Theological navel-gazing
Karolina Kurkova has no belly button. (She's a Czech underwear model, by the way.) In a recent photoshot on a catwalk, photographers noticed that the 24-year-old model has neither an "outie" nor an "innie"; in fact, she appears to have a "smoothie".
I expect that the media-inspired fascination with Ms Kurkova's navel may now re-ignite a historic creationist controversy: Did Adam have a belly-button? After all, according to literalist readings of Genesis, Adam was the first human being who ever lived. In which case, he wouldn't have had any biological parents, right? And since Eve is said to have been created from one of Adam's ribs, surely she would lack a belly-button too? Here's one analysis of this pressing theological debate from a contributor to the Answers in Genesis website. Gary Parker argues that "God would not have planted on them a false indication that they had developed in a mother's womb."
In the nineteenth century, the British naturalist Philip Henry Gosse published a very curious book on this subject. It was called Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot. It may be worth noting that Gosse's book was published two years before Darwin's Origin of Species; in any case, the book challenges the claim that the fossil record points to evolution. It does so by developing an argument, now often called "the omphalos hypothesis", which amounts to this: God created a world that displayed the appearance of age even from the first second of creation, just as Adam was created with a belly-button even though he had no human parentage. (Omphalos is the Greek word for "navel".) Thus, the rings inside tree trunks are not necessarily signs of ageing, nor are the fossils we find strewn across the landscape. That's the argument, in any case.
In the twentieth century, the philosopher Bertrand Russell rightly pointed out, in The Analysis of Mind, that this argument, if accepted, could just as easily support the claim that the entire world was created just five minutes ago. Every aspect of the universe that seems to indicate age is, by this argument, merely a feature of the five-minute-old universe we inhabit. Even our human memories of the distant past would not constitute evidence of the past; they, too, could be said to be features of this extremely young earth.
At least we can agree on one thing: however Karolina Kurkova got her smoothed-out navel, almost nothing theologically follows from her lack of a belly-button.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~51~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
God made it look old? Has Gosse gone of his proper christian bottle?! Everyone knows that it was the devil who planted the bones to give the impression of the old earth, to make us disbelieve god. That's why children must be taught the controversy in science classes:
http://controversy.wearscience.com/img450/devil.gif
Just as they should be taught the controversy about light speed being variable by orders of magnitude to explain light from 12 billion years away reaching us when it's all supposed to be less than 10000 years old. Lots more controversies to be taught:
http://controversy.wearscience.com/img450/geocentric.gif
http://controversy.wearscience.com/img450/turtle.gif
Is it common for YECs to carry organ donor cards? I mean, if you're going to leave behind your brain in perfectly new, unused condition, why not let someone else benefit from it?
greets,
Peter
Complain about this comment
Love this subject. I present to you the Argument from Looking Like a Pillock:
1) Anybody who has no navel looks like a pillock.
2) God created Adam to be perfect.
3) No perfect human could also look like a pillock.
4) Therefore, God created Adam with a navel, lest he look like a pillock.
Complain about this comment
By the way, I really should point readers to one of the best versions of the above painting:
HERE
Complain about this comment
I don't think it is anything natural. In the news story linked, there is some explanation about it, however. But I believe strongly that she did some type of operation to smooth it out. Whatever the case, the smooth belly button is rather distracting and unattractive for even a supermodel. I believe everything has to be natural.
Complain about this comment
William, you should get out more!
Complain about this comment
Vlad - I believe Jordan is coming to agree with you. I am sure I read somewhere she is now seeking (or perhaps has already achieved) mammary reduction...
Complain about this comment
Karolina Kurkova DOES have a belly button. Do a Google image search using her name and you`ll find plenty of photos of her displaying her tummy button.
I guess for this particular fashion show either makeup or Photoshop was used to hide it. (Another idea on the navel issue was that she is really a mannequin made of two parts plastic to one part latex. ...) Does no one ever think of doing even a basic check on stories such as these?
As a way of getting attention for herself and the shops she was promoting it appears to have been a wildly successful strategy; I`d never heard of her before this, had you?
Complain about this comment
Philip Henry Gosse was an expert on marine invertebrates and the David Attenborough of his day. He was also a member of the plymouth brethern and the omphalos hypothesis was the product of his intellectual conflict between his scientific knowledge and his religious beliefs. he really thought he had reconciled the findings of geology with genesis only to be exposed to painful disillusionment when his theory was greeted with ridicule or ignored completely in the light of Darwins publication of the origin of species a couple of years later. Gosse's son Edmund later published a book -father and Son- relating his childhood and upbringing and the struggle between two temperaments, two consciences and two epochs!
Complain about this comment
William
I think it would be a mistake to suggest that Gosse is the leading or indeed only viewpoint on these matters.
You could be dangerously close to knocking down a straw man at this length of time since he penned his pamphlet!
I have yet to find a convincing creationist scientific explanation for a young earth in terms of geology etc.
However, I spoke with a senior geologist academic recently who said the affirmed old earthers were giving the impression that they had virtually absolute certainty on the matter when he said this was simply not true. (he was an old earther).
I have asked a few times here, but would still be interested to see hyperlinks to any actual peer reviewed articles on the radiometric dating of the earth...
...and while William mentions it papers dating the earth using tree trunks too.
No doubt it will not be long until several persons appear as by magic on this thread
-Questioning my integrity
-Trying to attack / undermine my personal life
-Trying to attach labels to me which I reject, in order to try and discredit me.
I think we would be much better convinced by such people if their just gave us hyperlinks to the peer reviewed papers on which they depend.
;-)
OT
PS One of CS Lewis' first steps to faith was to admit to himself the irrational approach he always took to the resurrection of Christ, when as a literary historian he knew in his heart of hearts he should have been cool and objective. That is not to suggest that Christian faith in any way requires belief in creationism or a young earth fyi (it doesnt!)
Complain about this comment
PPS All creationist geological papers I have read for a young earth that I have read have been wholly unconvincing!
Complain about this comment
in my experience peer reviewed papers are often hedged about with many assumptions and qualifications which very much undermine the certainty which some attribute to them.
Again, William have you got any hyperlinks to any peer reviewed papers on an old earth and tree trunk dating of the earth?
Or anyone else?
Thanks
OT
Complain about this comment
A paper often cited is by Patterson, C. (1956) Age of meteorites and the Earth. Published in Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 10, 230-237.
Pattison was one of the first to date earth`s age at 4.55 billion years. This age was based on uranium-lead isotope measurements from the meteorite Canyon Diablo. There doesn`t seem to be a copy available online, but a University library may be able to help locate a copy.
There`s an outline by the U.S Geological Survey of how earth`s age is determined here:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
Google for `age of earth` and you`ll find many more pages.
Google for ` radiometric dating` to find out more on this topic.
Complain about this comment
Thanks for that Jay
I notice again that this is not a peer reviewed paper but an outline only.
Nevertheless I note with interest the opening comments;-
".....scientists have been able to determine the ***probable*** age of the Solar System and to calculate an age for the Earth by ***assuming*** that the Earth and the rest of the solid bodies in the Solar System formed at the same time and are, therefore, of the same age."
I don't want to overstate any case here because it is not my field but it would be interesting to see some actual papers linked here for comparison sake.
thanks again Jay
OT
Complain about this comment
..come to think of it, the first few lines are probably worth reading slowly;-
"So far scientists have *not* found a way to determine the exact age of the Earth directly from Earth rocks because Earth's oldest rocks have been ***recycled and destroyed*** by the process of plate tectonics.
"If there are any of Earth's primordial rocks left in their original state, THEY HAVE NOT YET BEEN FOUND.
"Nevertheless, scientists have been able to determine the ***probable*** age of the Solar System and to calculate an age for the Earth by ***assuming*** that the Earth and the rest of the solid bodies in the Solar System formed at the same time and are, therefore, of the same age....
"The best age for the Earth (4.54 Ga) is based on old, ***presumed*** single-stage leads coupled with the Pb ratios in troilite from iron meteorites, specifically the Canyon Diablo meteorite."
- none of earth's 4.6bn year old rocks remain to test, that we know of.
- probable, not certain, estimates have been made of the earth's age.
- this is based on assumptions about the age of other bodies in our solar system; but how secure are these assumptions?
- does anyone know what assumptions radiometric dating uses?
Will have you read much further into this that you can help perhaps?
cheers
OT
Complain about this comment
The link I gave was of an article giving an overview of how the age of the earth is determined by geologists etc using radiometric dating; I never claimed it was a peer reviewed paper, as I think you realise.
Patterson’s paper that I cited was peer reviewed. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta is a peer reviewed journal. It’s the journal of both the USA’s Geochemical and the Meteoritical Societies and publishes original research in physical chemistry, petrology, terrestrial chemical processes, inorganic and organic geochemistry, isotope geochemistry and planetary science.
Since Patterson there have been many other studies dating rocks, and the elements they contain, from around the world, the moon and asteroid remains. Much of the planet has now been surveyed by geologists, often sponsored by governments and companies; the geologists’ mill grinds quite fine.
All this has contributed many papers that that buttress Pattison’s findings of the earth being 4.5 billion years old.
If you want another peer reviewed paper then try: `Age of the World's Oldest Rocks Refined Using Canada's SHRIMP: The Acasta Gneiss Complex, Northwest Territories, Canada.` R. Stern, W. Bleeker. Geoscience Canada, Volume 25, No 1 (1998). They dated Zircon grains from a deformed igneous rock [Acasta Gneiss Complex, Northwest Territories] at 4.3 billion years. There are many others if you know which academic journals to look in. If you wish to disprove that the earth is 4.5 billion years old then you’re going to have to demonstrate that radiometric dating techniques, in their entirety, don’t stand up.
I think the ultimate question is not about the age of the earth or the universe or how humans came into being, but how the universe was created and what went before? It’s possibly a question we’ll never be able to answer satisfactorily or even have the minds that could answer this or understood it. So I remain agnostic on that. Is there a personal God, an afterlife and so on? I doubt it; that may be my loss, but I just don’t have those beliefs. As long as peoples’ beliefs remain a personal matter and they don’t force them into schools, politics or other peoples lives against their wishes then I’m content to let people believe what they want.
------------------------------------
`does anyone know what assumptions radiometric dating uses?`
Do you know how to use Google or a library?
Complain about this comment
Hi Jay
Thanks again for your detailed thoughts.
I dont have a science background, like many visitors here and my point was to underline in the first instance how many people might take the 4.6bn years estimate at face value without ever checking it out for themselves.
It is an entirely fair and relevant point to ask for links to actual peer reviewed papers; a summary paper need not spell out the actual uncertainties and assumptions that underlie a 4.6 bn year estimate.
Have you ever read such a paper yourself? has William? are either of you aware of the assumptions and uncertainties that I understand must be stated in such?
I entirely agree that the age of the earth is not the ultimate question and I think *I* would be very brave/foolish to set out to prove that radiometric dates don't stand up.
However, if it is appropriate for William to bait visitors on the subject and appropriate for you to challenge me, then it is appropriate to have a minor civil debate on the subject, IMHO.
I also think, if you dont mind me saying, that it is pretty naive to suggest that as long as people's beliefs arent forced into schools then you're content to let them believe what they want.
Schools always have and always will be an ideological battle ground that are constantly under assault from a myriad of interest groups lobbying to have their views introdcued one way or another.
Perhaps what you mean is that you are happy that the status quo on this matter reflects your own views (and the major scientific consensus) and you are happy with that.
It is worth pointing out that while I am not convinced by science arguments for a young earth, an agnostic position is rationally unsustainable without an old age viewpoint.
So it must be said that many/most people have an intellectual and emotional predisposition to interpreting these facts. This of course applies to people of faith too.
Because without it (an old earth) evolution cannot be sustained and without evolution agnostics/athiests find their entire belief system crumbling.
That explains why there is frequently such stubborn prejudice, personal attacks and general high feelings on the matter. From both sides of the spectrum.
I think I presented my question wrongly - do YOU know what assumptions radiometric dating uses?
kind regards
OT
Complain about this comment
Oh dear PB! same as ever!
Jay if you do attempt to enter a debate with PB/OT etc etc it should come with a warning...
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"
I see that PB repeats the same boring, tired old canards that he has been corrected on so many times!
I love it when PB cites science papers and highlights words like "presume" etc as if this is somehow wrong! when if fact it shows the strength of science! This was of course pointed out to PB on many occasions but as ever ignored!
Pb If you get a moment you have left many, many unanswered questions!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/10/science_and_belief_duel_or_due.html#comment179
and here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/06/can_gay_people_be_straighened.html#comment51
I could go back further! as you do have a very unfortunate reputation for running away!
"Because without it (an old earth) evolution cannot be sustained and without evolution agnostics/athiests find their entire belief system crumbling."
Ha ha! PB please don't worry intelligent/enlightened Christians have no probs with the age of the Earth...such as Francis Collins-have you ever heard of him? as he would...oh what is that saying?-oh yes! undermine your argument!:-/
"That explains why there is frequently such stubborn prejudice, personal attacks and general high feelings on the matter. From both sides of the spectrum."
It is from one side PB and I am glad that you are (sort of) acknowledging for your behaviour in the past.
"do YOU know what assumptions radiometric dating uses?"
Oh PB, please, please DO inform of us of your extensive knowledge of radiometric dating!? because on at least two occasions you stated..."only a few labs do radiometric dating" you were asked on both occasions (and later) to back this up but...as ever you ran away!
"It is worth pointing out that while I am not convinced by science arguments for a young earth"
!? very odd PB! since for over a year and half you argued passionately for YECreationism!? goodness if that is the case I would not like to debate with you on a position that you did believe in!
Kindest regards
DD
Complain about this comment
Jay m15
"`does anyone know what assumptions radiometric dating uses?`
Do you know how to use Google or a library?"
Apparently PB doesn't! strange since myself and others have shown PB/OT many, many links to dedicated science sites in which PB could ask questions of scientists working in related fields but...they are never followed up!
Very odd when taking into consideration that during PB/OT etc etc time on this blog he has revealed stunning nobel prize winning info on how all of science are wrong! unbelievable!
Regards
DD
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
PB/OT
"No doubt it will not be long until several persons appear as by magic on this thread
-Questioning my integrity
-Trying to attack / undermine my personal life
-Trying to attach labels to me which I reject, in order to try and discredit me."
Hey presto! well PB if you did not insist on continually running away then we would not have to continually bring past views/statements from you!
PB do you actually think that you have "integrity"!?
We know nothing about your personal life!?
You *are* a Protestant fundamentalist and indeed are a stereotypical eg of the species as well as being a Ken Ham fan-well you did post many, many messages in favour of YECreationism!
Anyway nice try at the old 'I'm a victim' thingy but it doesn't wash with the long time posters here!
Regards
DD
Complain about this comment
I dont think Will was saying that Gosse and his book is the state of the art view on any of this. correct me if im wrong but i think this post by Will is supposed to be a little tongue in cheek ... Will?
Complain about this comment
Hello OT,
Interesting to see how, as DD points out, you are so much contradicting your own Young Earth Creationist posting record of the past two years on this blog. So many times you put up AiG pages, quoted AiGs 'geologist' Andrew Snelling, went on about variable light speed to explain the light from faraway galaxies reaching us, tried to talk away the fossil record (and even more often ignored information about it presented to you), posted various quote mines and fabrications in defence of your YEC views, etc. And now you disown YECist geology?!
It makes sense that you complain about every post that refers to your previous posts and that you keep assuming new identities all the time if you've come to see sense about what you always used to say. You must be feeling a deep sense of shame and embarrassment, right?
Do I read correctly that you are radically distancing yourself from your past? I would applaud that, as it is a past fraught with less than honest behaviour. Could you clarify if you are indeed distancing yourself from all YEC canards you've tried to make the readers of this blog swallow for two years?
greets,
Peter
Complain about this comment
Hello jayfurneaux,
You've picked an interesting time to engage OT (formerly PB/originalPB/PBmild on this blog) on YECism, age of the earth etc. A little word of warning though: PB has been the voice of YECism on this blog for years, wielding every (usually less than honest) tool in the YEC arsenal). There is a page about such people that applies to him so brilliantly well:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/bush/tactics.htm
So I would be much on your guard about OT/PB making you waste tons of time gathering information which he'll then likely ignore (or cherry pick for those tiny bits convenient to him, ignoring the majority rest of it), switch topic, divert attention, attribute positions or statements to people they never took (when did Will ever mention tree trunks?) etc. PB/OT has left open sooooh many questions. Those who have been on the blog for longer tend to drag him back to answering those before letting him go off on new tangents.
greets,
Peter
Complain about this comment
Hi DD,
It seems OT has basically thrown in the towel and seeks to distance himself from his past identities on this blog and his real identity as pastor at that church we can't name anymore. While reminding him of his past identities and old posts on this blog seems to be allowed, naming his real name or linking to the page of the church where he is pastor is against the blog rules it seems.
greets,
Peter
Complain about this comment
PeterK
"Do I read correctly that you are radically distancing yourself from your past? I would applaud that, as it is a past fraught with less than honest behaviour. Could you clarify if you are indeed distancing yourself from all YEC canards you've tried to make the readers of this blog swallow for two years?"
Peter I would not hold your breath in attempting to get an answer to your simple question as it has been asked before...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/04/expelled_or_flunked_redux.html
m243 and so forth but as ever(sigh!) just prevarication and bluster!
I believe what has happened with PB/OT is that he is still the same fundamentalist young earth creationist he always was, he just does not argue the position as he knows he did such a terrible job and was caught out on so many occasions telling falsehoods.
I think what occurred was here in this thread...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/12/are_religious_politicians_nutt.html
PB cites typical canards about fossils corresponding to the Bible etc(you know what I mean Peter!)PB as ever is asked a series of very simple questions to back up his stunning views but! guess what? he ran away! Then Pb admitted that he was reading a book by Aleister McGrath and that is where he is getting his "ideas" from.
Regards
DD
Complain about this comment
Hi Peter m24
It seems that is the case Peter. It is very strange that PB should be constantly citing his new mantra eg., "I have never found young-earth arguments convincing..." (when he certainly did for over two years!?) and the church site states that it is definite young-earth AIG!? mmmm very, very odd Peter-could be case for Mulder and Scully or failing that Scooby doo!
Regards
DD
Complain about this comment
It's not just the navel that betrays our embryological origin - it's our entire phenotype! If Adam had been created from scratch, he would have just been a pair of wandering testicles with a penis.
I'll leave it to the ladies to decide whether there's any distinction there with the regular male phenotype...
Complain about this comment
Or, more simply, one testicle.
Complain about this comment
just worth mentioning Blessed Nicolas Steno, the father of modern geology. So often people try to place science and religion in opposition. There is an interesting book on him "The Seashell on the Mountaintop: a story of science, sainthood, and the humble genius who discovered a new history of the earth".
Complain about this comment
So nobody here has ever read a peer reviewed on radiom dating, nor knows assumptions and qualifications of same?
Complain about this comment
OT/PB
Any chance of you answering any of the very *simple* questions that have been put to you?-the links are above. It is very hypocritical of you to ask questions when you can't answer some very *simple* questions.
In any case why should we listen to you about "radiom" dating when you have such a terrible and dishonest record on writing about radiometric dating?
Complain about this comment
Has anyone here actually read a paper on radiometric dating?
Complain about this comment
Hello OT,
"Has anyone here actually read a paper on radiometric dating?"
Sure pastor, see e.g. posts 12 and 15 by jayfurneaux in this thread. It thought it was obvious from those alone.
Peter
Complain about this comment
OT
On radiometric dating etc.
You previously mentioned a geologist who believed that pronouncements on the age of the Earth were being made with too much certitude.
Now certainly this would seem to be the case on the age of the Universe. Astronomers do seem to keep making revisions. So I can't see any reason to doubt what you geologist friend said.
But this doesn't help Creation Science/ Young Earth creationism at all. Let's imagine that Scientists have made massive errors calculating Red-shift etc. Lets imagine they have overestimated the age of the Universe by, say 10 Billion years. Say also, for the sake of argument, that geologists are out by 3 or 4 billion years.
You are still not even close to the tens of thousands of years required by Young Earth Creationism.
The only way out, so far as I can tell, is to embrace some strong form of operationalism - to say that science makes useful, but not true, predictions. But (a) Creationists want to appeal to science in their Design arguments and (b) it is far from clear that Genesis chapter 1 should be interpreted as literal history. Scripture does not warrant such an extreme move.
G Veale
Complain about this comment
OT/PB
Please tell us the results of your research!! Would it be like here?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/09/the_evolution_of_a_debate_at_s_1.html
In which you were again shown to be using fallacious arguments? and for that matter engaging in the dishonest practice known as quote-mining in m205! And PB why in the name of Sam Hill do you waste your time posting here (no offence to Will Crawley) your earth-shattering opinions on radiometric dating? I mean all those 100's of labs and 1000's of scientists who use this method would be very interested to hear! Yet you said "few labs do radiometric dating" mmmm, don't worry PB it's on that looonnngg list!
Also for that matter all the world's natural resource companies who use radiometric dating! I have posted links many,many times to you PB of dedicated science sites-but you rather strangely never post on them!
I see I had a post removed-ha!
Regards
DD
Complain about this comment
Perhaps we should stick to calling OT by his preferred online name. And perhaps a person should be given a chance to reinvent themselves. It wouldn't do any harm, and it would keep our posts online.
GV
Complain about this comment
Graham
If OT would stick by a name fair enough but they do change their name quite regularly(usually to escape moderation). If the poster in question would stick to their present name then fair enough and actually behave civilly.
DD
Complain about this comment
DD
One poster, one name would seem to be a fair prinicple. So OT should remain OT if things are to stay fair.
GV
Complain about this comment
Hello Graham,
You mention giving a person the opportunity to reinvent themselves. Do you think such a process should involve the person owing up to their dishonest past, maybe admitting their deceits. Very maybe even distancing themselves from them. And very very very maybe apologizing to the readers of this blog for lying for jesus and grossly insulting the intelligence of most readers by thinking they would fall for his petty lies?
It could go a good bit further. We could just ask our not-to-be-named pastor to acknowledge directly that his performance has been an example of his christian faith being the catalyst for extensive, protracted dishonesty. But maybe that's going a bit far.
What do you think, should reinvention of a persons character involve some degree of owing up to the past and distancing themselves from it? I think that would not be such a bad idea.
greets,
Peter
Complain about this comment
PeterK,
On the basis of the facts, as you have presented them, what you say is incontrovertible.
Obviously, I have no direct knowledge of lies, deceits etc. I have never challenged any Young Earth Creationists on the detail of their science. So I'm not in a position to make a value judgment.
(As an aside, I held to the YEC position as an A-Level student, but Flood Geology seemed shaky to me. Studying Genesis changed my position. Flood geology doesn't "fit". It didn't take scientific debate to change my mind).
However, OT will most likely remain plain OT. I think the best that we will be able to do is judge OT's posts. That may not be ideal. It may not be the fairest solution. But I think it's the only solution available.
I've no difficulty in apologising for causing offence, especially when I did not intend to cause offence. But you could end up waiting from Godot here. I don't think an apology is coming.
But if posters stick to the name OT, then there will be no excuse for hitting complaint button. That will at least keep discussion flowing.
GV
Complain about this comment
Graham,
Fair post from you. I am willing to call OT or indeed any other name which they wish to be known. However as PeterK has pointed out the same poster cannot disassociate themselves from their past posts. I have provided plenty of links to past posts by OT in which I(and others) believe OT has told lies and then compounded his dishonesty-the easiest thing for OT would be(if they believe they are telling the truth)is back up his claims but...they never do. I know you are relatively new here but I believe that you have got a flavour of the futile attempts to try to engage OT in rational debate.
One small example...OT has been claiming recently that he..."never found the evidence for YEC(Biblical creationism) convincing" yet the long term posters on here can remember that over a period that OT did nothing *but* argue for this position! very strange for someone who says "never"!? here is a small eg
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/03/the_dawkins_debate_continues.html
It's message 28 and throughout the thread they repeat the tired old canards. So I believe it is fair game to ask this poster if they repudiate their "former" position-which they have but personally I don't believe it.
As PeterK points out it is actually OT's absolutist, fundamentalist faith that drives him to be dishonest(please note Graham by this statement I am *NOT* saying that all Christians are like this-only a very vocal minority who do not resemble the Christians that I have the personal pleasure to know), and pointing out these issues to OT sends him into cognitive dissonance freefall.
Anyway enough for now
DD
Complain about this comment
To be fair, OT's claim that he is not YEC took me by surprise.That is not the impression I recieved when discussing Creationism in the classroom. Or here, up until that comment.
Perhaps he can clarify the apparent inconsistency.
Just as a general comment, aimed at no-one, I agree with DD. It is permissable, and can be admirable, to change your position after a period of reflection. But you should make it clear that your position has changed. Otherwise, it becomes impossible to refute a person.
(Think of Squealer in "Animal Farm". Or the Party in "1984".)
GV
Complain about this comment
In any case, it was nice to have the excuse to investigate Karolina Kurkova. Although I must be aging. I keep thinking "When *I* was a teenager, the supermodels were much more attractive. AND they had their own belly-buttons."
Complain about this comment
Shouldn't we have had a shot of the alleged navel instead of Adam? It's one of the weirdest things I've ever seen. Although admittedly I don't get out much.
Complain about this comment
Hi Graham,
"To be fair, OT's claim that he is not YEC took me by surprise.That is not the impression I recieved when discussing Creationism in the classroom. Or here, up until that comment."
Is OT in your class?
Peter
Complain about this comment
Graham
I read those comments by OT in the creationism in the classroom thread and they are classic Ken Ham/YEC canards that incidentally been asked by OT many times and answered many times.
I agree with your second paragraph-we have given OT ample opportunity and scope to clarify his present position eg., does he refute his "old" YEC arguments however...all we have got is silence.
I am a big fan of Orwell BTW! and love Animal Farm.
You are right Graham, perhaps this thread should be about investigating Karolina Kurkova as she is certainly worth investigating further...a shot of her lack of belly button would have been more interesting and that link to AIG was just to painful!
DD
Complain about this comment
PK
Heaven forbid! I should have said "1/3 of Teachers support Creationism in the Classroom Thread"
I have to say that I haven't had a single complaint from YEC parents, which has surprised me. I certainly don't promote it. Whereas concerns have been raised (just in informal conversation on open nights etc.) over teaching Islam.
I've discovered what might be a more edifying discussion on Science and Religion online.
http://www.veritas.org/media/talks/588
G Veale
Complain about this comment
Hi again Graham
sorry have been busy a few days with work etc...
just as an aside from origins for a few posts... I am curious about your faith if you don't mind me asking...
What does Christ mean to you personally and why should this faith matter whatsoever to the people around us, in your view?
I'm interested to know where you are coming from generally to help me understand your thinking...
best regards
OT
Complain about this comment
Hi OT,
When you have a moment could you perhaps answer some points that have been put to you? you do have a worrying habit of running away.
Lets start here...(I have only been asking for a year and a half)
"Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."
I followed your criteria don't forget! now could you actually back this up or admit that you have told a falsehood?
Would you mind me asking about your faith? if so it has become very transparent that your faith has made you dishonest(see above posts and links-if you need anymore evidence I will provide it). Now that is not me saying that you are dishonest rather your fundamentalist faith has forced you into extreme cognitive dissonance. Do you think that your behaviour is a very edifying example of faith? (although I would say that your faith is very atypical of a protestant fundamentalist).
Regards
DD
Complain about this comment
OT
You complained about a post of mine above and it appears to have been removed.
Here goes again...
You said...
"Because without it (an old earth) evolution cannot be sustained and without evolution agnostics/atheists find their entire belief system crumbling."
Mmmm well if that is the case OT then "agnostics/atheists "(and the majority of theists) can out their feet up, crack open a beer and chill! because (old earth)evolution is as you know one of the best supported theories in science which I you use every day and...so do you!
OT the real people who are fearful are Protestant fundamentalists who must accept a literal interpretation of Genesis or else their entire belief system crumbles. By your own criteria then OT, Protestant fundamentalism has crumbled and is utterly useless. A literal Genesis was shown to be rubbish even before Darwin and was shown to be-by Christians! As you know Biblical creationism is silly and nonsense-I mean OT it is THAT silly no-one use it...least of all...Biblical creationists!
Regards
DD
Complain about this comment
Hello OT,
Welcome back after your busy work.
DDs questions about your current position seems very relevant. It's no exaggeration to say that your position on this blog has been all over the place during the past two years. After a long period of voicing every YEC canard in the book (peddling more than just a few dishonesties in the process), you recently renounced YEC geology. So what is your position now? Are you owing up to your dark fundamentalist christian past? Do you openly distance yourself from that dishonest nonsense you held for a long time and that you tried to peddle to others? Do you accept that in your mind christianity has been a powerful catalyst for dishonesty? If so, is such a shift also reflected in what you preach to your church flock now?
greets,
Peter
Complain about this comment
Hi Graham
In post 34 you say it is far from clear from scripture that Genesis should be read as literal history.
I find myself having to agree in substantial measure with you there.
(Just because I test a particular idea does not mean I hold it as absolute truth or the only possible explanation).
Interested in your views on the following though;-
How do fit into your analysis the passage where Christ says that marriage was created at the beginning of creation ie in Matthew 19.4.
It seems fairly clear he is citing the marriage of Adam and Eve. And if their marriage was created at the begining of creation, as he appears to say, it also appears far from clear (to me anyway) how to resolve this with interpretations which suggests man evolved over millions of years before they came to the Adam and Eve stage.
We also have Jude apparently saying that Enoch was the seventh generation from Adam (see below).
Of course the term "generation" in this translation is a paraphrase insertion. But it does appear to support a literal reading of the geneologies (albeit for the first 8 generations only!)
Also, what is your take on Adam and Eve? I notice that organisations as diverse as IVP, YFC, Christianity Today and the Billy Graham Association endorse or produce teaching materials which teach plainly that they were two real people??
Must run,
God bless
OT
Jude (Amp Bible)
see verse 14
10But these men revile (scoff and sneer at) anything they do not happen to be acquainted with and do not understand; and whatever they do understand physically [that which they know by mere instinct], like irrational beasts--by these they corrupt themselves and are destroyed (perish).
11Woe to them! For they have run riotously in the way of Cain, and have abandoned themselves for the sake of gain [it offers them, following] the error of Balaam, and have perished in rebellion [like that] of Korah!(C)
12These are hidden reefs (elements of danger) in your love feasts, where they boldly feast sumptuously [carousing together in your midst], without scruples providing for themselves [alone]. They are clouds without water, swept along by the winds; trees, without fruit at the late autumn gathering time--twice (doubly) dead, [lifeless and] plucked up by the roots;
13Wild waves of the sea, flinging up the foam of their own shame and disgrace; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of eternal darkness has been reserved forever.
14It was of these people, moreover, that Enoch in the seventh [generation] from Adam prophesied when he said, Behold, the Lord comes with His myriads of holy ones (ten thousands of His saints)
15To execute judgment upon all and to convict all the impious (unholy ones) of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed [in such an] ungodly [way], and of all the severe (abusive, jarring) things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.
16These are inveterate murmurers (grumblers) who complain [of their lot in life], going after their own desires [controlled by their passions]; their talk is boastful and arrogant, [and they claim to] admire men's persons and pay people flattering compliments to gain advantage.
Complain about this comment
OT
I believe that Adam and Eve existed and fell. It's one I take on faith. I don't like Theistic Evolutionary accounts of Gen 1-3 any more than YEC accounts. They were real, they were in a real relationship with God, they fell from it.
Beyond that I don't speculate.
G Veale
Complain about this comment
OT
Strange you should quote the Bible...when the Bible says that you should not tell lies nor bear false witness. Sins which you have broken many times.
Here is one example out of many...
"Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."
It is very hypocritical of you to quote the Bible and profess to live by its teachings yet so readily break the most basic rules. I believe the problem is your fundamentalist faith which has set up extreme cognitive dissonance in your mind.
Whilst we are quoting the Bible I believe that Matt 23:1-39 is very apt for you. Jesus warns of religious hypocrites.
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.
"Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness."
Maybe you should actually read the Bible sometime?
DD
Complain about this comment
Hello Graham,
Your post 53 leaves me wondering. Could you describe please up to which point (e.g how far back in time) you go along with what theistic evolution says, and at what point your agreement with what it says breaks down? I suppose I could leave out the 'theistic' bit and ask up to what point you agree with the theory of evolution.
Complain about this comment
Hello OT,
You seem rather selective in which posts you respond to. You have been asked many times, by several people on this blog, including a few christians, about your past statements, to which degree various dishonesties in those statements were directly inspired by your christian beliefs, and if your recent posts mean that you distance yourself from the fundamentalist nonsense you've been voicing here for two years.
I'll assume your silence means you concede the various points?
greets,
Peter
Complain about this comment
Graham
ahem,
ref posts 52 and 53
I think that due to the amount of ribbing/challenges you have thrown down to me for my posts in the past few weeks you are (humourously) obligated to give me a better explanation than that, especially on the New Testament verses I cite.
Otherwise I will presume the subject is too scary
;-)
DD, ref quantum science,
if you can sum up in your own words both sides of this argument to date I will re-engage. You havent tried to understand the issues.
Peter K
If everything I say is "a lie" then why on earth would you want to talk to me?
kinds regards
OT
Complain about this comment
OT
It is very *simple* you made a statement "Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science." now either it is true or it is false-I have given you ample opportunity to date to correct yourself-something which you have refused to do. I ma saying that your statement is made up/a falsehood and a bare-faced lie and as such since you do not refute it-you are a liar! I played by your rules gave you a small selection of falsehoods that I and others have gave you and we are still on the first one!
Sum up in my own words!? errr well since I have been on with you PB the "debate" (if you can loosely call a conversation with you that!) has been about science versus pseudo-science. You have been great at repeating canards and falsehoods but not so great at actually producing positive evidence for your position(which changes and adapts). You have given us great insights at the workings(if one may call it that) of the fundamentalist "mind".
It is very hypocritical of you to say that I haven't tried to understand the issues when you just repeat the same tired old creationist propaganda. You have asked repeatedly for scientific evidence/answers on a variety of questions/issues which were provided yet these have been ignored on every occasion and then repeated-you have shown yourself to be a complete waste of time/effort and an unfortunate example of Protestant/Biblical fundamentalism. The long-term posters know the type of person you are and thankfully you have shown to the newer posters here the type of person you are by complaining about posts that have the temerity to disagree with you.
So lets cut the crap/prevarication/bluster and either acknowledge you told a falsehood/lie or if you still stand by your statement back it up with evidence.
Far be if from me to answer on behalf of Peter but one of the reasons why I am so interested in you and why we wish to address to the litany of lies that you have told is that (personally speaking) I am concerned at anyone being corrupted by your wilfully ignorant remarks on science.
Kindest regards
DD
Complain about this comment
Peter m56
"I'll assume your silence means you concede the various points?"
It does appear so Peter, it seems like we are going to get the usual time-wasting/smoke & mirrors/prevarication. I predict that OT will do the usual eg., run away then wait awhile start up the same old garbage-get challenged-run away etc .Maybe we did some good Peter(as well as the other long term posters) as OT seems to have moved away from Ken Ham(and he did used to be his greatest fan) though this was a position that OT "never found convincing" mmm:-/ Maybe I was too premature in my thoughts on OT, he probably is just as wilfully ignorant, dishonest and arrogant as he always was.
Ah well!
Dd
Complain about this comment
Hello OT, you wrote
"If everything I say is "a lie" then why on earth would you want to talk to me?"
Because you are such a gift to atheism. Few long-time readers of this blog will have any doubt that your fundamentalist christian beliefs are a powerful catalyst for disingenuous behaviour. Please keep posting, I'm all for demonstrating that to the readers of this blog. It is gratifying that now and then other christians are critical of you, not just atheists.
And since you're once again not addressing points put to you by DD and myself, it is clear then that you're empty. Intellectually empty.
greets,
Peter
Complain about this comment
OT
Fair point. In my defence I was writing a rather long reply to your question about my faith, which is under the "Advertising Watchdog" thread.
My initial response to Jude would be to point out that Jude was fond of Apocalyptic material. (If he was asking us to read that literally, then we're in trouble. Yet he would *seem* to take Apocalytic literally, and to be quoting it as Scripture. You don't want the books of Enoch in the canon any more than I do. So we need to be careful when asking what *exactly* is the Holy Spirit teaching).
Enoch was a popular character in Apocalyptic which was not meant to be read literally. He is the sixth generation mentioned after Adam, but given the context, I doubt that he was giving hermeneutical advice for interpreting Genesis. I don't really think much can be read into Jude's statement. And if a YEC does, he'll be creating huge problems for the canon.
Perhaps you want a little more than this - my take on Genesis 1-3? That would be quite a lot of writing, but if you listen to the following lectures
http://www.amoskeagchurch.org/broadcastindex.php?dir=./sermons/Granite%20State%20School/Meredith%20G%20Kline/Old%20Testament%20Exegesis
http://www.chestertonhouse.org/static/audio/middleton/Middleton_Roundtable.mp3
or read the following articles
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1996/PSCF3-96Kline.html
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2006/PSCF6-06Phillips.pdf
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/CSR5-95Young.html#The%20Bible%20and%20Science
you'll get an idea as to where I'm coming from. The three articles in particular would accurately outline my position.
G Veale
Complain about this comment
.Gv, how very evasive. You are very consciously dodging questions about the nt. why? Also open questions from pk above...
Complain about this comment
OT
How very evasive. You have been consciously dodging questions here for over 2 years and then...accusing someone else of doing the same! how...hypocritical!
Complain about this comment
Hello OT,
Trust me pastor, one open question in a slightly older thread that slipped past Graham wouldn't make me think he is deliberately dodging.
The myriad of open questions to you for the past two years however...... I mean, just look at the reminders in this thread alone.
I guess it must be uncomfortable for you that a couple of the veteran atheists on this blog can spot every one of your tactics from miles away and that when called out very cleary, as in this thread, you can't do anything but look at your computer screen and let it pain your mind yet a bit more. :)
Unless of course you are now going to present a convincing answer to the link between QM and evolution, the number of labs doing radiometric dating, transitional fossils, your gross inconsistency re. flood geology and the many, many other questions you've left open so far.
greets,
Peter
Complain about this comment
Graham
Come on that is no answer at all.
;-)
Are you suggesting that Jude's ref to the genelogy was apocalyptic? Nonsense.
You have given me three sermons and four articles to read???? Cant you speak for yourself in plain language.... or are you floundering????
In a sense the context is irrelvant at this point of the discussion if we both agree on the meaning of the verse we have got past that.
If you are claiming respect for scriptural authority and at the same time deriding my understanding of it in non too charitable terms (as you have done for the past few weeks) and yet also refusing to debunk or discuss my understanding, I think that leaves you on pretty shaky ground indeed!
;-)
If the generations before Abraham are to be taken to mean real generations without any missing generations, that takes us up to Abraham, who has been placed in actual history.
Taking with the marriage of Adam and Eve being at the start of creation, it poses serious difficulties in reconciling this with mainstream geology.
Are you an approved workman, as Paul put it to Timothy?
I also have to say, mainstream Christianity has, by rule of thumb, always kept pretty close to the plain reading of scriptures down through history, and has repeatedly come back to this viewpoint for "new life".
I understand this is consistent with a carpenter who used farm parables to communicate with ordinary people and who wanted a priesthood of all believers. He wanted ordinary people to understand ordinary language.
The obvious exceptions would be poetry, or any passage which explicitly says it requires interpretation eg apocalyptic material.
PK, DD, it should be obvious to you by now that nobody is interested in your campaign as outlined above.
Even Graham has distanced himself from your claims that my challenges to evolutionary theory are "lies".
That would only be the case it evolution were absolute truth, but you would have to have a fundementalist religious trust in it for that to be the case. Therefore my questions or challenges could never have been "lies" could they?
I have comprehensively dealt with every issue you ever raised, and as you have nothing new to add, neither have I guys.
sorry, but that would be a waste of time.
OT
PS Graham, come on now you also owe Peter Klaver an answer to post 55!
;-)
Complain about this comment
Oh dear OT!
Same old prevarication and bluster as usual!
"it should be obvious to you by now that nobody is interested in your campaign as outlined above."
Not at all! the long term posters know what you are like and fortunately the newer posters have been given a glimpse of what it is like to deal with you.
"Even Graham has distanced himself from your claims that my challenges to evolutionary theory are "lies"."
Has he!? well now this would be the *simplest* thing to do...back up your claims! thats all we are asking! That is very *simple* but then again we are dealing with a fundamentalist.
"That would only be the case it evolution were absolute truth, but you would have to have a fundementalist religious trust in it for that to be the case."
This has all been explained to you before but as ever you are wilfully ignorant. Evolution is a scientific theory and the best explanation was have. Nothing to do with a fundamentalist religious trust-just evidence. Whereas your position is only backed up by Protestant fundies and as you have illustrated over the past 2 years the info they present is discredited, dishonest and that stupid and useless that not even they use it!
"Therefore my questions or challenges could never have been "lies" could they?"
Sometimes it is frightening to be given a glimpse into the "workings" of the fundamentalist mindset! Yes they are lies that can be evaluated and measured-it really is a *simple* concept-intelligent Christians get it so you really should not worry about it.
You see this statement
"Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."
Well what you do if you believe this statement to be true(hope that I am not going too fast or using too many big words?) is back it up-now that is a very *simple* concept-if you cannot then it is a statement without truth-it's a lie and as such you are a liar. The same with the many other canards you have raised then when asked to actually back them up you have run away.
"I have comprehensively dealt with every issue you ever raised, "
Utter poppycock and a lie! all the links we have given show that when you are put under pressure to answer a point that *you* have raised-you have ran away! You never answered the point on QM(see above) or "the few labs that do radiometric dating" you can't because they are lies!
"sorry, but that would be a waste of time."
i am glad that you seem to be finally acknowledging that you are a waste of space.
Kindest regards
DD
ps. I still you are still hypocritically demanding answers from Graham when you have ran away from the many very *simple* questions that have been asked of you. However Graham is quite astute and he knows the type of person you are-a person who hits the complain button when someone has the temerity to disagree with you.
Complain about this comment
"Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."
So where exactly have you "comprehensively dealt" with this issue?
Complain about this comment
PeterK
Can you remember anytime that OT has "comprehensively dealt with every issue you ever raised"-I am very perplexed! strange since the evidence(older links) that we have presented conclusively shows that OT (or as he was known PB/Mild/Original etc)has consistently ran away when asked questions. In my humble opinion Peter it is a quite a shocking example of the doublethink employed by those of a fundamentalist disposition. Judge Jones noted as much on his landmark ruling at Dover with the two Bible-believing Protestants on the school board being named as "liars". It does seem to be an unfortunate eg of this wacky faith.
OT
Have you ever told a lie?
Complain about this comment
OT
I have just read your reply to Graham in detail and it is marvellous in the richness of the use of fallacies, special pleading and just plain old classic PBisms!
"You have given me three sermons and four articles to read???? Cant you speak for yourself in plain language.... or are you floundering????"
ha! wonderful!
"Taking with the marriage of Adam and Eve being at the start of creation, it poses serious difficulties in reconciling this with mainstream geology."
You have never said a truer word! it does pose "serious difficulties" and it does show that taking a typical Ken Ham approach which you are doing here is fraught with difficulties and leads to extreme cognitive dissonance. What do we choose mainstream geology or your (or be correct Ken Hams)interpretation of Hebrew myth? well I choose mainstream geology and funnily enough so do you and Ken Ham-in the real world that is! :-)
DD
Complain about this comment
Hi DD,
Of course you right, pastor OT has run away from just about every challenge put to him, ignored all evidence presented, or quote-mined from it at best. Or made up quotes all together if no quote mines were available. He has not dealt with anything.
I enjoy how he can't come up with anything when I call him out so explicitly. What must the other readers be thinking? I put it to OT that is intellectually completely empty, and he can't come up with any substantial response. Is the mind hurting, OT?
greets,
Peter
Complain about this comment
Well GV I guess our common ground is quite interesting enough post 53.
1) We "don't like" evolutionary accounts of Genesis.
2) We both agree that Adam and Eve were real people, which we take on faith.
3) Neither do we like "young earth creationism".
My take on that is that I am uncomfortable with YEC folk asserting with apparent certainty things which dont present a good argument for (eg Gary Parkers argument on belly buttons, above).
I think the main difference between us is that you don't like to speculate on such matters while I find it interesting to explore their limits.
OT
Complain about this comment
ps GV
I notice you say you can work with other Christians who have the same creed as you but at the same time, I find your tone to other people who identify as Christians on the blog as appearing to be in some tension with that...
1 Cor 12:12-27
thoughts?
Complain about this comment
I (and others) see that you are running away again.
So...where did you "comprehensively dealt with" this issue?
"Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."
and
"few labs do radiometric dating"
ps. "I find your tone to other people who identify as Christians on the blog"
You see OT there are many false Christians about-you know like liars, hypocrites etc
Matt 23:1-39
Thoughts? (I do realise that I stung you the last time I posted)
pps. I see you are hypocritically hounding other posters for answers when there are many that you have avoided for the past two years-how...hypocritical.
Complain about this comment
PK
There are really two issues there. 1) Those accounts that try to reconcile Gen 1-3 with evolution, in such a way that evolution is "read into" the text, or that try to work out how evolution fits into the account. So you get stories about God taking two apes and giving them souls etc.
This seems just as ridiculous as speculating about Adam's belly button.
2) I think this is probably where you are most interested - Where do I stand on intelligent design? Short answer - I dunno, I've too many other things to worry about.
You know that I don't think ID's a Scientific Theory. Of course that doesn't make it false. If you want to see my more detailed thoughts on the issue keep reading...
I don't think Darwinism can account for knowledge or morality. I'm also certain that Naturalism cannot account for consciousness or Mathematical truths. So I'm commited to Divine Intervention on some level. I'll leave you to decide if that brings me into conflict with Science.
On the other hand, I don't know enough about fossil evidence and genetics to reach a conclusion about Biological Complexity and Darwinism. And of course, even if (just for the sake of argument) neo-Darwinism cannot account for all biological complexity that does not mean that another naturalistic mechanism will not be discovered.
This is the big problem for ID. You can't knock down Darwin and assume Intelligent Intervention wins. Another problem is that Darwinism seems perfectly compatible with the Design Argument. So do we need to demolish Darwin to infer design?
I'm just happy to assume that Darwinism can account for all biological complexity.
Whether or not the *level* of complexity we encounter on Earth is highly probable given Darwinism is difficult for an outsider to get a grip on. Dawkins seems to say no, Simon Conway Morris says yes.
Even if it makes such complexity slightly more probable, Darwinism has some explanatory power. If Theism improves the probability of Natural Selection going down the "route" that led to highly complex biological life, then Theism may have explanatory power. The two need not conflict. The two taken together may give us the best explanation. Or Theism and Natural Selection may be a better explanation than Theism on it's own, or Natural Selection on it's own. I don't see the two as competing to explain biological complexity. They could be complementary.
One other thought that I'd like to explore. On naturalist assumptions the origin of life is a low probabililty event. But that isn't the case on Theistic assumptions. So what does that do to the thesis of common ancestry? Can someone be a thoroughgoing Darwinian, and reject common ancestry?
That was all just thinking out loud. I probably should sit down and work out where I stand on all this.
G Veale
Complain about this comment
OT
What is your point in post 72? I'm not sure.
If you are referring to my ribbing you, ask PK and DD to compare notes with you. I think I've been as fair as I possibly can be, and tried to "broker" some sort of "peace" that would leave the past in the past.
I've also spoke out in defence of fundamentalists on several occasions. Including you. So I'm not sure where I've let the side down.
(There are one or two fundies and evangelicals who have said outrageous things. So I've hit hard - and where possible e-mailed them to explain why).
Complain about this comment
Does anyone else perceive me as a Bible basher basher?
Complain about this comment
Graham
ref 72 - stop playing to the gallery and answer for yourself pls you chancer.
So you admit you hit hard against "fundies" and evangelcials who have said "outrageous" things do you?
Are you the self appointed W&T arbiter on what is "outrageous" and "extreme" Christian theology then?
(you have applied the term "extreme" to my posts recently).
Plus, you are no such thing as an honest broker you chancer - read those posts about/to me again.
And by the way I am not a fundamentalist - how can I be when I do not insist on a single firm interpretation of genesis??
I at least had the courtest to ask you what you believed. You havent a clue what my theology is.
I never censure other Christians here even if I dont agree with them.
To me it appears as though you continually put down Christians who are deemed "unacceptable" by the long term secular posters here in order to gain currency with the "intellectual" athiests.
I will not enter into a protracted debate on this matter, but if Christ accepts such people, alleged faults and all, then you are on thin ice accusing and "hitting hard" his brothers and sisters on the presumption of superior theology.
Superior theology which is afraid to discuss passages listed above in Matt and Jude...
Are you familiar with the passage which urges brothers against going to law against one another? Why are they urged not to? What principle therein might apply to relations with our brothers on this blog?
sincerely
OT
Complain about this comment
Graham
ref 72 - stop playing to the gallery and answer for yourself pls you chancer.
So you admit you hit hard against "fundies" and evangelcials who have said "outrageous" things do you?
Are you the self appointed W&T arbiter on what is "outrageous" and "extreme" Christian theology then?
you have applied the term "extreme" to my posts recently.
Plus..you are no such thing as an honest broker you chancer - read those posts about/to me again.
And by the way I am not a fundamentalist - how can I be when I do not insist on a single firm interpretation of genesis?
I at least had the courtesy to ask you what you believed. You havent a clue what my theology is.
I never censure other Christians here even if I dont agree with them.
To me it appears as though you continually put down Christians who are deemed "unacceptable" by the long term secular posters here in order to gain currency with the "intellectual" athiests.
I will not enter into a protracted debate on this matter, but if Christ accepts such people, alleged faults and all, then you are on thin ice accusing and "hitting hard" his brothers and sisters on the presumption of superior theology.
Superior theology which is afraid to discuss passages listed above in Matt and Jude...
Are you familiar with the passage which urges brothers against going to law against one another? Why are they urged not to? What principle therein might apply to relations with our brothers on this blog?
sincerely
OT
Complain about this comment
"Does anyone else perceive me as a Bible basher basher?"
No!
Graham I think that you are astute enough to realise what myself and other posters were talking about in the futility in attempting to "debate" OT.
Watch how many times I have asked some exceedingly simple points to OT, simply in a manner to get some answers to the points that *he* has raised! Notice how he runs away, notice the prevarication and bluster, notice how he squirms in increasingly pathetic attempts to dodge the myriad of lies he has told...
OT
So...where did you "comprehensively dealt with" this issue?
"Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."
and
"few labs do radiometric dating"
Graham watch how OT ignores me-wonder why OT cannot show where he has "comprehensively dealt with every issue raised"-because he can't, because he didn't and this is just another pathetic prevarication.
Watch out Graham! and I see that OT is playing the nasty, wasty atheists card etc- a small question Graham who has been more reasonable on these threads?
Anyway...
Regards
DD
Complain about this comment
OT
ref the myriad of posts in this thread and others in the past two years which have asked very *simple* questions to the posts *you* have raised so stop playing to the gallery and answer for yourself pls you chancer.
"Are you the self appointed W&T arbiter on what is "outrageous" and "extreme" Christian theology then?"
Well you certainly seem to be OT-since you complain about posts on a regular basis, simply for having the temerity for disagreeing with you. Then again you were offered the chance to defend yourself but...you as ever ran away!
Plus..you are no such thing as an honest broker you chancer OT- read those posts about/to me again you know those many, many posts that you have run away from.
You are a fundamentalist OT! wonderfully, beautifully so! so full of twisted fundamentalist "logic"-it is a thing of wonder to see you constantly get foot stuck in mouth disease, contradict yourself, be a hypocrite etc
"the "intellectual" athiests."
Shucks you charmer! stop trying to suck up to us!
OT are you familiar with the passages in the Bible that relate to not telling lies, not bearing false witness, the passages in which Jesus talks about his dislike of sanctimonious, self-righteous religious hypocrites? Perhaps your Bible does not have these passages or maybe you are ignorant(and lets face it-you do have previous on being ignorant) or maybe you are annoyed that atheists know more about basic Bible teaching than you do.
Ah well
DD
Complain about this comment
OT
I have other Christians read my posts, and they do regularly.I talk to one other Christian poster about our posts.My full name is given, plus where I work and write from and what my job is.
(Lest there is any room for complaint, I attend Richhill Presbyterian Church. And my pastor knows that I post here.)
That's accountability.
Furthermore the three detailed articles outline my position accurately. I hold to the "framework" interpretation of Gen 1, a literal Adam, a literal fall, but physical death before the fall. I am unsure how to square Adam with the Scientific evidence, but see direct divine intervention at work for the reasons given to Peter Klaver (Darwinism cannot account for morality or human knowledge).
I don't see how I have dodged any issues, or how I have been unfair. Neither do those whom I know IN PERSON.
I will state what *I think* is extreme or outrageous. I haven't appointed myself as anything.(I was referring to Rev Ian Hall. And in his defence, he gave us his full name, and a web-site with e-mail attached. Which was a courageous and honest thing to do. My appreciation of the Rev has just deepened).
I wrote a very long post in your defence, which you removed. And I've just wasted my break typing this and not reading some of the worthwhile posts. So quit whingeing.
Graham Martin Veale
Armagh
Complain about this comment
And you're censuring me. Sheesh, talk about self-referential incoherence.
Where's my coffee?
Complain about this comment
Hello Graham,
Thanks for your reply to my post. I'm too busy at this week, hopefully I'll find some evening hour to respond. But just as a little teasing preview: without realizing it, you're merely pulling a god of the gaps probably. But more on that later.
And I see you're realizing what sort of character our non-favourite pastor is. Don't worry about Orthodox-tradition going at you as a fellow christian. He does that to other who don't share his views down to the last bit as well. Classic example is William himself. When he posts a thread to OTs liking, there is praise, William is talked up as 'Dr. Crawley', reference to academic title etc. And then on the next thread William is brutally criticized as the liberal agenda pushing, pro-gay, unfair, unbalanced BBC hack who hates creationists.
I like seeing OT lose all credibility with yet another fellow christian. :)
greets,
Peter
Complain about this comment
Hi Graham
Just to affirm the common ground we have ;-
1) Basic statements of faith in the Word of God etc
2) That Adam and Eve were real people
3) We are both sceptical of evolution
4) We both feel that ID *may* be true even if does not currently qualify as a scientific theory
5) We both dislike young earth creationism. (by this I mean speculating with absolute certainty what goes beyond the authority of scripture.)
6) We are both sceptical about the formal geolgy of YEC groups.
sincerely
OT
DD - you were not even able to sum up my arguments to date on the QM point. To help you undersyand - are memes proper science? Where is the evidence?
Complain about this comment
"DD - you were not even able to sum up my arguments to date on the QM point. To help you undersyand - are memes proper science? Where is the evidence?"
Oh dear prevarication and bluster noted yet again! Why can you not just back up your statement? I have never mentioned memes on here!why not stick to the point or are you scared?
Now this has been asked of you for over a year and a half(yawn), you have been asked over 30 times(yawn)-here goes...
So...where have you "comprehensively dealt with" this issue?
"Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."
It is very odd that you cannot actually show any evidence to back up your view-why not give me one(you should of course be able to give me 100's)peer-reviewed paper-just one to start!
and
"few labs do radiometric dating"
I included the last one since I and others were eagerly waiting on your stunning info on the "assumptions of radiometric dating" :-/
I am expecting yet more prevarication and bluster :-(
You have been rumbled OT and the thing is we did not have to give anymore evidence to illustrate the type of person you are-you have done that very well in your replies to Graham-thank you OT! why not go and complain about posts-you are after all very good at that.
DD
Ps. the utter cheek and hypocrisy of you to label anyone a "chancer"!?unbelievable!
Complain about this comment
DD what do you think of Graham's views, as summarised in post 84?
;-)
Complain about this comment
OT I don't care :-/
Prevarication and bluster noted yet again...
Now...where have you "comprehensively dealt with" this issue?
"Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."
and
"few labs do radiometric dating"
Complain about this comment
Hi Graham
I dont think my tone in my last email to you was helpful at all - so sorry..
But pls hear me out here;-
Are you really certain your minister has commissioned you to "hit hard" at other Christians if you disagree with their views on this blog?
It seems contradictory to brand my alleged views on the theology and radiomentric dating of creationism /ID as "extreme" and then to confess that you havent even taken the trouble to reach a thoughtful position yourself.
Can you help me understand this?
Also - why would you need to broker a peace deal for me with other posters if you admit you cant see that I have told any lies or used any deceptions in the past, as claimed.
The Godless ones have briefed extensivley against me and you say you cant see any evidence of lies - but you still side with them.
Then you offer to "broker a deal" as though you were in possession of the facts.
If had asked me my side of the story you would have got a very different picture about what has gone on here in the past.
But again, you havent shown any interest.
Can you see why I am struggling with your approach here?
sincerely
OT
Complain about this comment
"radiomentric dating of creationism /ID"!?
"The Godless ones have briefed extensivley against me"
Yes we have and provided links and raised issues that *you* raised and have simply asked *you* to back them up! bloody hell-it's not difficult!
Complain about this comment
Hello Graham,
The essential paragraph in your post where I think the major error creeps in is
"I don't think Darwinism can account for knowledge or morality. I'm also certain that Naturalism cannot account for consciousness or Mathematical truths. So I'm commited to Divine Intervention on some level."
You almost explain the error yourself in the paragraph that follows, when you warn against the false dichotomy of no scientific answer = credibility for god:
"And of course, even if (just for the sake of argument) neo-Darwinism cannot account for all biological complexity that does not mean that another naturalistic mechanism will not be discovered."
You are certain naturalism can't explain consciousness? Well not fully yet, in fact very little, but if we strongly extrapolate what little we know, the picture is that naturalism likely does provide an explanation for conscious thinking.
This will unfortunately get long and I don't have the reference for the paper that reported the experiment with mice brains detailed below. Feel free to whack me over the head for that. But we'll start of simple in a different area anyway.
Your ability to see, feel the heat of a burn, etc is pretty well explained as part of the physical world. I assume you know that and agree with it.
Would you say that thoughts of 'Hmmm, gorgeous woman in low top walking by, yummie, yummie, me getting so hot all of a sudden' are part of consciousness? They are certainly well understood and can even be artificially induced.
You could say that physical arousal, feeling the sun burn on your forehead, etc are not on the level of consciousness you were talking about. But how about the deep, loving memories of one of your deceased close relatives? Or the memories of when you proposed to your wife and she said yes? Would you say that those constitute a less trivial part of your conscious thinking? How about the memories of steps of reasoning? If so, I have bad news for your certainty about consciousness not being explicable as a collection of synapses bouncing around your brain and complex chemistry. Let me now recite what I remember from one of the more interesting papers I ever read.
At some point researchers had developed a hunch that memories in mice were tied to the adhesion of certain molecules. I don't remember if they tied to proteins or other molecules produced by proteins. But either way, without those proteins, the ability of the mice to store memories should be impaired. How to test the hypothesis?
Take two large cubical glass cages and set them next to each other. A board can be placed between them so that animals can't see the other cage. And a hole can be opened in both cages to allow animal to go from one cage to the other. Put 20 or so mice in one cage, put a snake in the other, board in between the cage. The mice have never seen a snake before. When he board between the cages is removed, some mice move away a bit from the side of the cage near the snake, but nothing too worried. Then a few unfortunate mice are taken from the one cage and fed to the snake, while the other mice can see what's going on. Then the hole between the cages is opened and the snake starts making its way into the cage with the mice. Terror among the mice! The snake is pulled back and then the animals are kept out of sight of each other for a long time. Then the cages are placed next to each other again with the board in between. The moment the board is removed and the mice see the snake again, they go nuts with fear. So they remember.
Then the experiment was repeated with mice whose DNA had been mucked up a bit, so that the protein suspected of playing a role in storing memories could not be produced. When the mice see some of their number being eaten and then see the snake move into their age, they go mad like the normal mice. But when shown the snake after having been separated from it for a while, their response is much muted compared to the berserk response of normal mice. Some of the manipulated mice hardly respond at all. A couple still get quite nervous.
So what does that all mean? The experiment adds some credibility to the idea that memories are at the very least partly down to the adhesion of molecules to other molecules in the brain. So science is closing in on the physical carriers of memories. One of the most fascinating things to come out of research sofar I think, even if it the experiment showed that more factors are involved (as expected of course), as the result was not a 100% on/off switch outcome.
So you think with certainty that the memories you retain about some intense, deep discussion you had at some stage, reliving how the reasoning steps in the discussion went is inexplicable by naturalism? Graham, Graham, Graham. You've just sought shelter in the home inhabited by the god o the gaps. You may rest assured, your god is not in a straight jacket yet, tied down to a hospital bed. But his manouvering room has already decreased a bit, so if he feels tired and wants to stretch his arms and legs while yawning, he might have a problem. And if past scientific progress is anything to go by, even that straight jacket he'll wear some decades from now will keep shrinking until he is squeezed out altogether.
So science has made some small tentative steps that allow it a (for now still very weak) claim on what consciousness is all about. What do you have in support of the statement that naturalism will never explain consciousness? I have a few suspicions as to what the answer might be. Perhaps you could tick the boxes that apply?
[ ] near-total lack of up-to-date scientific knowledge specific to the area
[ ] strong desire (although to you so normal now that it hardly registers in your thoughts anymore) to cling to your mentally comforting fairy tale word view, making your mind accept things that enforce it much more easily than things that would destroy it
[ ] reading too many of those books with pseudo-philosophical tosh that give you delusions of greater, deeper thinking ability than you actually posses (and you won't make it any better for yourself if you repeat you silverback-gorilla-pouncing-fists-on-chest, all capitols yelling that you are philosophically superior to me)
Peter
Complain about this comment
Peter
1) Yes, I agree that a gap in naturalism doesn't prove theism. That will take arguments that show that Theism makes the evidence more likely than Atheism, or that Theism offers a better explanation.
2) I apologise for the capitols. They will not happen again.
3) More than happy to take your word on the details of the experiment. The issue isn't the correlation of mental states with physical states. The question is, are physical states necessary and sufficient to produce mental states? And can naturalistic science produce an explanation for subjective experience?
As for pseudo-philosophical tosh, I've come across this objection from Helio and others. You start with a philosophical argument or position, (critcising design arguments etc.) Then if the design argument, the moral argument or whatever doesn't fold as easily as Dawkinseque atheism predicts, the arguments are dismissed as pseudo-philosphical. Bit like having your cake and eating it. Or saying that only bad philosophical arguments count.
Like it or not, you have a philosophical position - Naturalism. And Science depends on philosophical assumptions. Trivialising opposing views as "fairy tales" doesn't help Naturalism at all.
Now if you have a belief that *only* Science leads to truth, and that this belief does not need a non-scientific defence, then you have a presupposition that can't be falsified. It makes conversation rather difficult.
Analytic philosophy is just about clarifying and defending beliefs. And I won't use any argument that hasn't made it into a secular peer reviewed journal.
Just clarifying a little, and I'll try to type up the substantive arguments tonight if you still want to fire ahead.
And then I'll get around to Darwinism.
GV
Complain about this comment
Pk
Have you noticed that we're both short of time, we're summarisng our views and offering peliminary comments as briefly as possible, and we've typed half a page each?
GV
Complain about this comment
Oh, and I wouldn't make claim to an ability to think deeply on any level, philosophical or otherwise. I aspire to the shallows.
Complain about this comment
OT
1) I never said YEC was extreme. But it is is my opinion. I don't need my ministers permission to say that.
2) I repeatedly said that I did not know all the facts. I was always careful to respond in terms of "if what you say is true, then such behavior would be unreasonable."
It would be up to you to defend your actions. But we were, as I understood it, talking about two different posters? PB and yourself? That's how I agreed to view things, isn't it?
I don't know anything about PB, and I'm taking you as I find you. But surely I can reserve the right to disagree with other Christians?
GVeale
Complain about this comment
Hi Graham
you did use the term "extreme" in post 34 but latterly declined to justify it when asked to discuss related texts.
What we have done is not equal;- I am defending myself from direct challenges you make to me on onconsistent grounds.
While I am asking you to be more aware of repeated subtle put-downs to other professing Christians (not me) that are neither constructive nor gracious.
I get the impression you have "heard" my point.
I hope we can leave it there.
regards
OT
Complain about this comment
DD
You dont even understand the point I made - and explained - ref quantum mechanics.
ie if we can accept the existence of items such as multiverses as scientific reality despite there being no empircal evidence for them, then where is the standard for rejecting and accepting other hypotheses?
A secular agenda can move the goalposts to suit.
OT
Complain about this comment
Ah - my name being used in vain there, Graham! Perhaps I need to jump in a wee bit re the mental states malarkey. We know the brain exists; we know that human consciousness depends critically on brain function; we know that the chemical/electrical status of the brain is associated with changes in mental states, AND we know (from experiment) that tinkering with the neurochemistry of the brain can alter subjective experience.
So we have lots and lots of reasons for suggesting that what we call "consciousness" or "subjective experience" is dependent on brain function, rather than being separate.
This is just a starter, a base-point. If you are suggesting that there is a "something else" - an extra layer on consciousness that is imposed from outside, rather than emergent from the complex system, you will need to come up with some evidence for that.
Suppose I were to build a brain from scratch, using cel-cultured neurons from (say) chimps. I would make it anatomically identical to a human brain; I would wire up all the neurons the same way, and I would keep it perfused and stimulated in a vat. I would verify that it does everything a normal brain can do - I could process its neural inputs so that it could sense the world around it, and outputs, so that it could communicate. Would it be a human brain or a chimp brain? Would it be conscious? How would it differ from a "natural" brain, grown in the cell culture medium that is the human body?
If you believe in "souls", would god give it one? Or who gives them out? How would we know if a person did not have a "soul"?
-H
Complain about this comment
OT
I referred to "operationalism" as an extreme interpretation of science. And I argued that it could (should?)follow from YEC logically, but that YEC does not typically make the claim.
I've heard your point, and disagree - I've never been subtle.
As for "self-appointed" anything - nope; I might have aspired to savant once, but I seemed to get stuck on idiot.
GVeale
Complain about this comment
Durn it H - now I have to type up a detailed reply.
Lemme see - in this order I've to deal with
1) Naturalism and consciousness
2) Naturalism and morality
3) Naturalism and human knowledge
4) Darwimism and the design argument.
Not all at once, surely? I'll get responses down as quick as I can.
GV
Complain about this comment
Give me till Fri Afternoon... if I'm going to screw up an argument I might as well do it in style.
G Veale
Complain about this comment
Helio, just a quick couple of points, though I've no wish to pre-empt Graham's impending extensive reply.
:)
"We know the brain exists; we know that human consciousness depends critically on brain function; we know that the chemical/electrical status of the brain is associated with changes in mental states, AND we know (from experiment) that tinkering with the neurochemistry of the brain can alter subjective experience"
So far so good.
"what we call "consciousness" or "subjective experience" is dependent on brain function, rather than being separate"
Dependent on, RATHER than being separate???
If something is dependent on something, it is separate, otherwise its just the one thing.
"If you are suggesting that there is a "something else" - an extra layer on consciousness that is imposed from outside, rather than emergent from the complex system
Here I think you make in error.
You seem to be conflating the arguments about whether consciousness is SEPARATE with the arguments about whether consciousness is EMERGENT (or dependent).
Now...I have little reason to deny that consciousness is dependent on, even emergent from, brain functions.
But it can't be denied that THAT which is dependent, THAT which DOES emerge...is something else.
In other words...empirically observable brain states are not the only things that occur. Something else is added...what we call consciousness.
If not, we'd have no reason to call anything "consciousness"...there would simply be physical states of brains.
Complain about this comment
SO far I'm with Bernard
Complain about this comment
OT
"You dont even understand the point I made - and explained - ref quantum mechanics."
Balderdash.
"ie if we can accept the existence of items such as multiverses as scientific reality despite there being no empircal evidence for them, then where is the standard for rejecting and accepting other hypotheses?"
Was all explained to you many times by PeterK.
"A secular agenda can move the goalposts to suit."
Yaawwnnnnn
Prevarication and bluster noted yet again now...(for the umpteenth time!)
So...where have you "comprehensively dealt with" this issue?
"Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."
It is very odd that you cannot actually show any evidence to back up your view-why not give me one(you should of course be able to give me 100's)peer-reviewed paper-just one to start!
and
"few labs do radiometric dating"
I included the last one since I and others were eagerly waiting on your stunning info on the "assumptions of radiometric dating" :-/
Why can't you back up theseSo...where have you "comprehensively dealt with" this issue?
"Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."
It is very odd that you cannot actually show any evidence to back up your view-why not give me one(you should of course be able to give me 100's)peer-reviewed paper-just one to start!
and
"few labs do radiometric dating"
I included the last one since I and others were eagerly waiting on your stunning info on the "assumptions of radiometric dating" :-/
Why can't you simply back these statements up? they are both quantifiable? *you* say that *you* "comprehensively dealt with" these issues but...you can't name me where!? you can't even reiterate how they were "comprehensively dealt with" because you didn't.
I am expecting yet more prevarication and bluster :-(
Put up or shut up and quit this prevaricating bull that is an insult to the senses.
Kindest regards
DD
Complain about this comment
GV
in post 34 you said scripture did not warrant the "extreme" view of a literal 7 day week, you were not referring to operationalism.
And then you declined to discuss the Matt passage about the creation of marriage at the start of creation which in fact appears to justify just such an "extreme" view.
You say operationalism is the only other option but you miss one. It is possible to delay drawing a conclusion if you are not happy with the scientific aging techniques of either camp.
When you look at the pretty radical move from uniformatism to neo-catastophism among some geologists currently it might not unjustified to consider that new views on radiometric dating could also emerge.
sincerely
DD you are a real hoot - you ask me to discuss the issue and then say it has already been discussed!
PK cant have given evidence for multiverses becuase there is no such thing!
Complain about this comment
Prevarication and bluster noted yet again...sigh...
I was addressing the issues that PeterK addressed to you but as usual in one wilfully ignorant ear and out the other...yawn...
One issue which evidently has not been addressed is this...
where have you "comprehensively dealt with" this issue?
"Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."
It is very odd that you cannot actually show any evidence to back up your view-why not give me one(you should of course be able to give me 100's)peer-reviewed paper-just one to start!
and
"few labs do radiometric dating"
I included the last one since I and others were eagerly waiting on your stunning info on the "assumptions of radiometric dating" :-/
Why can't you simply back these statements up? they are both quantifiable? *you* say that *you* "comprehensively dealt with" these issues but...you can't name me where!? you can't even reiterate how they were "comprehensively dealt with" because you didn't.
I am expecting yet more prevarication and bluster :-(
Complain about this comment
Hello Graham,
At the end of the week I'm off to Egypt, then come the holidays, so any reply could possibly come no earlier than January. If there is anything left to discuss after your discussion with Helio, please give me a reminder by that time.
For now let me reply to some of the things you said in post 91.
If you say
"1) Yes, I agree that a gap in naturalism doesn't prove theism. "
then you might want to hold off on your bit of criticism aimed at atheists:
"You start with a philosophical argument or position, (critcising design arguments etc.) Then if the design argument, the moral argument or whatever doesn't fold as easily as Dawkinseque atheism predicts, the arguments are dismissed as pseudo-philosphical. Bit like having your cake and eating it. Or saying that only bad philosophical arguments count."
Graham, you didn't start from any philosophical position. Maybe I was wrong to accuse you of posting pseudo-philosophical tosh, as what you said didn't reach that level yet. It was no more than the very directly expressed god of the gaps. Let me reiterate your words of the post before, adding emphasis on one word in bold:
"I don't think Darwinism can account for knowledge or morality. I'm also certain that Naturalism cannot account for consciousness or Mathematical truths. So I'm commited to Divine Intervention on some level."
So I take back some of my words for now, I will call you out over pseudo-philosophical tosh once you get there.
You also said
"3) More than happy to take your word on the details of the experiment. The issue isn't the correlation of mental states with physical states. The question is, are physical states necessary and sufficient to produce mental states?"
Not 100% sure, but it might very well be so. Every bit of evidence so far (you can differ on how extensive you consider the evidence, if you know the extent of it, my strong impression is that you don't) points in that direction, nothing is in contradiction to it. By contrast, the competition of theism has sofar remained empty-handed. If it ever made any non-trivial, testable statement about the physical world, it has sofar always gone down to humiliating defeat. So naturalism, with the reservation that it is only the best bet sofar, not a 100% certain bet, is by far the best option. And getting better all the time.
Talking of that complete lack of support for theism from physical reality, that puts it on the same level as the ancient Egyptian gods and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. So the complaint about the fairy tale language seems to be the familiar old story: start of the debate with reasoning. As some point as a chrisitian you'll get in trouble. But don't ever let that make you concede. Instead, don't pursue the debate you're losing, start complaining about the tone of the debate instead.
Would you stand up to defend your neighbours if they said to be serious Pastafarians and I laughed in their faces for that?
"Now if you have a belief that *only* Science leads to truth, and that this belief does not need a non-scientific defence, then you have a presupposition that can't be falsified. It makes conversation rather difficult."
See previous, I'm very interested if someone can demonstrate something that defies the laws of physics so badly that there is no way to fix them to include that 'thing' whatever it is. If so I'll happily concede. I expect it won't be any time soon, if ever.
greets,
Peter
Complain about this comment
And all this from a disappearing belly button! Surely everyone knows that the best way to remove a belly button is Photoshop, with careful use of the clone tool and a blur brush.
So to souls.
Helio
Interesting view you have, I see you are a dualist when it comes to such things. I suppose most NI christians, or ex-christians are. Some are even tripleists!
You see Helio if you are going to use this very popular, yet unbiblical view of who we are to suggest that we Christians need to go looking for a soul as if it were something other than us, you're off down the wrong road.
So much of what you say I can live with, "We know the brain exists; we know that human consciousness depends critically on brain function; we know that the chemical/electrical status of the brain is associated with changes in mental states, AND we know (from experiment) that tinkering with the neurochemistry of the brain can alter subjective experience."
You go on to say, "So we have lots and lots of reasons for suggesting that what we call "consciousness" or "subjective experience" is dependent on brain function, rather than being separate."
Which is what Hebrew biblical thinking says. Hebrew thinking does not say we have a soul, it says we are a soul.
In other words, we are whole, an indivisible unit. We are what we are, thoughtful, emotive, people with wills, with strength, with bodies, with a comprehension of self - persons. Biblically then the soul is the whole person.
And if scientists are figuring out how bits of us work great, but God is not diminished, nor does it mean that we are only the observable firing of electrons in the brain. Which I think is what Bernard might be getting at. (Bernard correct me if I'm wrong)
Nor incidentally is God the God of a gap, he is God of the whole lot. Just because you or I or anyone has accurate knowledge does not mean that God is redundant.
I just thought you'd like to know that there is another, more comprehensive, theology than that of popular evangelicalism!
And BTW it is just me or have things been going a bit nuts round here recently?
Happy holidays everyone.
Complain about this comment
"And if scientists are figuring out how bits of us work great, but God is not diminished, nor does it mean that we are only the observable firing of electrons in the brain. Which I think is what Bernard might be getting at. (Bernard correct me if I'm wrong)"
Spot on.
This is very salient too...
"Nor incidentally is God the God of a gap, he is God of the whole lot"
Bit early for happy holidays though, isn't it? :)
I've a whole other week to go, after this one.
Complain about this comment
OT
"*The only way out, so far as I can tell, is to embrace some strong form of operationalism* - to say that science makes useful, but not true, predictions. But (a) Creationists want to appeal to science in their Design arguments and (b) it is far from clear that Genesis chapter 1 should be interpreted as literal history. *Scripture does not warrant such an extreme move*".
Clearly the original reference was to operationalism. Withholding judgment is exactly the same thing - Science is useful, but we should remain agnostic about it's truth claims (operationalism does not entail that science gets it wrong - just that we can't be sure if it has got things right).
Of course "extreme" doesn't mean wrong. But you need strong warrant when inferring to something counter-intuitive. And I don't think Gen 1 gives YEC that warrant.
Perhaps the warrant could be found on historical or philosophical grounds. But outside GH Clark I don't see YECs advancing such arguments.
In fact they seem to be strong realists, which leads to a contradiction in their philosophy of science (everyone has one once they start to interpret scientific theories or experimental results).
As for Matthew, I said that I believe in Adam and Eve. So I covered that point.
Hope that clears up my objection to YEC. It's rarely criticised on philosophical grounds, so I hope you appreciate the novelty if nothing else.
GV
Complain about this comment
PK
Wow! Egypt?! I'm spending Christmas in Richhill. Some guys get all the luck.
I'll try to respond to most of your points later, but maybe I should abandon the claim to intervention, if by intervention we mean something like a Biblical miracle. That wasn't what i had in mind, but in the context it's a plausible way of reading what I said, so apologies.
Oh, don't worry about the tone of the debate. I expect FSM references etc. This is a blog, and on some level this is meant to be fun.
I still can't believe you're escaping to Egypt.
GV
Complain about this comment
Bernard
Yes, rationality is dying a slow death in some parts. I can't say I've done much to help.
Maybe I've been reading too much PrivateEye, but how else do you respond to MLC?
Please, please don't let him notice this post.
GV
Complain about this comment
Hi Graham,
It's to get a scuba diving certificate. I could get that here in the UK, but it's not the warm period of the year. When the choice is between learning in cold murky waters and seeing a featureless sand bottom or going to a place where the water is nicely warm and you see the wondrous, colorful underwater spectacle while learning, the choice is very easy.
My underwater interest springs from snorkeling I did during my Indonesia holiday last Summer, see underwater pictures and video section at
http://129.215.72.235/~pklaver/Indonesie2008/
greets,
Peter
Complain about this comment
As soon as you read that Bernard, complain about it. I don't need his thoughts on dualism.
Complain about this comment
Oh, and since I hadn't built enough enough holiday time during the few months in my new job, I'll be working boxing day -> 30th December to make up for that, if that is any consolation.
Complain about this comment
Graham, in post 111 you wrote
"Bernard
Yes, rationality is dying a slow death in some parts. I can't say I've done much to help.
Maybe I've been reading too much PrivateEye, but how else do you respond to MLC?
Please, please don't let him notice this post.
GV"
and then in post 113 to Bernard,
"As soon as you read that Bernard, complain about it. I don't need his thoughts on dualism."
You should realize that this is the internet age. Anything you say can and will be used to tease you. :D:P
greets,
Peter
Complain about this comment
I'm actually a bit confused...
complain about what? Don't let who see what?
Are you sure you guys are on the right thread?
Complain about this comment
Hi Peter,
enjoy your time in Egypt but remember they do a particularly nasty line in religious extremism there. A dutch secular atheist blogger would be a tempting target and blogging without a veil is probably an insult to Allah anyway, never mind the rest. Look after yourself.
NDB
Complain about this comment
thanks GV
I dont buy it :-)
Matt 19 appears puts the marriage of Adam and Eve at the start of creation.
I dont see anywhere you have discussed this.
Also I dont think you have done justice to a position of reservation on key matters.
For example, Darwin's grandfather held a reserved position on creationism before the theory of evolution became established.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus_Darwin#Poem_on_evolution
If you had held a reserved position on matters later overturned by Kepler, Newton or Einstein you would have been seen in retrospect to have been quite shrewd.
It might be argued that any scientist who has a hunch about a new theory which must overturn well established ones is doing so from a reserved position about the status quo.
Lord Kelvin of Belfast formulated the second law of thermodynamics inpired from related texts in the bible.
so it could be argued that it could be quite rational in some circumstances to hold a reserved position on a scientific matter if you are convinced the bible says otherwise.
I think you also have to temper your distrust of "operationalism" with a strong does of the reality of regular radical theory change in science, in context.
Peter Klaver - ref God of the gaps - Aquinas stated that God was the creator, cause and process of all natural processes centuries before this critique of Christianity was thought of.
Anyway, have a great scuba trip....sounds lovely.
OT
Complain about this comment
Running away again OT? demanding answers from others yet won't/can't answer simple ones adressed to you? what a...chancer!
M105 again! sigh!
Complain about this comment
OT
If you are agnostic about scientific results as firmly established as a universe over a million years old you are an anti-realist, or you believe that you have a superior scientific argument. There aren't alternatives.
Of course realists are prepared to get things wrong. That's what happens when yo make truth claims. But you're arguing towards a steady agnosticism about scientific truth claims. And that's fine ( your argument from the failure rate of previous scientific theories is a standard anti-realist argument, called the "pessimistic induction"). But call it for what it is - operationalism, or some other version of scientific anti-realism. (Gordon H Clark might offer some food for thought here, but you would need to update his arguments. Seeing as he's been dead for decades. I don't know of any other YEC prepared to take a more philosphical stance).
GV
Complain about this comment
Thanks Graham,
I think you might need to be a bit more cautious about applying the scientific agnostic label around here.
Lets remind ourselves that you are a firm sceptic about evolution after all.
So wouldnt that label apply as much to you as me?
Anyway, it seems that you have applied a series of labels and an argument from authority where I was actually hoping for an actual discussion about the questions I raised.
Those are two quite different things.
It sort of gives the superficial impression that you have swept away my arguments when in reality you have not even begun to grapple with them, at least on this thread.
I am also bemused by your reluctance to discuss Matt 19 and Jude, but of course that is your perogative.
sincerely
OT
Complain about this comment
also Graham, if you have a spare minute
ref post 75
I did query before what your definition of fundamentalist is and how you arrived to apply the label to me? I think I am entitled to ask as I am apparently given the label.
Of course you will know this is now normally assumed to be a pejorative term and would appear to be the context you meant it in (ie with ref to fundies, post 75).
key idenitifying points of fundamentalism;-
1) My understanding is that this movement looks back pretty exclusively to an american movement birthed at the start of the last century.
2) It takes a very strong line on seperation from "compromising" denominations.
3) And it takes a strong line against "social involvement" of the church.
4) I think it is frequently identified as being dogmatic, and judgemental, as in IMHO a significant amount of creationist ( and theistic evolutionist!! ) writings are.
Now in contrast to this;
1) I aspire to look back to noted men of God through all periods of history, theology in the tradition of men like Jerome, Thomas Aquinas, Nicholas of Lyra, John Colet, Martin Luther and John Calvin.
I also try and be aware of contrasting biblical interpretations on any given point and I shy away from insisting that my view is absolute truth, rather presenting what I see as the reasonableness of an argument and/or historical church consensus.
2) I have no strong feelings on seperation from mainstream denominations. And I have the utmost respect for evangelicals like Billy Graham and Bill Hybels and John Stott, while not necessarily agreeing with everything they believe.
3) I have been involved in a number of "social" projects and see Wilberforce as a great example for all Christians in so called "secular" jobs.
4) I would certainly not see myself as dogmatic or judgemental. For example, I feel right at home with brothers who are theistic evolutionists and feel no compulsion to tell them they are "wrong". The key point is fellowship in a risen Saviour.
We could go on... I love all sorts of bible translations, not just KJV, I frequent the cinema and I like pizza and beer....blah blah blah...I even smoke the odd cigar. :-)
It appears to me this "fundamentalist" label is zeitgeist shorthand which is subconsciously understood to mean someone who should be feared, hated and despised because of their faith convictions.
It sort of seems to be the 21st century cultural equivalent of Jewish scapegoat, a supposed social safety valve if you will which allows "normal" people to feel assured they are safely among friends. ( I have the utmost respect for Jews BTW).
Probably the topic I have most discussed on this blog is origins, ie ID/creationism/evolution and it has been quite educational to test blows from the most committed athiests.
I note that you too are sceptical about evolution and believe in a literal Adam and Eve. You also appear to have a creationist/ID outlook. In post 74 you say that while ID does not qualify as a scientific theory, that does not make it false, which is my view also.
Therefore I am really at a loss as to how exactly you imagine such a chasm between us.
As you yourself prove, belief in creationism or ID does not in itself identify someone as "a fundamentalist".
Is this chasm of your imagination, or is it of reality?
Can you explain to me your answer using the New Testament?
I take no pleasure in posing these queries to you, but I do feel I am fairly entitled to politely question any derogatory label that is applied to me.
At the very least it will educational for both of us.
sincerely.
OT
Complain about this comment
Ahem!
OT
where have you "comprehensively dealt with" this issue?
"Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."
It is very odd that you cannot actually show any evidence to back up your view-why not give me one(you should of course be able to give me 100's)peer-reviewed paper-just one to start!
and
"few labs do radiometric dating"
Very hypocritical of you to ask questions of others when you can't even answer very simple ones that have been put to you-however your failure to answer illustrates to the other posters just how dishonest and hypocritical you are.
You are a classic fundamentalist and the posters here know unfortunately what you are like-Graham got a full blast of your invective in M77/78. Also we know that you are the type of person who gets a post removed because it has the temerity to disagree with you(you were asked to explain yourself but of course you ran away). I see you are trying to align yourself with Graham in some ways-sorry OT I am just not seeing it.
Regards
DD
Complain about this comment
Er, my thoughts on consciousness and theism ran a bit longer than expected, even for me.I'll try to "condense, dude" as John once advised. But at the moment I can't be bothered. I've a Carol Service to prepare and a sick wean at home.
I flung up a blogspot today (amazing what those students can teach you). So I posted my argument on it
http://mereorthodoxy.blogspot.com/
was the only name I could think of in twenty seconds flat. So if anyone has no social life at all, they can take a gander. Or maybe if you're just looking for an abundance of ammo to mock me with.
GV
Complain about this comment
OT
I don't have time to respond in detail. Being a RE teacher I don't see "Fundamentalist" as an insult.
Why did I call you a fundamentalist? Er, this is a bit awkward, but suppose you were identified with someone who called themselves a fundamentalist? On an external web-site?
Maybe a very bad inference on my part.
But in any case many churches in NI call themselves fundamentalist. Free-P's for example. It's a label that they are proud of.
At the same time, my Father, who is not a YEC, would call himself a fundamentalist. That's just the label evangelicals outside the Big Four were given once.
I don't find the term useful unless a person self-identifies as fundamentalist. And I thought you had, but obviously I was mistaken. So if I called you a fundy,(i) no offence was meant and (ii) sorry for the mistake.
You have asked other substatial questions I'm not ignoring. I'll get back to you on Monday afternoon or Tuesday. Hope you DD and all enjoy your weekend, and if you're still around PK, enjoy scuba diving in Egypt, you lucky so and so.
GV
Complain about this comment
Graham
I suppose that it is all about labels that we like to call ourselves. Personally I do not like the term atheist to describe my own personal philosophy as I view it as simply as statement. As a label I prefer freethinker. OT may not like the term fundamentalist but the long term posters may describe him as such given his absolutist opinions, fondness for hitting the complain button when criticised, and blinkered opinion when it comes to science. Incidentally I do not think him a "bad" person only extremely exasperating! anyway have a good weekend!
DD
Complain about this comment
OT
PS
Oh, I don't think there's a chasm between us OT. If this was a blog on worship or preaching or salvation we wouldn't be disagreeing as much.
And from John Wrights comments etc. I'm not alone in finding you likeable and friendly etc.
DD and PK seem to have a prior dispute with you (that once moved onto other parts of the web from what I can gather). Or someone they think is you, or whatever. And this seems to go beyond the use of the complaint button (I really don't like that button).
I like PK and DD a lot (they're both fun to debate), and I seem to get on well with you, so I'm trying to avoid the details.
I'm not out to get you or anything like that. (Not that that's an intimidating thought).
Cheers
GV
Complain about this comment
Cheers DD! (I didn't know you'd used the "f" word about OT, so sorry if that looked like a dig)
And a nice comment for OT as well. Christmas cheer is in the air!
Complain about this comment
Graham
OT is PB and I don't think that he would dispute this and I have no problem with admitting that OT is not a bad old sausage and that we are all fond of him. The main problem with OT is that he makes these stunning statements on science(I think that you can pick this up from this and other threads) yet when asked to back them gives us nothing but prevarication and bluster then runs away then repeats them and on and on it goes! It would be great if OT would admit that he gets some things wrong like "QM undermining evolution" when it evidently is not! and he cannot name the "few labs that do radiometric dating" it smacks of arrogance and dishonesty. This confirms to me that it is OT's faith that his making him say stuff that is blatantly garbage (if what he says is true then he would of course be able to back it up..but he can't).
Anyway
have a good weekend!
DD
Complain about this comment
Graham
We are like ships that pass in the night!
No worries at all and it did not look like a dig at all!
Maybe Christmas cheer is in the air!-I am a cultural Christian after all ;-)
DD
Complain about this comment
Thanks Graham I guess that clears the air a bit.
My main beef is that what is frequently derided as "fundamentalism" today can actually mistake the traditional consensus of leading church thinkers throughout history for a modern and simplistic American development.
You can see now why it is often incorrect and misleading to throw the term around.
Regarding the complaint buttom - I have used it before as have my critics, but it would not be the first time I have been blamed in the wrong.
Incidentally, it was Mr Crawley that advised me to use it when I asked his opinion about sexually explicit and threatening language that was being directed to me here.
Graham, I think if you actually look at the house rules they are not too far removed from New Testament standards, reference gossip, slander, harrassment or outright threats.
Do these NT passages spring to mind ok for you?
I sincerely suggest you might re-evalute in those terms.
I would also highlight to you that some of the posts made here, and some which remain "on the books" could see a number of people here apologising profusely in the high court and paying compensation for defamation of character.
I wont even go into the criminal aspect of hate crimes just now ;-)
Think again Graham - Imagine repeatedly and ignoring of protests posting comments on this blog calling your minister a dishonest liar. Dont you think that might be slightly damaging to his reputation?
Think again on this please Graham.
DD, I appreciate the almost olive branch there but your language and reactions suggest you are not really open to any discussion.
You havent really read my last post and still insist that I am an absolutist, but your manner suggests you are much closer to this mindset than I am.
I dont insist that my views on creationism are correct or that others must conform to them on pain of me impugning their character.
Just have a read of this, if you are sincere;-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Where is the evidence that demands the QM concept of multiverse be taken seriously in scientific terms?
Have a good weekend guys
OT
PS DD I dont in principle have any problem calling you a freethinker but this term does not distinguish you from theistic freethinkers?
Complain about this comment
"I would also highlight to you that some of the posts made here, and some which remain "on the books" could see a number of people here apologising profusely in the high court and paying compensation for defamation of character."
Yes you should apologise OT.
You hit the complain button simply because posters has the temerity to disagree with you.
"but your manner suggests you are much closer to this mindset than I am."
Pot...kettle...black....
"but your manner suggests you are much closer to this mindset than I am."
Ha!
Prevarication and bluster noted yet again
where have you "comprehensively dealt with" this issue?
"Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."
It is very odd that you cannot actually show any evidence to back up your view-why not give me one(you should of course be able to give me 100's)peer-reviewed paper-just one to start!
and
"few labs do radiometric dating"
Complain about this comment
OT
I'm not sure that using the complaint button has helped your case. As I've said (repeatedly) I don't know all the circumstances.
It would not be unusual for a YEC to be accused of misrepresenting scientific findings. I've assumed that is the reason that you were accused of "lying for Jesus".
For the record I don't think that accusations of dishonesty are the best way of responding to YEC. In any case, if someone reads an article and only sees what they want, then "cognitive dissonance" would be a better label.
Once again I don't have you type-cast as a villain. Once again, neither does Harvey, and John Wright et al have expressed an affection for you. I think most people here have an issue with the "complaint" button to some degree. Repeated use does not go down well. And, like many others, I'm not keen on anonymity.
If church issues lie behind your actions, then I would at least hint that you can't come right out with name and address. As I've said before, I'll vouch that some churches do have strange ideas about the media, and that might make it difficult for some church members to particpate openly in online discussion.
It does seem to me that (a) you'll take some abuse for taking YEC as a serious option and (b) people are maybe inferring dishonesty from your use of the complaint button. As for (a) get used to it (sorry to be blunt, but I take dog's abuse as well sometimes). As for (b) I don't believe dishonesty is the answer. My bet is that there are, well, church politics of some kind at work in the background. And if that was the case, or something like it was the case, then I imagine most bloggers here would stop referring to ancient history so you could keep posting.
GV
Complain about this comment
Hi Graham,
Well said! I have often referred to OT's malaise as cognitive dissonance-for the record I do not believe that he is inherently dishonest rather his faith has forced him into a corner re: creationism which has made him say things which are blantantly dishonest. Anyway have to run and will probably not be able to post again till w'end! Christmas!Bloody hell!is there no end of relatives!
Regards
DD/Harvey (maybe I should use my real name)
Complain about this comment
DD's fine!
Know what you mean about xmas. If I hear 1 more song bout good will to all men I'm gonna lamp somebody.
GV
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS