Perhaps the contradiction is hard to see when it is stated at an abstract level, so I will give a more concrete example. Persons who advocate the compromise position called "theistic evolution" are in my experience always vague about what they mean by "evolution." They have good reason to be vague. As we have seen, Darwinian evolution is by definition unguided and purposeless, and such evolution cannot in any meaningful sense be theistic. For evolution to be genuinely theistic it must be guided by God, whether this means that God programmed the process in advance or stepped in from time to time to give it a push in the right direction. To Darwinists evolution guided by God is a soft form of creationism, which is to say it is not evolution at all. To repeat, this understanding goes to the very heart of Darwinist thinking. Allow a preexisting supernatural intelligence to guide evolution, and this omnipotent being can do a whole lot more than that.
Of course, theists can think of evolution as God-guided whether naturalistic Darwinists like it or not. The trouble with having a private definition for theists, however, is that the scientific naturalists have the power to decide what that term "evolution" means in public discourse, including the science classes in the public schools. If theistic evolutionists broadcast the message that evolution as they understand it is harmless to theistic religion, they are misleading their constituents unless they add a clear warning that the version of evolution advocated by the entire body of mainstream science is something else altogether. That warning is never clearly delivered, however, because the main point of theistic evolution is to preserve peace with the mainstream scientific community. The theistic evolutionists therefore unwitting serve the purposes of the scientific naturalists, by helping persuade the religious community to lower its guard against the incursion of naturalism.
We are now in a position to answer the question with which this lecture began. What is Darwinism? Darwinism is a theory of empirical science only at the level of microevolution, where it provides a framework for explaining such things as the diversity that arises when small populations become reproductively isolated from the main body of the species. As a general theory of biological creation Darwinism is not empirical at all. Rather, it is a necessary implication of a philosophical doctrine called scientific naturalism, which is based on the a priori assumption that God was always absent from the realm of nature. As such evolution in the Darwinian sense is inherently antithetical to theism, although evolution in some entirely different and non-naturalistic sense could conceivably have been God's chosen method of creation.
In 1874, the great Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodge asked the question I have asked: What is Darwinism? After a careful and thoroughly fair-minded evaluation of the doctrine, his answer was unequivocal: "It is Atheism." Another way to state the proposition is to say that Darwinism is the answer to a specific question that grows out of philosophical naturalism. In the game of "Jeopardy", let us say that Darwinism is the answer. What, then, is the question? The question is: "How must creation have occurred if we assume that God had nothing to do with it?" Theistic evolutionists accomplish very little by trying to Christianize the answer to a question that comes straight out of the agenda of scientific naturalism. What we need to do instead is to challenge the assumption that the only questions worth asking are the ones that assume that naturalism is true.
(*Copied Source)
Well, Dan, from what I've read, the results of mutation and selection can be quite impressive indeed. For example, I have read about neural nets, electronic ciruits "designed" to detect and distinguish letters. My understanding is that engineers started with more or less random configurations, kept with slight adjustments the ones with the best accuracy and repeated for many iterations. The final results were very impressive. They could do what they were meant to do, recognize letters, to a degree that explicitly designed circuits could not. How do they work? No one really knows. The resulting circuits are too complicated for anyone to analyze. The method can certainly be considered a type of guided evolution.
ReplyDeleteNow, I think you are correct when you assert that individuals believing in an evolutionary process are biased when they make their decisions on whether it was guided or mindless. Strictly speaking, we have no way to tell the difference. That is, of course, assuming we never see the "designer's hand."
But there is another reason why I think that many christian particularly dislike evolution, why they insist it must be false. (I, myself, don't know whether it's true or false and don't really care. I do care about people on both sides "pretending to know." And don't get me wrong. I am sure they are convinced.) While it is certainly plausible that a supernatural being could use a tool like evolution, it ruins the claim of omnipotence. Why would an omnipotent being need to use tools to accomplish anything? Of course, the supposed sacrifice and resurrection is itself a type of tool.
GE,
ReplyDelete"Just n case you think I was insulting you Dan."
It is still a personal attack with no discussion going on.
Pvblivs,
ReplyDelete"The resulting circuits are too complicated for anyone to analyze."
The hypothesis was that we went from simple organisms to more and more complex until we get to mankind. We now observe that just wasn't the case. It failed from point one made.
"pretending to know." I don't 'pretend to know' I just fully trust God and His Word. We trust it like we would trust a parachute. Not questioning, just jumping. I welcome the obvious data to point to the contrary if there were any. I once said that I would eat my Bible if they fould life on other planets
"Why would an omnipotent being need to use tools to accomplish anything? Of course, the supposed sacrifice and resurrection is itself a type of tool."
This isn't a fair comparison. First we believe evolution to be false because evolution seeks to proof naturalism which is also false. How do I know this? There is a God.
Second for arguments sake the so called "tool" you talk of, Christ dying on the cross, was to save US not to create us. Your are correct God doesn't need tools to create. But WE need a "way" for us to be saved, otherwise we will all perish.
Thanks for your level head now we just need to work on you acknowledge that God did in fact give YOU a way to be saved. Use the God given "tool" for all of our sake. I would hate to see that level head of yours wasted.
God chooses leaders and you are at least going against the current of popular opinion and that is a wonderful start. I pray God takes notice of this point. Keep seeking truth!
The whole article is pure charlatanry even if you erase my answers. We have told you why. Being a charlatan is what this guy has chosen, so you should not expect us to respect him. His own choosing his own fault.
ReplyDeleteThe main point remains, these arguments were built to reassure the credulous, not to convince anybody who has the proper knowledge. many posters have shown you why, and I was stating a conclusion. Why can the charlatan insult us (as conspirators) and we cannot call him on that?
I know you will erase this one too. OK, fine.
G.E.
GE,
ReplyDeleteI will give you some grace and I will leave that up as your viewpoint.
Interesting example. I trust you realize that I do not have blind faith in a parachute. I have seen parachutes in operation (full-sized only in videos, but miniatures slowing down rocks and toy soldiers directly.) Even then, if I had forknowledge that a plane was going to give out in mid-air and that I would need to use a parachute, I would not get on the plane. You see, I understand the concept of a parachute, but I also know they sometimes fail.
ReplyDeleteAnother consideration is that I do not believe that the bible is the word of any god. I mean, if there is a god, he doesn't seem to be very interested in persuading people that the bible is true. I am sure that if the stars in the sky were rearranged to say "the bible is true," a lot of people would be convinced. Instead we have believers interpreting events as "fulfilled prophecies." Usually, the original "prophecy" could easily have been the author writing about something he witnessed. Invariably, the "prophecy" is interpreted to match the event. You will not find the words "Soviet Union," "United States," "atomic bomb," or "Adolf Hitler" anywhere in the pages.
If an omnipotent god wanted us all saved, he simply decree it so. So, I think it is a fair comparison. And before you say it is necessary for "justice," (a claim I don't believe) if justice is a standard above your god, he is limited and has boundaries. If justice is simply his decree, the sacrafice was not necessary. He could have decreed all saved and it would be just (by your definition anyway.)
Dan,
ReplyDeleteIf there is a God, and this God is that amazingly powerful and beyond matter and time, and beyond comprehension and all:
Why would this God be hostage of whatever is written in the Bible?
This is a sincere, very loaded, question.
G.E.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"The hypothesis was that we went from simple organisms to more and more complex until we get to mankind. We now observe that just wasn't the case."
I beg of you. Please give two straight answers to my questions.
Who observed that was not the case.?
Where is the data.?
Loved the post. I think you do a good job of cutting through a lot of the peripheral issues that people want to get sidetracked by.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that it all comes down to what I will call bias. Theists come to the table with the bias that there is more to what we know than what is provable AND that a part of that unknown could be and is GOD. Naturalists come to the table at the same starting point (there is more to know than what we already know) but if it is not provable I will not accept it.
It is really not a matter so much of does God exist to some, as much as it is a matter of He must prove himself to me.
Interesting that one post says that
"If an omnipotent god wanted us all saved, he simply decree it so."
Yes, he could have. And I could have told my son to be come a doctor. But would he have made a good one? We are created in his image, we give our children choices. Could he not do the same? Sorry, God does not have to play by your rules or even make sense to you or me. Just because I don't like or understand the way He does things doesn't mean he does not exist.
Naturalists want to claim that they are unbaised, but failure to accept that which is not provable (by their standards) is a bias.
"Where is the data?" "Who observed that was not the case?"
Just goes to point. Not all of Darwin's theory can be PROVEN, we just have data that leads to A conclusion. Yet in their bias they have left out a world of other potential conclusions.
"While it is certainly plausible that a supernatural being could use a tool like evolution, it ruins the claim of omnipotence. Why would an omnipotent being need to use tools to accomplish anything? Of course, the supposed sacrifice and resurrection is itself a type of tool."
Why not? Again, you are trying to use a mortal mind to comprehend the immortal. You look at something, and because it does not fit your way of thinking, it is discounted. That might work if you are the highest form of thinking, but falls flat if you aren't.
To a certain degree it amounts to where do you think real truth can be found. Theist start with God, Naturalists the opposite. Part of the reason the debate often gets so heated is because there doesn't seem to be a middle ground. So we pick our sides and start throwing stones.
"The main point remains, these arguments were built to reassure the credulous, not to convince anybody who has the proper knowledge."
Case in point. This is nothing but stone throwing. It basically calls anyone who believes in God a sap, and those who don't are the enlightened with the proper knowledge. Ouch! Or to quote Dan, nana nana boo boo!
As far as the parachutes are concerned, nice twist of the illustration. Dan's point was about faith. We trust the parachute to open. True, it may fail, but it is simply an illustration of a point. To fail to get on the plane (which is what in a sense those who refuse to accept the possibility of the divine do) is to miss out on so much. What if you did have the foreknowledge that the plane was going to crash, but then since you were not on it, it didn't and a rock fell on you and killed you? Thank-goodness, because then you just saved the lives of all the people on the plane.
Well, I've had just about all of the fun I can stand for one day. Keep up the good work, Dan. YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
Spherical:
ReplyDelete"And I could have told my son to be come a doctor. But would he have made a good one?"
That is little more than pointing out that you are not omnipotent. You cannot make your son be a good doctor. An omnipotent being, if he so chose, could. That's the whole point. If he doesn't save everyone, it means either he can't or he doesn't want to. Even if you are trying to state that things are more important, it only puts it into the "can't" column.
"Why not? Again, you are trying to use a mortal mind to comprehend the immortal. You look at something, and because it does not fit your way of thinking, it is discounted. That might work if you are the highest form of thinking, but falls flat if you aren't."
And you are doing is little more than telling me not to think. The fact is that I must use my best judgement. Before you can criticize me for "trying to fathom the infinite," you must demonstrate the reality of it. Otherwise, the claim of infiniteness may be a deception created by a finite being who doesn't want people to look too closely. Ironically, before you can criticize it, you must first validate it.
"As far as the parachutes are concerned, nice twist of the illustration. Dan's point was about faith. We trust the parachute to open."
It's not a twist of the illustration at all. There are reasons why we expect parachutes to open. If someone expected me to trust a parachute under the same type of conditions that Dan expects me to trust his god (no evidence, a bunch of stories, and a "you just have to have faith") I wouldn't trust it at all. It is only because I can understand parachutes "with my mortal mind" that I trust them.
Ultimately, you may persuade me to follow a god whom I think good. But I must be able to comprehend this goodness. It will be completely ineffective if you tell that this god is we know not what but expect me to trust that he is good. You are, in essence trying to "have it both ways." You are claiming knowable to assert goodness and worthiness of worship. But you claim unknowable when anyone tries to examine the claims.
pvblivs
ReplyDeleteYou said...
"An omnipotent being, if he so chose, could. That's the whole point. If he doesn't save everyone, it means either he can't or he doesn't want to."
That's awful black and white. Are you saying that there are no other possibilities? You say yourself, IF HE CHOSE TO. That means He could choose not to save everyone. Trying to determine why is trying to play God.
"And you are doing is little more than telling me not to think."
Am I telling you not to think, or am I asking you to think with a broader perspective? I am not saying that you should throw logic out the window, but I do ask that you include more than just the provable in your list of possibilities. To quote Mark Twain. "Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't."
"Before you can criticize me for "trying to fathom the infinite," you must demonstrate the reality of it."
No, I don't. Goes to the whole idea of my post. You choose to not look outside the box. You choose to limit your consideration of such things. Thank goodness our founding fathers did not take this attitude with the idea of a democratic form of government!
"It is only because I can understand parachutes "with my mortal mind" that I trust them."
So does this mean that parachutes only work for those who understand them?
"You are claiming knowable to assert goodness and worthiness of worship. But you claim unknowable when anyone tries to examine the claims."
Is God knowable? Not to a complete degree, but certainly enough for us to worship Him. But it all depends on your starting point. If all that you accept is proof positive and everything has to fit into your box, I can't do it.
Spherical:
ReplyDelete"That's awful black and white. Are you saying that there are no other possibilities?"
Yes, I am. All possibilities for an action are covered by "does," "won't," and "can't." If he chose not to, that is an instance of "won't."
"Am I telling you not to think, or am I asking you to think with a broader perspective?"
You are telling me not to think. Saying things like "you cannot comprehend the infinite; so you must just trust that he is good" is telling me not to think. Asking me to think in a broader perspective would be adding information that I can both comprehend and verify. Incidentally, truth does stick to possibilities. It just isn't constrained by what we can think of.
"No, I don't. Goes to the whole idea of my post. You choose to not look outside the box. You choose to limit your consideration of such things. Thank goodness our founding fathers did not take this attitude with the idea of a democratic form of government!"
Exactly the opposite, I choose not to be constrained by your box. Interestingly, the founders did seek to fathom democracy instead of insisting it was something that could not be understood.
"So does this mean that parachutes only work for those who understand them?"
No, but if I did not understand them, I would have no more reason to believe in them than I would in a magic rock. A magic rock might work. I don't want to be the guinea pig, though.
"Is God knowable? Not to a complete degree, but certainly enough for us to worship Him. But it all depends on your starting point. If all that you accept is proof positive and everything has to fit into your box, I can't do it."
Ah, but here's the catch. It's not that I have a little box. You are not capable of justifying the "worthy of worship" idea to anyone who does not accept it uncritically. In order to determine that a god is good, I must also have an idea of what it would mean for him not to be good. I have to make judgements about his choices. And that's what you called "playing god." Right now, I don't even have evidence that he is real. I have people telling me to "trust in him." But, quite frankly, until I have evidence, you are really telling me to trust in you.
Spherical,
ReplyDeleteThough pvblivs gave you lots of good answers I could not resists to give you one more:
Just because I don't like or understand the way He does things doesn't mean he does not exist.
If you cannot understand the way he does things how can you trust him? How can you know that he is good and merciful, and omni-anything if you cannot understand him? How can you claim anything about him if you cannot understand him?
To me, if he built us with s sinful nature he is not omni-anything, just some little kid-god playing with stuff to amuse himself. For instance (and I am already accepting a lot of mythology as truth here), a good god would be able to create us with free will, but with a nature that could decide not to sin. Yet, he creates us with an impossible to resist sinful nature, then waits for a long time before coming in flesh and sacrifice himself, and he is at the same time his own son so that people can say later "he sacrificed his own son," which, to us, sounds like quite the sacrifice. Come on! It does not make sense in any way.
And that just without considering the treachery of filling our planet with lots of stuff that just "looks like proof of evolution." Why the deception?
So, some spoiled kid-god playing with his created little toys with characteristic cruelty. That would fit better with the contradictions of your deity, and your own statement that we cannot understand him.
G.E.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteAs you can see, from Spherical's post, only the creationists can see these deceitful arguments you took from Johnson as a "good job."
Apparently Spherical didn't even read the responses.
G.E.
Dan wrote:
ReplyDelete"The hypothesis was that we went from simple organisms to more and more complex until we get to mankind."
What do you mean by this? Whose hypothesis? Certainly not Darwins: he came to this conclusion after he had formulated the theory we attribute to him.
It is an implication of the ToE, not a hypothesis of it.
Dan wrote:
"We now observe that just wasn't the case. It failed from point one made."
The second sentence doesn't make sense given that Humans decending from apes isn't event 'a point' of ToE, let alone 'point one', and as for the first sentence:
Dale wrote:
"Who observed that was not the case.?
Where is the data.?"
Dan wrote:
ReplyDelete"The hypothesis was that we went from simple organisms to more and more complex until we get to mankind."
That has never been an evolutionary hypothesis. Whatever you're arguing against, it's not the science that supports all of biology.
Beyond that, you wrote:
Once we put God into the picture, however, there is no good reason to attribute the creation of biological complexity to random mutation and natural selection.
Once you put God into the picture, there is no good reason to attribute anything to "natural" causes of any sort, and science itself stops dead. You're not arguing against evolution, you're arguing against the entire scientific enterprise.
You're actually arguing against "naturalism" in any form, which means that if you wake up tomorrow and find your mailbox in the same place it was today, that's due to the Grace of God, and no other reason. If your floor doesn't transmute into lava while you're having breakfast, it's only because God didn't want your floor to suddenly kill you.
Most people, even most theists (and even most deeply devout theists), don't think that way. They behave as if the world around them is only susceptible to natural events, and so if they found their mailbox missing, they'd likely suspect vandals before they thought that God decided to move it. They would also think that the idea that their floor might turn into lava without warning is psychotic, not godly.
A very tiny percentage of theists will call a priest before calling their mechanics when their car breaks down. But with God in the picture, there's no reason to think that a breakdown was any sort of natural occurence, and so by trying to get a car fixed, one might be acting against God's Divine Plan.
Really, the vast majority of theists behave as if naturalism was the rule. Science's dependence upon methodological naturalism is nothing more than an acknowledgement that such methods get results, just as most theists understand without giving it any thought at all.
As I said in the previous post's comments, once God is in the picture, science necessarily goes out the window. But if you have problems connecting to the Internet, would you pray, or call your ISP?
GE Said...
ReplyDelete"If you cannot understand the way he does things how can you trust him? How can you know that he is good and merciful, and omni-anything if you cannot understand him? How can you claim anything about him if you cannot understand him?"
I didn't understand everything my dad did when I was growing up, I didn't always agree with him, but I always trusted him. And even during those teen years when I doubted him, that doesn't change who he was, is, or that he always had my best interests at heart. I don't have to understand someone to trust them.
"a good god would be able to create us with free will, but with a nature that could decide not to sin."
Within your complete knowledge of the workings of good and evil, perhaps this is true. But then again, in a child's understanding of atomic theory, a solid object is just that, solid. How can you convince a child that a solid object is mostly space? Perhaps there is more to good and evil than we can understand.
"And that just without considering the treachery of filling our planet with lots of stuff that just "looks like proof of evolution."
Was that HIS doing? Or was it our interpretation of just what is there? If we had not twisted the facts into evolution, it would have been some other theory that denied Him and elevated man.
You seem to think that the I.Q. of any God that would create such a universe would be at best slightly better than that of any human. If that is the case, perhaps such a choice as naturalism/atheism/agnosticism/etc. is the best choice for you.
respectfully, O
As I said Spherical, it is all well constructed excuses. There are lots of parents who do bad things to their kids, and many of those kids keep thinking their parents are good. There are lots of guys hitting their wives whose wives "still love them." That proves nothing of course. Just like not understanding your father and he being right and good proves nothing against my point.
ReplyDeleteIf you cannot understand this God you believe in, you cannot claim anything about his intentions nor about his nature. You can only construct excuses like those you gave.
The lots of prove of evolution are not twisted facts. For one thing, the earth "looks" much older than it is. The light from the stars "looks" like it has been traveled for much longer than they could if the whole thing is around 6,000 years old (not that I think you are a young earth creationist, but maybe), the fossil record "looks" like there are lots of hominids that show we evolved from a common ancestor with other apes (among many other evidences). It is not our twisting of anything. Why would those fossils be there in the first place?
Creating sinful nature, no matter how much you can say "you do not understand the nature of good and evil," is still stupid if you are such an all-powerful god. If such a god wanted us to have free will, and follow him by our own accord, why condemn us to failure by making us sinful in nature to begin with? This is just insane no matter how many excuses you can through at me. A kid-god playing with his toys, or an inept god, or an evil god.
G.E.
Spherical wrote:
ReplyDeleteWas that HIS doing?
Yes. Everything that happens does so (necessarily) with God's full knowledge and consent. In even the most-juvenile theology, because God gave us free will, God is necessarily condoning evil. The "Problem of Evil" doesn't go away by blaming it on people.
So God knows full well that the way He created the Earth and its creatures would be "misinterpreted" by scientists and thus allegedly lead people away from Him. Obviously, it's a part of His Divine Plan (as are all things), and therefore you can't possibly say that it's the "wrong" way to interpret the evidence. God meant for at least some people to see "evolution." No other explanation (with God in the picture) makes the least bit of sense.
Think about it: God obviously could have created a world in which fossilization simply did not happen, ever. He chose, instead, to create a mechanism whereby some dead creatures turn into minerals and so get preserved. He chose to create a planet upon which various events become geological "strata." He chose to create a universe in which reliable methods exist to date old rocks. He chose to make children resemble their parents. And he chose to give humans the ability to collect and analyze the world around us.
God could have chosen to not do any one of those things (without affecting so-called "free will"), and the word "evolution" would never have entered the lexicon.
So why did He? Why did He do all of those things, when only doing four out of the five would have ensured that nobody would have ever questioned the creation account in Genesis?
Note again that there would still be plenty of other reasons to question God's existence (like the above-mentioned "Problem of Evil"), so eliminating any chance of some mere mortal coming up with the theory of evolution would do nothing towards stripping us of "free will." God chose to allow people to do science, and to come up with evolutionary theories.
Deny that, and you deny God's power.
Actually Spherical, if you think about it, you are actually saying that a humongous IQ, way beyond ours, would justify the stupidity. That does not make any sense.
ReplyDeleteRespectfully,
G.E.
GE:
ReplyDeleteThe point was not about my dad, it was about trust. Since you cannot understand the analogy, perhaps a definition is in order.
Trust does not need to include an action that you and the other party are mutually engaged in. Trust is a prediction of reliance on an action, based on what a party knows about the other party. Trust is a statement about what is otherwise unknown -- for example, because it is far away, cannot be verified, or is in the future. (From Wikipedia)
Did you catch the part about trust being a statement about what is otherwise unknown? If you only trust in what you know for certain, that is not, by definition, trust.
Also, I do not state that I cannot know my God, I just cannot know everything about Him.
I think therein lies a major difference between us. I am willing to accept things as they are, accept that I have a limited understanding of it all, but trust that there is more to it than meets the eye.
Hope that clarifies where I stand. (and yes, I did read the posts, I just haven't been convinced by them)
--O
I am willing to accept things as they are, accept that I have a limited understanding of it all, but trust that there is more to it than meets the eye.
ReplyDeleteActually, Spherical, this statement illustrates the common conflation of trust with faith. While it is acceptable, even admirable, to trust another entity, your processes go much, much further.
I trust my father, despite our differences, because I know him. He speaks to me directly as well as indirectly via technology I can fathom. He has held me, I have seen him -- I can fathom him with all of my senses.
While you may argue that you have had some or all of these sensory experiences with god, you must recognize that your experience is individual (read: personal revelation), and that not everyone experiences the same thing. In light of that fact, it is irresponsible to claim universal, divine knowledge -- which is precisely what theists do.
If god wants to come down and talk to me directly, or indirectly via technology I can fathom, or if he wants to otherwise excite my senses, he is welcome to do so, and I admit that I would consider trusting such a being, or the truth of such an experience, if it were to occur. That being said, what Christians claim regarding their god is not a requirement of trust, or even merely faith -- it is denial of self, it is utter submission, and it is propitiation writ large.
In order for one being to trust another, a relationship is needed. To have faith that a being has one's best interests in mind, one must have a deeper relationship with that being. What is typically absent from the theist's notion of a trusting, faithful relationship, is the requirement of dialogue, and of equality, at least in part.
My relationship with my children is a prime example (indeed, it is identical to your analogy). My children do not know me when they are born. They experience my presence via the usual senses, and as they grow and learn, they recognize who I am, and they trust that I have their best interests in mind.
As they age, and learn to communicate directly with me, they find that although my vocabulary, knowledge, and experience vastly surpass their own, we can nonetheless communicate as equals. Eventually, they learn that they can challenge my authority, as they also recognize that one day they will be my equal, even if they are behind, chronologically.
What drives this equality? The simple recognition, which I have already seen in my children's faces (at ~6 and 4, respectively), that one day, their knowledge and experience, their size, strength, and understanding of the world in which they live, may surpass my own.
What drives your "relationship" with your deity? The slavish desire to be its servant.
This is not a trusting relationship. It is as "trusting" a relationship as a Guantanamo prisoner has with his handlers. At least in your case the servitude is voluntary, but according to your theology, the choice is "voluntary" servitude, or eternal anguish...
Wow, that really makes me want to bow down and be thankful.
"Oh god, conquer all, our power comes from you. Your wrath causes to fall, those you want it to. You've given us a choice -- what we choose, only you can tell; whether or not we follow you, of if we go to hell."
What a guy.
Christians -- theists, in general -- are consistently guilty of trying to have it both ways. They choose to describe their relationship with their imaginary deity as though it is voluntary and wholesome on the one hand, and required and propitiatory on the other. They use inapplicable analogies as though they are profound, trying on the one hand to appeal to reason, while simultaneously ignoring the very thing to which they are appealing.
'A relationship with god is like a relationship with a loving father', you say, completely ignoring the fact that this is a dead-beat dad who only occasionally sends mom the child support check. Never mind that the vast majority of his billions of children have never met him. If we presume to question his omniscience, you will cry that we are not privy to all of the facts -- irrespective of the fact that this supposedly divine attribute makes its bearer culpable in every event it has the power to control. The combination of this fantastic attribute with its complement -- omnipotence -- makes your god a criminally responsible for the suffering of even one soul.
Don't bandy about ridiculous analogies, and then claim we don't understand them when they are exposed as worthy of ridicule. My father exists, and I can speak to him. Not only are we equals, biologically, but I am his superior intellectually. The fact that this is possible is why I can have a trusting relationship with my father. The fact that it is not a possibility with your alleged god is but one of the many reasons such a being does not exist -- at least not in any way described by pedantic Christians.
--
Stan
pvblivs- since you've had the pertinacity to come back here, if you are still interested, I'll repeat my question for you: are you skeptical about plate tectonics? After all, it is subject to exactly the same objections you have made about macroevolution: large-scale motion of plates has not been observed, because it takes too long.
ReplyDeleteTrue, small-scale motion can now be measured directly with satellites, but there's no proof that small-scale motion over a few years translates to large-scale motion over millions of years: we can't see the flow of magma in the mantle directly, or know for sure that the currents don't go back and forth. And all the other evidence: the fit of the coastlines of Africa and South America (noted by Ben Franklin, among others), the corresponding fossils (and we know what you think about them already), the matching magnetic polarity of corresponding strata, the evidence of tropical conditions in Antarctica, etc. etc., is all exactly like the evidence for evolution: while it makes a pretty picture, and a coherent one, it is not falsifiable (by your standards) because lack of evidence doesn't disprove it.
So, are you also skeptical of plate tectonics? If not, could you explain why plate tectonics is any more deserving of being called a "real" scientific theory than evolution?
Spherical- oh, never mind: pvblivs, GE, Dave W, and Stan have already said what I would have said, but better. I'd just like to welcome you here- Dan is getting rather beleaguered, and probably appreciates the support.
I got your point spherical, I just made the contrary point of UNFOUNDED trust.
ReplyDeleteI think we have all answered to what you said.
You claim you read the responses juts were not convinced. I said it before. His construct of lies and fallacies are designed to reach those who need reassuring (you bought his lies plainly), and/or to sound "professional" to an uninformed/undereducated/misinformed audience. I rest my case.
G.E.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteJust a note:
Whenever evolution is presented in science (or biology) class it is presented as the best scientific explanation to the diversity of life so far. Not as "fact." I just confirmed with my two sons before saying anything. I was pretty sure, but needed confirmation.
I also checked a couple of textbooks, and it is worded as science is worded, not as "a fact," but as what the many sources of evidence point to.
I knew this before, but never really thought of answering to your claim that "evolution is taught as a fact." The books "talk science." I checked several texbooks at the undergrad level, and a few at the high-school level. All are worded as science. In other words, best scientific explanation. Not as fact. Not a single book says "evolution is exactly what happened." Maybe there is a book that teaches evolution as a fact. But I did not find any. (I am talking textbooks.)
G.E.
I'm going with the short version, because I have some things I must get done...
ReplyDeleteWhere in the definition of trust does it say that I must speak directly to the object of my trust? I trust the maker of my car to have installed the brakes correctly, but I have never spoke to him. You need that conversation? Fine, but don't throw your limitations on me.
Yes, I believe that I have a relationship with God. I can't fathom how anyone can walk outside and not, but again, that is me. I don't claim universal divine knowledge, I speak from my own experiences which is all I can do.
You say that in order to trust, a relationship is needed. Again, not by definition. I can trust whom I choose for whatever reason I choose.
The concept of equality is apparently only in your dictionary's version of the word trust. I can trust my boss, my dog, my cell phone, or my doctor. I don't consider any of these to be peer relationships. What if one of your children had a disability where they KNEW they would never equal or surpass you? Does that destroy the relationship or end the possibility of trust?
If you think it is a choice between servitude and eternal damnation, you are wrong. Look at the Pharisees Jesus dealt with. You couldn't have found a person who more epitomized a servant of God (at least in their own eyes). Yet he called them sons of hell. If I were to die tomorrow and God were not real, I would not for a moment regret the choices I have made, because in them I have found freedom.
I will agree with your last statement, with one adjustment...
such a being does not exist -- at least not in any way (that Stan understands)described by pedantic Christians.
--O
Zilch:
ReplyDeleteEven though I suspect you were hoping I wouldn't see your question. I am skeptical of the large-scale movements. I have to be. People can make their best guesses for what the pattern of the Earth used to be. But there is no way to test them. The data that one would use to "test" a pattern are the same data used to construct the pattern. Of course, there is nothing that depends on the estimations of the large-scale movements being correct.
You know, Pvblivs, for as much crap as I take from Dan for being politically incorrect, or for using pseudo-blasphemy, or for being a general smartass, you sure take the cake for being an outright jerk:
ReplyDeleteEven though I suspect you were hoping I wouldn't see your question. (emphasis yours)
Really? Lighten up already. If he didn't want you to see the question, I'm guessing he wouldn't have posed it. I should like to think I speak for everyone here when I say that we had all hoped the name-calling incident had passed, but then here you come, storming back in, making such a ridiculous statement as appears above.
I'd guess that even Dan will agree that you are out of line here. Chill out, if you don't mind, and either answer the question politely, or answer it with something more clever than an asinine accusation.
Anyway -- back to your regularly scheduled debate.
--
Stan
Pvbivs- Stan said it: honestly, what is this thing you have with second-guessing our motivations? I am tempted to make some pop-psychological judgments about your motivations, too, but as they tend to get in the way of civilized discourse, I will refrain. If you can't do the same, there's little point in further discussion.
ReplyDeleteThat said: so now plate tectonics joins your list of pretend sciences. Do you also see a pattern of bias and peer-pressure here? Are geologists also irrationally defending a sacred belief?
Next questions: did Caesar exist? Same kind of problems. Did last Tuesday happen? Same same. Taken to your logical conclusion, we can't be sure of anything that happened in the past, and if we claim to know anything about it, we are just kidding ourselves.
All you are doing here is defining any historical parts of our worldview out of the purview of science. That's okay, if that's the way you personally want to define "science", but I don't see it as a particularly fruitful approach. What good is it? How does it add to, or help clarify, our knowledge? If you stick to mathematics, it is okay: you can deny any proof that Pythagoras, Euclid, and Whitehead existed, and still do just fine. But if you are interested in learning how we got here, and in learning how our past still impinges upon our present, then it is a handicap.
You say "Of course, there is nothing that depends on the estimations of the large-scale movements being correct". Nothing to you, maybe: luckily, you are not the arbiter of what is worthy of consideration: there are others who are interested in reconstructing our past. How do you justify arrogating to yourself the position of deciding what is important and what is not?
Stan:
ReplyDeleteI had asked Zilch several times for his question and he refused to give it. When I finally do see it, it looks buried.
"I should like to think I speak for everyone here when I say that we had all hoped the name-calling incident had passed...."
Really?! If that's true, you will certainly agree that "you sure take the cake for being an outright jerk" is completely out of line. I didn't engage in name-calling. You did.
To make it clear, I made an accusation. I think that he was hiding the question so he could come back and say "See, I asked again and he refused to answer." After all, he already accused me of refusing to answer when I had never seen the question. He then refused to tell me the question, saying I could instead hunt it down. I do not think it is unreasonable to conclude that he wanted to claim he asked the question and that I wouldn't answer.
Zilch:
There are indeed people who are interested in reconstructing our past. But there is nothing dependent on the accuracy of the reconstruction. Unless we are able to go there, an error in the cartography is insignificant.
Your accusation against me for being contrary to civilized discourse is quite interesting. I note, and note well, that you are supportive of Stan's name-calling. Go ahead, prove me wrong. Tell Stan he was out of line.
I do not keep an explicit list of "pretend sciences." Yes, last Tuesday existed. I was there. It's not a scientific theory though. If one were to claim that Caesar's conquests were scientific theories, it would detract from science. Claims of what causes plates to move are scientific. Experiments can be conducted on the forces involved. Estimations of what the map of the planet looked like three million years ago are not scientific.
"[W]hat is this thing you have with second-guessing our motivations?"
It is in my interest to determine whether I am being dealt with honestly, or whether I am being targetted for a personal attack. I make my determination; and respond accordingly. Now, I have determined that Stan did not say it honestly. I have been attacked; and Stan has not criticized that. Instead, he calls me a jerk for having dared to defend myself.
I'm sure the two of you will support each other. After all, "you're an outright jerk" is such a compelling logical argument. Why should I think that "so now X is on your list of pretend sciences" is an attempt to mark me as an outsider? How dare I think I should be allowed to defend myself or my position? Everyone knows that freethinkers must be up to something.
Pvblivs: Darn. I really did try to hide my question by burying it, but you found it even so. I guess I can't claim you haven't answered it any more. Oh well- Pvblivs 1, zilch 0. Sorry to disappoint my fan club. We'll meet in the gym at the usual time to discuss tactics.
ReplyDeleteI suppose I could go back and unravel all the accusations and counter-accusations, but frankly, I've got better things to do with my time. You've answered my question, and now I know what you consider "science". Luckily, your ideas about what constitutes "science" don't have any effect on how science is done. That being the case, I leave you to continue making definitions to your heart's content. Ta ta.
pvblivs, your claim that there is no way to test historical sciences like plate tectonics appears to be a display of your lack of imagination (to use your term).
ReplyDeleteWegener's idea that the continents had moved was widely ridiculed when it was proposed because (A) he couldn't provide a mechanism and (B) people lacked the technology to gather the evidence needed to show that the idea was correct.
It took 40 years for the theory to be widely accepted, and it was only widely accepted because of the evidence that had finally been gathered and the discovery of the mechanisms that can literally move mountains.
Further evidence showed that the Earth's magnetic field flips periodically, and the polarity and strength of the field is recorded in rocks as they cool. It is the world-wide examination of this magnetic striping, coupled with rock types themselves and the fossils in them that have allowed the reconstruction of the paths of the continents over millions of years.
And all that followed pretty much the same methodology one would follow if answering the question, "did a particular Caesar exist?" (which is certainly a question about the natural universe, and so one answerable scientifically). One formulates a hypothesis and then tests it against the available data. There is no significant difference in methodology between lab sciences and historical sciences. The difference is in the amount of accuracy we can expect (and no lab science is 100% accurate, anyway).
I hade a great weekend and I hope all of you did also. Now back to work...
ReplyDeleteDale,
"Who observed that was not the case.? Where is the data.?"
We are asking you the same thing about evolution.
Spherical,
Welcome to the lion's den. Simply thank you, blessings.
"If I were to die tomorrow and God were not real, I would not for a moment regret the choices I have made, because in them I have found freedom."
Amen
DaveW,
If lava comes down my street yes I would contribute it to God. People of a false religion may call a priest before a mechanic but I would call the Lord myself.
"...once God is in the picture, science necessarily goes out the window."
So you do understand the true bias of scientists/atheists. The sure want jobs now don't they. That huge paradigm must be fed or the data will be rejected.
Stan,
Although we complete disagree, welcome back, I just knew you could have an intelligent conversation without attacking and blasphemous language. You are even quoting scripture (Luke 9:23) "...it is denial of self..."
"the choice is "voluntary" servitude, or eternal anguish..."
No we all deserve eternal anguish but being so grateful for dying on that Cross I have "voluntary" servitude. His kindness to save my life get's my loyalty. That's where the trust and faith comes from.
GE,
"I knew this before, but never really thought of answering to your claim that "evolution is taught as a fact."
I disagree, It's taught as fact from authority. I just happen to have the current HS biology book used in our public schools and there is an entire section on evolution. It's the Prentice Hall Biology 2006 edition. The second paragraph of the section of evolution claims:
"What scientific explanation can account for the diversity of life? The answer is a collection of scientific facts, observations, and hypotheses known as evolutionary theory."
Same paragraph goes on to explain theory: "A scientific theory is a well-supported testable explanation of phenomena that have occurred in the natural world."
Show support of your claim please.
Not a single book says "evolution is exactly what happened."
Of course it wouldn't. Then they would be caught but if not specifically identified then this "intentioned misunderstanding" would just be pushed along. That is what happened to me personally. I got out of HS believing I came from a monkey. One, because I would fail the class if I didn't answer that on the test(generalizing) and two, I grew up in an atheistic home. It wasn't until I was 23 years old to find an alternative to that viewpoint, the moment I read the Bible the very first time.
You might be naive to this notion but it is pushed with an authoritative inference as fact. Fair enough?
Stan,
"you sure take the cake for being an outright..."
You just couldn't play nice? Our versions of vernacular are quite different. I am being as patient as possible but there comes a time when you are not contributing but are harming, try contributing.
"I'd guess that even Dan will agree that you are out of line here."
Even though we can't ever guess anyone motivations, outright attacking is no remedy, so I disagree with your response more Stan.
Pvblivs said "I didn't engage in name-calling. You did."
I agree. Besides you are the one that is pushing every limit and boundary and testing my patience, Pviblivs isn't, so you have no room to talk.
Sure was a nice couple of days away from all of this. So we all agree that ad hominem attacks doesn't render the statement or subject false so this article still is truth even though Johnson was attacked personally. that great monster called the evolution paradigm must be fed to stay alive.
I don't believe we will ever get out of this vicious cycle of evolution without an act of God. I am so torn On one hand I want to say "We are ready God whenever you are," and on the other hand I want to say "Please God, give us more time to witness to the lost"
After this blog I am beginning to understand what it really meant in Hebrews 6:4-8. I challenge any of you atheists to prove that claim wrong.
I suggest a 40 day fast (to deny thy self) and read the Bible (yes again for some of you) and really try to understand His glory. Not with a skeptics mind but a renewing open one. I am hopeful that if you takes this challenge you would be converted into a new creature "born again"
Take care all of you.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI will check that book. It still does not sound as fact to me:
"What scientific explanation can account for the diversity of life? The answer is a collection of scientific facts, observations, and hypotheses known as evolutionary theory."
So, it says scientific explanation, right?
Did you also read the whole text on evolution, or just quote-mined?
A religious explanation is different to a scientific explanation, right? So, how would this statement deny that there are religious explanations?
I still will check it out when I find it. But I no longer think it is worth it:
Sure was a nice couple of days away from all of this. So we all agree that ad hominem attacks doesn't render the statement or subject false so this article still is truth even though Johnson was attacked personally. that great monster called the evolution paradigm must be fed to stay alive.
This just means you did not pay ANY attention to the arguments we gave you. You just payed attention to the well-deserved insults to this Johnson guy. How would the insults make the article true? Man, I can't believe I still give you the benefit of the doubt!
So, what would be the point of me giving you more arguments? Will you read any of them at all? It does not seem so. So, let me know if it will be worth my time. No, I am not saying that you will be convinced that evolution is true, just that you will sincerely read what we say instead of looking for the insults to deny we said anything.
G.E.
Oooh, plenty to comment on here!
ReplyDeleteTo Pvblivs
You've quite clearly defined your position: you are more skeptical than is usual of any scientific theory which can't be directly observed, but instead relies on inferred evidence and logical extrapolation. I don't understand this position (inferences are the only possible way we can study anything that has happened in the past, and extrapolation is the only way we can estimate things that happen too slow for direct observation on a large scale), but I respect it and don't see any reason to try and change your mind on it.
But please recognise that those involved in these fields do legitimately test the theory day in and day out. Darwin himself gave several predictions of the theory, including predicting the existance of Xanthopan morgani praedicta, the Madagascar Moth with a 16-inch tongue perfectly adapted to feed on a specific Madagascar orchid's. If no such moth existed, Evolution would have a hard time explaining why the orchard has a narrow, 16-inch deep shaft.
Mind you, I'd appreciate it if you could stop accusing others of motives they don't have. I remember noticing the tectonic plate question each of the (I think) three times Zilch posted it before this. It's understandable if you missed it, but accusing him of hiding it seems a little out of line.
To Stan and Zilch
Name calling rarely gets you anywhere. Treat people nice: it confuses them. You'll get better results with a bit of tact, as opposed to sarcasm and accusations. Assume the people on the other end have the best intentions, and work from there.
I actually agree with Dan (sign of the apocalypse?): "Even though we can't ever guess anyone's motivations, outright attacking is no remedy, so I disagree with your response more Stan."
So can we all please be nice to each other?
To Dale W
Nice post. I honestly can't think of anything I'd add.
To Dan
I'll break up your comment to better respond to each point.
"We are asking you the same thing about evolution."
Where is the data? Here?
"People of a false religion may call a priest before a mechanic but I would call the Lord myself."
And your car will miraculously start working and you wont have to call the mechanic and fix it by naturalistic means, yes?
"I disagree, It's taught as fact from authority."
Your Prentice Hall Biology quote fails to demonstrate this. It gives an accurate definition of a scientific theory, and rightly points out that evolutionary theory is one.
It's taught as the only scientific model for the appearance of the diversity of life on earth. No other model fits the category marked by the word 'scientific', therefore no other model is taught in science classes.
As someone who went through the public school system, I can say from first hand experience that these other models are taught in some schools, just not as science. And they're taught however they want to be taught in private schools, most of which are christian in one way or another.
" I got out of HS believing I came from a monkey. One, because I would fail the class if I didn't answer that on the test(generalizing) and two, I grew up in an atheistic home. It wasn't until I was 23 years old to find an alternative to that viewpoint, the moment I read the Bible the very first time."
You had a very different school experience to myself, then. I also grew up in an atheistic home, but before high school I hadn't even heard of evolution. I had, however, spent every thursday morning in 'religous education', which was entirely christian.
I had no idea about the worldview of my own parents, who I lived with, but knew the stories of the bible (genesis, the flood, Jesus) off by heart.
I think the reason I rejected the christian worldview is because of dinosaurs: I loved dino's as a kid, and knew they lived 65 million years ago. At the time, I was too young to understand that not all christians believed in a young earth: so I rejected christianity in general.
When I wen't to high school, I really didn't think about it: I never even did biology (I now wish I had). It wasn't until after leaving High School that I really looked into my beliefs again...
"You might be naive to this notion but it is pushed with an authoritative inference as fact. Fair enough? "
It is pushed exactly the same as any other legitimate scientific theory. Unless you have a problem with the way atomic theory, or germ theory, are being taught, I honestly don't understand why you insist on picking on evolution.
"So we all agree that ad hominem attacks doesn't render the statement or subject false so this article still is truth even though Johnson was attacked personally."
We all agree with the first statement, but this article is not truth. This article is fairly typical of Johnsons work: rife with falsehoods which he has never corrected despite being aware of them, filled with ambiguous language and selective 'examples', and making use of debate tactics common in law but just plain wrong in science.
"I suggest a 40 day fast (to deny thy self) and read the Bible (yes again for some of you) and really try to understand His glory."
40 days without food? No thanks: I've got this weird adversion to self-harm. Besides which, I've heard that starvation can cause hallucenations.
Oooh, plenty to comment on here!
ReplyDeleteTo Pvblivs
You've quite clearly defined your position: you are more skeptical than is usual of any scientific theory which can't be directly observed, but instead relies on inferred evidence and logical extrapolation. I don't understand this position (inferences are the only possible way we can study anything that has happened in the past, and extrapolation is the only way we can estimate things that happen too slow for direct observation on a large scale), but I respect it and don't see any reason to try and change your mind on it.
But please recognise that those involved in these fields do legitimately test the theory day in and day out. Darwin himself gave several predictions of the theory, including predicting the existance of Xanthopan morgani praedicta, the Madagascar Moth with a 16-inch tongue perfectly adapted to feed on a specific Madagascar orchid's. If no such moth existed, Evolution would have a hard time explaining why the orchard has a narrow, 16-inch deep shaft.
Mind you, I'd appreciate it if you could stop accusing others of motives they don't have. I remember noticing the tectonic plate question each of the (I think) three times Zilch posted it before this. It's understandable if you missed it, but accusing him of hiding it seems a little out of line.
To Stan and Zilch
Name calling rarely gets you anywhere. Treat people nice: it confuses them. You'll get better results with a bit of tact, as opposed to sarcasm and accusations. Assume the people on the other end have the best intentions, and work from there.
I actually agree with Dan (sign of the apocalypse?): "Even though we can't ever guess anyone's motivations, outright attacking is no remedy, so I disagree with your response more Stan."
So can we all please be nice to each other?
To Dale W
Nice post. I honestly can't think of anything I'd add.
To Dan
I'll break up your comment to better respond to each point.
"We are asking you the same thing about evolution."
Where is the data? Here?
"People of a false religion may call a priest before a mechanic but I would call the Lord myself."
And your car will miraculously start working and you wont have to call the mechanic and fix it by naturalistic means, yes?
"I disagree, It's taught as fact from authority."
Your Prentice Hall Biology quote fails to demonstrate this. It gives an accurate definition of a scientific theory, and rightly points out that evolutionary theory is one.
It's taught as the only scientific model for the appearance of the diversity of life on earth. No other model fits the category marked by the word 'scientific', therefore no other model is taught in science classes.
As someone who went through the public school system, I can say from first hand experience that these other models are taught in some schools, just not as science. And they're taught however they want to be taught in private schools, most of which are christian in one way or another.
" I got out of HS believing I came from a monkey. One, because I would fail the class if I didn't answer that on the test(generalizing) and two, I grew up in an atheistic home. It wasn't until I was 23 years old to find an alternative to that viewpoint, the moment I read the Bible the very first time."
You had a very different school experience to myself, then. I also grew up in an atheistic home, but before high school I hadn't even heard of evolution. I had, however, spent every thursday morning in 'religous education', which was entirely christian.
I had no idea about the worldview of my own parents, who I lived with, but knew the stories of the bible (genesis, the flood, Jesus) off by heart.
I think the reason I rejected the christian worldview is because of dinosaurs: I loved dino's as a kid, and knew they lived 65 million years ago. At the time, I was too young to understand that not all christians believed in a young earth: so I rejected christianity in general.
When I wen't to high school, I really didn't think about it: I never even did biology (I now wish I had). It wasn't until after leaving High School that I really looked into my beliefs again...
"You might be naive to this notion but it is pushed with an authoritative inference as fact. Fair enough? "
It is pushed exactly the same as any other legitimate scientific theory. Unless you have a problem with the way atomic theory, or germ theory, are being taught, I honestly don't understand why you insist on picking on evolution.
"So we all agree that ad hominem attacks doesn't render the statement or subject false so this article still is truth even though Johnson was attacked personally."
We all agree with the first statement, but this article is not truth. This article is fairly typical of Johnsons work: rife with falsehoods which he has never corrected despite being aware of them, filled with ambiguous language and selective 'examples', and making use of debate tactics common in law but just plain wrong in science.
"I suggest a 40 day fast (to deny thy self) and read the Bible (yes again for some of you) and really try to understand His glory."
40 days without food? No thanks: I've got this weird adversion to self-harm. Besides which, I've heard that starvation can cause hallucenations.
Even though we can't ever guess anyone's motivations, outright attacking is no remedy
ReplyDeleteI see. So Pvblivs' accusation toward Zilch -- for the umpteenth time -- doesn't count as an outright attack?
...or should we have allowed Pvblivs to continue to attack us, and merely 'turn the other cheek'?
I just wish for once and for all that you'd outline your double-standards so that we can know when and where they'll be enacted. Granted, I was harsh in my rebuke of Pvblivs, but sometimes the tables of the moneychangers need toppled, and his constant, nagging vitriol needed exposed for what it was.
Whatever. If Pvblivs wants to continue to whine and cry that he is being targeted, that's fine. I've said many times that he does have some valid points concerning the Theory of Evolution, and while this subset of points may be valid, his editorializing alongside is deserving of the charge -- a charge which is far less accusatory than his most recent claim toward Zilch -- of encouraging conspiracy theorists.
Again, whatever. For what it's worth, Pvblivs would not have received this most recent backlash had he not made the retarded accusation he did. Don't like being called a jerk? Quit acting like one.
--
Stan
Stan:
ReplyDeleteLet me see if I have your position correctly. Pointing out that Zilch refused to supply the question when I asked for it and would obviously notice it (telling me to hunt for it was refusing to supply the question; it was not a failure to notice the request) and stating my own judgement that he probably didn't want me to see the question was a personal attack. But calling me a jerk because I wouldn't roll over and play dead was not. Yes, I think I understand your position quite well.
You state that you object to my editorializing. It is certainly conceivable that someone would object to my editorializing. But the objection that I posted against you was about your blatent double-standard. If you are going to call me a jerk, you have no business pretending you are against name-calling.
Dave W:
I stated that they can and do test current movements. They can also determine under what conditions plates do move. But when they map what they think the Earth looked like millions of years ago, the footing is less sure.
Pvblivs:
ReplyDeleteI pretend nothing. Your accusation regarding Zilch's recent re-post of his question, which was rather easy for you to have found were you to have begun the search, was name-calling, and it was an outright attack. I tend to respond in kind, for better or for worse, and I characterized your attack as that of a jerk.
Justify your own position all you want. I admit my response was out of line. Do us a favor and admit your own error so we can move on...
...or don't, and only I will.
--
Stan
No, Stan, my accusation was not name-calling. Name-calling is calling someone a name (like "jerk," "moron," "bottom-feeder," etc.) I did not do that. I stated what I thought he was trying to do. As for whether it was inappropriate, people will come to their own conclusions.
ReplyDeleteQuasar:
I understand that you disagree with my judgement. I accused him of motives that I think he has. I gave the reasons I came to the conclusion. Sure, I might be wrong. He may have changed his mind and decided to let me see the question. And if he had supplied the question when I was clearly looking for it, it would certainly be out of line to accuse him of hiding it. But it is a matter of record that when I asked for the question, he told me to go searching instead. That does predispose me to think he doesn't want me to see the question -- or, at best, doesn't care. (And when he is accusing me of not responding to his question, I rule out "doesn't care.")
At any rate, I see myself as defending myself. Perhaps you see methods (from an external perspective) that would be more effective. Unfortunately, I do not. But I respect your perspective.
Dave W spoke thusly: Once you put God into the picture, there is no good reason to attribute anything to "natural" causes of any sort, and science itself stops dead. You're not arguing against evolution, you're arguing against the entire scientific enterprise.
ReplyDeleteI could not agree more.
If there's any philosophical justification for scientists not accepting God as a source of causality, it's Dave's statement above. Once you use an untestable hypothesis as the explanation for some unknown, you stop looking for answers to that unknown.
The debate (here) about Naturalism vs Creationism misses this point entirely. If God is the source of creation, then science stops.
Naturalism (as described here) is fundamentally falsifiable. It can make predictions, and those predictions can be proven wrong. Creationism? Not so much.
Or should I say, not at all.
Science increases our knowledge about how the natural world works. Creationism does not - it halts our search for understanding by claiming that faith is a valid answer.
To bring this back on topic - naturalism is imperfect, and has (and will) produce inaccurate ideas. It will occasionally encompass biased ideas. It is a fundamentally human methodology.
It is also readily willing to be proven wrong.
Creationism can not make this claim. And as such, is an inferior method for understanding our place in the universe.
Hear, hear, Whateverman. Well said.
ReplyDelete--
Stan
Non sequitor comment:
ReplyDeleteI noticed in your header that you wish to "praise towards God." So here is my question: why not just praise God himself, instead of praising in his general direction? In fact, how do you calculate what direction that is?
I'm sorry. I know that was facetious. But if you're going to defend your faith (and coincidentally, mine too) please avoid spelling and grammar mistakes at the very least if you can't entirely keep away from logical fallacy. Because, you see, I don't like websites that portray Christians as flaming idiots.
TheRaisinGirl,
ReplyDeleteFirst, welcome. I changed it for you. Allow me to address you about your "flaming idiots" comment though.
Doesn't God use the weak to confound the wise? Are you judging people without a formal education as lower then educated Christians? I know many people with PhD's making the most outrageous and immoral decisions, about let's say abortions. It takes the wisdom of God for you to be wise otherwise you are not wise at all. The Bible says they are fools.
I think it has been proven the higher the education level the likelihood of the person becoming an atheist. We had this discussion before and I concluded:
"If there is a direct correlation between retardation and Salvation then where do I get fitted for my helmet?"
Moses even studdered,
Exodus 4:10 "And Moses said unto the LORD, O my LORD, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue."
Is Moses a flaming idiot?
Why didn't Paul dazzle his hearers with eloquent speeches and intellectual wisdom? Go to this post for the answer.
Remember, if it is of God then it is good no matter how mankind views it.
Dave W spoke thusly: Once you put God into the picture, there is no good reason to attribute anything to "natural" causes of any sort, and science itself stops dead. You're not arguing against evolution, you're arguing against the entire scientific enterprise.
ReplyDeleteI could not DISAGREE more. But it is somewhat a matter of language, which you conveniently use to your advantage. What if science did include God as a possibility? Then instead of looking for the “natural” causes (which I take you to mean “How does this event fit into the laws of nature that exist outside of any external forces, such as any deity, and our understanding of its principles?”), we would look for the “natural” cause (which I take to mean, “How does this fit into the plan and pattern of the universe that God has created?) Putting God into the picture adds to science if done correctly. It gives a basis and reason for the laws that we have and eliminates the randomness that is sometimes unexplainable.
Question: Is science the search for the TRUTH? If it is, then eliminating anything just because it is “unprovable” would be to say that we are more interested in limiting science than expanding it. Doesn’t any question deserve to be examined from all angles, and not just the ones that we are comfortable with?
In reality, putting God back into the equation gives a motivation to study Science even further, because by studying science, it gives us an insight into the very mind of God.
Why does, as you say, creationism “halt” our knowledge? Is there even a creationist who claims to fully understand creation? If so, they are fooling themselves.
Creationism as a science would have the same limitations that naturalism does, that it is still a human methodology, humans searching for answer and understanding of questions that are only completely in the hands of God. To view creationism any differently is misunderstand creationism.
--O
Spherical,
ReplyDeleteWell said, what a world this would be if that were just the case. Only by the grace of God would that scenario come to fruition.
"Is science the search for the TRUTH? If it is, then eliminating anything just because it is “unprovable” would be to say that we are more interested in limiting science than expanding it."
This was Pvblivs' point in the first place. Even though Pvblivs isn't a Christian, he believes there should be a fair shake then what we have now.
Brilliant job, Spherical.
Opening science to the supernatural opens it to supernatural explanations.
ReplyDeleteIf we can 'scientifically' say that lifes origin's can be explained by God, then so too can we claim that the dinosaurs extinction was caused by God, gravity is God's direct influence and dark matter is the souls of those lost in purgatory.
We may never discover the real cause for gravity, what dark matter is, or how life came about.
If we had done what you are suggesting and allowed supernatural explanations in science a few centuries ago, lighting would still be gods anger and we would have no electricity, demons would still cause disease and we'd have no medicine and heavenly bodies would be pushed around by Gods will and we'd have no gravity. Oh, and matter would still be made out of earth, air, fire, water and surprise.
Restricting it to looking for natural explanations prevents these sort of mistakes, but it does impose the aforementioned restriction on it. Yes, science has limits. Unlike religon, it recognises those limits.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteHer comment was:
I'm sorry. I know that was facetious. But if you're going to defend your faith (and coincidentally, mine too) please avoid spelling and grammar mistakes at the very least if you can't entirely keep away from logical fallacy. Because, you see, I don't like websites that portray Christians as flaming idiots.
So, she asked you for a little bit of grammar if you cannot avoid logical fallacies. And what do you do? You center your answer in a logical fallacy (being stupid and uneducated is the way to defend my faith, and I am proud of it!).
As of Spherical's post. Come on! How can you keep stating that there should be a bias towards a god! How can that be brilliant?
Let us get started:
1. What is the very first step to gain knowledge with "God in the equation?"
2. Will you have experiments? Which kind?
3. How will you collect the data?
Come on! Creationism is not a science. It is a religion. Denying it is just another fallacy, and an actual insult to your own beliefs. You want to reduce your God to mere speculations holding to a book transformed into an idol by the fundamentalist Christianity. An idol hold against the advancement of scientific knowledge, because your faith is so pitiful, that you cannot think of the existence of God and rejoice in the marvelous discoveries made by science. You could easily attribute these discoveries to your God and his creation of imaginative human minds. Yet, you rather deny this gift, and cry foul because you cannot understand that the only way for science to advance is by ignoring any bias. Holding our discoveries because they might contradict your sacred book, is among the worst possible biases Dan. Results have to be reported as they are. Science cannot be held hostage of your book Dan. If something as earthly as science cannot be hostage of the bible, why do you want to keep something as important, as you should think God is, hostage of this very book? Could not revelation be much deeper and subtler than the literal reading of the Bible? Can you reconcile your literalism with exegesis (which would be quite the opposite of literalism)? You can't! You actually accept hidden messages in the Bible (see your own posts on science in the Bible), yet want true science to give you numbers and natural event consistent with a book which might have hidden messages? What a reduced and contradictory belief in God you have. How powerful, how enlightening could your belief be. Yet, you rather hide behind the fallacies proposed by Johnson than improve your faith and your knowledge.
G.E.
PS, Pvblivs point was not about fair share for gods in science.
What if science did include God as a possibility?
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that religion -- theism in general -- is content with the explanation that "god" is the "who". Science, on the other hand, is effectively uninterested in the "who", and is instead driven to explain "how".
Unfortunately for the Christian, as science progresses, and more and more "hows" are understood, god is relegated to a smaller and smaller role. The Christian might say that this role, however small, may be the most important role in the play, and while this is a valid argument, it does not square with the biblical account. In order for a Christian to maintain his belief in the face of these ever-increasing explanations of "how", he must alter his interpretation(s) of the bible.
This is why so-called "Theistic Evolutionists" are growing in number, and why "Liberal Christians" are likewise growing in number. It is also why so many people are rejecting Christianity. At some point, a "believer" must reconcile the fact that what science shows us is in sharp contrast with the long-held bible-based beliefs. Dan et al can deny it until blue in the face, but Christianity -- the theology based upon biblical interpretation -- has necessarily evolved as our understanding of nature has increased.
If Dan and his cronies were from the mid-7th century, they'd swear the earth was flat, and that the bible stated this fact clearly. If they were from the mid-14th century, they'd swear slavery was biblically sanctioned (it is). If they were from the mid-18th century, they'd swear the bible warned Jews against the dangers of trichinosis. If they were from the mid-20th century, they'd swear the bible proclaimed the value of blood.
Indeed, if they'd been born in Saudi Arabia in the latter portion of the 19th century, they'd likely have become the most notorious airline pilots in history -- and so might've I.
Look. I'm no better. If I were born in Iraq in 1980, I'd probably be a Sunni or Shiite Muslim, and probably be fighting against the occupation forces right now. If I were born in Germany c. 1920, I'd likely have gassed my share of Jews as part of the Holocaust.
This is just a fact of circumstance. The difference is that I, and most atheists in general, recognize this fact, and I deny my involvement in that process. If I would've been a Muslim had I been born in Syria, or if I'd have been an atheist if I were born in Norway, or if I'd have been a Hindu if I were born in India -- if these things are true, then I am the wiser for rejecting religion, which is evidently an arbitrary quality.
What if science did include God as a possibility?
It tried, remember? For millennia. It doesn't work so well for either purveyors of science or its general advancement.
--
Stan
Indeed, if they'd been born in Saudi Arabia in the latter portion of the 19th century
ReplyDeleteErr... 20th century... Sorry.
Stan,
ReplyDeleteThat was a clear cut explanation.
G.E.
Spherical said: Putting God into the picture adds to science if done correctly. It gives a basis and reason for the laws that we have and eliminates the randomness that is sometimes unexplainable.
ReplyDeleteSpherical, can you please suggest how science could put God into the picture correctly?
The God hypothesis (I don't mean to be facetious) is untestable. It predicts nothing consistently. Different Believers think God wants different things, and they all have faith in their opinions. How can science utilize God as causation when so few people agree with "what God wants" or "why God created things"?
I'm serious. Take any bit of science we've generated in the last 300 years, and show me how we could have "correctly" added God to the explanation of why/how that thing works.
Spherical also said: Question: Is science the search for the TRUTH? If it is, then eliminating anything just because it is “unprovable” would be to say that we are more interested in limiting science than expanding it.
Science doesn't "eliminate". it simply labels the unprovable as a non-sequitur; the unprovable assertion is not scientifically useful (though this doesn't necessarily mean it's not correct).
Science DOES limit itself only to things we can prove. If you've heard of Russel's Teapot, you'll understand that the Teapot may exist - but it can't be used to explain anything. If we can't prove it exists, we can't know enough about it to accurately guess what the existence of the teapot predicts.
As soon as the Faithful get together and agree on what God said and what he wants, we'll be able to craft falsifiable predictions. At that point, we'll be able to scientifically search for God.
Lacking that, however, God's existence (as he's been described) can not be proven or disproven through the best tools we have available.
Spherical, just how, exactly, does adding God back into science add anything except untestable hypotheses? Atheist physicists want to know why photons have the speed that they do. Theistic physicists want to know the same thing, but add "God said so" into the mix. That adds nothing, because the underlying question is still why?
ReplyDeleteIn the non-theistic case, physicists wanting to know why photons move at the speed they do will look for some mechanism, or a more fundamental law of nature, which logically leads to the conclusion that photons should move at that speed.
A theist who has decided that God is the "basis and reason" for photons to move that fast - essentially saying that photons move at that speed because God wanted it that way - have only God to ask for the reasons why He wanted it that way. That eliminates all reasons for searching for a non-God basis for the photon's speed, science comes to an end for that question, and prayer begins.
Look, given (for argument's sake) the powers attributable to God, "God wanted it this way" is trivially true, and so doesn't tell us anything. Whether photons move fast or slow, "God wanted it this way" is true. No matter how different our world might have been had things been different, "God wanted it this way" would have to be true.
And testing God's Divine Will by probing to find out why God wanted things the way they are (instead of some other arrangement) is specifically forbidden by God. The Book of Job teaches us that, that as mere mortals it is not our place to question God's reasons. And God punished Adam and Eve specifically because He had prohibited them from gaining an insight into the mind of God.
Also science is, indeed, the search for truth, or at least as close as we can come to it given our limitations. Unprovable hypotheses, therefore, cannot help us reach the truth, simply because we cannot know if they are true or not. We cannot build conclusions based upon premises of utterly unknown truth value. We can't examine anything any further once we come to a point at which we cannot know what is true. As a search for truth, science is of course limited to those things that seem to be verififably true. Expanding science to take into account things which may or may not be true would mean that it would stop being science, and instead become nothing more than guesswork.
So if you could explain to me in more detail why you think adding God to science will make science better, that'd be a big help.
Quasar,
ReplyDelete"Yes, science has limits. Unlike religon, it recognises those limits."
And they try their best to fit a naturalistic viewpoint into the model, otherwise it remains just a mystery. The answer is there all along. Search for the truth in God and you will find Him. That is all I ask. Spend the research money to find Him.
GE,
"Creationism is not a science. It is a religion."
I appreciate you proving Johnson's point "as we have already seen, is that in a naturalistic culture scientific conclusions are considered to be knowledge, or even fact. What is outside of fact is fantasy, or at best subjective belief...Once we put God into the picture, however, there is no good reason to attribute the creation of biological complexity to random mutation and natural selection."
I hope you all understand the necessity of the posts now.
Stan,
"Look. I'm no better. If I were born in Iraq in 1980, I'd probably be a Sunni or Shiite Muslim, and probably be fighting against the occupation forces right now. If I were born in Germany c. 1920, I'd likely have gassed my share of Jews as part of the Holocaust."
That is because you have no moral anchor Ray talked about it also.
There is a political party right here in America that condones killing innocent babies and at the very same time condemns killing a man that rapes and kills a 5 year old. (democrats) but you don't see me doing that. If I lived in Germany for example I would be dead very quickly because of my righteous rebellion. If I lived in Iraq I would still be a Christian like many Iraqis.
One of my all time favorite quotes outside the Bible is by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr who said:
"Christians should not be a thermometers that merely record and reflect the temperature of popular opinion.
Christians should be like thermostats, responsible for transforming and setting the temperature or standards of society" (Thank God free at last!)
The rest of those countries you listed have flourishing Christian communities China, Japan, and Russia included. There is no excuse for what you have just said. You would of killed the Jews in Germany because you want to kill Jews because of the evil hatred inside of you. I wouldn't and would die trying to save them. Do you feel they deserved what they got in Rwanda and Darfur? On this subject, a wonderful movie for you that I suggest is called Beyond the Gates.
Dan wrote:
ReplyDelete"That is because you have no moral anchor"
If God doesn't exist, then neither do you.
As an atheist, my moral anchor is the demonstrable effects that peoples' actions have upon society. If someone's action will have a beneficial effect, I'm all for it. If it will have a detrimental effect, I'm against it.
And in that context, my morality is not at all arbitrary, it is firmly anchored in reality and in our existing society. The source for your morality, on the other hand, is the arbitrary and unquestionable proclamation of an authority figure (regardless whether that figure exists or not).
That you choose to subborn your morality to someone else does not, in any way, mean that you have a moral anchor. It only means that you've given up having to justify your morality. You don't have to think about it - so much so that you consider yourself (and everyone else) to be a failure at it ("sinners"). What's the point of even having a moral anchor if you insist that you've snapped the chain?
You would of (sic) killed the Jews in Germany because you want to kill Jews because of the evil hatred inside of you. I wouldn't and would die trying to save them.
ReplyDeleteNow, you are a liar.
First, I do not want to kill Jews, nor anyone else. I have no evil hatred inside me.
Second, you would be just as likely to participate in the Holocaust if you were circumstantially present at that time in an appropriate capacity.
Just because you and I today wouldn't consider such a thing doesn't mean for a moment that our perspectives would be the same if we were plopped into a different place in earth's history.
If you were born in Saudi Arabia c. 1980 (hell, anytime in the past few hundred years), you'd be a Muslim. Period. You, me, and anybody else. Whether or not we shed that religion is open for speculation, but it is a virtual certainty that we'd be members of that religion for much, if not all, of our lives if we were raised there.
Your lie here has implicitly claimed that somehow your are better than me, even when I so delicately showed that we would each be equally susceptible to the circumstances in which we were found. The larger truth here is that you are of the mentality that a religion can be correct, and you would deny others their rights to dissent based upon your viewpoint. This means that in different circumstances you would most certainly have been just as devout, but in whatever the dominant religion was in whatever place/time you found yourself.
I, on the other hand, was raised in the dominant religion of our time -- your religion, if you recall -- and I rejected it, based in part on the recognition of precisely what I've shown you, and what you have subsequently denied. I noted that were my circumstances different, I'd likely have believed a different theology, and that therefore all of them are suspect.
How dare you. Your denial here is mere wishful thinking. I am brave enough to admit that my circumstances shape me. You are a coward.
As to your statement concerning Democrats, abortion, and the death penalty, you have intentionally misrepresented their position -- which is lying.
As for abortion, no one supports the killing of babies ('innocent' being superfluous). We differ on our concept of exactly when a fetus is considered a "baby" -- when it reaches viability. Not only that, but many Democrats, myself included, are against abortion. No, I would not think to restrict another's rights in this matter, but instead I'd restrict the "right" of humans to reproduce at their leisure. No one has the inherent "right" to generate more humans -- it is a privilege and a tremendous set of responsibilities. Many foolish young people (and foolish older people as well) have children "accidentally" -- as though the ejaculate "accidentally" found its way into the vagina.
Abortion isn't the problem -- unwanted pregnancy, and ill-prepared "parents", are the problems. Prevent them, and abortion goes away naturally.
Regarding the death penalty, Democrats are sharply divided on that subject, but personally, I denounce the death penalty. You see, I don't believe that a person's actions over the course of 80 or so years are deserving of eternal damnation, so how can I believe that death is a deserving punishment for something done in a few minutes?
I recognize that your example is intentionally gruesome -- you are appealing to emotion -- but you have, as I have shown, deliberately misrepresented the positions of the Democratic party -- to the tune of identifying positions they do not hold at all. Not just Straw Men, however, because you know better. You are a liar.
Would you care for some tit-for-tat? What about the Republican party, whose Presidential nominee has in the past supported abortion, which you so revile?
What about their Vice Presidential nominee, who would deny a rape victim the right to an abortion, and who would prevent a woman whose pregnancy will kill her from terminating?
What about the fact that the death penalty, in our imperfect justice system, necessarily sees innocent people hang (or fry, or get gassed, or receive lethal injections)?
Have I misrepresented the Republican party's positions? Have I misrepresented the individual positions of certain members of the Republican Party (and certain members of other political affiliation)?
Besides -- how could you vote for the Republicans this year, since by doing so you'd be approving of a woman holding sway over men, which runs contrary to 1 Timothy 2?
Whatever.
Seriously, Dan, between your statement before that you 'reject our reality and replace it with your own' (paraphrased slightly), and this most recent denial of circumstance, you have shown that this whole ridiculous blog has nothing whatsoever to do with truth, but is only about lies and deception, in an apparent effort to gain recognition and/or validation.
If you are unwilling to tell the truth, then meaningful dialogue is lost.
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDelete"Second, you would be just as likely to participate in the Holocaust if you were circumstantially present at that time in an appropriate capacity."
What you are claiming is described as the "Lucifer effect". I would be very interested if I would fall for such a test as you might. Because God is our anchor we are not prone to fall in line doing evil things. I would gladly volunteer for such a test.
"I, on the other hand, was raised in the dominant religion of our time -- your religion, if you recall -- and I rejected it, based in part on the recognition of precisely what I've shown you, and what you have subsequently denied. I noted that were my circumstances different, I'd likely have believed a different theology, and that therefore all of them are suspect."
Yes I do recall. Evidence of our differences. There is no gradual release into a liberal mindset to sliding right into atheism as what happened to you. Growing up in a Christian home v's being a Christian are vastly different things. You just haven't picked your cross up yet, I suspect.
"I'd likely have believed a different theology, and that therefore all of them are suspect." Is this your guess or do you have evidence of this? Like I said there are people in Saudi Arabia being painfully persecuted for there faith in Christ and yet they still believe.
"We differ on our concept of exactly when a fetus is considered a "baby" -- when it reaches viability...I denounce the death penalty."
Thanks for proving my point so I didn't lie. I accept your apology again.
When you pull that "fetus" out of a body any 10 year old can recognize it as a baby so you are just wrong. I perfectly understand that there is always someone that loses on the other side of truth but I have said many times to others that it takes far more love to confront then to ignore the situation, perfect love is a constant confronter. So I confront with love.
As for Republican party, I don't vote party but the issues I would of like to see Ron Paul get further then he did, but that is me. McCain creeps me out.
" who would deny a rape victim the right to an abortion" Two negatives make a positive? God bless that woman. There are plenty of people, including myself, that would love that baby as their own. Give that innocent child a chance. I know a man who was the product of a rape and he is a wonderful witness to the Lord.
I thought the "I reject your reality and replace it with my own" was quite funny and very light hearted and witty besides I got it from an atheist.
"If you are unwilling to tell the truth, then meaningful dialogue is lost."
At least we agree on one point.
Dan, at what point does your misinformation become a lie?
ReplyDeleteBecause God is our anchor we are not prone to fall in line doing evil things.
Really? So Christians, who have god as an anchor, don't do evil things, individually or, as your quote above suggests, en masse? Are Christians somehow immune to "group mentality"?
Let me ask a few questions:
1) Is slavery wrong?
2) Is incest wrong?
3) Is the killing of children wrong?
4) Are women permitted to hold a position of authority over men?
5) Is it wrong to put adulterers to death?
Answer these, if you can, and defend your answers using the bible as your source -- your unwavering anchor, as it were.
Before you brag about your ability to maintain your Christian beliefs no matter what circumstances surround you (never mind that this is a delusion), why don't you first try to answer these questions, and consider what, if anything, has changed between now and when the biblical view was first laid down.
Remember that silly test you pointed us to, asking about "absolute morality" versus "subjective morality" (I think that was here)? A particularly damning aspect of those sorts of things is the fact that your own rendition of morality is dynamic. No, no, go ahead and deny it. Just answer these questions first, with biblical references to support your answers.
Thanks for proving my point so I didn't lie.
I must've missed something... No, I didn't. You must've. Yes, that's it -- you missed the part where you were proven to have misrepresented the positions you claim to belong to Democrats (with whom I am unaffiliated, incidentally). Misrepresentation once or twice is a possibly innocent error. Misrepresentation on your scale is indeed deception.
Two negatives make a positive?
Isn't that what the death penalty is?
As to the unofficial positions of the Democratic party, This is the draft of the 2008 Democratic Party Platform -- which mentions nothing concerning the death penalty, and which avoids entirely the discussion of viability of the fetus (presumably leaving that to the states to decide). The 2004 Official Democratic Platform (available here) is likewise ambiguous regarding the line defining a fetus, and it, too, neglects to mention capital punishment.
So, you made an assertion evidently based on your negative stereo-typing, which grossly misrepresented the Democratic Platform. It would seem that this unfounded assertion was also made without even the slightest effort at fact-checking yourself -- a simple Google search for "Democratic Party Platform" (no quotes needed) will produce both of the links above in the first three results.
I suppose I could consider you to be like Spock, in Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, who, after being confronted by fellow Vulcan Lt. Saavik, claimed that rather than having lied, he had "exaggerated"... That might be giving you too much credit, though.
You do still make me laugh, though, when you claim, apparently with a straight face, that you'd still have been a Christian if you had been born in Saudi Arabia in the past 200 years. It makes you wonder why all those Saudi Muslims aren't Christians, doesn't it?
I guess god just wants to condemn most humans to hell, eh?
--
Stan
"When you pull that "fetus" out of a body any 10 year old can recognize it as a baby so you are just wrong."
ReplyDeleteNo.
When a child is aborted according to the pro-choice laws, it is done before anything recognisable as human forms on the fetus: it is merely a lump of unidentifiable-without-a-dna-test cells. After that, it grows no more: the cells leave the womans body usually within a month.
I'm not an expert, but that's my understanding.
Dan wrote:
"I thought the "I reject your reality and replace it with my own" was quite funny and very light hearted and witty besides I got it from an atheist."
Adam Savage? :) I thought I recognised it.
Quasar:
ReplyDeleteSupposedly, most abortions are done at such an early stage. But not all. If partial-birth abortions (actually an appropriate name, labor is induced and the brain is sucked out mid-delivery) didn't occur, there would be no effort to preserve them.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, I will insist, and I do not care if you ban me out:
You missed everybody's points. I will just answer to the part that you pointed to me, but LEARN TO READ! You are making Christians look like perfect examples of idiocy. (Fortunately for Christianity, I know lots of educated and intelligent ones.)
I appreciate you proving Johnson's point
Johnson has no point, his stuff is rhetorically arranged lies.
"as we have already seen, is that in a naturalistic culture scientific conclusions are considered to be knowledge, or even fact.
Bullshit, conclusions are considered as believable as the facts that lead to them. They hold until other facts contradict them. No conclusion makes it into scientific literature until data are convincing enough for it.
What is outside of fact is fantasy, or at best subjective belief...
Bullshit, what we cannot test cannot be considered science because it explains nothing and stops people from searching for an answer. I gave an example before. If we "put God into the mixture," and we are confronted by a difficult problem, such as cancer, what we do with godidit? Nothing. That stops the whole process. Cancer was such a mystery to begin with. Yet, scientists did not just say godidit and went home, they started working from whichever point they could, formulated hypotheses, tested, and today there is a much better chance of recovery than just a few years ago. There is still a long way to go, but we would be nowhere with a godidit. I repeat my question from the other thread ("truth"): what do we do if a results contradicts, clearly, YOUR GOD (actually your bible)? We reject it no matter how conclusive? We hold it until we find a way to not reporting it? Is that not a bias? What a jerk.
Once we put God into the picture, however, there is no good reason to attribute the creation of biological complexity to random mutation and natural selection."
Evolution explains biological diversity and speciation, besides complexity. What you are actually suggesting is that instead of searching for answers we should just say godidit, and forget about finding answers. This is exactly what you are saying. While I am not against any source of inspiration, in the end you need the experiments, the facts, and the knowledge beyond godidit.
I know you are not reading Dan, but I am quite tired of the level of not just ignorance that you display. You are also IGNORING the answers, and you are not willing to even think about what is said. Stan's point was that where you are born influences your beliefs. That you would have been a nazi if you were born in Germany during those times, just like he might have been. Instead of understanding the point (circumstances influence what you believe), you miss it, say you would not have been a nazi, and that he would because he has no moral anchor. What a way of being dumb Dan.
I hope you all understand the necessity of the posts now.
No Dan. What I do understand is why you posted them. You have no idea about anything, and thus, you buy into this idiotic charlatanry. However, you are incapable of understanding anything above high-school level (or you pretend you are incapable).
I know you are erasing this post, but that is ok. You take the liberty of being offensive by ignoring, blatantly, everything we all said, yet take offense for the most minimal "tone" we use. What a jackass.
G.E.
Ups sorry Dan, you are actually incapable of understanding anything above elementary school level.
ReplyDeleteNow I am happy,
G.E.
What we need to do instead is to challenge the assumption that the only questions worth asking are the ones that assume that naturalism is true.
ReplyDeleteTranslation:
"We need to make sure that fairy-tale-stories are taken seriously by the scientists and schools, so that we can tell these incredible stories to everyone and everyone will be saved by JC, our lord."
Just don't wait up standing for that to happen, okay? The day that happens, civilization is destroyed.
GE,
ReplyDeleteThanks for proving that angry atheists do exist.
"Most atheists, I suspect, do not view all religious people as stupid, militant extremists. But those who do ruin it for the rest of us. The image of the angry atheist has got to go."
I do not view all religious people as stupid, militant extremists Dan. You ignore what we say and leave me no option but to view YOU as such. Even other Christians (see above), view you at least a bit like that.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you expect if even now you keep missing the points?
G.E.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI discovered this website a few weeks ago and I enjoy reading the comments on these articles but in reality this blog is a joke.
You post your opinion on certain topics and as your source of information mostly use either the bible, or the words of known liars (Comfort, Johnson).
You can't use the bible to 'debunk' atheists because we don't believe its the word of God like you do. So its pointless. Why bother? If you want to preach then go ahead but you are not 'debunking' anyone by doing this. You are just offering your opinion. I could just offer my opinion on things and say I am debunking people who disagree, but I wouldn't be...
Comfort, Johnson et al have been refuted many times and others here have previously posted links to this, but that doesn't seem to register with you.
To use the title 'Debunking Atheists' suggests that you are competent in using logic to refute the comments made here. But I have seen few examples of this. You even acknowledge above that the less intelligent someone is the more chance they will be religious. What assumptions can you draw from this?
I'm not saying your are dumb, just that you obviously don't have enough education on certain topics, eg evolution, to justify your self-proclaimed title of 'atheist-debunker'. (I will ignore the erroneous assumption that evolution and atheism are inextricably linked)
You have often said there is no evidence of macroevolution and then someone links to talk origins (which is not opinion becuase it cites all the original research so you can check it yourself) and you don't make any further comment on it. Do you actually ever go and read the links or the original research?
GE made a lucid argument in an above post, and instead of addressing his claims (which you should be attempting to 'debunk') you simply called him an 'angry atheist'. How is that debunking? You may claim that you are busy, but you went to the effort of linking to the 'angry atheist' page. Why didn't you address his points instead?
Now I have seen you acknowledge good points several times and it is to your credit that you do. But can you point me to any occasion where the opposite has happened and you have actually debunked a full argument from an atheist?...(without quoting the bible as this is not debunking, this is just your opinion)
Maybe you just enjoy discussion and hearing different ideas on these topics, as I do. But then you should really be called 'Debating Atheists' or 'Conversing with Atheists' as your current title is definitely misleading...
...99% of the time all I read in these comments are examples of 'Debunking Dan'.
Peace...
I'd also like to add to a comment Dan made on irreducible complexity (I don't remember which article it was on). I think he asked how the flagellum could have evolved. A commenter explained how irreducible complexity can arise due to scaffolding proteins. Dan didn't respond to this so I'd like to elaborate...
ReplyDeleteIf irreducible complexity is to be defined as Behe states…
“By irreducible complexity I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning”
…then of course irreducible complexity DOES exist. It fact, it exists everywhere. It has been shown in labs many times that removing “parts” of “systems” results in loss of function. But, crucially, this does not strengthen the intelligent design argument, because these ‘irreducibly complex’ systems CAN evolve through step-by-step neo-Darwinian evolution. Herman Muller described the process back in 1918. For example, take a system that performs a function. Next, gradually make that system more efficient and sophisticated by step-by-step addition of new “parts”. Then, remove some of the earlier redundant “parts” (as happens in evolution) thus increasing efficiency. You now have a more complex system than the previous one, however, if you were to artificially remove a “part” of this new system, it would cease to function. As you should be able to see, this does not mean that it couldn’t have evolved.
I may not have explained that very well. Here is a well known analogy that you may be familiar with. Imagine a river with three stepping stones forming a rudimentary bridge. The stones constitute a system with a function. If you add a long piece of wood across all three stones it is now a slightly more complex system, still with the same function. The middle stone can now be removed without loss of function, and this newer (slightly) more complex system is more efficient in that you can walk across it rather than hopping from stone to stone. If you now remove any of the other parts of this system, ie the wood or the two outer stones, it will lose its function, and thus the bridge can be termed irreducibly complex. However, it came about in a step-by-step fashion (which includes removal of redundant parts) without loss of function.
That a bridge has a designer is irrelevant. It is an analogy to show that apparantly irreducible complex structures can evolve in a step-by-step fashion that is NOT purely additive.
Peace...
Rhiggs,
ReplyDeleteFirst you said: "I could just offer my opinion on things and say I am debunking people who disagree, but I wouldn't be..."
Then the very next sentence you claim: "Comfort, Johnson et al have been refuted many times and others here have previously posted links to this, but that doesn't seem to register with you."
"I could just offer my opinion on things and say I am debunking people who disagree"
"Comfort, Johnson et al have been refuted many times"
You don't see the comedy in these two sentences? So let me get this extreme bias straight, If I refute or debunk something is just "my opinion" but if you, or any atheist, refute or debunk then it's truth and should be accepted as so? You are just cracking me up. My cheeks hurt from laughing, dude.
As far as the martyred GE he pseudo admitted to his behavior, unless you are claiming he lied?
There's that old man made saying about catching flies with honey...
Bzz Bzz
I like Mark 12:31 myself, so I guess that is how GE wants to be treated.
Oh and let me guess, that latent information that you offered about irreducible complexity refutes the subject, it wasn't just "your opinion" Whew, you are a funny one.
You can go on with your elitist "refuting" and I will go on with my mere feeble opinions. I can live with that.
Will you at least admit that in your scenario or example that it was intelligence (me) that was used to arrange those items, ie the wood or the stones?
Dan, your unwillingness to address issues raised, your dishonesty when pretending to do so, and your stark denial of fact, has caused this blog to turn into an insult-fest.
ReplyDeleteI could just offer my opinion on things and say I am debunking people who disagree
As Rhiggs notes, this is what you do. You have basically done it since your first post on this blog. You typically follow your "debunking" with a link to a sophomoric and mildly sexually suggestive clip from Ace Ventura: Pet Detective. The only sources you cite are a) ones such as Comfort and Johnson, or b) ones which you don't understand.
In the first case, complete refutations of your sources are quickly provided. In the second case, you first post as though the source supports your position, and then, when the actual meaning and content is explained to you, you admit that you are uninformed on that subject. When these sorts of sources are shown to actually harm your position, you recede to your default position: the bible says it, so it's true. You then typically throw a temper tantrum worthy of the most spoiled two-year-old.
As to "refuting" versus "debunking", you're right -- there isn't really a difference. The problem stems from your misunderstanding of what constitutes an actual refutation (or debunking), and what does not. When you cite erroneous sources, or dishonest sources, and those errors or dishonest statements are exposed, you again play ostrich.
That's funny. You're a parroting ostrich.
As I was saying, multiple posters here have shown multiple times how and why people like Comfort, Johnson, and Ham are wrong and/or dishonest in their claims and/or arguments. We offer evidence in the form of the actual theory we support, we offer counter-evidence in the form of inconsistent or immoral biblical statements, and we even show how these sources of yours have been made aware of their errors.
They can no longer claim ignorance or accident. Their continued use of refuted claims constitutes dishonesty on their part. Your continued support of these refuted sources, in the face of the refutations themselves, and in the face of other contrary evidence, constitutes dishonesty on your part.
Comfort, Johnson et al have been refuted many times
Indeed, they have. So, too, have you.
Yet you all continue.
--
Stan
Dan,
ReplyDeleteIt seems I've hit a nerve. Steady on there cowboy.
Where to start?
First of all. Your blog is called 'Debunking Atheists'. You claim to debunk atheists when you hardly ever respond to anything without meaningless bible quotes.
I don't have a blog and I don't claim to be a debunker. You do. Thats the difference.
I have not refuted Comfort and Johnson, experts have and links have been posted. They lie and its been exposed. They talk about things they have no proper education in. They are wrong on MANY things. Simple as that. Its not my opinion, its a fact. Go read the links...
When have you debunked anyone with facts instead of bible quotes? I asked you to show my an example but alas you haven't. Why not?
I am glad I crack you up. Believe me, the feeling is mutual.
I don't care what GE said previously or pseudo-admitted to. His above posts contain some valid arguments and outline how you consistently ignore points being made. I said you just called him an 'angry atheist' instead of addressing anything he said. This is just the same name-calling which you have accused others of. What if I call you an 'ignorant bible-basher'. Would that be a good way for me to repsond to your points? Would I have debunked you?
Oh and my example....
I never claimed I was debunking irreducible complexity. I was simply offering a valid way in which these systems can arise in a step-by-step fashion, something that was first described back in 1918. The point is that Behe et al don't understand that evolution isn't simply an additive process. Remember the whole point Dan? Scaffolding?
I suppose you will just respond with a bible quote or two and continue to claim you are an 'atheist debunker'. That most certainly cracks me up...
Peace...
Rhiggs,
ReplyDelete"It seems I've hit a nerve. Steady on there cowboy."
Can you back up this fallacy? You are eluding that I am getting "all worked up" and that just is false, should we call you a liar now? I am quite enjoying this conversation for the record.
"I have not refuted Comfort and Johnson, experts have and links have been posted. They lie and its been exposed."
Let me get this straight now, again. Because some dude told you so, that makes Ray a liar? You sir are one funny man.
It simply is this you trust man and and I don't. I trust God and you don't. Mankind lies, and that is who you trust to tell you others are liars. Are we to assume by your lofty position that you yourself has never lied ever?
"They are wrong on MANY things. Simple as that. Its not my opinion, its a fact." I am going to have to stop my cheeks are way too sore for this.
It's a fact because other people's opinions told me so. Are you eluding that people that attempt to refute any of us are incapable of being wrong? Really?
"I said you just called him an 'angry atheist' instead of addressing anything he said."
This is so hilarious dude. You are so oblivious to the double standards you are spouting out. So what you are saying is that, I should address "his" issues, even though he is totally disrespectful in his demeanor and conduct towards me? That he is worthy of a response no matter how I am treated. OK dude.
Stay in that saddle, cowboy. It's getting deep.
Stan Come on that ace thing was funny and I thought you of all people would of enjoyed it. Yes of course it was sophomoric that was the whole point. So you are pointing out the obvious, now what's your point.
"Indeed, they have. So, too, have you."
And so have you many times...see how easy that is. Thanks for the smiles, my 2 month old's smiles are just too addicting right now.
Evasive as ever. Still you don't answer the questions...whether someone is rude or not doesn't invalidate their arguments. You are a name-caller too...
ReplyDeleteI'll ask again. Show me where you, the self-proclaimed 'atheist debunker', have ever debunked an argument using actual real-world evidence or facts...
When you, or Johnson/Comfort, say there is no evidence of macroevolution you are either ignorant or lying. Several people have posted links to such evidence and you have not responded. Perhaps you don't believe the evidence. That is your opinion. You should explain why without resorting to bible quotes.
So do you concede that irreducible complexity can evolve in a step-by-step fashion? If not, explain why?
What the fuck, Dan?
ReplyDeleteIt's a fact because other people's opinions told me so.
You state this as though it's a joke, and as though it somehow applies. Neither is true.
Actually, I take that back. It is a joke. It's a joke because just a few lines above this statement, you made this one:
It simply is this you trust man and and I don't. I trust God and you don't. Mankind lies, and that is who you trust to tell you others are liars.
By which you evidently mean that you believe the bible, which was described as complete truth to you by man, and which was in fact written by man.
So when you say you trust god, you mean that you trust what man has told you about god, which may or may not coincide with personal revelation(s) and/or spiritual feelings you've had.
Way to expose your own dishonesty.
As to addressing any points in the last week or so, Rhiggs nailed that, as well:
Evasive as ever. Still you don't answer the questions
Indeed.
--
Stan
Nice looking site! It reminds me of another one on the opposite side of the fence. ; -)
ReplyDeleteWow, how did I miss this?
ReplyDeleteI wrote:
"...once God is in the picture, science necessarily goes out the window."
Dan Replied:
"So you do understand the true bias of scientists/atheists. The sure want jobs now don't they. That huge paradigm must be fed or the data will be rejected."
Even theistic scientists would be out of jobs if "God did it" is an acceptable explanation. By "science goes out the window," I meant that science would necessarily become no different than theology if one includes God in the picture.
You seem to be looking to end science entirely, yet here you are making use of technology (like this blog) that exists only because scientists weren't satisfied with "God did it" as an explanation for the behavior (or existence) of electrons. It seems like if you were self-consistent, you'd be rejecting everything that's been provided by atheistic science, not just evolution (you do shun modern medicine, right?).
Dan wrote
ReplyDelete"It's a fact because other people's opinions told me so. Are you eluding that people that attempt to refute any of us are incapable of being wrong? Really?"
With all due respect, Dan, you seem to be completely missing the point. The point isn't that the linked articles represent the opinions of the authors, but rather that the authors either provide the facts and observations, or reference the facts and observations, which show that their conclusions are valid.
Reading them shows this very clearly. As an example, take a look at the reference list to TalkOrigins 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. In the second paragraph of the Endogenous retroviruses segment alone, there are 9 seperate references to scientific, peer reviewed journals, demonstrating that ER's do exist and do appear in the places predicted and expected by evolutionary theory.
That's why others are getting heated: you either haven't read them thoroughly, or you are deliberately misrepresenting our evidence. I would prefer to believe that you merely skimmed them, and didn't notice or understand the significance of the references, than the other, so I'm asking you to at least take a bit of a look. We're not making this stuff up.
Quasar,
ReplyDelete"That's why others are getting heated: you either haven't read them thoroughly, or you are deliberately misrepresenting our evidence."
I perfectly understand the frustration but I refuse to read anything from talk origins, ever. If you have noticed I placed it on my rebuked list because so many atheists depend on it. It is a bad tree. I don't have to read the satanic bible to know what it's about either. Yes it is an extreme bias, but it is what I believe.
Dan wrote:
ReplyDelete"I perfectly understand the frustration but I refuse to read anything from talk origins, ever. If you have noticed I placed it on my rebuked list because so many atheists depend on it. It is a bad tree. I don't have to read the satanic bible to know what it's about either. Yes it is an extreme bias, but it is what I believe."
OK, fine: don't bother reading the TalkOrigins articles, just go straight to the scientific references at the bottom of every page. They say the exact same things, in more detail and using more technical terms. The only purpose the TO articles serve is to bring their main points together into one place and simplify them to make them easier to understand.
I expect that others who frequent this blog will get passionate, frustrated, maybe even angry about this post: it demonstrates an absolute unwillingness to so much as consider the evidence. I won't. I will merely warn you that by ignoring the evidence we are happy to provide, you aren't debunking us: you are brainwashing yourself.
Dan,
ReplyDelete"I refuse to read anything from talk origins, ever."
Wow....
I mean just Wow.....
That pretty much emphasises how blinkered your views are. How can you claim to have ANY clue as to what you're talking about when it comes to evolution, especially in terms of recent research?
As explained by Quasar, you can ignore everything they say on talk origins if you want. The point is that they REFERENCE THE PRIMARY RESEARCH and they are actually summarising the conclusions of the authors of peer-reviewed literature. It is NOT a blog and it is NOT simply a bunch of people giving their opinion.
"I don't have to read the satanic bible to know what it's about either."
You have no clue what talk origins is 'about'. To denounce something without reading it first is completely ridiculous.
On another article you gave me a lot of bible passages to read through, and although I don't believe them, I still had the decency to read them and discuss them with you. Yet when you are given something to read, you don't...
...that is why this blog is a JOKE
Peace...
Rhiggs,
ReplyDelete"On another article you gave me a lot of bible passages to read through, and although I don't believe them, I still had the decency to read them and discuss them with you."
Valid point, I just cannot bring myself to read that evil website. You are inferring that I don't read anything which is just plain false. I read and try to understand everything. The difference is the Bible is true and truth and TO is lies and deceit, it's just bad fruit. I tried a long time ago but I cannot anymore. Too many people get caught up in that website, so much it becomes atheists god so I stay clear. to be a credible resource you should use just more then one source anyway, all I ask is use others. TO is just too icky for me.
My opinions may be a joke to you but I feel I have addressed your point in full. BTW I haven't said that about you.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteFirstly, show me evidence that talk origins is lies and deceit. Back up your claim please...
"I read and try to understand everything."
OK, you read and try to understand everything. Great!! Please list your favorite pro-evolution and anti-creationism websites. Perhaps link us to some of the articles you've read there recently and we'll discuss them.
"My opinions may be a joke to you but I feel I have addressed your point in full. BTW I haven't said that about you."
Really?
Scroll up a bit Dan. On several occasions you clearly indicated that my opinions were a joke to you. Here's what you said:
"You are just cracking me up. My cheeks hurt from laughing, dude."
"Whew, you are a funny one."
"You sir are one funny man."
"I am going to have to stop my cheeks are way too sore for this."
I don't believe I said anything funny (either did other commenters). Care to take that statement back now? Lying is a sin, isn't it?
By the way, I'm also still waiting for an example of where you have debunked an atheist on anything using real world facts. As it says above the box where you enter comments:
"Debunk the person logically..."
Is this your logic Dan:
"TO is just too icky for me."
Wow. I guess I'm debunked...
Peace...
Rhiggs,
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely right and I was wrong. When I said "BTW I haven't said that about you." I was flat wrong. I thought I was talking to someone else (in my defense). I forgot it was you who was "cracking me up" I apologize because I misspoke. You have full right to consider what I said a joke because I felt the same about what you said.
Talk Origins is a sore spot for me I will confess. Can I prove they are lying? Well, for one they are anti-Creationism and pro-evolution which is based on a belief system not truth. Which makes them, at the very least, suspect in my book.
You might have me there for pro-evolution websites. I don't want to immerse myself in things I don't believe in. I fully understand my bias. I had enough of it in school. My presuppositions just will not allow consideration of that viewpoint. I can point to plenty of wonderful websites that does believe in Creation and Scientific method of finding truth though. I provide those on my links to the side of this blog.
I guess we can both agree to our own bias towards these subjects.
Dan,
ReplyDelete"Talk Origins is a sore spot for me I will confess. Can I prove they are lying? Well, for one they are anti-Creationism and pro-evolution which is based on a belief system not truth."
In other words, NO, you can't back up the claim you made. They don't lie, they just present the research for lay people to understand. Its a popular website. Do you not think the authors of the cited research would complain if they were being misrepresented?
Earlier you said:
"I read and try to understand everything."
Now you say:
"You might have me there for pro-evolution websites. I don't want to immerse myself in things I don't believe in. I fully understand my bias."
So you lied then. You don't make any attempt to read or understand evolution. You simply read what some untrained Creationists say and thats good enough for you. How is that in any way an honest objective way to enter a debate? Its absolutely ridiculous...
"I guess we can both agree to our own bias towards these subjects."
Well, the thing is I read a lot of Creationist nonsense (AIG, DI, ICR), including your own articles. I read them because I like to know what people like you think and I like to discuss it with you. Its healthy to read opinions that differ to yours. Surely your faith is strong enough? What are you afraid of?
But no. You can't even be open-minded enough to read any evolutionary or anti-creationist literature. You're like that kid in school who begins to hear something he doesn't like and covers his ears and goes 'LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA'
And then you have the gall to say things like:
"There is no evidence for macroevolution"
The sad thing is that this process will continue due to your ignorance of the topic and unwillingness to learn...
Dan: "No evidence"
Atheist: "Here it is"
Dan: "LA LA LA LA...bad fruit...LA LA LA LA...TO is icky"
Atheist: "Sigh"
Dan: "I debunk atheists"
x n
Bite the bullet and actually have a look at what everyone here has been constantly trying to get you to read. Then we might actually be able to discuss things in an honest way. If you can't then this blog is a joke and I would find it funny but its just too pathetic...
Peace...
Rhiggs,
ReplyDelete"So you lied then."
Just because I don't frequent pro-evolution or pro- abortion websites doesn't mean I don't study up it. Your being unfair.
"You don't make any attempt to read or understand evolution."
Not true.
"You simply read what some untrained Creationists say and thats good enough for you."
First you cannot back up that fallacy and second these people have PhD's and are highly qualified to made educated hypotheses on any subject. Just because it doesn't feed the mighty paradigm doesn't mean it's wrong.
You are judging their education without even knowing who they are. Your logic borders ridiculous at this point.
And then you have the gall to say things like:
"There is no evidence for macroevolution"
OK yea, I guess I am the only one here. If it were so concrete there would be no question.
I will concede that, at times, I am a slippery eel because I don't have all the answers but I did read the ending and I know how it turns out. Anything to the contrary is false. I cannot concede to evolution, sorry my presupposition just will not allow it. As the same goes for you and God. LA LA LA
Take care. Thanks for the smile.
Dan wrote:
ReplyDelete"To be a credible resource you should use just more then one source anyway, all I ask is use others. TO is just too icky for me."
Certainly. Let's try again. Endogenous retroviruses are extremely powerful evidence of "Macro-evolution" and common decent. No other theory explains them. TalkOrigins has a easy to read and comprehensive summary of what they are here.
Scientific peer-reviewed papers and essays on them in humans and apes can be found by Sverdlov 2000, Bonner et al 1982, Danger et al 1995, Svensson et al 1995, Kjellman et al. 1999 and Lebedev et al. 2000. The same in Felidae (cats) can be found by Futuyma 1998, (Evolutionary Biology. Third edition) pp. 293-294 and Todaro et al. 1975.
E.Retrovirus's exist. Without a theory to explain them, all of biology falls flat on its face. Common decent is the only way: not even the apologist "Common Designer" argument can explain this unmistakable pattern.
You need to deal with the evidence Dan, not simply throw argumentum ad hominem at TalkOrigins simply because they disagree with you.
Dan,
ReplyDelete"Just because I don't frequent pro-evolution or pro- abortion websites doesn't mean I don't study up it. Your being unfair."
Ok I'm being unfair. You are obviously an enthusiastic student of evolutionary literature. What pro-evolution literature do you read then? Please list anything you study that doesn't come from a Creationist source...
"...these people have PhD's and are highly qualified..."
Who? Ray and Kirk? Johnson? These people have no such qualifications. Please list your highly qualified sources...
Oh wait. Maybe you mean Behe? Firstly he isn't a YEC so he disagrees with you on probably more issuses than he agrees. Secondly his hypotheses have been thoroughly debunked by several experts including the religious Ken Miller (excellent lecture on youtube). Remember my comment on the step-by-step evolution of irreducible complexity through scaffolding proteins? Remember? Not only an additive process? Remember? Anything to add...?
"Your logic borders ridiculous at this point."
Ha! The words pot, kettle and black come to mind. You claim I call these people uneducated without knowing who they are. Yet you call the writers at talk origins evil and deceitful without knowing them or reading there articles (once again, which references the primary literature: try reading some of it, thanks Quasar...)
"I cannot concede to evolution, sorry my presupposition just will not allow it. As the same goes for you and God. LA LA LA"
Well, I read bible quotes and other links you post, so I'm certainly not going LA LA LA. I actually have the decency and honesty to read them, and then discuss them with you. I certainly disagree with most of it but at least I explain why. You haven't given me any reason to believe you even try to understand evolution or for example, endogenous retroviruses. Can you not see the difference?
You just keep giving the same ridiculous answer. That you don't read talk origins or that its not the 'Truth'. Wow! That just shows no willingness to learn at all. The best way to 'debunk' atheists on evolution would surely be to actually learn about it properly first, not continuosly attack the same old strawmen. Quasar has posted some literature for you. Go and read it then come back and explain why you disagree with it...
This might actually lead to an honest debate.
If you can't I find it strange. Does that mean your faith isn't strong enough to read what is advocated by the vast majority of the scientific world? Are you afraid what you read might actually make sense? Please explain your logic to me. If you think its complete rubbish, then whats the problem with reading it...?
Peace...
Rhiggs,
ReplyDelete"Please list anything you study that doesn't come from a Creationist source..."
Study? I cannot. Do you really think I purchase books for my kids, for example, that claim billions of years (false) or thousands (truth)? Things that follow a secular teachings (false) or Creation? I get materials that agree with my presuppositions and I am sure you do the same.
"Please list your highly qualified sources..."
Well there are a great deal of people that doubt the current models, not all are creationist like myself. Just because not 100% hold Jesus as God doesn't mean the current models are very suspect. These are the people that I would be willing to listen to instead of the current scientists who believe in evolution and big bang and/or are atheists. Just these three things renders them false. These are just my opinions. Those three things renders the beliefs they hold as false, INHO.
There are plenty who believe as I do:
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
Creationists holding DOCTORATES IN SCIENCE
Creation Scientists and Teachers Comment
Open letter to Scientists
Now they may not "all" believe in the Creation Model either but they sure do question the current method/model, as I do also. I would be willing to listen to these people. Why? Because in my book, these people are truth seekers not just pawns in the paradigm fulfillment as the current scientific process.
Look Quasar offered this 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
And a while ago I offered the counter in a post:
A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s “29 Evidences for Macroevolution”
And guess where it gets us? Nowhere! We all still have our presupposition firmly in place. This is one of the main reasons why I stopped reading talk origins a long time ago.
Don't think i don't read anything offered either but i have been down these paths in the past. I fully admit I will not entertain Talk Origins, because it's been replaced by TRUE Origins and many others like the links I have provided on this blog on the sidebar.
Study? I cannot. Do you really think I purchase books for my kids, for example, that claim billions of years (false) or thousands (truth)? Things that follow a secular teachings (false) or Creation? I get materials that agree with my presuppositions and I am sure you do the same.
ReplyDeleteAmidst the swarm of similar places, Dan, you'd also be wrong here. I, for one, and through inference from the various posts of my cohorts -- much less our appearance on this silly blog -- it's safe to say that virtually every free-thinker (read: persons not bound to any particular dogma; ergo not-theists) makes an attempt to be well-read and well-studied in his quest for knowledge.
Ever heard of a library? You'd be amazed at how many books -- supportive or contradictory -- one can read for a couple bucks worth of late charges. When I visit my local library, for instance, I make an effort to check out opposing views. In my bookcase at home, I own and display a bible alongside Nietzsche, Marx, Orwell, Sagan, the Book of Mormon, Hirsi Ali, Dawkins, Twain, Sallinger, and, my personal favorite, the Principia Discordia (the whole text of which can be found here).
How you can possibly think that you have a realistic concept of the positions of your adversaries is quite beyond me -- if you refuse to engage them on their turf, if you refuse to immerse yourself in their system, then you are unqualified to critique that system, and you are equally unqualified to lay claim to a superior system.
I have read all the books in my bookshelf. Many of them, multiple times. I have grappled with C.S. Lewis' writings as well as Christopher Hitchens'. What have you done? Oh, yeah -- you "rebuked" TalkOrigins, because it is too "yucky".
Grow up.
Do you remember the first time you read The Lord of the Flies? Was it the only time you read it? Did you even read it, or did you just pretend, and daydream?
Read it again. Read all the books you were required to read when you were a kid, and see what they say this time. Read books written by your heroes, and read books written by your devils. How in the hell do you think you can make a reasoned argument if you don't even know what either side is saying?
Oh, yeah. Your whole belief system is based purely on hearsay.
Seriously, Dan, seriously. If you want to be taken at all seriously here, you have to prove that you're qualified in some respect to hold that honor. Refusing to consider contrary opinion -- even to read it -- is the epitome of close-mindedness. You are a fool. You remind me of the Jehovah's Witness who refuses to read a scientific journal unless it is stamped with the seal of approval from the Watchtower. You're no different, by your own admission.
Humble yourself.
--
Stan
Dan wrote:
ReplyDelete"Look Quasar offered this 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
And a while ago I offered the counter in a post:
A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s “29 Evidences for Macroevolution”"
Ah, I see. But here's the problem: you don't seem to have understood either.
Once again, let us take the example of the endogenous retroviruses.
Here's a link to the refutation ERV's.
Read it, Dan, and you'll notice something. Ashby Camp (the author) completely misrepresents what ERV's mean to evolution.
He starts by giving a "prediction and fulfillment" summary of TO's argument.
"If universal common ancestry is true, then the same endogenous retrovirus (ERV) will exist in the same chromosomal location in two or more species."
This is a strawman. The evidence lies in the nested pattern that is demonstrated by TO's diagram, not in "two or more species sharing an ERV".
He continues by idly catagorising them as the same thing as Transposons and Pseudogenes ("Shared errors"). They are something entirely different, as a quick read of TO's explanation will demonstrate, and there is so much information in each ERV that it is very clear they are more than simply an "error".
He then complains that evolutionary theory didn't predict them before they were discovered. So what? Who cares?
No-one even said it was a "prediction" in the first place.
He continues, claiming that ERV's don't support Universal Common Decent because "they are not shared by all groups of organisms". Not Relevant! They are shared in apes and humans, and in a number of other species including the already mentioned cats. The support the common decent of these species, and the genome of most others hasn't even been sequenced, so we don't know if they share ERV's!
The next sentence completely and utterly mis-represents the argument, possibly because Camp is now copying and pasting his response from transposons and replacing a word or two. Once again, the argument for ERV's meaning for Evolution lies with the pattern they form when you look at their frequency within related species, not, as Camp would have you believe, in the fact that they exist in the same chromosomal location.
He continues with the next few paragraphs by pointing out that some ERV's have beneficial function for the host. Once again: So what? And then you get to the reason for this: "if ERV sequences have a function, then God may have had a functional reason for initially placing them at the same chromosomal location in separately created species." That makes sense: he's still dealing with the wrong argument! THE ARGUMENT REFERS TO THE INTERSPECIES PATTERN, NOT THE CHOMSOMAL LOCATION!
[Deep breath's] OK, let's continue...
Camp said: " In that case, the fact ERVs (and other transposons) now have mostly deleterious effects is because the original system has degenerated as a result of the Fall, not because they arose by random processes."
ERV's ARENT TRANSPOSONS! AND THEY VERY RARELY HAVE ANY EFFECT AT ALL, LET ALONE DELETERIOUS ONES! CAMP IS A NITWIT!
OK, I'm OK... Calm... Deep breaths... That's it... Theeerrreee we go...
Camps second last point is that ERV's commonly map themselves to specific genes, rather than randomly inserting themselves. Wow. Certain genetic scaffolding is easier for a ERV sequence to attach itself to? Who'd have thought? He then makes a rather massive leap of faith to claim that therefore the ERV's originally had a purpose, which is why they mapped to those spots more often... Yeah. OK. Genes don't work like that.
Let's see poor Ashby's final point:
"The suggestion that the hypothesis of common ancestry would be falsified by the discovery of the same ERV at the same locus in two species that are not believed to have shared a recent common ancestor is incorrect. ERVs simply would join the list of alleged markers for evolution that exhibit homoplasy. And given what is known of retrovirus selectivity, I doubt anyone would be surprised."
Oh right. So the evolutionists would simply claim that the exact same type of virus (of billions) seperately infected a valid, reproducing origin cell (sperm or egg), inserted it's own genes into the exact same place in two entirely unrelated creatures, and those creatures and their decendants survived to the modern day, with the ERV genes suffering the exact same minor mutations in each generation along the way? Despite the fact this happens only once every few million years?
Yeah. Right.
And yes, the nitwit comment was ad hominem. But it made me feel better, and was entirely accurate to boot...
Cheers all!
Qu.
Stan,
ReplyDeleteI do appreciate your input.
"every free-thinker (read: persons not bound to any particular dogma; ergo not-theists) makes an attempt to be well-read and well-studied in his quest for knowledge."
Some people have a thirst and quest for knowledge such as yourself, and that is perfectly fine. Your quest is just different then mine or you haven't found what you are looking for yet. I wasn't made like that. I was an average student I aced my tests and hardly did my homework. I was nobody's fool though. I had to grow up very quickly since I was slammed with real life issues at a very young age. At age 10 my Mom (age 38) had a major stroke due to Lupus and was in and out of ICU until she was taken when I turned 19 so my scatter brain was focused on real hard issues. Plus, I took care of my brother with cerebral palsy so my Dad could take care of my Mom. You know help, dress, feed, and toilet/shower. All the fun stuff a kid wants to do for his brother growing up. But he wasn't heavy he was, after all, my brother. My life was complicated and hard and I was fine that I didn't grasp calculus.
Also, I am the kind of guy who owns a company who surrounds myself with people with masters degrees and I am comfortable with that. I have the vision and they work the details to implement that vision.
"I own and display a bible alongside Nietzsche, Marx, Orwell, Sagan, the Book of Mormon, Hirsi Ali, Dawkins, Twain, Sallinger, and, my personal favorite, the Principia Discordia"
Wow impressive, but let me ask you something how is that working for you? From what I can tell you are not saved (I wouldn't know) so where did all that get you? Lost? Unsaved?
What good is it to gain the world to lose your soul?
My quest was a quest for truth. Once I started on that quest I didn't stop until I found it. I read the Bible and found truth, I was satisfied to the brim. I did not need to look further, I can tell you today that I am perfectly fine and extremely comfortable with that one Book on my shelf.
If you lost a ring in a dark room and the light was turned on and you found it, would you continue to look for it? I found my ring, no need to look anymore no matter how many people tell me it's easier to see it in other rooms. You call that biased? OK, I can live with that.
I have done well in life. I was part of a small group that started a company and within 6 short years we were pulling in 50 million a year. I left to start my own company and now I am a stay at home Dad and having more of a blast at my current job then all the others combined. Books and knowledge is not the goal, as many of you might believe, its what you do with the knowledge you have that counts. Professionals excluded, I knew some of the smartest people (book smart) that worked their tail off for a small paychecks. I also know some real rocks out there pulling in millions. I also know some very hard working people pulling in a small paycheck who are the happiest people I ever met. I would consider myself now in the latter group. God has filled my plate more then I could ever imagine in a simplified rich way. I will tell you that I should of died myself about 4-5 times in my life but I was spared and at the time I could not figure out why, now I look into Patty's and my four kids eyes and know there is a God and he came to earth to save me. For that I am grateful and He has my undying loyalty. So yes, I am quite biased and I can live with that, can you?
Quasar,
ReplyDeleteDid you notice you followed rule one of the The Atheist Starter Kit?
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI am beginning to agree with you that you are a slippery eel. I don't see the difference between what you are doing and lying...
First you said:
"I read and try to understand everything."
Note the word EVERYTHING
Now you say:
"Study? I cannot. Do you really think I purchase books for my kids, for example, that claim billions of years (false) or thousands (truth)? Things that follow a secular teachings (false) or Creation? I get materials that agree with my presuppositions and I am sure you do the same."
You've completely contradicted yourself...
You don't seem to read anything that doesn't already agree with your position. I am here on your blog hence I am willing to read opinions from the other side of the fence (I also commonly frequent AIG, DI, ICR websites). I have also read several books from Creationist/ID authors. As Stan points out, how can you debunk any of us if you don't understand our positions...
You seem to have no real understanding of evolution as your mind has been warped by just reading refutations (which themselves have been refuted by many including Quasar just here). Why not try reading some of the original stuff. I'll repeat my question. Is your faith not strong enough? If you think its rubbish, whats the problem with reading it?
Instead of addressing any of Quasar's points you just smugly say he is following rule one of the atheists starter kit.
What is rule one?
"Whenever you are presented with credible evidence for God's existence, call it a "straw man argument," or "circular reasoning." If something is quoted from somewhere, label it "quote mining.""
So I presume you are saying that everything in Camp's rebuttal was accurate and it contained no strawmen. Please explain this to us ignorant evolutionists. Explain where Quasar is wrong in his/her points.
For example, explain why the following of Camp's statements is accurate:
"If universal common ancestry is true, then the same endogenous retrovirus (ERV) will exist in the same chromosomal location in two or more species."
Quasar explained why it is a strawman. I would really like to hear your rebuttal of Quasar.
As an aside, you might be interested to hear that I work in the field of immunology, and specifically I work with Lupus patients. We are on the threshold of making a very exciting breakthrough in that we have discovered a new role for a protein associated with the disease. I can't go into specifics as its yet to be published, but it might open up an entirely different treatment strategy. We are aiming to prevent the Lupus flares rather than simply treat the symptoms. It is very exciting stuff and hopefully will lead to an improved quality of life for the unfortunate patients and their families.
Now, how did we get to where we are now. Well Dan, I can tell you that evolutionary biology (which you don't believe in and wish to expose)was heavily involved. By clustering homologous proteins from different species, we were able to identify conserved regions. This allowed us to focus on certain important amino acids and create point mutants. In doing so we identified a new function of this particular protein which appears to be lacking in Lupus patients.
Without evolutionary biology, we would not have been able to identify the important amino acids involved. It would have been a needle in a haystack search and the chances of us finding them would have been close to zero.
Its a pity evolutionary biology wasn't as advanced when your mother needed treatment. Its also a pity that you are now turning your back on the very methodology that might prevent Lupus in the future.
Open your eyes Dan. Believe in God all you like, thats fine. But there's no reason why you can't read about evolution too. Its a reliable explanation for biological complexity. It also makes predictions that have been verified and is a major tool in fighting diseases, like Lupus. The people you listen too don't fully understand it (whether they have PhDs or not). Understanding the finer details of it isn't easy. Its complicated!! Thats why you have to make an honest effort to read about it for yourself and not take other peoples words at face value (ours or theirs)...
Peace...
Rhiggs,
ReplyDeleteIt's true "I read and try to understand everything." just because I don't intensely "Study" or immerse myself into it doesn't mean I don't get it. I don't believe that is a lie, do you? I will not go to some websites like Talk O that's all. I will listen to an argument but I don't have to agree.
I am glad you are doing research for Lupus and I may appear to be contradictory but it isn't intentional. Hormones for cows bad idea, cure for Lupus great idea. Maybe I am having trouble explaining myself. Science that has to deal with origins such as evolution, big bang, I feel are the snake oil guys. Although you are relating the two as one in the same which to me is sad and frustrating. Science that finds cures for bad diseases is a good thing as long as they get it right. In her last months they prescribed some drug for my Mom's kidneys and she had a terrible reaction, broke out with burns all over her body she caught pneumonia and eventually died because her body couldn't fight anymore. I fully understand why they call it practice.
I guess I am looking it though a different lens these days. Death is inevitable we cannot change that. God will take whoever and whenever. Is modern medicine making it better and more comfortable or more complicated and problematic? In my Mom's case they fought Lupus and made my Mom's life, in the end, miserable and she suffered great pain. Peaceful may have been her path if there was just no intervention. Anyway this is getting very philosophically personal and my brain is scattering because my emotions are involved.
There has been something on my mind about my Mom though. I will ask you, is it common for a person with Lupus to go through many strokes and prescribed intense chemotherapy to counter Lupus or did my Mom have something else (cancer) also? I was young and I just don't know the answer for that one. Chemotherapy to combat Lupus sound right to you?
I am holding people accountable for their actions that's all. You want to cure me fine take the responsibility of it and get it right, you want to amputate the wrong arm or cause great harm in the process you should go to jail. Scientists that cause great harm to people because they get it wrong should be held accountable like the rest of us.
I applaud your work Rhiggs, just don't drink on the job and do harm, you are held to a higher accountability and standard, at least in my book. I would kill millions and that is why I am not a scientist. A toll both operator may be able to get away with goofing off or falling asleep on the job or getting something wrong but air traffic controllers cannot and neither can you.
Maybe you believe that I am completely contradicted myself again but there is good and bad out there. I am the one who distinguishes which is which, based on my personal level and belief structure. I cannot trust the evolution model because of all the false that has come from it. I will not study it until some trusted experts say otherwise. As you well know the Jury is still out on that subject. Naturalism is just the opposite of what I believe and there are natural conflicts because of it. Can you do me a favor for this discussion and at least admit there is bad science going on out there? There are immoral scientists and maybe I just have a problem with them. I am an enemy of evil as we all should be. Science is great as long as it's not used for evil then we have a problem. Maybe I should say I want evil to go away not certain science. Well guess what the God who I am loyal to promises me that that is exactly what will happen. It's time to pick a side.
Dan,
ReplyDelete"I will listen to an argument but I don't have to agree."
Of course you don't. But you never explain why you disagree in a logical way. Its always a general statement about how science is evil and so on. That isn't conducive to proper debate and just becomes infuriating. You need to explain your specific problems with evolutionary biology. You could start with endogenous retroviruses but you won't. Why? Because you don't understand them. Why? Because you don't honestly try to understand any aspect of evolution. Am I wrong? I hope so. Please show me...
"Science that has to deal with origins such as evolution, big bang, I feel are the snake oil guys. Although you are relating the two as one in the same which to me is sad and frustrating. Science that finds cures for bad diseases is a good thing as long as they get it right."
They are not mutually exclusive Dan. I am actively involved in science which aims to cure diseases and we use evolutionary biology. It works. It HELPS CURE DISEASES. It makes no difference what me, you or anyone believe in. The following sentence is a irrefutable fact:
EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY HELPS CURE DISEASES.
You cannot deny this so please don't have the arrogance to do so. I work in the field. You don't. Grow up and learn about it because you are digging a bigger hole of ignorance with each of your posts.
"Is modern medicine making it better and more comfortable or more complicated and problematic?"
Go look at life expectancy charts for the last few centuries and you will find your answer. I'm not a medic (I'm a researcher) so I can't really answer your questions but that does seem like a strange treatment regime. Most Lupus patients are just given immunosuppressants. Perhaps your mother had other problems she didn't want you to know about. I wouldn't automatically blame modern medicine.
Look...
I've had about enough of this blog for a while. I might check back again at some stage but you are just too narrow-minded to have a real conversation with. You refuse to read things that would explain evolution properly, and yet you continue to claim its evil. You take certain peoples word as truth just because its agrees with your presuppositions, and anyone else is lying. You are brainwashed, plain and simple.
I honestly don't mean to be rude but you have NO idea what you're talking about. Its painfully obvious to anyone who has a basic grasp of evolution to see how ignorant you are on the subject. But you refuse to even consider learning.
"I cannot trust the evolution model because of all the false that has come from it. I will not study it until some trusted experts say otherwise. As you well know the Jury is still out on that subject."
What false has come from it?
At least 95% of biologists accept evolution, if not more. But who are the trusted experts according to you? Those that disagree with it. Thats circular reasoning. Can't you see the ridiculous logic you are using? The jury is most definitely not out in the scientific community. Ray and Kirk don't have a clue what they are talking about (eg crocoduck, bananas).
Also, you have never debunked any atheist on any topic from what I can see. I have asked you several times to show me an example, but you ignore me.
I consider it a failing of mine that I don't have the patience of some of the other commenters here. I just can't put up with this level of ignorance and unwillingness to learn.
Please don't claim that I am just as unwilling to learn when it comes to your opinions. I spent a long time reading through all the bible passages you posted on your morality article, and discussed them with you. Some were fine. Some were not. I explained why I disagreed with them. You have never explained any of your problems with evolution. I now realise that you never will so this is a waste of time.
So long
Peace...
Dan wrote:
ReplyDelete"Quasar,
Did you notice you followed rule one of the The Atheist Starter Kit?"
Rhiggs already mentioned this, but I'm going to explain why I didn't follow "rule 1", rather than ask for evidence that I did, as Rhiggs did.
"Rule 1" states:
""Whenever you are presented with credible[1] evidence for God's existence[2], call it a "straw man argument,"[3] or "circular reasoning."[4] If something is quoted from somewhere, label it "quote mining."[5]
1] Camp didn't present 'credible evidence'. He didn't present any evidence at all: he merely presented an argument against Theobalds evidence. All well and good: but it isn't evidence.
2] Camp didn't present any "evidence for gods existance". Instead, he presented arguments against the evidence for evolution. The whole thing had absolutely nothing to do with God.
3] Yes, I did call "strawman", and this is what I presume you are getting at. I used it in context: Camp misrepresented the position he was arguing against, and then proceeded to knock down the misrepresentation: not the actual position. This is exactly the definition of a strawman. Now to be fair, I'm not accusing Camp of doing this dishonestly. It is entirely possible he merely skimmed Theobalds article, and lacking any understanding of what ERV's are or what they mean in context, he categorised them as the same thing as Transposons. Nonetheless, the position he attacked...
"If universal common ancestry is true, then the same endogenous retrovirus (ERV) will exist in the same chromosomal location in two or more species." - Camp's summary.
... is not the position that was made...
See this diagram
4] Camp didn't make this fallacy.
5] Camp didn't make this fallacy.
I did absolutely nothing stated in Rays "Starter Kit": which, like Camps representation of ERV's...
...is a strawman.
But please point out if I ever actually do do something in the starter kit, because I would hate to think that I was actually promoting Rays pathetic arguments.