, what about that 144,000 number? What do you think: high, low, about right? Related question: Can one be a christian, and not be destined for Kennel in the Sky, or is one necessarily a "false christian" if one claims to be a christian, but is actually not among the fortunate few? -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,09:46    Quote (Russell @ Jan. 23 2006,15:22) ...So, what about that 144,000 number? What do you think: high, low, about right? ... Where did you get the 144 000 from?

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,09:52    isn't 144K the number of folks supposedly left after the "apocalypse"?

Ved Posts: 398 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,10:29    Quote I am glad someone pointed out the flaw in that “one-tenth” argument. Life expectancy at birth is almost irrelevant. True, it's irrelevant, but present-day people still only expect to live to 1/10th of 600 to 900 years. I still see a one tenth argument. Quote The short-term aspects of miracles means they leave little or no signature other than witnesses. Some miracles, maybe. Here's what I'd like to know about the miraculous ages of people like Noah. I don't read the bible, and I don't plan to, so I need a little help with what may or may not be in there. It's really easy to write down that Noah lived for 600 years, but is there any more circumstantial evidence written in his (or anyone else's) story that makes the claim more believable? In other words, if multiple people live for multiple centuries, I would expect there to some dramatic differences in the number of children they had compared to us, like, say, 10 times the number of our typical offspring. Or was infant mortality that incredibly high? Remember also, that childbirth back then was very hazardous, so I would think it would be unlikely that a woman could give birth to 50 childen to end up with 5 surviving infancy. Sorry to be arguing from incredulity, but I just don't know the answer to these questions. For me, the best explanation is that the stories are simply exaggerations. What all of this brings to my mind is the classic lesson of any story of the genie in the lamp- that wishes granted can have profound unforseen consequences in the real world... wish for superhuman strength, and you might accidentally crush your child to death, and so on...

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,10:38    Re: 144,000. I think that comes from "Revelations" the last book in the New Testament. Revelations reads like a log of someone's LSD experience, so it's hard to know whether to take a given passage as literal prediction, as metaphor, or merely as "inerrant". An apocalyptic catastrophe is described, of which there are 144000 survivors. I believe that some christians have taken the catastrophe as metaphorical for the ordeal of death, and that a total of 144,000 souls would survive before God rang down the curtain and closed the show. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,10:49    Revelations is one of the more interesting books. Jesus goes from friendly hippy to psychotic mass murderer. Great big revenge fantasy.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,11:09    Quote (Russell @ Jan. 23 2006,16:38) Re: 144,000. I think that comes from "Revelations" the last book in the New Testament. Revelations reads like a log of someone's LSD experience, so it's hard to know whether to take a given passage as literal prediction, as metaphor, or merely as "inerrant". An apocalyptic catastrophe is described, of which there are 144000 survivors. I believe that some christians have taken the catastrophe as metaphorical for the ordeal of death, and that a total of 144,000 souls would survive before God rang down the curtain and closed the show. Ugh! Revelations, too wierd to read. But I will give it a skim. 144 000 sure is a small %

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,11:20    Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 23 2006,16:49) Revelations is one of the more interesting books. Jesus goes from friendly hippy to psychotic mass murderer. Sort of a good cop/bad cop story... Revelations is really nutty. So much so that the Catholics pretty much say of it, "Er, it's alright, you can just skip over this bit..." Shame so many Protestants seem to think it's THE most important part of the Bible. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,11:29    Found the 144 000 part. Rev 7:4-8. 12 000 from each of the 12 tribes of Isreal.

heddle Posts: 126 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,11:33    Guys, the book is named Revelation not Revelations. And it is extremely difficult to understand. Many modern Christians have a "left behind" futurist view, that it refers to future events, the rapture, Battle of Armageddon, etc.  I disagree. I have a "preterist" view. I think it refers, in eastern apocalyptic manner, to the events of AD 70 when Roman Legions crushed the Jewish war of rebellion, destroyed Jerusalem, descrated and destroyed the temple ending Jewish temple worship to this day, killed a million (a huge percentage) Jews and took a couple hundred thousand into slavery. But in truth, I find it very hard to read. -------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,11:43    David, I have heard the term "morning star" used to describe Satan (admitedly usually from Hollywood productions). Yet in Rev. Jesus claims the title. Any insights?

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,11:45    In response to something Carol posted over at PT, instead of here, where it actually belongs: Carol of course, and as usual, simply dismisses analysis that shows her own statements to be contradictory. scroll back a bit Carol.... take a look at the direct quote from landa that you also posted (and made note of) about the OT protagonists' age being miraculous. now look at Heddle's post just a few down from that. What does he say? now tell me who is lying and who isn't. again, your logic fails you, as it does Heddle. It seems quite clear from Heddle's own analysis that he considers what you would call a miracle to be just a god of the gaps argument; one that can be solved with modern science. it's not a simplistic argument, but it is a simple one on the face of it. you both are dealing with heavy issues of denial. You can go ahead and try to stroke each other's fur all you want. it's kinda funny, really.

Pages: (6) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard