A Christian reformer?

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Believing in a worldwide flood necessitates such a ludicrous suspension of disbelief--you do know that the amount of water required to raise the water to the level claimed in the Bible does not even exist in the world?--that you'd have to be intentionally ignorant of science to believe it.

Uh? Why is it ludicrous? The sea level only rose ~20 ft, according to Gen 7:20.

Do you just not read what is posted? As I said, it doesn't matter that the fossils we have are only a small portion of the entire potential fossil record--we have more than enough fossils to clearly show a pattern of evolution. That fact that it is incomplete only reinforces the fact of evolution!

With all due respect, I think it does matter if we only have a small portion of the entire fossil record. If I show 1 million pieces of a puzzle, but it is only 5% of a puzzle, do you think you would know what the picture was on the puzzle? No because 5% of the puzzle would not be enough to be able to discern the entire picture.

[QUOTE]Odds of what? Abiogenesis? Any claims as to the "odds" of abiogenesis are complete speculation. We have no idea what exactly the odds are, only that it IS possible. That's all we need to know. The anthropic principle applies here--claiming "odds" is pointless, because the fact is we ARE here, so the odds don't matter![?QUOTE]

Again, with all due respect, I think the odds due matter. If someone wins a lottery 4 times in a row eventhough the odds of such a thing are say 1/10^10, which is most likely that he really did beat the odds or that he cheated? If the odds are so much better that he cheated, then the most probable conclusion is that he cheated.

Increased complexity in organisms is evidence of BAD design, not GOOD design.

I disagree. Complexity depends on number of subcomponents. The more subcomponents in a system, the more complex. Poor or good design depends on how the subcomponents interact. A system where the various subcomponents interact in a ineficient manner, will be a poor design.

It is possible to have a simple but poor design (a system with only 2 components where the 2 components are too far away from each other to interact efficiently). Likewise, it is possible to have a complex design that is very good. (A system with 100 components but where components are layed out so that components that need to interact with each other are adjacent to each other).

Animals tend to be unnessicarily complex. We are rife with evolutionary remnants (how about that tailbone? Appendix?) that are not good for us. Our sinuses are another example. They're fine...if you're a quadruped who walks on all fours. But by walking upright, we are prone to sinus infections. Another brilliant design.

Just because you don't understand the design, does not neccessarily make it bad. You may not understand the design of a computer, and as a result you may think the design is stupid, but the designer may still have had a purpose in the way it was made!

Why is our eye unneccessarily complex, when the squid's eye is simple and superior? Who designed that?

The squid lives under water, humans don't. The squid does not need to see the same way we do!

Who says the universe was ever inanimate? We don't know that. You're making another bald assertion based on unfounded beliefs on the way the universe has to be.

What are you saying? The universe may be sentient or alive?

The definition of "inanimate" is, "Not having the qualities associated with active, living organisms". The universe is simply the sum total of all matter and energy. So, how is it unreasonable to suggest that the universe is inanimate?

[Odin]

With all due respect, I think it does matter if we only have a small portion of the entire fossil record. If I show 1 million pieces of a puzzle, but it is only 5% of a puzzle, do you think you would know what the picture was on the puzzle? No because 5% of the puzzle would not be enough to be able to discern the entire picture.

I't is more like 20%. Creationists always said that and it always came to bite them in the @ss. The fossil record is getting better all the time, especically now we are seaching new areas. The picture of the Cambrian period, for example, is getting more and more complete, and explain the feathered dinos found in China.

Some parts of the fossil record are good enough to see, for example, a species of Apatosaurus ("Brontosaurus") evolve into a new species, we can see in the span of about 5 million years the average length of Bronto's femurs increase by about 3 feet untill Bronto went extinct at the end of the Jurassic along with many other sauropods.

No organism is perfectlly adapted for it's enviroment, dispite what creationists say. For example, the "perfect" biped would never have back pain. Back pain is a result of that our back is not designed for being vertical, we still have yet to evolve strong, stable vertabrae to prevent pain. Our back needs to catch up with our hips and legs.

Diplomat, everything creationists say is ludicrous.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Odin


I't is more like 20%. Creationists always said that and it always came to bite them in the @ss. The fossil record is getting better all the time, especically now we are seaching new areas. The picture of the Cambrian period, for example, is getting more and more complete, and explain the feathered dinos found in China.

Some parts of the fossil record are good enough to see, for example, a species of Apatosaurus ("Brontosaurus") evolve into a new species, we can see in the span of about 5 million years the average length of Bronto's femurs increase by about 3 feet untill Bronto went extinct at the end of the Jurassic along with many other sauropods.

No organism is perfectlly adapted for it's enviroment, dispite what creationists say. For example, the "perfect" biped would never have back pain. Back pain is a result of that our back is not designed for being vertical, we still have yet to evolve strong, stable vertabrae to prevent pain. Our back needs to catch up with our hips and legs.

Diplomat, everything creationists say is ludicrous.

I hate to say this comrade, but that post looks like it could have been written by Fez.

[Odin]

Originally posted by monkspider
I hate to say this comrade, but that post looks like it could have been written by Fez.

HEY! Creationists always annoy me because thier crap is a bunch of BAMs and Psudoscience.

[FEZ-MODE]
You provide no evidence, YOU PROVIDE NOTHING, yet you want to distroy Biology... You criminal.
[/FEZ-MODE]

[Berzerker]

diplomat -

The sea level only rose ~20 ft, according to Gen 7:20.

Then the waters didn't cover any hills much less actual mountains. In fact, the Ark could never have reached the mountains of Ararat because the sea wouldn't reach that far inland. Hell, we see 20 foot storm surges during hurricanes... Btw, it's hard to imagine there was even enough water to float the Ark since I'm sure a ship of such size and weight would have had a draft of close to or more than 20 feet. One more point, how are we to believe all life on land perished when anyone or anything could have crawled up a 30 foot mound to avoid the water? That sounds like a localised flood and not one deserving the worldwide epitah of "The Great Flood"...

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by The diplomat

Why is our eye unneccessarily complex, when the squid's eye is simple and superior? Who designed that?

The squid lives under water, humans don't. The squid does not need to see the same way we do!

But shouldn´t in this case Fish, which obviously also live underwater, possess Eyes which bear more Resemblance to the Eyes of Squids than to the Eyes of humans?

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm impressed by the quality of the posts.

I'll start with Shi Huangdi:

obiwan, I hope you don't take this clown seriously.

Spong is a heretic. The Nicean and Apostolic creeds are absolutely true, part of the continuing of God's revelation through Christian Tradition. God's Holy Spirit has remained with the Church and would have protected us from an errant Church. Not only that, they are also both in line with Holy Scripture.

Don't the Episcopalians have any mechanisms to remove Spong's status as a Bishop?

Shi:

The very fact that someone who denies the literal interpretation of these creeds can serve as a bishop within the Episcopalian church means that what he says cannot be ignored. In such a position of authority, he wields a fair amount of influence.

I doubt that any wayward bishop Episcopalian or Anglican can be disciplined by the Anglican communion because the Archbishop has refused to discipline other wayward bishops. This will soon rend the church apart. I thought we had problems with the Bishop of the New Westminster diocese, but clearly our troubles are just the tip of the iceberg.

You should be really concerned about this because there are many faithful Anglicans who will join Catholic denominations rather than their more liberal brethren if they are encouraged, supported, and assisted by their Catholic brothers.

[Ben Kenobi]

So I think, if Pupils are taught the historical facts surrounding the Creation of the Bible it is much easier for them to avoid fundamentalism.

Proteus

Oddly, this can be one of the more reasons to inspire confidence in scripture, the fidelity of each version despite translations. Book of Life and Tree of Life aren't really a case to build for substantive differences.

You have to be (a) in denial, and (b) have an agenda to create a dogmatic alternative and look for "evidence" of any sort (no matter how dodgy) to support your point of view, to deny the overwhelming evidence for evolution, modern physics theories and cosmology.

MtG

But where are these issues discussed in the creeds? That is the point of the thread, not necessarily a discussion of evolution or of cosmology, but just the creeds and whether they should be interpreted literally.

[Ben Kenobi]

But they weren't in the early days of Christianity. It was only after the early purges of "heretics" and gnostics that a "fundamentalism" appeared...

Berzerker:

By definition creeds are a standardisation of Christianity, therefore, your critique renders all such creeds meaningless. They had no need for creeds in the early church because no one challenged these essential tenets. As Christianity grew, only then did it become necessary to invoke some kind of definition for what Christians believe, hence the use of the creeds.

Boris

Good, I waited for an on-topic post.

When asked about people who don't sin,

Well then, please show me a specimen and then we can get into the real debate. Has there ever been anyone without sin besides Christ?

If Christians are to accept the scientific truths of evolution, they should reject creeds that allude to Original Sin?

I don't really see the two in conflict with the concept of original sin, unless one makes some metaphysical presuppositions into the scientific data.

Also, neither creed seems to deal with original sin, so I have to ask which passage do you feel alludes to original sin.

[Boris Godunov]

obiwan, sorry for the threadjack, I know this wasn't your intent for the thread.

Originally posted by The diplomat
Uh? Why is it ludicrous? The sea level only rose ~20 ft, according to Gen 7:20.

This is just an example of how patently ludicrous the Genesis flood account is.

7:19
And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

As Berzerker pointed out, 20 feet wouldn't cover much of anything, much less Mt. Ararat or any other "high hill." Coastal areas can get 20-foot floods, and while damaging, are hardly catastrophic enough to cause the kind of geologic features you claim.

With all due respect, I think it does matter if we only have a small portion of the entire fossil record. If I show 1 million pieces of a puzzle, but it is only 5% of a puzzle, do you think you would know what the picture was on the puzzle? No because 5% of the puzzle would not be enough to be able to discern the entire picture.

Where do you get 5% from? You've posted so many unsupported claims, I want to know where you get this?

Regardless, you're mistakenly assuming that the fossils are somehow evenly missing. That's not the case. The further back you go, the more sparse the record is. But the more recent fossil record, which still dates back hundreds of millions of years, is quite full, and demonstrates evolution unequivocably. Life has existed for ~3.5 billion years, and what is missing is a good deal skewed towards the front end of that. But several hundred million years worth of fossils is more than enough evidence, because the picture they paint is very, very clear.

Again, with all due respect, I think the odds due matter. If someone wins a lottery 4 times in a row eventhough the odds of such a thing are say 1/10^10, which is most likely that he really did beat the odds or that he cheated? If the odds are so much better that he cheated, then the most probable conclusion is that he cheated.

First, there have been cases where people have won the lottery more than once. The odds against this are supposedly astronomical, but it has occured. Are you saying that something that is against the odds won't happen?

Second, as I mentioned, Creationist claims as to the "odds" of abiogenesis are speculative BS. They have pulled the numbers out of their arse. One of the big faults is that, like you, they seem to locked into this idea that Earth is special, as if the Universe were made for Earth's existence and benefit. This is coloring all of their notions of odds.

The odds that any particular individual will win the Powerball jackpot are obscenely remote, to the point where many people (like myself) don't bother to waste time on it. But the odds that any person will win is much greater (though not certain). But it is certainly true that people do win it and will continue to do so. Is this evidence of some sort of divine intervention? If so, why would the omnipotent creater of everything care about who wins Powerball?

Likewise, the odds of life arising on any particular planet are extremely remote. So if you give Earth this unwarranted pedastal, yes the odds are slim. But if acknowledge that the Earth is just one of a massive number of planets where live could have originated, the odds aren't slim at all.

There are, according to astronomers, at least 70 SEPTILLION stars in the known universe. Since we know basic chemicals can create organic material from inorganic (has has been proven in the lab), the odds seem to be pretty strongly in life's favor!

I'm sure, however, on all of the quadrillion of other planets out there with sentient life, there are folks just gasping in amazement about the odds of them being there...

At any rate, I suggest reading this page. It is quite succint in showing why the "odds" arguments of Creationists are simply wrong:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

I disagree. Complexity depends on number of subcomponents. The more subcomponents in a system, the more complex. Poor or good design depends on how the subcomponents interact. A system where the various subcomponents interact in a ineficient manner, will be a poor design.

This is just ignoring my point, that complexity isn't necessarily good, especially when the complexity is unneccessary. Our eyes are unneccessarily complex. Unneccessary complexity is evidence for evolution, not against it. Our obvious vestigial remnants don't in any way point to a designer. Claiming there is some sort of "goal" is simply unfounded speculation.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html

"Complexity" is a ludicrously untenable argument for ID. The patterns within a kaleidoscope are very complex, and extremely organized (in the sense of symmetrical patterning) but are not designed. Snowflakes have extremely complex patterns, but is anyone stupid enough to think some intelligent being crafts every snowflake?

It is possible to have a simple but poor design (a system with only 2 components where the 2 components are too far away from each other to interact efficiently). Likewise, it is possible to have a complex design that is very good. (A system with 100 components but where components are layed out so that components that need to interact with each other are adjacent to each other).

This is utterly irrelevant to the fact that there is, unequivocably, needless complexity in organisms, which is evidence against intelligent design.

Are you familiar with a small creature called a "Volvox"? This is a small spherical animal that lives in the water and is made up of individual cells of algae.

Separate algae cells have been observed organizing into a Volvox, with the advantage of being able to propel itself in a way similar to an octopus, and capture food inside the sphere. The algae cells operate in a unified manner, just as the cells in a larger organism do.

Here is a clear example of increased complexity for the sake of survival. Since mutation is factual (i.e. we have observed mutation, so it is not conjecture), why do you find it so hard to believe that increasingly complex organizations of cells, combined with favorable mutations, can result in a higher form of life?

Just because you don't understand the design, does not neccessarily make it bad. You may not understand the design of a computer, and as a result you may think the design is stupid, but the designer may still have had a purpose in the way it was made!

This argument is so fallacious, I'm amazed you even posted it. First, arguing that we can't intelligently assess a poorly working "design" in nature is silly. Second, this argument renders your own purported claims as to "good design" moot. If we can't assess if design is bad, we can't assess it as being good, either! This is just another bull**** "God in the gaps" argument, relying on the utterly untenable "You don't know the will of God!" argument. You don't, either! Your entire argument is based upon brash assumptions of what the will of a supposed God would or wouldn't do, yet you have the gall to say I can't honestly assess bad design when I see it? I suggest you reread the NT for Jesus's thoughts on hypocrisy!

The squid lives under water, humans don't. The squid does not need to see the same way we do!

YOU were the one who claimed that the best designs had been "copied" by the designer for use in all species. If this were true, we should have the squid eye, because the squid eye would be better for our own use.

http://www.ciwemb.edu/course_0202.633_docs/04_14_03/SciAm50.pdf

"Various parts of the headand neck become problematic with disturbing regularity as people age. Consider the eye. The human version is an evolutionary marvel, but its complexity provides many opportunities for things to go wrong over a long lifetime. Our vision diminishes as the protective fluid of the cornea becomes less transparent over time. The muscles that control the opening of the iris and the focusing of the lens atrophy and lose responsiveness, and the lens thickens and yellows, impairing visual acuity and color perception.

Further,the retina—responsible for transmitting images to the brain—can detach fairly easily from the back of the eye, leading to blindness. Many of those problems would be difficult to design away, but the squid eye suggests an arrangement that could have reduced the likelihood of retinal detachment."

http://www3.open.uoguelph.ca/de/ideaExchange/zoo1500/cwork/unit4/malfunc_2.html

This article is quite amusing, in that it shows, using Creationist logic, how God must have designed the Universe for the benefit of the giant squid:

http://www.addesigninc.com/wierd/squid.html

What are you saying? The universe may be sentient or alive?

The definition of "inanimate" is, "Not having the qualities associated with active, living organisms". The universe is simply the sum total of all matter and energy. So, how is it unreasonable to suggest that the universe is inanimate?

Another meaning of "inanimate" is also "inert," which is the meaning I was ascribing to. Again, your claim that something had to come from nothing is unfounded assumption, since we "nothing" is, as far as we know, a fictitious concept.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

This is nonsense. We have no proof that "nothingness" is even possible! How do you know the universe came from "nothing?" What if there is no such thing as "nothing?" People go around assuming "nothing" is the natural state and "something" is our specialness, but that's surely a baseless assumption. What if "something" is the natural state of things, and that "nothingness" is impossible? Since "nothingness" has never been shown to exist, claiming we had to come from "nothing" is simply fallacious.

So what are you referring to when you use the word "nothing", Boris?

If it doesn't refer to anything then it looks pretty much like gobbledigook, covering up an ontological hole.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


These are the same arguments, variations on Aristotle and Aquinas. And they've already been shown to be logically flawed:

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/unmovedmover.html

Um, Boris... Aristotle would have a field day with that guy. The point of that particular argument IIRC trades on more than that.

The metaphysical point is roughly this, every potentiality (Gr. dunamis) requires an ontologically prior actuality (Gr. energeia) in order to explain it's potentiality. For example, the fact that there is a potential statue is explained (in part) by the actuality of a piece of stone.

In order to stop the infinite regress one needs an ontologically prior object that is wholly actual without any potentiality at all (since such potency could not be explained). This entity is the first principle of the universe (Gr. arche).

At least that's how I think it goes (Aristotelian metaphysics is not my speciality).

Of course contemporary science attempts to get along without such rarefied things as potencies, it's a moot point as to whether it can.

Look, I'm an atheist and I'm no great friend of metaphysics, but there is a habit amongst science worshippers to attack straw men when it comes to this sort of thing. That's out of order.

Anyway, who gives a **** about evolution. Free your mind, become a sceptic.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Another meaning of "inanimate" is also "inert," which is the meaning I was ascribing to. Again, your claim that something had to come from nothing is unfounded assumption, since we "nothing" is, as far as we know, a fictitious concept.

If nothing does not exist, then you are back to a "turtles all the way down" problem! The reason is that if nothing does not exist, then the universe had to be in some form or another with no beginning!

I apreciate the debate. You have given me a lot to think about. The fact is that you have your position, and I have mine.

let's return to the original topic, shall we?

I disagree with Spong, because I think that the creeds define christianity. If you give up the fundamental beliefs that define Christianity, then you cease to be a Christian.

Also, there is no conflict between science and religion.

Religion does not explain the natural world (That's science's job!), but it can provide an underlining meaning to everything.