dinosaurs on the ark and other scientific facts

[ChumpDumper]

Not that these debates haven't occurred there, but how is this political?

[tlongII]

Blingy Forum

[Phenomanul]

And who/what decided that there was order before humans? Who passed on this information? How was this information passed on to the first human to decide this?
Circular, eh?


GOD established the design. He dictated the bounds by which order was characterized. We simply became 'aware' of this fundamental concept.

Furthermore, GOD allows for man's understanding of His universe to progress. He dictates the timing as well.



Okay, I get it, everyone gets this. When human minds arose, capable of fleshing out and discovering concepts of quantum physics, they discovered that certain concepts and laws had to be exactly how they were, for their understandable universe to exist. We all know this. You are right (as far as I know)


Why does it have to be black and white? For someone so intent on reading between the lines and coming to your own conclusions based on research, do you even find it possibly possibly possible that the nature of the universe is such that even our current physical models are still far from describing it? Since I was a teenager, I recall them admitting they have discovered like 3 or 4 more dimensions than they had thought existed. Why do these laws and rules have to be exactly the way humans think they are, for our universe to exist? The fact of the matter is that we have no idea of the nature of our universe without a conscious, analytical, thinking human mind to receive and interpret all the data around it.

Now this is a conundrum. This is like the "does a falling tree make a sound if no one is around to hear it" argument. The fact that hearing defines how we perceive sound does little to negate the fact that sound is being created. Similarly, the fact that order existed before we could perceive it does little to negate the fact that it has always existed.




Maybe it would not exist at all, maybe those precise laws would exist, maybe its all bull shit that our minds are trying to impose upon a universe that can quite possibly be infinite.

This universe is very much finite though it may appear infinite. That's how most "Big Bang Theories" have defined its creation; and upon which everything else is hinged.

Now if your dimensional eyeglasses happened to be "time" itself you may find that the universe is in fact infinite... and not finite.

If the elusive Unified Theory was ever finalized the constants would become that much more important not less...




"Most discipline is hidden discipline, designed not to liberate but to limit. Do not ask Why? Be cautious with How? Why? leads inexorably to paradox. How? traps you in a universe of cause and effect. Both deny the infinite."

This is a quote from Heretics of Dune by Frank Herbert. And i almost completely agree with it.

It is a very eclectic quote. Probably something one of my collegiate friends would have said while on 'a high'.... not that I ever joined them :smokin

Anyways, it does have some measure of truth in it. But consider this; is not the very quote an explanation of 'How'?... does it not reveal a consequence? Somewhat paradoxical if you ask me.




Do you, as an educated man, see any end in site to physicists finding the 'final dimension' (if i can call it that) ? I believe our universe is infinite. Our human minds and abilities are not. It really is simple when you keep that in mind before trying to make concrete beliefs based on a book written by humans.

Ahhh.... that is why the very concept of understanding or reading the bible with the perspective of the Creator in mind (as revealed through the text) allows one to be transformed by its message. When you read it as a naturalist it will never satiate your needs. If read with spiritual thirst, however, the book is very powerful. Angel_luv alluded to the inherent trust we attach to the integrity of the compilation. With or without that trust the book manages to retain its power.... why?

Wow! real discussion from you.... now we're progressing.

[Extra Stout]

I suggest a small hike to the northern edge of the park....

The clues lie with the sediment 'film' that surrounds the petrified chunks themselves, since they have unfortunately (due to their brittle nature) fallen apart when exposed by the most recent geologic uplift. Had they all been buried in the same layer, the outer 'scale' surrounding each chunk would all be composed from the same stratum. Instead, several chunks were surrounded by different sediments. Some by the 'older' clay strata, others by sandstone strata and yet others from a basaltic granite layer that was originally thought to have created the petrified trees themselves (as in volcanic influence from ash)...

The paleontologist guide was completely stunned that no one had managed to notice this before I mentioned it to him. Sometimes first hand experience comes in handy much better than google would.
Is this scale loose or is it a hard crust?


See the case of Joggins, Nova Scotia.
Joggins does not reinforce your argument. It refutes it.

[tlongII]

That is what happens when biology is taken out from the equation... tisk tisk tisk at the geologist's one-tracked approach. So we are to believe that coal and petrified trees were formed side by side by the same process even though they are physically two completely different processes?

I will make it a point to visit someday.


I don't think they are suggesting that at all. Only that the salt flow may have contributed to the coal formations just as it may have contributed to the petrified trees placement. That doesn't disallow the two different processes for forming petrified trees and for forming coal.

[Phenomanul]

Alright, I must go to bed....

In this thread I'm the only one that has had to respectfully respond to posts from more people than the next guy.

Won't see you all til' maybe Sunday night or Monday.

[Extra Stout]

That is what happens when biology is taken out from the equation... tisk tisk tisk at the geologist's one-tracked approach. So we are to believe that coal and petrified trees were formed side by side by the same process even though they are physically two completely different processes?

I will make it a point to visit someday.
The roots of the petrified trees are penetrating the coal seams. Not the trunk.

[Phenomanul]

I don't think they are suggesting that at all. Only that the salt flow may have contributed to the coal formations just as it may have contributed to the petrified trees placement. That doesn't disallow the two different processes for forming petrified trees and for forming coal.

Ummm yes it would.... coal is formed with much higher pressures and in the absence of oxidizers. The salts themselves negate this process.

Petrification, on the other hand, is not affected by the salts... but is adversely affected by the higher pressures required to make the coal. You would definitely not see the two processes occurring side by side

NOW let me sleep!!!

[Phenomanul]

The roots of the petrified trees are penetrating the coal seams. Not the trunk.

Read it again. Not in a condescending sense. I had to re-read to make sure that they were suggesting what I pointed out. Not that it matters.

[Guru of Nothing]

Phenom, the fact that you spend an inordinate amount of time trying to convince yourself, and others, of your beliefs, betrays what you really are.

You can only seek God, you cannot present him.

[tlongII]

Ummm yes it would.... coal is formed with much higher pressures and in the absence of oxidizers. The salts themselves negate this process.

Petrification, on the other hand, is not affected by the salts... but is adversely affected by the higher pressures required to make the coal. You would definitely not see the two processes occurring side by side

NOW let me sleep!!!


I believe you're mistaken, but I don't really want to look it up right now. Perhaps tomorrow.

[Extra Stout]

Ummm yes it would.... coal is formed with much higher pressures and in the absence of oxidizers. The salts themselves negate this process.

Petrification, on the other hand, is not affected by the salts... but is adversely affected by the higher pressures required to make the coal. You would definitely not see the two processes occurring side by side

NOW let me sleep!!!
Now petrification happens in an instant, geologically speaking. Once you get an area that is buried in sediments quickly, in an anoxic environment, you can get petrified wood in less than 100 years. It takes a long time for erosion to expose the fossils, but the process of forming them is fast.

So why would petrification and coal formation have to happen contemporaneously?

[tlongII]

Now petrification happens in an instant, geologically speaking. Once you get an area that is buried in sediments quickly, in an anoxic environment, you can get petrified wood in less than 100 years. It takes a long time for erosion to expose the fossils, but the process of forming them is fast.

So why would petrification and coal formation have to happen contemporaneously?


Excellent point! I should have thought of it. It would appear that there is no indication that the petrification and coalification happened simultaneously as Pheno is suggesting.

[exstatic]

You believe ( I'm assuming) that the world is round and yet you have never been to outer space to see for yourself that it is so.
1. Someone has.
2. You don't need to. Going to an ocean port, and actually watching a ship come over the horizon usually does the trick.


There was a time when such a belief was considered ridiculous by man and science and they were proven wrong.
Actually, it was considered ridiculous (and dangerous) by the church, an instrument of religion.

[scott]

This Thread minus MadeFromDust equals UberLame

[Phenomanul]

Now petrification happens in an instant, geologically speaking. Once you get an area that is buried in sediments quickly, in an anoxic environment, you can get petrified wood in less than 100 years. It takes a long time for erosion to expose the fossils, but the process of forming them is fast.

So why would petrification and coal formation have to happen contemporaneously?


This still doesn't get you past the multiple layer hurdle. You claim roots... but even tlongII's article doesn't suggest that.

Also, don't forget to look up what coal formation releases. Why does no diffusive evidence of these gases exist within the petrified wood but found in the rocks/strata in the surrounding area? I'm telling you there is more than meets the eye. But whatever... feel inclined to believe whatever theory happens to suit the needs of 'the establishment'. I'll believe it when it covers all its bases and then move on.

[Phenomanul]

Phenom, the fact that you spend an inordinate amount of time trying to convince yourself, and others, of your beliefs, betrays what you really are.

I'm the one who's dissenting beliefs get attacked... not the other way around. Remember?

If you can't see the multiple references of allowing free thought, that is your problem not mine.



You can only seek God, you cannot present him.

There is some truth to this. But it is not an absolute path to GOD. GOD created intelligence. We can also be led to Him through it.

[Extra Stout]

This still doesn't get you past the multiple layer hurdle. You claim roots... but even tlongII's article doesn't suggest that.

Also, don't forget to look up what coal formation releases. Why does no diffusive evidence of these gases exist within the petrified wood but found in the rocks/strata in the surrounding area? I'm telling you there is more than meets the eye. But whatever... feel inclined to believe whatever theory happens to suit the needs of 'the establishment'. I'll believe it when it covers all its bases and then move on.
There is more than one reference to Joggins out there. The interesting thing about the trees is that they sit in situ with complete root structures and everything. And the roots are penetrating the coal seams.

And what is the difference in porosity between the minerals involved in petrification as opposed to the surrounding strata?

[angel_luv]

1. Someone has.
2. You don't need to. Going to an ocean port, and actually watching a ship come over the horizon usually does the trick.


Actually, it was considered ridiculous (and dangerous) by the church, an instrument of religion.

Maybe so, but if you refuse to consider that the world is round, even someon's testimony or going to see a ship come over the horizion will not convince you.

You have to have enough faith to take the person's word and to believe that the evidence you're witnessing is sufficient proof.



Actually, it was considered ridiculous (and dangerous) by the church, an instrument of religion.

That was not my understanding. However, I'll give you that point. My, for lack of a better word, argument does not need it.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

Faith + 1 = uber

[exstatic]

Science is the process of constantly redefining our understanding of the world (and science itself!) based on observation and critical thinking. Religion doesn't want to be redefined, and observation and critical thinking show it to be nothing, since everything is based on faith and rewards in the afterlife, things that absolutely CANNOT be proven. That is why religion and science are constantly at odds.

It's almost like two groups of people, at odds because one group is sighted, but deaf and thinks life is a color and the other is blind, but can hear and thinks life is a sound.

[angel_luv]

I'm sick of hearing the word Faith

Faith = excuse for shortcomings

I'm also sick of hearing "if its meant to be its meant to be" thats a typical bible thumper line.

If God is real which he isn't didn't he give you free will and the ability to lead your life by your choices. So if its meant to be it happenes because you willed it to happen.


That's really the heart of our difference.
You reject faith and I embrace it.

[angel_luv]

Science is the process of constantly redefining our understanding of the world (and science itself!) based on observation and critical thinking. Religion doesn't want to be redefined, and observation and critical thinking show it to be nothing, since everything is based on faith and rewards in the afterlife, things that absolutely CANNOT be proven. That is why religion and science are constantly at odds.


In my opinion, faith that can be redefined by trends and opinions, for that matter, anything that man decides, is worthless.
For me, it comes down to whose Word am I going to take- God's ( the Bible) or man's ( Science).
That is where free will comes in; everyone gets to choose who they believe.

[angel_luv]

Not entirely I just think faith is misused by most everyone. I don't dislike someone for having faith. I dislike someone for making faith the reason for all things good or bad or all actions good or bad. I reject people using faith as reasoning rather than belief.

That makes sense.

[angel_luv]

Great lets do brunch!!!


How about after church tomorrow? :angel

[Phenomanul]

There is more than one reference to Joggins out there. The interesting thing about the trees is that they sit in situ with complete root structures and everything. And the roots are penetrating the coal seams.

And what is the difference in porosity between the minerals involved in petrification as opposed to the surrounding strata?

Methane and Hydrogen don't really care what the porosity of the petrified wood would be. Hydrogen, in particular will seep into everything (even into diamonds).

Look, I respect your opinion. You present extremely well thought out arguments and will usually back them up coherently. I assume based on prior 'conversations' with you that you've embraced the prevailing scientific time-scales and theory. On that same assumption I also know that you believe in a Deity. And while you may whole-heartedly believe that belief in one does not negate belief in the other... I just don't accept those theories with the same conviction you do. Again, I allow for the possibility that maybe earth is young, that dinosaurs may have co-existed with man. It may be true, or it may be incorrect. Either way, it has not conclusively been disproven. What's worse is that I don't believe it can be proven one way or the other.

You keep pressing me on that alleged 'false dichotomy' but consider this:

If you haven't noticed, a huge knock around here seems to be that if one believes in GOD... that they do so irrationally and not with a sane foundation. GOD is not a 2+2=4 argument... He was meant to be experienced on a level, or dimension if you will, that is not defined by naturalism. And yet people continue to seek Him out on that premise; one which is incongruent with His character.

Anyhow, one can in fact come to the rational conclusion that GOD does exist, it says so in Romans Chapter 1 (one of my favorite passages if you haven't already noticed). But that realization is not GOD's preferred route of contact. He wishes to meet us, when the inner longing of our soul reaches out to Him first. Unfortunately, many live a long fruitless life of 'emptiness' well before reaching this humbling conclusion. And many others reject His invitation altogether.

Regardless, you may feel inclined to question my base beliefs all you want. Just don't assume that somehow, I'm misguided, as tlongII suggested. We've all different life's experiences. And mine has allowed me to find GOD both rationally and spiritually. The fact of the matter is He is very real and present in my life. Judeo-Christian beliefs may not completely reveal His character, according to some... but I believe that they most genuinely reveal His purpose.

[Extra Stout]

Methane and Hydrogen don't really care what the porosity of the petrified wood would be. Hydrogen, in particular will seep into everything (even into diamonds).

Look, I respect your opinion. You present extremely well thought out arguments and will usually back them up coherently. I assume based on prior 'conversations' with you that you've embraced the prevailing scientific time-scales and theory. On that same assumption I also know that you believe in a Deity. And while you may whole-heartedly believe that belief in one does not negate belief in the other... I just don't accept those theories with the same conviction you do. Again, I allow for the possibility that maybe earth is young, that dinosaurs may have co-existed with man. It may be true, or it may be incorrect. Either way, it has not conclusively been disproven. What's worse is that I don't believe it can be proven one way or the other.

You keep pressing me on that alleged 'false dichotomy' but consider this:

If you haven't noticed, a huge knock around here seems to be that if one believes in GOD... that they do so irrationally and not with a sane foundation. GOD is not a 2+2=4 argument... He was meant to be experienced on a level, or dimension if you will, that is not defined by naturalism. And yet people continue to seek Him out on that premise; one which is incongruent with His character.

Anyhow, one can in fact come to the rational conclusion that GOD does exist, it says so in Romans Chapter 1 (one of my favorite passages if you haven't already noticed). But that realization is not GOD's preferred route of contact. He wishes to meet us, when the inner longing of our soul reaches out to Him first. Unfortunately, many live a long fruitless life of 'emptiness' well before reaching this humbling conclusion. And many others reject His invitation altogether.

Regardless, you may feel inclined to question my base beliefs all you want. Just don't assume that somehow, I'm misguided, as tlongII suggested. We've all different life's experiences. And mine has allowed me to find GOD both rationally and spiritually. The fact of the matter is He is very real and present in my life. Judeo-Christian beliefs may not completely reveal His character, according to some... but I believe that they most genuinely reveal His purpose.
Of course a belief in God can be arrived at rationally. It simply cannot be arrived at deductively, nor is it meant to.

You bring up Romans 1. Paul says that since creation makes it clear there is a God, men are without excuse. So if someone looks at creation and concludes, "there is no God," I don't think you are going to argue them into theism. It takes a change of heart.

When I was a college student, I was an avowed creationist. Evolution was ridiculous, of course. Those scientists just had an agenda. Satan had blinded them, of course. They were ignoring the obvious.

Well, then, years later, as I continued to study the Bible, I came to understand that the Hebrews who wrote the Tanakh don't process thoughts like you and I do because they were not a bunch of Westerners trained in the scientific method. Their entire frame of reference when writing is different from how we as Westerners read it.

See, to an ancient Hebrew, if you were to explain to them something like how crops grow, they would look at you like a calf looks at a new gate. Those details don't matter to them. God did it. That is the big picture. Can't you see that, silly American? You spend all this time explaining the details of how God did it. What does that matter?

It also occurred to me that God chose the Jews as his chosen people. Not the Greeks. Not the British. Not any Westerners, but rather the Hebrews of several thousand years ago herding sheep and growing grain out in a desert backwater. That means something.

It also occurred to me that God is not just the God of scientific, linear-thinking Westerners, but of everyone who ever has lived, most of whom are not highly-educated, and that his Word is tailored primarily to them. Not because it is a faith for the stupid, but rather because He loves all people, not just the ones with special knowledge, and wants them to hear and understand the Gospel and be saved.

That bears out when comparing Christianity to, say, Buddhism, which has a much more developed, detailed, and well-rounded worldview. God did not give us his Word so that we could have such a sophisticated worldview. It is nice to have, but as Paul says in Corinthians, the gospel is a stumbling block to the wise.

The root of Christianity is not a high-faluting philosophy that explains everything in the world, but rather a relationship with a person.

So after arriving at those kinds of conclusions, at some point later I was reintroduced to the whole creation vs. evolution debate. Except, this time the stakes were not as high, because I had come to understand that God was God regardless of which conclusions I came to. And while the scientific mainstream view certainly has a lot of holes and unanswered questions, nobody would ever come to the conclusions that the world was spontaneously created 6,000 years ago, or that there was a global flood that created most of the world's geological features, unless they first read it in the Bible.

And these creationist outlets are not shy about that. They clearly say that the world has to be 6,000 years old and there has to have been a global flood, because that's what they see in the Bible, and if it's not true, then Christianity is not true either. And with those kinds of stakes, there is absolutely no way you're going to get intellectual honesty out of people.

If someone is in a position that their faith is going to be crushed if they have to accept that creation science is a load of hooey, then there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that is going to sway them, and they will keep on arguing until either they are blue in the face or everybody else just gives up out of apathy or fatigue.

The reason I cannot stand this is because it makes it rather straightforward to argue that Christianity is false to the uncommitted observer. And based upon my experiences, such a conclusion would stem from a wholly erroneous and procrustean understanding of the meaning and purpose of God's written Word. They are totally missing the boat, and making their foes' arguments for them.

[MannyIsGod]

Great post.

[Guru of Nothing]

Great post.

Understatement.^^^^

[mookie2001]

I'm not about to list my degrees or my credentialsfor the 30th time

[smeagol]

Understatement.^^^^
to the power of 1234567890987654321

[ploto]

I have stayed away from these discussions for some time because of how they usually turn out, but for me it is really a simple concept. My faith and reading of the Bible is meant for the spiritual guidance in my life- and that faith is in no way jeopardized by scientists or historians. I don't need to believe that the world was specifically created in 6 24-hour periods in order to believe that God is ultimately responsible for its creation. The creation story to me is meant to speak about man's place in the world that God designed and does not need be a literal account. My faith is not so weak that it will be destroyed if something is not literally true. It does not need to be. I can believe that God inspired man to write the scriptures for the purpose for which it was intended- in the time in which it was written- and by and for the people for which it was written. To act as if it like a 21st century document is in my view missing a big part of what some parts of it even mean. I guess what I am saying is that it just isn't an either or for me; I have no problem with both. And there are plenty of Christians who don't either.

[Phenomanul]

Of course a belief in God can be arrived at rationally. It simply cannot be arrived at deductively, nor is it meant to.

You bring up Romans 1. Paul says that since creation makes it clear there is a God, men are without excuse. So if someone looks at creation and concludes, "there is no God," I don't think you are going to argue them into theism. It takes a change of heart.

When I was a college student, I was an avowed creationist. Evolution was ridiculous, of course. Those scientists just had an agenda. Satan had blinded them, of course. They were ignoring the obvious.

Well, then, years later, as I continued to study the Bible, I came to understand that the Hebrews who wrote the Tanakh don't process thoughts like you and I do because they were not a bunch of Westerners trained in the scientific method. Their entire frame of reference when writing is different from how we as Westerners read it.

See, to an ancient Hebrew, if you were to explain to them something like how crops grow, they would look at you like a calf looks at a new gate. Those details don't matter to them. God did it. That is the big picture. Can't you see that, silly American? You spend all this time explaining the details of how God did it. What does that matter?

It also occurred to me that God chose the Jews as his chosen people. Not the Greeks. Not the British. Not any Westerners, but rather the Hebrews of several thousand years ago herding sheep and growing grain out in a desert backwater. That means something.

It also occurred to me that God is not just the God of scientific, linear-thinking Westerners, but of everyone who ever has lived, most of whom are not highly-educated, and that his Word is tailored primarily to them. Not because it is a faith for the stupid, but rather because He loves all people, not just the ones with special knowledge, and wants them to hear and understand the Gospel and be saved.

That bears out when comparing Christianity to, say, Buddhism, which has a much more developed, detailed, and well-rounded worldview. God did not give us his Word so that we could have such a sophisticated worldview. It is nice to have, but as Paul says in Corinthians, the gospel is a stumbling block to the wise.

The root of Christianity is not a high-faluting philosophy that explains everything in the world, but rather a relationship with a person.

So after arriving at those kinds of conclusions, at some point later I was reintroduced to the whole creation vs. evolution debate. Except, this time the stakes were not as high, because I had come to understand that God was God regardless of which conclusions I came to. And while the scientific mainstream view certainly has a lot of holes and unanswered questions, nobody would ever come to the conclusions that the world was spontaneously created 6,000 years ago, or that there was a global flood that created most of the world's geological features, unless they first read it in the Bible.

And these creationist outlets are not shy about that. They clearly say that the world has to be 6,000 years old and there has to have been a global flood, because that's what they see in the Bible, and if it's not true, then Christianity is not true either. And with those kinds of stakes, there is absolutely no way you're going to get intellectual honesty out of people.

If someone is in a position that their faith is going to be crushed if they have to accept that creation science is a load of hooey, then there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that is going to sway them, and they will keep on arguing until either they are blue in the face or everybody else just gives up out of apathy or fatigue.

The reason I cannot stand this is because it makes it rather straightforward to argue that Christianity is false to the uncommitted observer. And based upon my experiences, such a conclusion would stem from a wholly erroneous and procrustean understanding of the meaning and purpose of God's written Word. They are totally missing the boat, and making their foes' arguments for them.

You essentially echo what I've written in these threads. "Belief in GOD is not dependent on scientific proof." But you've misinterpreted my purpose; I'm not here to "argue people into Theism", I'm here to show that people's 'naturalistic' beliefs can be rationally reconciled with belief in GOD. More importantly, that these beliefs are spiritually fueled by His very real presence in our lives. One need not be considered an inferior individual simply because they also believe in GOD... and people around here seem to imply that said belief is a handicap. Furthermore, don't assume that I'm a staunch Creationist simply because I'm open to the possibility that Genesis can be interpreted both literally, poetically and symbolically. I'm open to the possibility that the passages can be interpreted any number of ways. I will however, not budge from my core belief that GOD created the Universe and everything therein, and that He alone is the author of LIFE.

You should realize that the majority of the people posting in this thread already had their minds made up well before I said anything on the matter. In fact, I'm not even arguing over semantical controversies with my fellow Deists/Christians. I'm just trying to explain to those that hold "Science and Naturalism" as their catch all foundation that their own religion, is not as full-proof as what they are trying to subject belief in GOD to. Sure, they may say... "our theories are the best explanation out there, and they are continually evolving to explain our universe better." But they inherently believe that the Natural world excludes belief in GOD since He cannot not be deductively proven, to borrow your word. They do not realize that certain highly significant evolutionary concepts cannot be deductively proven either... and yet somehow they manage to accept those without question.

Furthermore, they constantly tear at the Bible's authenticity, relevance, and continue to imply that man purposely edited the text to suit their beliefs. The bible's historical record accurately mirrors the historical record as deducted from secular documents. So why would the accuracy of the other content be questioned? Because it is inconvenient to their world view? Because it would follow that the existence of a higher moral code was established by GOD Himself? Oh no! not that!!!!

You're right about one thing though. Belief in GOD does require a change of heart. And yes, I'm fully aware that GOD is the only one than can work with them to arrive at that change.

I'm not afraid, ashamed or belittled to let others know that I believe in GOD. He is my banner.

[ploto]

Even Jesus spoke in parables so why would it be unfathomable for people to believe that the Bible is full of allegorical writing, as well.

[Extra Stout]

It certainly is presumptuous to claim that a theistic belief somehow is inferior or unsophisticated compared to atheistic or agnostic belief, or that it is a handicap. Now I will say that rigid fundamentalism is an intellectual handicap. But I don't think that either you or I qualify as rigid fundamentalists, except in the shallow caricatures of those who prefer to stigmatize those who disagree with them rather than deepen their own thinking.

Science and naturalism work just fine within their own sphere. One can come deductively to conclusions about how something on the earth came to be how it is, or how the heavens came to look the way they do, or how a living creature is the way it is. These mechanisms can come to be understood. Where naturalists fall afoul is when they arrogate that science and reason are the be-all, end-all of knowledge, and that every question we might have about life, and God, and values, can be answered through reason.

You cannot deductively jump from "the origin of species on Earth today is best explained by the theory of evolution" to "there is no God." Can't be done. A person may choose to infer there is no God absent evidence to the contrary, but they cannot deduce it. So when a person wraps themselves up in science and naturalism as proof of their philosophy and worldview, this is intellectually untenable.

You hear the same group of people claim that morals and values would be much stronger in the world if they were based upon reason rather than religion. How can this be so? Now reason is great to move from core values and principles to application in specific situations, but how is reason alone going to define those core values? It is like saying that if given only a set of tools, somebody can build a house. Well, sure, maybe science gives us the best set of tools available, but we need to have some notion of what it is we are building first!

I find the arguments about biblical authenticity often to be a strawman. Of course, fundamentalists set themselves up for this rather easily. When you claim that your faith depends upon the absolute inerrancy of the Bible down the last detail, then your faith becomes readily falsifiable when one detail in the Bible is disproved. And trying to maintain such a hermeneutic requires an arcane and cumbersome explanation of every last detail constantly teetering on the brink of collapse! "Well, Quirinius must have been governor of Syria twice, or maybe Luke meant something different by 'governor,' or maybe there were two censuses and Josephus forgot one of them." "Sure, Nineveh could have had all those people a couple hundred years before the Assyrian Empire rose! And it is entirely reasonable that a human could survive in the digestive tract of a marine mammal!" That gets back to the whole Western-idea-of-truth thing.

So of course, Bliblical skeptics find a much easier fight just to assume that every Christian holds the fundamentalist view, since the fundies, unwittingly with cultural biases that line up with the naturalists in kind if not in sophistication, make their foes' arguments for them (as I said before). It is much harder to call Biblical manuscripts into question when comparing them against any other documents of antiquity, because by that standard, they are by far the most numerous and the most reliable.

It also makes for an easy strawman to assume that all Scripture is written in the same style with the same intent, or that nobody prior to the common era had any comments upon it that might shed light on difficult or culturally incongruent passages. (Though, once again, the fundamentalists help to erect these strawmen, because they make the same assumptions.) I find this especially amusing when 'scholars' act as if Gnostic writings are some kind of great new revelation and insight into the Bible!

But none of this is new. People, especially the free thinkers, tend to probe and question authority and e skeptical of what they've been told. That is fine. There is nothing wrong with asking questions and seeking answers. However, people will tend to prefer the answers they want to hear.

[TDMVPDPOY]

you cant handle the truth!

[Useruser666]

We just have to ask ourselves one question:

Could god microwave a burrito so hot that even god himself couldn't touch it?

[SpursWoman]

http://www.boomspeed.com/sweetc/ydoh.gif


:makeout :lol

[Phenomanul]

We just have to ask ourselves one question:

Could god microwave a burrito so hot that even god himself couldn't touch it?


:lol :lol :lol

Did you recently get burned by a microwaved burrito???

[Phenomanul]

It certainly is presumptuous to claim that a theistic belief somehow is inferior or unsophisticated compared to atheistic or agnostic belief, or that it is a handicap. Now I will say that rigid fundamentalism is an intellectual handicap. But I don't think that either you or I qualify as rigid fundamentalists, except in the shallow caricatures of those who prefer to stigmatize those who disagree with them rather than deepen their own thinking.

Science and naturalism work just fine within their own sphere. One can come deductively to conclusions about how something on the earth came to be how it is, or how the heavens came to look the way they do, or how a living creature is the way it is. These mechanisms can come to be understood. Where naturalists fall afoul is when they arrogate that science and reason are the be-all, end-all of knowledge, and that every question we might have about life, and God, and values, can be answered through reason.

You cannot deductively jump from "the origin of species on Earth today is best explained by the theory of evolution" to "there is no God." Can't be done. A person may choose to infer there is no God absent evidence to the contrary, but they cannot deduce it. So when a person wraps themselves up in science and naturalism as proof of their philosophy and worldview, this is intellectually untenable.

You hear the same group of people claim that morals and values would be much stronger in the world if they were based upon reason rather than religion. How can this be so? Now reason is great to move from core values and principles to application in specific situations, but how is reason alone going to define those core values? It is like saying that if given only a set of tools, somebody can build a house. Well, sure, maybe science gives us the best set of tools available, but we need to have some notion of what it is we are building first!

I find the arguments about biblical authenticity often to be a strawman. Of course, fundamentalists set themselves up for this rather easily. When you claim that your faith depends upon the absolute inerrancy of the Bible down the last detail, then your faith becomes readily falsifiable when one detail in the Bible is disproved. And trying to maintain such a hermeneutic requires an arcane and cumbersome explanation of every last detail constantly teetering on the brink of collapse! "Well, Quirinius must have been governor of Syria twice, or maybe Luke meant something different by 'governor,' or maybe there were two censuses and Josephus forgot one of them." "Sure, Nineveh could have had all those people a couple hundred years before the Assyrian Empire rose! And it is entirely reasonable that a human could survive in the digestive tract of a marine mammal!" That gets back to the whole Western-idea-of-truth thing.

So of course, Bliblical skeptics find a much easier fight just to assume that every Christian holds the fundamentalist view, since the fundies, unwittingly with cultural biases that line up with the naturalists in kind if not in sophistication, make their foes' arguments for them (as I said before). It is much harder to call Biblical manuscripts into question when comparing them against any other documents of antiquity, because by that standard, they are by far the most numerous and the most reliable.

It also makes for an easy strawman to assume that all Scripture is written in the same style with the same intent, or that nobody prior to the common era had any comments upon it that might shed light on difficult or culturally incongruent passages. (Though, once again, the fundamentalists help to erect these strawmen, because they make the same assumptions.) I find this especially amusing when 'scholars' act as if Gnostic writings are some kind of great new revelation and insight into the Bible!

But none of this is new. People, especially the free thinkers, tend to probe and question authority and e skeptical of what they've been told. That is fine. There is nothing wrong with asking questions and seeking answers. However, people will tend to prefer the answers they want to hear.

I agree.

[PixelPusher]

We just have to ask ourselves one question:

Could god microwave a burrito so hot that even god himself couldn't touch it?
I'm pretty sure those old school McDonalds apple pies were too hot even for God, thus confirming my belief that McDonalds truly is an unholy adbomination.

[Extra Stout]

I'm pretty sure those old school McDonalds apple pies were too hot even for God, thus confirming my belief that McDonalds truly is an unholy adbomination.
I think we all can agree that the wages of sin is McDonalds.