Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part (Civ3)! Part 2

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Sorry everyone but you will have to be patient with the rest of the information debate. I was going to reply to McBragin's latest post and also to Etheired's but ming closed the thread. This one has already turned into a faith/science quagmire so I am not going to enter into this current discussion. I will be posting a seperate thread when I get a little more time on information and the source. By the way Eheired, thanks for actually reading the pdf file. We can discuss that when I get some more time, and the key term Mcbragin is "intelligent intervention" Read the pdf file and you will see why your GA solution is irrelevant. But anyway I hope to have time in a couple of days to do this subject justice. There may be still in the archives a thread called "The Blind Atheist" which will further explain the problem. So long for now.

Why don't you post your answer to my prior question in here... Lincoln?

[Sarxis]

There is some interesting creationist side geology related stuff here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp

I found http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.htm]this[/url] article particularly interesting.


Though I agree that some creationists just don't have good theories or the knowledge to back-up their claims, there are plenty of them that do.

Originally posted by MrBaggins


Why didn't the flood leave evidence in ice cores, Sherlock?

god was all about leaving evidence in the things he created... why not in the frozen water molecules?

I really couldn't tell you. Since I am not a geologist, I can't debate from that perspective; I only speak what I know and can attest to.

And my name's not 'Sherlock'.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by monkspider
Most of you are attacking straw men by still going after the "William Jennings Bryan"-type creationists.

I suppose they are straw men. But many of them still try to get creationism taught as science in the public school system. Maybe there are none that far gone here on Apolyton but there are large orginizations dedicated to it.

They have NOT gone away. Some are here among us on Apolyton. The United States has millions of them.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
and the key term Mcbragin is "intelligent intervention" Read the pdf file and you will see why your GA solution is irrelevant. But anyway I hope to have time in a couple of days to do this subject justice. There may be still in the archives a thread called "The Blind Atheist" which will further explain the problem. So long for now.

I read the PDF. Try being a bit less cryptic. What is GA? Who is Mcbragin. That isn't the name of the author of the PDF.

There actualy is no problem that isn't far worse for inteligent design since it actually answers nothing at all, just hides the question.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Anunikoba
There is some interesting creationist side geology related stuff here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp

I found http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.htm]this[/url] article particularly interesting.

The second link is broken. The first link is just a collection of links. Most them I have allready seen. The one I like is that supports my claim that the Bible is clear that the Flood was worldwide. Very usefull for dabating with people that want to get metaphorical about it. Thank you for reminding me of that one.

Maybe Zachriel should read it.

Please say what you think don't just post links. I have seen many creationist sites. All are full of bad science at best and usually full distortions, fake evidence, obfuscation, and just plain lies. So speak for yourself. Tell WHY YOU think the links are important. Tell us what YOU think. Just posting links is not debate. I can post them just as well.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ark-hoax.html

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

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-review.html

Dueling web links will get you no where. I can do the same. It has no value in a debate UNLESS you try to show some relevance yourself.

Though I agree that some creationists just don't have good theories or the knowledge to back-up their claims, there are plenty of them that do.

Actually NONE of them do. They just hide their errors behind obfuscation.

I really couldn't tell you. Since I am not a geologist, I can't debate from that perspective; I only speak what I know and can attest to.

And my name's not 'Sherlock'.

Oh good. Doyle was into spiritualism anyway. Even after Houdini had shown him how the tricks worked. Just like the creationist can't accept reality he couldn't let reality get in the way of his beliefs.

I am not a geologist either. In fact the ICR has only one geologist working for them and it was an engineer that came up with the ridiculous 'hydroplate theory' which isn't a theory or even an hypothesis since its so wrong a creationist geologist has taken it apart for incompetence.

I am kind of tired of critiqueing web sites that are posted as bare links like this. I have decided that in the future I will reply in the same way and with the same effort. I will just post links like I just did that may or may not apply.

Dueling web links is not debate. Please say what is important on them. Say why you think it has relevence. I can assure I have allready seen either the specific link or one much like nearly every time. Lincoln posted a PDF that was one of few new things I have seen. So that one I have dealt with extensively. He also discussed it himself and posted the PDF so I could see it in more depth. That is the sort of link that is usefull.

[Jack_www]

just so you all know I am in the thread that Lincoln has made, and I have stoped posting in this thread.

[monkspider]

Alright Ethelred, I have steered clear of this debate until due to my personal acceptance of evolutionary teachings, but I have found some of your statements to be in very poor taste.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Which is a good thing cause its a crock.

You attempt to dismiss the entire bible on the grounds of what you perceive as insufficent evidence for a catastrophic globalized flood. I will just dismiss this by saying that it was most likely a localized flood in any event or possibly an allegory used to show the eventual destruction of all sinners. Genesis does use allegory in several other cases (seven-day creation, etc) so this is a perfectly reasonable conclusion.
Moreover, your belief that the Noah's Ark story immediately disproves the existance of god is an incredibly fallacious statement. Let us look at what you're attempting to prove.
1. The Noah's Ark flood is unlikely to have taken place in the manner bible literalists believe
2. Therefore, God doesn't exist

There is no way even the most militant atheist can even attempt to prove that one implies two. The very suggestion is absolutely preposterous.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Zachriel
It is interesting how you have tried to discredit a strong supporter of evolution and science by attempting to ascribe to him views which he has never had.

I didn't do that. I was replying to what you said HERE. If you don't believe in the Noah's Ark Flood story as it is written in the Bible than you don't really believe in the Bible. We weren't talking directly about evolution there.

Of further interest is that our only difference of opinion has been at most epistemological (or merely semantic, as I had warned).

Actually no. The Bible is really clear that every human was to die. That is not mere semantics. If you want to rewrite it thats fine by me. Just don't claim its all true while you deny what it really says.

To avoid being a "major pain" to anyone, I will try to limit my discussions of science to scientific forums.

(I do apologize for my use of the word "dogmatic.")

Its fun for me. The pain might be yours. You don't have to apologize for the word dogmatic. It did look silly though.

We weren't discussing science when we were discussing what the Bible says about the Flood. If you follow that flood link that Anunikoba posted you will see why its clear that the Flood in the Bible is clearly a world wide one. According to the Bible that is. Its not my fault the world does not agree with the Bible.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by monkspider
Alright Ethelred, I have steered clear of this debate until due to my personal acceptance of evolutionary teachings, but I have found some of your statements to be in very poor taste.

If you find the truth to be in poor taste perhaps it is your taste that is wrong.

You attempt to dismiss the entire bible on the grounds of what you perceive as insufficent evidence for a catastrophic globalized flood.

No it is simply the easiest thing to deal with. If something so fundamental is wrong what about the other stuff that cannot be checked. People just evade about the six day stuff so I find the Flood easier to get people to deal with it. You can't evade what it actually says without a rewrite. Which is what Zach was doing.

Adam and Eve is pretty fundamental as well. Its clear human genetics don't support it. It just that for some reason the Flood gets peoples attention better.

I will just dismiss this by saying that it was most likely a localized flood in any event or possibly an allegory used to show the eventual destruction of all sinners. Genesis does use allegory in several other cases (seven-day creation, etc) so this is a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

The Bible does not present the Flood as allegory. It is YOU who are calling it that. If you aren't a fundamentalist thats OK by me. I am arguing with people that claim the Bible is true. Zach said the Bible is true. He then showed he didn't really think it was true. Which is what I was calling him on.

Through out the Bible all mentions of the Flood story treat it as true. None treat it as allegory. No fundamentalist calls it allegory either.

Moreover, your belief that the Noah's Ark story immediately disproves the existance of god is an incredibly fallacious statement.

That statement is false. I never said it anyway. I said it disproves Jehovah. I made it clear it doesn't disprove a general god. Only the god of Genesis.

Let us look at what you're attempting to prove.
1. The Noah's Ark flood is unlikely to have taken place in the manner bible literalists believe
2. Therefore, God doesn't exist

The Flood story is presented literaly. That it never happened as the Bible tells it is my point.

Part two is what you say. I never said that. I said Jehovah. I meant Jehovah as in the god of Genesis.

There is no way even the most militant atheist can even attempt to prove that one implies two. The very suggestion is absolutely preposterous.

Yes it is. Why are you claiming I said such a stupid thing when I was VERY clear about it and CLEARLY said that I was not saying that at any time.

Are you under the delusion that Jehovah is the only god that has ever been proposed? You seem to be assuming that since I said Jehovah does not exist therefor I was saying no god could possiby exist even though I specificaly said that I was not making such a claim.

[Jethro83]

Re: Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part (Civ3)! Part 2

Originally posted by MrBaggins
At the end of our last episode, the creationists have seemingly decided to sulk and go away, rather than actually answer the rebuttals layed out to them.

Sounds more to me like a war of words, rather than an argument. I'm guessing that the creationists might be hatching a plot to try and denounce evolution as wrong. Don't forget the Trojan Horse.

Anyway, I'm nothing more than a neutral observer of this, and I can say thus far that I am impressed by the effort everyone involved has made. What I believe is a hybrid of creation/evolution theory, and that neither can either be 100% proven/disproven.

It also seems that my previous comment has remained unnoticed...

Originally posted in Part 1
Creation doesn't always have to be associated with the bible. The 'creator' doesn't even have to be known as God.

Deists (to my knowledge anyway) are creationists, but they denounce the bible as a load of drivel (historical evidence speculates that bits and pieces of the bible were VOTED into existence by Constantine I and a confederation of Christian priests).

The belief in creation is quite simply the belief that a sentient supreme being(s) created the world as we see it. This 'supreme being' could be a member of an extra-terrestrial race for all we know. We could've been the results of another race's grand experiment. Its just something we'll never know for sure.

Being a creationist doesn't mean believing what is said in the bible word-for-word.

The ignorant creationists are however the ones who blindly follow the so-called Lord's scriptures unquestioningly.

There hasn't been much (if any) SCIENTIFIC proof on the Creationists side about Evolutionism's shortfalls. All that they have thrown at Evolutionists is bible-thumping drivel. Look out there, and you're bound to find scientific evidence pointing towards creation. A place to start might be the Creation Science website at http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm

But don't dismiss Creationist scientists as less intelligent than evolutionist scientists. That is simply an arrogant generalisation. Most of them do have university degrees.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Ethelred


If you find the truth to be in poor taste perhaps it is your taste that is wrong.

Again, your definition of "truth" here is very ambigious, so I will leave that as a very amatuerish, immature comment to throw in.

No it is simply the easiest thing to deal with. If something so fundamental is wrong what about the other stuff that cannot be checked. People just evade about the six day stuff so I find the Flood easier to get people to deal with it. You can't evade what it actually says without a rewrite. Which is what Zach was doing.
Adam and Eve is pretty fundamental as well. Its clear human genetics don't support it. It just that for some reason the Flood gets peoples attention better
The Bible does not present the Flood as allegory. It is YOU who are calling it that. If you aren't a fundamentalist thats OK by me. I am arguing with people that claim the Bible is true. Zach said the Bible is true. He then showed he didn't really think it was true. Which is what I was calling him on.
Through out the Bible all mentions of the Flood story treat it as true. None treat it as allegory. No fundamentalist calls it allegory either.

It's true that I'm not a fundie (I am a Commie after all ), although I do consider myself an amatuer theolgion of sorts. You say that the Bible doesn't present the flood as an allegory. I feel that it is very reasonable to believe the flood as an allegory. If one looks at the book of Genesis, several stories are clear allegories or metaphors. For example the seven day creation is obviously an allegory, which is actually supported by future books in the bible (it is mentioned that a day to the lord is like a thousand years). Adam and Eve is most likely an allegory, and I proposed that Noah's Ark is most likely an allegory as well. Given the extensive use of allegory in Genesis it is certainly not unreasonable to believe that it is being presented as such. It certainly seems to be a rather common theme in this particular book (Genesis).
Moreover, the flood story is relatively self-contained in the bible, despite your claims to the contrary. The one mention in the New Testament of Noah's Ark (Luke 17 somethin' I think) arguably supports this hypothesis. Therefore your statement that a number of biblical passages treat the flood as entirely non-allegorical is very shakey, to say the least. In fact, without meaning to seem insulting, i would say that it is out-and-out false. I'm certainly not disagreeing with Zach that the Bible is true, I feel that it certainly is, I just think that it is clear that God had to make some use of allegory when relaying the story of things as grandiose as the creation of the universe to people as simple as the early Hebrews.

That statement is false. I never said it anyway. I said it disproves Jehovah. I made it clear it doesn't disprove a general god. Only the god of Genesis.

This statement would *still* be considered ridiculously preposterous by any standards.
Let's analyze here, shall we?
1. The flood of Genesis didn't place literally, and was either a local flood or an allegory.
2. Therefore the God of Genesis doesn't exist
To argue that one implies two is, once again, absolutly fantastic, and arguably borderline-juvenile.

[Ethelred]

Re: Re: Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part (Civ3)! Part 2

Originally posted by LordAzreal

It also seems that my previous comment has remained unnoticed...

I noticed it but it was pretty much self-contained. There wasn't anything to discuss unless I wan't to get into Deism. Not much to discuss there either most of the time. Not here anyway unless some American claims the US goverment was founded by and for christians. Its a popular and false claim in the US. Jefferson was Deist.

But don't dismiss Creationist scientists as less intelligent than evolutionist scientists. That is simply an arrogant generalisation. Most of them do have university degrees.

Most of them have degrees in theology. A few have science degrees from non-accredited fundamentlist colleges. A few have real science degrees but most of them don't contribute to Creationionism in their area of specialization.

Most of the scientists that are working in their area of training are not fundamentalist. Gish is one of the few working for ICR in the area he was trained in. He gets caught telling fairy stories frequently.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by monkspider
Again, your definition of "truth" here is very ambigious, so I will leave that as a very amatuerish, immature comment to throw in.

When you start showing an error on my part you can claim I was wrong. Not till then. Are you getting paid for posting here? So then YOU are an amatuer. As for maturity you are only saying 'no tisn't'. Not exactly mature now is that.

If you want to engage in more of this puerile name calling be prepared to recieve a broadside. Consider this a mere swival gun.

It's true that I'm not a fundie (I am a Commie after all ), although I do consider myself an amatuer theolgion of sorts. You say that the Bible doesn't present the flood as an allegory. I feel that it is very reasonable to believe the flood as an allegory.

A lot of things can seem reasonable without being true. There are parts of the Bible that are clearly stories. They are labeled that way. Noah is cosistently treated as a true fact in the Bible.

If one looks at the book of Genesis, several stories are clear allegories or metaphors. For example the seven day creation is obviously an allegory, which is actually supported by future books in the bible (it is mentioned that a day to the lord is like a thousand years).

Again this is modern thinking. No one the Bible seems to think of it as allegory.

Adam and Eve is most likely an allegory, and I proposed that Noah's Ark is most likely an allegory as well.

Again neither are presented that way. Now Job is pretty clearly a story. I don't know why its in the Bible at all. Its like putting the Oddessy in a book of Greek history as a historical event.

Given the extensive use of allegory in Genesis it is certainly not unreasonable to believe that it is being presented as such. It certainly seems to be a rather common theme in this particular book (Genesis).

Care to give an example of something in Genesis that is clearly labeled as allegory or metephor? I can't think of any offhand.

Moreover, the flood story is relatively self-contained in the bible, despite your claims to the contrary. The one mention in the New Testament of Noah's Ark (Luke 17 somethin' I think) arguably supports this hypothesis. Therefore your statement that a number of biblical passages treat the flood as entirely non-allegorical is very shakey, to say the least. In fact, without meaning to seem insulting, i would say that it is out-and-out false.

So you are now claiming that Noah is only mentioned once elsewhere in the Bible and that is treated as allegory there. Otherwise its your statement that is false. Lets see what a search for Noah turns up.

Well not counting Genesis and some where it might be different person with the same name.

Noah isn't mentioned in Luke. At least not by name.

Ah found what you were referring too

Luk 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

Looks like Luke thought of it as real.

Now for Noah as opposed to Noe.

1Ch 1:4 Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Treated as real anyway.

Isa 54:9 For this [is as] the waters of Noah unto me: for [as] I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.

Again treated as real

Eze 14:14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver [but] their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.

Treated as real by Jehovah. Of course if Jehovah is a mere allegory why are you arguing with me?

Hbr 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Repetition of the story in a manner not cosistent with allegory.

1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Here even in the New Testament it is treated as real.

2Pe 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth [person], a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Peter again treating it as real. What do you know that Peter didn't?

Lots of course but thats not the point. It wasn't allegory.

I'm certainly not disagreeing with Zach that the Bible is true, I feel that it certainly is, I just think that it is clear that God had to make some use of allegory when relaying the story of things as grandiose as the creation of the universe to people as simple as the early Hebrews.

So Jehovah maintained their ignorance and we too are still constrained to the same out of date book. Jehovah doesn't seem to be very forward looking that way.

This statement would *still* be considered ridiculously preposterous by any standards.

I don't exactly see that as an aplogy for putting words in my mouth. I mention that because you had the gall to call me immature. Without that I wouldn't mention it.

Let's analyze here, shall we?
1. The flood of Genesis didn't place literally, and was either a local flood or an allegory.

You haven't supported that claim. I have shown it dubious at best. Its clearly considered a true event in the Bible.

2. Therefore the God of Genesis doesn't exist
To argue that one implies two is, once again, absolutly fantastic, and arguably borderline-juvenile.

Dodging like this and name calling isn't bordline. It is juvenile.

IF the Bible is not the word of god then why believe?

IF it is the Word of God then why does it have so many errors like the non existent Flood.

There was nothing fantastic in my arguement. I merely looked at what the Bible actually says. About Jehovah and the actions of Jehovah. I compared that with reality. It failed the test. Therefor either its not the word of god and there is then no reason reason to believe in Jehovah OR it is the word of a god that doesn't care much about truth and thence cannot be trusted.

If you think the Bible is always dealing with allegory when it fails a test against reality then why do you think any parts of it that can't be tested is real?

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by loinburger
If somebody accepts evolution but believes that God got the ball rolling by making chemical bonds act just so in order that the first amino acids would form, then I would disagree with the person, but our disagreement would be restricted to metaphysics--we wouldn't have a "substantive" disagreement, and I wouldn't conclude that the person was a raving loon based solely on this one belief of theirs. They wouldn't be rejecting science by any means, IMO, by accepting evolution but believing that the invisible undetectable hand of God was the cause of the Big Bang. (They would still have to explain who created God, of course, but again I would consider this a metaphysical question and not a scientific question).

I agree with this. I would like to point out though that the problem of 'They would still have to explain who created God, of course' is there anyway. You have to explain where the 'Theory of Everything' came from.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
You have to explain where the 'Theory of Everything' came from.

Mathematics. That is it may be a inherent property of mathematics and math does not us to exist.

No it doesn't explain but it does more than saying "Always was, always will be, and allways remains the same". No one in the Catholic church ever seems to have noticed that the last part means god is inert and could not have created anything.