YEC 2

[Januarymadness]

Right I am going to bite. I shouldnt have looked at the facebook but I did.

Mr Ruggles you have made some horrible accusations. You have claimed everyone who disagreed with you was an atheist who lacked logic and reasoning. You were wrong on ALL counts. Many people told you they were Christian or Theists, they just didn't agree with you. The thread was also full of valid scientific arguments which were well worded and full of logic and reasoning.

You have also accused us all of being bullies. Something I saw no evidence of. Not agreeing with someone is not bullying.

So please do feel free to justify your off board comments here as speaking behind peoples backs is really not on.

Please could someone link to the old thread. Thanks

Best that is simply not true. Prople believe in evolution because of the evidence to support it. Many Many of those people are people of faith and if they were biased in any way it would be AGAINST evolution.

"Best - your position really doesn't make logical sense though. The REASON you think the world is 6000 years old is because the Bible (apparently) says so. The REASON most scientists don't think the world is 6000 years old is because the evidence doesn't point that way. NOT because they are trying to disprove the Bible or 'prove' evolution (for whatever motive). Best - surely you get that??"

I DO get that, Lizzy. The reason I think the world is 6000 years old is because the Bible says so. I believe the Bible is the Word of God. (And incidentally, so do over 2 billion other people on the earth. One third of the world's population. The world's largest religion.) So if it is, I would be foolish to believe anything else.

So since trying to convince me it is not the Word of God would be, to use AgeofReason's phrase, an uphill battle why not show me that my interpretation is wrong and that the Bible doesn't really teach a literal 6-day creation and a young earth. It IS possible because some people believe it but I've looked at all the evidence and it's pretty clear to me that it teaches 6-days.

The reason most scientists don't think the world is 6000 years old is because they THINK the evidence doesn't point that way. But they have never taken the time to look at all the evidence which does point that way.

As an illustration, look at this page about the debate over what killed the dinosaurs.

www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/extinctheory.html

There is the "gradualist" camp and the "catastrophist camp." We tend to think that the issue has been solved because we only seem to hear about an asteroid hitting the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico. But apparently the issue is still hotly debated within the scientific community.

All dinosaur extinction theories have supporting evidence. You might talk to a scientist who completely rejects the Alvarez Hypothesis and he might have excellent reasons for doing so. It doesn't make him a nutcase because he doesn't agree with the majority of mainstream scientists. Maybe he knows something they don't know. Maybe they are just following the crowd.

Ironically, in this example, evolutionists are analogous to the gradualists while the mainstream view of dinosaur extinction is analogous to the catastrophists - the creationist view.

if a creationist geologist doing work on the global Flood wants to be taken seriously, he has to submit it to his own journals where competing theories are hotly debated but everyone agrees with the same starting assumptions.

Was that supposed to be in support of creationists? because it sounds to me like a good summing up of why they should be dismissed. Science isn't science if it requires an audience willing to suspend belief in order to accept your claim.

Which starting assumptions btw? That god exists?, that enough water to cover the highest mountains can be magicked in and out again without affecting anything else?, that the ark animals managed without food for dozens of generations while the others propagated and built up a food supply.

"Btw saying "the old testament god" feels clumsy. Don't we know his name?"

Although no one knows for sure how to pronounce the Tetragrammaton (the name of God), Jehovah's Witnesses like to call Him Jehovah but I've read that Yahweh is more accurate.

Truthfully, I don't think He much cares what you call Him - as long as you call Him.

I believe the Bible is the Word of God. (And incidentally, so do over 2 billion other people on the earth.

Wrong.

Firstly, the number of Christians is hugely inflated - it probably still includes me, but more importantly the number of people who believe that the bible is the literal dictated word of god is immensely smaller. Just ask around on here and Christians will tell you "oh no! of course I don't think the bible is actually the word of god and that it's all true. It was just inspired by him"

"A question for you Best before I make a stab at explaining how mutations can generate new information - how do you feel about the concept of irreducible complexity? The reason I ask is that your answer will influence how I frame my response and what analogies I'll use."

I don't use it much as an argument (although I did give it a nod in my book.) I am well aware of the bacterial flagellum and Michael Behe's mouse trap analogy. I also realize that Kenneth Miller and others have tried - and I believe failed - to debunk it. I'm also aware of how the Type III Secretory System is used to "debunk" the argument.

So to answer your question:

1. I know the arguments but not extremely well.
2. What I know, I agree with.
3. I don't often use it - probably because I feel I don't understand it well enough to explain it properly or I just don't need it because I have so many other arguments and evidence that it never comes up.

"Ummm... I just got a bit of sick in my mouth."

That was the same reaction I had when I pictured you naked.

why not show me that my interpretation is wrong and that the Bible doesn't really teach a literal 6-day creation and a young earth. It IS possible because some people believe it but I've looked at all the evidence and it's pretty clear to me that it teaches 6-days.

If there's no way that you will stop believing the bible is the word of God then I'm afraid there's no hope for you. I will not try to demonstrate that the bible doesn't teach a literal 6 day creation because I don't believe it teaches anything at all about the origins of the universe. To even attempt to do what you would ask would be for you to expect me to start believing in bible truths. I'm not going to suddenly trust a single source of 'evidence' when I have a mass of evidence which suggests it's wrong.

You know, for someone who is so willing to learn the truth, you seem unbelievably tied to this one book which has been refuted more times than you can possibly imagine.

Looks like I caught up. And it only took me about 5 hours. Whew! I'm going to bed.

"Prople believe in evolution because of the evidence to support it."

January, most of the people I know who believe in evolution can't explain it to you when you ask them. I think most people who believe it do so because they think all those smart scientists can't be wrong. I think that would include many scientists who work in fields other than biology. Most people accept what they are told and scientists are no different. Ask an astronomer about evolution. He may know little more than what he learned in high school biology class 30 years ago (which by now is mostly wrong any way). I'm not saying that all, or even most, believe it on blind faith but many do.

I think it is a misrepresentation to say 2 billion people believe the bible is the litteral word of God. I would say that of those that have given it much thought (people signing up to a religion they have little or no interest in finding out exactly what it is they are signing up to is a MASSIVE bugbear of mine) a large proportion would say that the Bible is the interprative word of God.

I have to at least give you credit for the fact you have thought about it. You have been persuaded by invalid arguments but you do, at least, know what you have signed up to.

At the crux of the matter your argument is that God did it, God can do what he wants, God can make the evidence point which ever way he wants. If thats your view I can't argue. I can say stop trying to convince others with dodgy "evidence" though.

"Perhaps you can demonstrate which starting assumptions I have."

I've done so twice, Pedro. Here's another one. You assume the reliability of your senses. All scientists do.

See here:

www.science20.com/rugbyologist/scientific_assumptions

And here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The above link says, "There are basic assumptions derived from philosophy that form the base of the scientific method - namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world. These assumptions from methodological naturalism form the basis on which science is grounded."

I simply can't keep addressing this issue over and over. I would recommend doing a bit of research on the philosophy of science. It's a fascinating subject.

I just thought of one more. It's not an assumption so much as it is a guiding principle. Look up Karl Popper's principle of falsifiability. If you agree with Popper (as I do) that a valid scientific hypothesis or theory should be falsifiable, then you do indeed have a philosophy about how science should be done.

I am constantly examining and re-evaluating my basic assumptions and am always willing to discard them if necessary.

Pedro wrote On the forgiveness side. If you believe that God forgives rape and murder and you believe God is the entity who you must ultimately report to, what's to stop you committing atrocities towards your fellow man? The idea of this objective morality is flawed when it doesn't consider the wellbeing of others.

I don't see myself as 'reporting to' God, like some minor civil servant with a line manager .

It's wearisome to have to repeat it, but ok. The first and only real law is love. That encompasses a wish for the good of others. Nobody would therefore calculatingly behave as you suggest and effortlessly find their way back into love - sin on that scale leaves a mark on us; however, anyone, whatever their creed, can make big moral errors. (That btw is what best means by the word sin deriving from a term in archery - the term in the NT is actually harmatia, missing the mark, or the point.)

And does your fluffy law of 'wellbeing' include a wish for the wellbeing of murderers and rapists, or are they somehow discardable?

Best, the Spitalfields dig encompasses graves up to the 17th century, but let that pass. i don't think you've answered my question about the absence of classic rachetic sign on neanderthals - care to explain?

"Which starting assumptions btw? That god exists?, that enough water to cover the highest mountains can be magicked in and out again without affecting anything else?, that the ark animals managed without food for dozens of generations while the others propagated and built up a food supply."

These question all have simple answers and are based on misunderstandings. See the entire book I previously posted. Or the video of me on national TV answering them. Suffice it to say here that:

1. the water did not have to cover Mt Everest because Mt Everest wasn't there yet. (Mountain building was post-Flood catastrophic event).

1. If the land is evened out, there is enough water on this earth right now to cover it nearly 2 miles deep.

1. The majority of the water did not come from rain but from inside the crust of the earth.

Watch this short video for an excellent dramatization of how the Flood happened. No miracles are necessary and this theory has FAR more explanatory power than current theories.

best said 'You assume the reliability of your senses. All scientists do.'

The first actual scientist (Newton) spent days sticking needles in his eyes because he understood that in order to observe the universe you must understand how you observe...

We haven't actually gone back on that best, we are still VERY much aware that our senses CANNOT be relied on without stringent testing. So no, scientist do not ASSUME the reliability of senses. AT ALL.

I also second the comments that the number of people believing that the bible is literally the word of God is a tiny tiny fraction of those who self-identify as christian. I would have thought it less than a million tbh.

Best

Interesting that you are in such full agreement with a post from one of my benighted denomination. Just so we're clear, you have absolutely no chance of converting me to narrow fundamentalism.

You write

Remember that to God, all sins are equal. There is no hierarchy of bad sins and worse sins. (That seems to be a Catholic invention. Tell me, someone - do they charge more money to be absolved of the worse ones?)

This proves your history is as big a pile of rubbish as your pseudoscience. (There's nothing like abusing other denominations to make unbelievers eager to join the christian churches).

To clarify, and get away from ye olde rhetoric of the Thirty Years War-

Yes, RC thinkers actually dare to think that on the whole genocide is worse than forgetting to say a prayer. How dare they? Evidently you think stained glass windows are a worse crime, from your rant about the 2nd commandment.

Just so others know, NO RC priest charges for confession. Nor can anyone BUY forgiveness.

Yes, we pray for the dead, and yes, in the Middle Ages if you wanted people to pray for your soul all day and all night, they kinda needed food and a place to sleep. Someone has to pay for that.

I assume your rickety source for the so-called sale of indulgences is (ultimately) Martin Luther, vicious antisemite? (Sorry, any Lutherans out there - I really struggle with him.) Again, just so we're clear, indulgences were never sold. I can explain what actually happened if people like, but essentially the whole deal was an attempt to put a stop to mad self-harming movements like the Flagellants who took penance to ridiculous extents.

if I were an atheist I would appeal to biological evolution rather than to culture for a source of morality.

Well you could but you'd be an unusual atheist if you did. Evolution, after all, is about a biological process. It doesn't say much about ethics.

Most atheists I know use empathy as the fundamental basis for their personal morality.

I don't think the Bible even teaches hell as a place of eternal torment.

Yes it does.

Matthew 5:22: But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ?You fool!? will be liable to the hell of fire.

Mark 9:43: And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire.

Matthew 25:46: And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

Way to scare those sinful toddlers. (Whose sins are apparently "equal" to those of mass murderers according to Best).

agreeing with Seiglinde

January, most of the people I know who believe in evolution can't explain it to you when you ask them. I think most people who believe it do so because they think all those smart scientists can't be wrong. I think that would include many scientists who work in fields other than biology. Most people accept what they are told and scientists are no different. Ask an astronomer about evolution. He may know little more than what he learned in high school biology class 30 years ago (which by now is mostly wrong any way). I'm not saying that all, or even most, believe it on blind faith but many do.

It's not blind faith though, is it? It is evidence based science, and lots of it, which is preferable to most people when compared with taking the word of the bible literally. Blind faith is what you have when you're making the assumption that god exists in the absence of any scientific proof.

It's not like everyone just took Darwin's word for it.

whoever says, ?You fool!? will be liable to the hell of fire.

Bad news for MNetters!

That said, these passages do NOT say it lasts forever. It's purgation. Refinement.

And being liable to judgement doesn't mean you will be found guilty.

And NO TODDLER commits serious sins, she said again. Unless of course you are best, and think that saying 'you big pig' is on a par with genocide.

most of the people I know who believe in evolution can't explain it to you when you ask them. I think most people who believe it do so because they think all those smart scientists can't be wrong.

The issue though, is not whether people who believe in evolution understand it, it's whether the people who do understand it have the evidence to support it and no evidence which refutes it. As that is the case, it's irrelevant how many people believe or do not believe. What matters is the truth.

exactly Pedro. I cant explain how flat screen TV's work but I know Godidit is not the explanation. Science explains it.

I simply can't keep addressing this issue over and over. I would recommend doing a bit of research on the philosophy of science. It's a fascinating subject.

Perhaps, but I simply don't have those starting assumptions. You keep showing links to places which say science has these assumptions, but I don't, so you haven't demonstrated one single assumption which I have.