Darwin Day Lecture 2016

Forum rules
Here, you can discuss Atheism and Agnosticism, post inspirational Atheist and Agnostic memes and quotations, ask questions of an Atheistic or Agnostic nature, and discuss your Atheist or Agnostic views on Life and the Outdoors. If you don't want to see Athesim and Agnosticism being discussed, please respect the rights of the people here to do so in peace. We respect that right, that's why this forum was created. Discussion should always be respectful of the people here and thier beliefs. This Forum was not created for the purposes of you talking people out of thier beliefs or insult their intelligence. We respect your right to do so, but will not allow that kind of discussion here.
User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Darwin Day Lecture 2016

#46

Post by GregD » Mon Mar 21, 2016 11:19 pm

sarge wrote:The fact that there are desires that cannot be met and knowledge that cannot be divined (we can only find an approximation of Truth) in this existence is evidence that there is another.
I do not follow this logic. The fact that there are desires that cannot be met and knowledge that cannot be divined seems to be evidence only of a capacity for greed and a limitation of our abilities.



User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 716
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Darwin Day Lecture 2016

#47

Post by BillyBob66 » Mon Mar 21, 2016 11:47 pm

sarge wrote:
Scuba wrote:
GregD wrote: I am somewhat familiar with the Book of Genesis and the story of Noah's Arc, and I have heard of analyses of the Bible that conclude the Earth is (approximately) 6000 years old. These are 3 examples which I understand to be clearly inconsistent with the available data. I don't think I can begin to take seriously your assertion without resolving these inconsistencies. Care to try to help me with that?
I have read the Bible a few times and I don't recall ever seeing in there where it said the Earth was 6,000 years old. I know the Creation Story mentions 6 days and a day of rest, but I also know the Bible mentions that God doesn't measure time in the same way that we do. So.....

Yep. The Bible is totally non-specific as to how old the Earth is. That 6000 year number is an extra-Biblical construct. If we are going to reference source documents as evidence, let's do it properly.

Let us ask the question:

"Why is the source document unclear on the date of the origin?"

I would say something like "Well, its an approximation of Truth, because we are unable to understand merely trhough observation."
Y'all, I had a beautiful hike and hang today. I don't think I am going to have the energy to give Greg a thorough answer, and I am of course famous ( or infamous actually) for being long winded. Still, I don't think I can give Greg an adequate response to "Care to try to help me with that?" with just a few words. So maybe tomorrow I can try to do that, can't repond to both questions now. Though at some point we will just have to stop and agree to disagree, because I am unlikely to convince Greg and he is unlikely to be able to provide evidence that I would find credible.

But on the 6000 year question, I have an opinion that is likely to be unacceptable to both Christian and atheist. I think the 6000 year figure is pretty much right on, plus or minus a few hundred or so years. So Y'all might think I am totally whacked out, but I do readily admit that I could be wrong. So this is just my opinion, OK? I'm not adamant about it, and folks do have different opinions. A big point some folks make is that where it says in Gen 1:2 The earth WAS formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.", for that Hebrew word translated "was", there is a footnote in my NIV translation that says "or became". There are folks that other wisw mostly take scripture literally that say that Hebrew word for "was" that can also be translated "became" means a destruction of the original earth, possibly a war during the fall of Satan, which could allow for any amount of years between vs 1 and 2. But I see it another way, and here is what I base it on:

During various classes I have been called on to teach, to guys who were really into technicalities, I began working with the various genealogies. Now, until Adam appears on the scene, it is true that no exact time table is given. However, it does say- from day one- that each Biblical day is associated with morning and evening: "(NASB)4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.".........8 God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.......26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth.......31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day......." and then after Adam is created God rests on the 7th day.

So, if each day has an evening and morning, we would usually associate that with our 24 hour day. But if each day is going to be granted 1000 or 1 million or billion years, then what length is each morning, or evening? EDIT: Plus, I forgot to ask, was the day God rested after Adam's creation also millions or billions of years? Now I'm sure some would say I am being far too literal with that, and maybe so. But if these creation days are in some sort of God's time( where to Him, a day is LIKE a thousand years like in 2 Peter 3 ), that does raise a question about the mornings and evenings. Still, I can see where some one would feel that was allegory or poetry, but not me.

But after Adam, Cain and Abel, things get much more specific. In the account of the generations of Adam in ch.5(starts with Seth, Cain and Able are left out) it says: "3 When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth.". So, 130 years from creation, or at least from the birth of Adam, he has his 3rd son, and the genealogies begin. then "6 Seth lived one hundred and five years, and became the father of Enosh". So now we are 130+105 or 245 years from the creation of Adam. And on it goes for hundreds of years down through Noah and the flood and Abraham etc. As I just kept going counting years until each son had their first son, 1056 years had gone by to Noah, and since the flood came in the 600th year of Noah's life then the flood at 1656 post creation of Adam, then the year 1948 after creation(of Adam) to Abraham. Side note: I was floored by that one. Father of the Jews born in 1948 after creation of Adam. Does that look familiar? In the year 1948 after the birth of the one the Bible calls "the 2nd Adam" or "2nd man"( 1 Cor 15:46), the Jewish nation of Israel is reborn as a sovereign nation on the earth for the first time since Daniel went to Babylon! 1948 years from Adam to Abraham, father of the Jews. 1948 years from "2nd Adam", Jesus Christ to rebirth of Israel!

Anyway, by the time we get to Abraham, the Bible(pretty well confirmed by secular history) indicates about 2000 years from Abe to Christ, then of course a bit over 2000 from Christ to now, so about 6000 years.

In addition, the Bible repeatedly uses certain numbers for all things related to Israel and things revealed by God. For example, 3, 12, 40 and especially 7 and multiples of all of them. ( 12X12000=144,000 in Rev, the 70 sevens in Daniel 9, the 400 years in Egypt etc etc). This leads to another hint from 2 Peter 3:3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming?..........8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.........."

So, that # 7, or a week of whatever. (Daniel's 70 sevens is often translated 70 weeks, meaning weeks of years or 70 periods of 7 years). If it was 4000 years from Adam until Christ's 1st advent, that would be like 4 days to God. Add another 2000 years or so until now, for 6 days since Adam. Seven days in a "week". Revelation says after Christ returns, He will rule for 1000 years during His millennial Kingdom, which would be one more day, completing the week. ( Could this be related to the "Sabbath-rest" that yet remains for the children of God mentioned in Hebrews 4:9?. Hmmm, not sure)

But of course, that would mean the time is near, though the calculated dates are likely not exact even if in the ball park. For example, according to the current Jewish calendar, we are only in the year 5776. However, coincidentally, Israel is a nation once again since 1948, which I find very interesting. Since all of the OT prophets call for Israel to be gathered from the nations in the "last days".

But any way, call me crazy, that's why I accept apprx. 6000 years. There are other very smart people, both Christians and Jews, who think I have it wrong. They might be right.

Now I'm sure some are saying "how can you believe that when science has proved that it has been billions of years?" Well, the same one's who think they have proved that are the same ones who think an eye or pancreas can evolve by accident without a designer. In both cases, they are making a lot of assumptions that they can never really know, and assuming constants. Like assuming that the speed of light has always been the same for billions of years, or rates of radioactive decay, etc etc. Things that must be assumed or guessed at because of a lack of observation. You know: you make a machine that, based on something you observe, tells you how old something is. Then you test it against something with a known date, maybe hundreds or even thousands of years old at most, based on history or human observations. Then you test a rock and it says it is 4 billion years old. And you assume that whatever seems to be working back 100 years is going to work the same with the same constants for billions of years. But you can't really know that, can you? You can't really know that rock is 4 billion years old, even though you think it surely is and your machine says it is. None of those theories about what went on billions of years ago is certain, you can't really know, which is why new theories appear from time to time replacing the old theories. Then one day you find red blood cells/soft tissue inside a fossil of an animal that was supposed to have lived 200 million years ago, and you have to come up with some explanations.
Last edited by BillyBob66 on Tue Mar 22, 2016 8:30 am, edited 2 times in total.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: Darwin Day Lecture 2016

#48

Post by sarge » Tue Mar 22, 2016 7:17 am

GregD wrote:
sarge wrote:The fact that there are desires that cannot be met and knowledge that cannot be divined (we can only find an approximation of Truth) in this existence is evidence that there is another.
I do not follow this logic. The fact that there are desires that cannot be met and knowledge that cannot be divined seems to be evidence only of a capacity for greed and a limitation of our abilities.
Well, I can't see how greed factors into all desires, but do agree with a limitation on our abilities. If one of my desires is to know Absolute Truth, is it because I'm greedy?

And its that very limitation on our abilities that brings me to a logical conclusion that I was not made for this world, as does that longing for that which I cannot know due to my Humanity.

Tell ya what.

I will completely agree with you on your conclusions about Human Evolution if you can satisfactorily and completely answer a couple of questions. All you have to do is avoid words and phrases such as maybe, perhaps, how do we know that, we don't know if, it could be, etc.

1. What is the Evolutionary advantage to an apreciation of beauty?

2. Explain the presence on this planet of a creature that intentionally does dangerous, even life threatening, activities on purpose for enjoyment without any food or sexual reward.

There is a creature on this planet which possesses those traits and others that should have been selected out of the species, yet form centerpieces of that creature's daily life---its entire society revolves around them to a large extent. These creatures have moved beyond the Evolutionary Imperative long, long ago---in the stages before History and before its present form. Explain that in an Evolutionary context without equivocation, and I will believe that Humanity was not designed, alone among all other species, to create music, art, and literature; to build hospitals, libraries, and monuments; to build not only a place to sleep out of the weather, but to make those dwellings beautiful and pleasing to the eye and spirit; to do all of the things we do, individually and corporately, that separates us from all other creatures on the planet and brings us to planetary domination despite being one of the weakest on the planet.

I acknowledge that Faith cannot answer all questions. I also acknowledge that Science cannot answer all of them, either.

That, to me, puts them on equal footing (along with Philosophy---another Evolutionaryily useless activity we engage in). Niether is superior to the other. Belief in one or the other does not make one a better or smarter person, and neither does belief in all of them.

The principal difference is this:

If you are right and I am wrong, when we die nothing will happen, and niether of us will know it. If I am right and you are wrong, something will happen, I will definetly know it, and you probably won't (depending on how one interprets Revelation). For you, nothing will change after you die. For me, everything will.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 716
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Darwin Day Lecture 2016

#49

Post by BillyBob66 » Tue Mar 22, 2016 8:16 am

Sarge,
If only I could put it that well! And without taking an entire page to say it(one of my failings) as well!

Before I get back to the specific question to me from Greg("can you help me with that") let me ask this related to my last long post:

Is there any doubt within the scientific community about the accuracy of various dating methods? Now, I understand that the ones presenting such material would be considered biased crazies by many in the mainstream scientific community. But, after all, the guy who used current dating methods to show that the 10 year old (at that time, from observation) lava dome of Mt. St. Helens, was in fact 380,000 years old according to scientific dating methods, is a Ph.D. geologist from fully secular and acceptable universities.

http://creation.com/dr-steven-a-austin
http://www.icr.org/article/argon-mount-st-helens/
http://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/E ... Helens.pdf

Even if Austin is as whacky as I am with biblical beliefs and such, is the science he presents here a lie, false research? Or did he do it right and got those results? If he followed correct procedure, then this would confirm my claim that we can not know, based on scientific proof evidence, what was happening millions and billions of years ago. We can have some great sounding theories based on what we think we know today, but we can not know.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Darwin Day Lecture 2016

#50

Post by GregD » Tue Mar 22, 2016 11:04 am

BillyBob66 wrote: Even if Austin is as whacky as I am with biblical beliefs and such, is the science he presents here a lie, false research?
It isn't science. I presume that that the dating method involved is constructed on a large foundation of supporting data and analysis. Austin got an observation that appears to contradict that foundation. That is unsurprising; measurements are often difficult to do correctly and are often compromised. His result isn't scientifically significant until there is a conscientious effort to determine its validity. It seems that didn't happen.

You can bet your bottom dollar that a competent scientist that gets what they are convinced is a valid result that contradicts the "standard model" (in this case the dating method) would work day and night to eliminate all question of the validity of the result. That is how they "win" the science game.

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Darwin Day Lecture 2016

#51

Post by GregD » Tue Mar 22, 2016 11:16 am

sarge wrote: I will completely agree with you on your conclusions about Human Evolution if you can satisfactorily and completely answer a couple of questions.
I am only interested in your honest assessment of evolution. I see no logic in your game. Many characteristics of organisms have no evolutionary significance whatsoever, although an appreciation for beauty very likely offers an advantage to an individual of a social species like ours. My dog engages in dangerous activities; she likes to fight dogs simply for the fun of it.
sarge wrote: I acknowledge that Faith cannot answer all questions. I also acknowledge that Science cannot answer all of them, either.

That, to me, puts them on equal footing (along with Philosophy---another Evolutionaryily useless activity we engage in). Niether is superior to the other. Belief in one or the other does not make one a better or smarter person, and neither does belief in all of them.

The principal difference is this:

If you are right and I am wrong, when we die nothing will happen, and niether of us will know it. If I am right and you are wrong, something will happen, I will definetly know it, and you probably won't (depending on how one interprets Revelation). For you, nothing will change after you die. For me, everything will.
I completely disagree. Science has an awesome track record. Religious belief has an awful track record. Science is going to help me live longer and live happier. Religious belief is likely to make me more miserable than I need to be.

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: Darwin Day Lecture 2016

#52

Post by sarge » Tue Mar 22, 2016 11:58 am

Re: Darwin Day Lecture 2016
Postby BillyBob66 » Tue Mar 22, 2016 8:16 am
Sarge,
If only I could put it that well! And without taking an entire page to say it(one of my failings) as well!
Well;

Part of the reason you may be struggling is that you're arguing only from the context of Christianity.

Making the argument about how Christianity explains creation is about as fair as making Greg use only Chemistry to explain it.

The basic question here is not Science vs Christianity, but purely accidental Creation vs Intelligent Design or Divine Intervention.

If Greg is going to use all of "Science" on his side, then we can level the playing field by arguing from Theology and Philosophy rather than any specific Religious belief. Since our Universities confer Masters and Doctoral Degrees in all three fields, each is on equal footing. The only real difference between the three is that you can make more money from one than the other two. But that might just mean that one of them offers more opportunity for profit for Corporatists, Statists, Globalists, and Banksters---but I digress.

So, don't make it about "Is the Bible right?" the central issue is "Was the Universe created or was it a random event?" Every belief has a Creation Story. Most of them involve some sort of Divine instigation or intervention. The argument is on behalf of Belief, not any particular Religion.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: Darwin Day Lecture 2016

#53

Post by sarge » Tue Mar 22, 2016 12:06 pm

GregD wrote:
sarge wrote: I will completely agree with you on your conclusions about Human Evolution if you can satisfactorily and completely answer a couple of questions.
I am only interested in your honest assessment of evolution. I see no logic in your game. Many characteristics of organisms have no evolutionary significance whatsoever, although an appreciation for beauty very likely offers an advantage to an individual of a social species like ours. My dog engages in dangerous activities; she likes to fight dogs simply for the fun of it.
sarge wrote: I acknowledge that Faith cannot answer all questions. I also acknowledge that Science cannot answer all of them, either.

That, to me, puts them on equal footing (along with Philosophy---another Evolutionaryily useless activity we engage in). Niether is superior to the other. Belief in one or the other does not make one a better or smarter person, and neither does belief in all of them.

The principal difference is this:

If you are right and I am wrong, when we die nothing will happen, and niether of us will know it. If I am right and you are wrong, something will happen, I will definetly know it, and you probably won't (depending on how one interprets Revelation). For you, nothing will change after you die. For me, everything will.
I completely disagree. Science has an awesome track record. Religious belief has an awful track record. Science is going to help me live longer and live happier. Religious belief is likely to make me more miserable than I need to be.
At one point, the totality of Science agreed that tomatoes were poisonous, the earth was the center of the universe, and that it was flat. Within the last 150 years that malaria was caused by "bad air", that we were on the verge of a New Ice Age; that certain races were inferior to others, and that a human body traveling in excess of 60 MPH would fly apart due to the stresses imposed on it.

I see no way that Religious belief can make anyone better or worse physically unless they rely on it exclusively to provide those physical needs, and I can't see any way that Science can make them better or worse Spiritually, unless they rely on it exclusively to provide those Spiritual needs.

YMMV
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 716
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Darwin Day Lecture 2016

#54

Post by BillyBob66 » Tue Mar 22, 2016 2:26 pm

sarge wrote:
Re: Darwin Day Lecture 2016
Postby BillyBob66 » Tue Mar 22, 2016 8:16 am
Sarge,
If only I could put it that well! And without taking an entire page to say it(one of my failings) as well!
Well;

Part of the reason you may be struggling is that you're arguing only from the context of Christianity.

Making the argument about how Christianity explains creation is about as fair as making Greg use only Chemistry to explain it.

The basic question here is not Science vs Christianity, but purely accidental Creation vs Intelligent Design or Divine Intervention.

If Greg is going to use all of "Science" on his side, then we can level the playing field by arguing from Theology and Philosophy rather than any specific Religious belief. Since our Universities confer Masters and Doctoral Degrees in all three fields, each is on equal footing. The only real difference between the three is that you can make more money from one than the other two. But that might just mean that one of them offers more opportunity for profit for Corporatists, Statists, Globalists, and Banksters---but I digress.

So, don't make it about "Is the Bible right?" the central issue is "Was the Universe created or was it a random event?" Every belief has a Creation Story. Most of them involve some sort of Divine instigation or intervention. The argument is on behalf of Belief, not any particular Religion.
Good points. But I hope I am already doing at least some of that. You may remember that much of my argument has been against the scientific evidence for evolution, or actually IMO the lack thereof. I probably have said at some point something like "Even if I had not become Christian later in life, I still would not be able to accept the arguments for evolution, or for spontaneous generated life forms accidentally evolving into humans without a designer". But of course I also like to throw in some Bible for contrast.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Darwin Day Lecture 2016

#55

Post by GregD » Tue Mar 22, 2016 2:32 pm

sarge wrote:
At one point, the totality of Science agreed that tomatoes were poisonous, the earth was the center of the universe; and that it was flat. Within the last 150 years that malaria was caused by "bad air", that we were on the verge of a New Ice Age; that certain races were inferior to others, and that a human body traveling in excess of 60 MPH would fly apart due to the stresses imposed on it.

I see no way that Religious belief can make anyone better or worse physically unless they rely on it exclusively to provide those physical needs, and I can't see any way that Science can make them better or worse Spiritually, unless they rely on it exclusively to provide those Spiritual needs.

YMMV
Science gets better with time. Even if scientists once made those mistakes, competent scientists are not going to make them again.

Maybe you need to clean your glasses. Some people refuse appropriate and proven medical treatment for themselves and/or their children due to religious belief. Many object to same-sex marriage and contraception due to religious belief. Many object to abortion due to religious belief.

For better or worse science has changed me spiritually; in spite of my Catholic upbringing, because of science I cannot seriously consider religious belief.

The discussion on creation was intended to provide a concrete example contrasting how science distinguishes truth from falsehood (everything is based on data and analysis) and how religion distinguishes truth from falsehood (some truths are "revealed"). Different people practice religion differently. Some individuals have no reason to believe the Torah, Bible, or Quran; they just do. They have no need for a reason. Others specifically indicate that the truth has been "revealed". Sarge isn't in either of those groups; he cites evidence for the reason he believes in God.

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 716
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Darwin Day Lecture 2016

#56

Post by BillyBob66 » Tue Mar 22, 2016 2:37 pm

sarge wrote:
GregD wrote: I completely disagree. Science has an awesome track record. Religious belief has an awful track record. Science is going to help me live longer and live happier. Religious belief is likely to make me more miserable than I need to be.
At one point, the totality of Science agreed that tomatoes were poisonous, the earth was the center of the universe, and that it was flat. Within the last 150 years that malaria was caused by "bad air", that we were on the verge of a New Ice Age; that certain races were inferior to others, and that a human body traveling in excess of 60 MPH would fly apart due to the stresses imposed on it.

I see no way that Religious belief can make anyone better or worse physically unless they rely on it exclusively to provide those physical needs, and I can't see any way that Science can make them better or worse Spiritually, unless they rely on it exclusively to provide those Spiritual needs.

YMMV
And don't forget Ignaz Semmelweis! As recently as the mid-late 1800s, his accidental discovery that washing of hands greatly decreased the spread of disease, he was so rejected and persecuted by his fellow doctors- who resented the suggestion they should wash their hands and change what they KNEW to be correct- that it led to the loss of his job and probably to his mental breakdown:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
Despite various publications of results where hand washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and Semmelweis could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings. Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory and Joseph Lister, acting on the French microbiologist's research, practiced and operated, using hygienic methods, with great success. In 1865, Semmelweis was committed to an asylum, where he died at age 47 of pyaemia, after being beaten by the guards, only 14 days after he was committed.
Ah yes, "observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time". I think some of that still goes on today.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Darwin Day Lecture 2016

#57

Post by GregD » Tue Mar 22, 2016 2:42 pm

BillyBob66 wrote: Good points. But I hope I am already doing at least some of that. You may remember that much of my argument has been against the scientific evidence for evolution, or actually IMO the lack thereof. I probably have said at some point something like "Even if I had not become Christian later in life, I still would not be able to accept the arguments for evolution, or for spontaneous generated life forms accidentally evolving into humans without a designer". But of course I also like to throw in some Bible for contrast.
FWIW I find your non-Biblical arguments just as non-scientific as your Biblical arguments. They do not reflect the characteristics of a good-faith effort to determine the best answer.

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: Darwin Day Lecture 2016

#58

Post by sarge » Tue Mar 22, 2016 2:49 pm

Science gets better with time. Even if scientists once made those mistakes, competent scientists are not going to make them again.
So does Religion. The Protestant Reformation is a good example of that. Christ entering human history is a better one.
Maybe you need to clean your glasses. Some people refuse appropriate and proven medical treatment for themselves and/or their children due to religious belief. Many object to same-sex marriage and contraception due to religious belief. Many object to abortion due to religious belief.
There are also many bad carpenters, doctors, lawyers, etc. The presence of people doing things badly doesn't mean what they do or believe should be discarded or discounted.
For better or worse science has changed me spiritually; in spite of my Catholic upbringing, because of science I cannot seriously consider religious belief.
If that works for you, I have no problem, although I will pray for you.
The discussion on creation was intended to provide a concrete example contrasting how science distinguishes truth from falsehood (everything is based on data and analysis) and how religion distinguishes truth from falsehood (some truths are "revealed"). Different people practice religion differently. Some individuals have no reason to believe the Torah, Bible, or Quran; they just do. They have no need for a reason. Others specifically indicate that the truth has been "revealed". Sarge isn't in either of those groups; he cites evidence for the reason he believes in God.
But you started the discussion by saying that truth is only an approximation, which means than any observation made to discover the truth is an approximation, Scientific or otherwise.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 716
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Darwin Day Lecture 2016

#59

Post by BillyBob66 » Tue Mar 22, 2016 4:34 pm

GregD wrote:

But the question of the relative merits of the theory of evolution is really a distraction from what I consider the more important question, which, from my perspective, is, "why should I accept religious beliefs as true". You have asserted in previous posts that your version of the Christian Bible has numerous predictions that have been proven true. I am somewhat familiar with the Book of Genesis and the story of Noah's Arc, and I have heard of analyses of the Bible that conclude the Earth is (approximately) 6000 years old. These are 3 examples which I understand to be clearly inconsistent with the available data. I don't think I can begin to take seriously your assertion without resolving these inconsistencies. Care to try to help me with that?
So before you will consider any evidence from me that my assertions that "the Christian Bible has numerous predictions that have been proven true.", I must 1st convince you that what you already know to be true ( i.e. earth 4.5 billion years old, no Noah's flood and arc etc) is not actually true? Well, I seriously doubt that is going to happen, don't you? It is about as likely as you convincing me that billions of years ago a rock spontaneously generated 1 celled organism, and then that organism over time managed to grow a heart, even though there ws no need(to improve odds of survival) for a heart as there were no blood vessels to carry the also newly evolved blood cells that the heart was able to pump, to not yet existent limbs and brains. I have never seen any evidence that anything like this did, or even could, actually happen, although I'm sure you think you have. But IMO, all I have seen is lots of theories by folks who think this happened. No proof. A theory is not proof. I am totally unconvinced of all of that(to say the least) and I equally doubt I am going to be able to prove to you things regarding to Noah's Ark or Jesus rising from the grave. Even though, unlike evolution, there were witnesses to all but the creation, you simply don't believe them. You choose instead to believe in something else for which there are no witnesses, and no proof. Now, if you show me a study where even 100 scientists working 60 hours a week for 50 years manage to turn a worm into an amphibian or a cat or dog, or an ape into a human that can debate at this forum, then we can talk. I would be really interested in such results. But so far I just see unproven theory.

My path was the reverse of what you seem to be asking for. I am 67, but for my 1st 35 years or so, I rejected the Bible, and actually hated Bible thumpers. But then one day I discovered a discussion of the Biblical prophecies, and just for kicks decided to study them. I could not believe what I found, as I had never been taught anything like that when I was forced to go to Church and Sunday school. By the time I was done, I could no longer accept that the Bible was other than what it claimed to be: the supernatural Word of God. There was no other explanation for what I found there. And if that was the case, and these prophecies were true, then the only logical conclusion was that the rest of the book was also true, and the God about which it tells us actually exists.

I won't bother you with the prophecies right now, because you say you might be interested if I can 1st help you deal with pesky stuff like the flood and the 6000 years about which your mind is already made up. But since I just discussed Semmelweis in my previous post, and his battles with the scientific consensus and conventional wisdom of his day(1860s), I can't resist this one.

3400 years ago, the Bible claims that Moses brought the children of Israel out of Egypt where they had been slaves for 400 years. The Bible also claims that the Hebrew Moses had been adopted by royalty and raised in Pharaoh's house and educated in all their ways. A doctor I have worked with has some copies of some of the ancient Egyptian medical writings at his office. There are many horrendous things in there, like "for healing a wound, apply an ointment of the blood of worms mixed with donkey dung". Every type of animal and insect dung was used, and swines teeth or rotting meat, you name it. I can only imagine how wonderfully that worked out. Most of these prescriptions were beyond disgusting and the exact opposite of sterilization techniques of modern scientific medicine. And going forward over 3000 years, the story of Semmelweis tells how far the scientists had advanced on this subject. They still had a long ways to go.

But amazingly, when you read the Law's of Moses which he claims were given to him by a God who promised them that "Exodus 15:26 And He said, “If you will give earnest heed to the voice of the Lord your God, and do what is right in His sight, and give ear to His commandments, and keep all His statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you which I have put on the Egyptians; for I, the Lord, am your healer.”, When you read these Laws, though I think there main purpose was to separate the people from the pagans around them, it is obvious they all agree with modern germ theory of medicine. None would be bad for your health. Quarantine, waste management, avoiding contact with dead human or animal bodies which could have died of anything, and requiring purification by washing if it happened ( just like Semmelweiss in 1860!).

It's all there, and none of it contradicts modern(by modern, I mean within the last 150 years) medical science. Trichinosis, and many other diseases, were severe problems with pig meat until modern times. PIg meat was widely eaten by all of the pagan cultures of the time, including Egypt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichinosis
Humans become infected when they eat raw or undercooked infected pork
https://www.ncsu.edu/project/swine_exte ... morrow.htm
diseases transmissible from pigs to people (zoonotic diseases). Potential pathogens are numerous and include bacteria, viruses, parasites, and fungi but most infections are mild and easily prevented with simple procedures such as wearing protective gear and hand washing.
Leviticus 11:7 And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you............
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/pigs.htm
It is very unlikely that the ancients knew of any connection between trichinosis and eating undercooked pork.....................There is no evidence they had any taboo against more toxic materials or that they even knew of the existence of such dangers. Pigs were herded, raised, and occasionally eaten, throughout Egypt from the Predynastic period into the Late Period and Graeco-Roman times. Read more: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories ... z43fRJN5JX
After the slaughtering of a heifer by a priest,
Numbers 19:7 After that, the priest must wash his clothes and bathe himself with water. He may then come into the camp, but he will be ceremonially unclean till evening. 8 The man who burns it must also wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he too will be unclean till evening.
A human corpse which could well have died of a contagious disease, and which either was or soon would be decomposing?
Numbers 19:11 “Whoever touches a human corpse will be unclean for seven days. 12 They must purify themselves with the water(i.e. the water of purification which turned out to be antiseptic) on the third day and on the seventh day; then they will be clean. But if they do not purify themselves on the third and seventh days, they will not be clean. .......................14 “This is the law that applies when a person dies in a tent: Anyone who enters the tent and anyone who is in it will be unclean for seven days, 15 and every open container without a lid fastened on it will be unclean.
Wow, many a life would have been saved for thousands of years after this if all doctors had just listened to it.

Animal waste and offal?
Leviticus 4:11 But the hide of the bull and all its flesh, as well as the head and legs, the internal organs and the intestines— 12 that is, all the rest of the bull—he must take outside the camp to a place ceremonially clean, where the ashes are thrown, and burn it there in a wood fire on the ash heap.
Vitamin K deficiency is commonly seen in new born children day 1 through day 7, which can lead to excessive bleeding if a vitamin K shot is not given. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3021393/
Classical VKDB occurs between 24 hours and 7 days of life and is associated with delayed or insufficient feeding. The clinical presentation is often mild, with bruises, gastrointestinal blood loss or bleeding from the umbilicus and puncture sites. Blood loss can, however, be significant
And when does God command the Israelite children to be circumcised?
Leviticus 12(NIV) The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. 3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised.
Somehow, got it right again!

There are many, many more laws that stand up to modern medical theory, including washing with what turns out to be germicidal solution. But I know you don't want me to quote the entire Bible right here. And these are not even the prophecies. But still amazing to me. How is it all of these laws just happen to line up with modern germ and medical theory? I guess Moses was just a real lucky guesser. ( the prophets weren't too shabby at guessing either! )
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Darwin Day Lecture 2016

#60

Post by GregD » Tue Mar 22, 2016 8:59 pm

BillyBob66 wrote: There are many, many more laws that stand up to modern medical theory, including washing with what turns out to be germicidal solution. But I know you don't want me to quote the entire Bible right here. And these are not even the prophecies. But still amazing to me. How is it all of these laws just happen to line up with modern germ and medical theory? I guess Moses was just a real lucky guesser. ( the prophets weren't too shabby at guessing either! )
Not surprising at all. Aggressive selective reading and biased interpretation. You are looking for a story that you want to hear and surprise! you find it.

Human thinking patterns are naturally biased and illogical. I catch myself doing it all the time. But you are not even trying to get things right. Quite the opposite, you are eager to create an entertaining fiction for yourself. Your evaluation of evolution is the same process. You know now everything you will ever know; new information has no hope of getting through. That seems to have been the case for quite some time already. Have fun, but that is not for me.

Post Reply

Return to “Atheism and Agnosticism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest