Modern methodology for critical thinking

[Eric Philson]

This article is an interesting read. The kid who wrotr it is only about 16 years old.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43056

[Sponsored Links]

[Davestone]

It's interesting that he believes there's a leftist agenda at work,wait till he gets to my age! :bow: :)

[oma]

How does a kid that age reach that level of skepticism? I'm not sure if that's a positive or a negative.

[Eric Philson]

Yeah, but what the kid recognizes is that both sides of the liberal/conservative, secular/religious, and other arenas of cultural division are self-satisfied by agreeing with their own kind, but don't even attempt to effectively engage the other side in intelligent conversation. Instead they rely on their respective public voices to establish the basis for the debate and also act as their own referee and scorekeeper. We, the members of the culture tend to rely on public voices and to a large degree, judge opposing views based on what someone else thinks about them rather that engaging in critical thinking on an individual basis. The question the kid's asking is, what if these public voices are just educated plebes themselves? Also, why, if we really want to make a difference in our world like we say we do, don't we try to meaningfully communicate with those whom we think are the source of the problems. Instead we wage a word war that the opposing side isn't listening to anyway. If our cultural divide is indeed widening as many fear, our battles will continually wage progressively stronger with neither side truely knowing or caring where the other is coming from. It seems prudent to do this on our own since our more public representatives are spending their energy congratulating themselves.

Eric

[Davestone]

So that's what he said,i dunno i wasn't paying attention. :D

[Eric Philson]

It just struck me as being noteworthy. Something that I think about some. No biggie I guess.

[Davestone]

Just kiddin, that was a play on the mindset of the general populace(not deep thinking) subjects.I knw what you're saying,you can't find many people three times his age with the Deepak Chopra thought process he has going on. Frankly i think he needs some legos. :crazy: :)

[Eric Philson]

Now I get Your joke, Dave. Went right over my head.
Yeah, he may be a little sophomoric, but his point is still a good one. I think he's like a junior or senior in college. He was homeschooled. By the way, legos happen to be a quite stimulating passtime, thank you very much. :)

[jdm]

As far as Lego goes, David Letterman had master lego artist Nathan Sawaya on the show Friday night. He did a Lego portrait of stage manager Biff Henderson during the hour the show ran. Take a look:

[Shaughnn]

Imagine what Sawaya could do if you gave him some glass and a trowel? :idea:
Shaughnn

[Davestone]

When my youngest son was barely able to walk, he could make anything with those things,battleships, houses,castles,he was very good.He was so small he had to put pieces in his mouth to get them apart......you guessed it, he got one stuck in his throat...a trip to the emergency room....twice...we had to dis-courage the use of the legos.About the same time they came out with lego candy...now if i was the type...lawsuit,but that's not me,he's o.k.,and i still have the lego he choked on.He's very anal, and meticulous,i had him using a profile wheel when he was 4,he was very good, more patient than you can imagine...and only lost one finger....just kiddin. :)

[Bri]

and the "Three Stooges" are from the same line of superficiality.

Geez buddy...maybe you should have spent some time actually being a kid? :rolleyes:

[John Bridge]

The cultural divide is not new. It started with the "republicans" and the "federalists," with their "broad sides." Didn't have radio and TV back then, or they would have been using it. ;)

Bri, we need to talk about that avatar.

[flatfloor]

Nothing new, the information we get has always been slanted bythe purveyors personal views and objectives. It goes back even firther than John said, word of mouth news from traveling minstrels or poets all eager to convey the latest news but slanted towards pleasing that evenings host for a meal, a bed and possibly a few coins.

[Steven Hauser]

You know John thanks for saying that.

I've been meaning to ask :wtf:

:)

[Eric Philson]

That's really true, it's a very old issue, started with the founding fathers. It's what the civil war was about but didn't resolve(now let's not start that discussion again :) ). Traveling minstrels?...yeah, maybe them too. Question then, is it worthwhile for people of polarized cultural beliefs to even bother trying to understand each other, or is it a waste of time? After all, it is an old, unresolved debate.

Eric

[oma]

It won't resolved anytime soon. It's in the nature of the human species to desire being "right". It's an ego thing that we all have, to some degree.

[Eric Philson]

So then, is there such thing as a real, objective truth/right? Why is it ego instead of a longing to know truth? Does this make the issues that divide us unresolvable? If so, is it because there is no truth/right, or because we just can't grasp it, or what?

[oma]

In my little insignificant opinion, it's because we are not all at the same level at the same time. Different people have different needs and different means of learning, and different backgrounds. All these differences skew the way we see and interact with the world around us. I do think there is "truth" and "right", but we as humans can't resolve our own differences amongst ourselves well enough to see it. Regardless of the ability to see or not to see it, it still exists, and does not rely on our perception or interpretation.

[tileguytodd]

I do think there is "truth" and "right", but we as humans can't resolve our own differences amongst ourselves well enough to see it.
Many knowingly ignore Right and Truth which throws another dimension into the equation.Many of these are people in power or authoritarian positions.
Capitalism does not foster people of indiscriminate "Goodness"
Capitalism does foster Greed,lust for power and control etc.

Fortunately there are good people in these positions also which create a balancing effect although it sems lopsided much of the time.

If so, is it because there is no truth/right, or because we just can't grasp it, or what?

Once again, it is not the ability to grasp right and wrong or truth, but the willingness to do so.
Beginning at childhood we are all conditioned and that conditioning plays a major role in your particular idea of what is right and wrong until new input and information comes along that sways your views.It takes alot of persuation to defeat years of conditioning.
I watched a movie about a teenage exchange student from south africa who came to america.The conditioning of this child was painfully apparant even as it was obvious this was not a bad kid,just a conditioned kid.
Amazing what the early years can do to mold a mind.
Governments know it all starts with the children.this is an area of extreme importance to the future of teaching Right and Truth.But whose Right and Truth will we teach???No praying in public schools???
I pledge alliegance but no Amens??

The moral decay of our society is becoming rampant and our leaders wonder Why??

Ive got to get to work,thank god or this could be one of those short stories ;)

[Eric Philson]

True enough, Todd. Also though, along with being willing to recognize right and truth comes the natural compulsion to act accordingly. That means change in one's life, which is frightening. Speaking for myself, there was a time when that was paralyzing. We already have a religious string going, and I don't mean to drag this one into that too, but there is a relationship between these two threads that makes my point as it applies to me.

I've come to believe in the authority of the bible. The kicker in the deal for me came when I read and thought about this idea..."And He died for all that those who live should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died for them and was raised again" II Cor. 5:15. When I realized what that statement meant, and what the implications are, and it made sense to me, the thought of the change it would require from me was almost a deal killer.
That was a truely frightening idea. But what would I become if I neglected to adhere to this, which I had come to believe in as truth and right? Self- deceived, that's what.

Now when it comes to how most of us go about our lives, the conditioned attitudes, like you mentioned, the self absorbed pursuits, etc., change of that magnitude has the effect of threatening every pillar in our lives by which we've come to define ourselves. It is a difficult choice and many simply won't choose it. The result of not choosing it though, equates to self dillusion, and we have to live with that and look ourselves in the mirror every day. But if we can just keep functioning in the realm of the superficial, then we can put off approaching those frightening crossroads of life. And if we just buy into the status quo of modern morality, choosing the partisan or cultural side that best facilitates our imagined needs, then we will be well accepted, comfortable, and function in the culture, experiencing less personal cogs along the way. Sounds cozy. But at what cost?


Eric

[John Bridge]

Please folks, don't get Todd started. :D

I think it gets down to what's relevant at the time, and please don't anyone label me. :) The founders were "men of their times," for example. They worked within the realm of knowledge which had been theretofore attained. The thought process was the same, but the bulk of knowledge (the database) wasn't there. They dipped into the distant past to come up with examples of what they wanted to portray. An educated man in those days was literate in several languages, to always include Latin. Most of them also understood Greek. They could deliberate. They had time to think.

We, on the other hand, are bombarded with an information overload. We can't possibly keep up with current events, let alone fully understand what happened just twenty years ago. We tend to make snap judgements. We simply don't have TIME to understand everything we would like to understand. This brings on societal change by necessity, not necessarily by design.

So. . . . should the Supreme Court be able to tell us that we can't execute murderers who where under 18 when they committed their crime? ;)

[Eric Philson]

John,

I'm not sure what you mean by," the bulk of knowledge (the database) wasn't there." Could you elaborate a little on that please?

You're right. Taking the time necesary to reason has become too costly an endevour to embrace. Instead we plug into systems for decision making that someone else has developed for our convenience. Everything from tile setting to religion has gone that route. The age of understanding, which I believe our founders participated in(or at least tried), has been displaced by an age of relative suppositions. Now we function with information...back then they functioned with principle that overrode and enveloped mere information. Granted, a pre-programmed systematic approach can have it's benefits. But those benefits are seldom on the side of meaningful personal development.

Eric

[oma]

John, to answer your question, no. They should not be able to. But they will go on making and changing laws as they see fit, and we will passively sit here and ignore it for now.
Who was it who said "we have given you a democracy, if you can keep it" (paraphrased due to my poor memory for details)?

[Steven Hauser]

I know this may not play well here but I thought it might be fun to introduce this to your discussion. If it interests you I'll elaborate when I have time.

First a little philosophical question.

Maybe y'all have heard about Poseidans son Theseus. Anyway, he went to Crete to whoop up on the Minotaur. He did. Upon his return to Athens his ship was preserved as a memorial.

Naturally the vessel aged and deteriorated, thus decaying planks were replaced with new ones. eventually, all the lumber was replaced.

What is the true identity of the ship? The shape or the wood?


Where am I going with this?

Michael Shermer, The publisher of Skeptic magazine recently published an article called The Soul of Science

In it he states that whether there is an afterlife or not is not the relevant issue. The relevant issue is people must live their lives as if this all there is.

" Our lives, our families, our friends, our communitites (and how we treat others) are more meaningful when everyday, every moment, every relationship, and every person counts."

"In science a fact is something confirmed to such a degree that it would be reasonable to offer our assent that it is true, provided the assumptions on which it rests are intact."

Can this be a basis for truth here? Maybe a definition for truth which all can agree?

Second,

"In life, purpose is provisional for the same reason-there is no Archimedean point from which we can authenticate final Truths and ultimate Purposes. In its stead, we have to validate our own facts and determine our own purposes."

"The self-correcting machinery of science corroborates provisional facts, and life itself provides the template for provisional purpose."

The reson I use this thesis is because it can lead us from the the lifes most basic purpose of survival all the way to purpose being associated with values of community and society.

This change from a biological purpose to a cultural purpose can be viewed on a a pyramid similar to Maslows pyramid combined with ethicist Peter Singer's expanding circle of sentiment. This is known as the Purpose Pyramid.

The combination of the two can graphically represent the 1.5 million years of human and social primate ancestors development of desires and goals that are an evolved sense of purpose beyond survival and procreation.

Can this be a basis to differentiate between biological purpose and higher order purpose that is culturally derived?

:)

[Albert]

In it he states that whether there is an afterlife or not is not the relevant issue. The relevant issue is people must live their lives as if this all there is.

"Our lives, our families, our friends, our communities (and how we treat others) are more meaningful when everyday, every moment, every relationship, and every person counts."

that's good steven, i like it.

albert

[Eric Philson]

Steven,

Are you suggesting that truth only be defined as that which the scientific method can authenticate? If so, prove to me that you exist. Although I'm not sure that is quite what you are suggesting. The analogy of Theseus' vessel breaks down here in that truth cannot be seen as a mere form of something past, rendering current "structures" only a shadow/shell of what was once real. If truth is that fluid then any pursuit of it as a relevant or lasting presence would be a duplicitous. How could even scientifically deduced truth from yesterday be seen as applicable today unless placed again under scientific scrutiny, since mans handiwork would have altered it eventually into something different anyway?

In real life, perceived reality, scientific(read that, natural reality) style validation, and real world application ARE the pool from which the Archimedean screw turns.

Maslow and Singer based their theories on an assumption. That unvarifyable assumption is that sludge evolved into man millions of years ago and that physical needs established his first vices or needs. That theory does certainly lead to the logical conclusion that biological and non-biological compulsions have molded cultural and moral thought. the problem is, the evidence doesn't necessarily support the evolutionary theory. That renders these mens theories suspect at best. If Maslow and Singer's theories are untrue, then cultural morality, and our heirarchy of needs have some other source. Perhaps even an objective one, that is if the term 'objective' is rightly defined to match those circumstances.

Eric

[Eric Philson]

Oma,

The quote is Benjamin Franklin. "We have given you a REPUBLIC, if you can keep it." :) Much different than a demagog...er...democracy.

Eric

[John Bridge]

Oma, you did a really bad job of paraphrasing Ben Franklin. :D

As he exited the Philadelphia meeting hall on the last day of the Constitutional Convention it has been reported that a lady asked him, "Sir, what form of government have you made?"

Ben replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." (Note that the founders did NOT bring about a democracy. They detested the idea.)

How does one prove that he exists? I think it was Descartes who said, "I think, therefore I am." That's the best I can do. ;)

What I meant by database is that up until the Age of Information, people didn't have near what we have to digest every day. The founders, for example, could not recall any real change in hundreds of years. They had had the printed word since Gutenburg, but nothing else in the way of media. They had a few books, most of them pretty old and outdated, and they had a few periodicals. That's it. A person could easily keep up with advances in education, technology, agriculture, the sciences, et al.

There was time to think about things.

[oma]

OOPS?! Must have had a blonde moment. I'm a whiz at math, but don't have sh*t of a memory for the written word. Thanks, both of you, for the correction.

[Eric Philson]

How does one prove He exists? Perhaps by asking 'where did existance come from?'

[Eric Philson]

Oma,

That was like fingernails on a chaulkboard, but I forgive you. :)

[Davestone]

I almost had a caniption! Why the very idea......"We gave you a republic" Oma, you're apology was not enough,your sentence is to give us ten perfectly quoted profound quotes,by tommorrow. :D :D John i believe the line "stuck a feather in his cap" was written just for you. :D

[Eric Philson]

My personal favorite is 'there wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago...'
:)

[oma]

My great great great great grandfather fought in the revolutionary war. Good thing he's not here. He would be so ashamed :O
Ten profound quotes by tomorrow. Hmmm, can all of them be from Mark Twain and Ben Franklin? Believe it or not, I have a book of famous quotes by Franklin. Probably pretty dusty up on the top shelf these days.

[Sonnie Layne]

It's got more than twelve strings and 88 choppers... too deep for me. Now my pen and paper.........

[Steven Hauser]

:)

Eric I did predicate this by saying this may not play well here.

1st) I am not challengiing your beliefs.

The question about Theseus' ship was not meant to be anything more than a mental exercise. Was the ship the boards or was it the shape?

2) DNA does change over the course of your life. This does not mean that your essence changes. This is offered to you so that you can see that the ship analogy had a basis.

3) I proffered a definition for truth because.... maybe it was you, said there was not a way to define truth.

4) So in refuting the idea of there not being an Archimedean point for final truths an ultimate purposes are you in fact implying with "In real life, perceived reality, scientific(read that, natural reality) style validation, and real world application ARE the pool from which the Archimedean screw turns." that we can perceive ultimate purposes and final truths? And.. do you reject which you can't see, quantify, nor classify?

5) Though I don't disagree with you that all the evidence supports evolutionary history I can't agree with you that it necessarily refutes it either.

6) My post yesterday was offered only to provide a framework for operational definitions, if you don't like them, you offer some. :)
__________________________________________________________________

OMA would you explain why Archimedes was important in expanding the mathematical concepts started by Plato and what it has thus far led to?

:)

[Eric Philson]

Steve,


First off, I didn't interpret your post as a challenge to my beliefs. I only viewed it as your expressing your perceptions. And I simply responded to them. Sorry if I came across forceful or defensive, not my intention. You are welcome to respond to my expressions in like manner. I don't regard an honest dissenting position as an assault.

It wasn't me that said truth is undefinable, in fact, I believe quite the opposite. Also, I wasn't implying there is no Archimedean pool/point of truth, so to speak(but weren't you ?). I was trying to define what I think that is. Yes, I believe that we can perceive ultimate purposes and final truths. Maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say. Your qoute from Mr Shermer seems to me to be atypical, too broad, for what I have come to understand as the accepted scientific method. I do however think it's a great start to defining the method called reason. I often see the scientific method (not Shermer's definition)referred to as if it were the only enlightened system for establishing, recognizing and knowing truth. The scientific method just doesn't cover enough bases to be used on a comprehensive scale. In fact it is generally used selectively to refute things to which it does not really apply.

That said, I don't reject what I can't see, quantify etc. In fact, quite to the contrary. I think that what can be perceived points us to what can't be, with reasonable surety. I think you also indicated this in your post if I understood you correctly. The problem is, people disagree on issues pertaining to core beliefs about how the world operates. So, in discussion, those unquantifiable truths we are referring to become lost in a sea of varying perception. There are reasons for why I think this happens, but listing those all in one post would be pretty monotonous. One very big example though is that people tend to both think and argue in logical circles. They mistake this process for reason. In fact logic and reason are seen by most as being synonomous, when that is not really the truth. They plug information into the logical wheel of fortune, spin the wheel and what ever comes up, that must be truth. Many of us even rig the wheel for ourselves so as to get the outcome we desire. As a result, when we disagree with one another about life issues, we never really have sought out truth together, but instead have applied dogma to what should have been a group think. Thus begins a cycle where we ultimately divide ourselves into polarized groups and sub-groups. Sad sad. Logic is a valuable tool, useful in pursuing possibilities, but it cannot establish truth on its own.

I didn't have a problem with your operational definitions so much, but some of what I read into that affected my perception. Other issues that were tagged onto it, ie.. Theseus' boat, Archimedes, evolution and the heirarchy of needs, gave me a perception of your purpose that perhaps was inaccurate. Say so if that's the case.

As an aside, concerning macro-evolution, If nothing will invalidate it, but nothing actually does validate it either, what business does it have being advocated as the predominate theory for our beginnings in the scientific arena? :twitch:

Eric

[Steven Hauser]

Eric,

Thank you for your reply. My posts of this nature are typically met in that manner when I post more than a couple of sentences so that's why I predicated the post the way I did.

It sounds like we almost have an operational definition in order to begin a discussion.

That is what I was trying to do.

I concur that many times circular logic is used, gross misperceptions are accepted as fact, and many times conclusions are reached before facts are analyzed.

I'll try to do better from now on. :)


I think an interesting way to begin is with a question.

Q) Can there be a universe in which the scientific, technological, ethical, political, aesthetic and economic aspects, of any entity, agent, or action that is a candidate for our common experience to be considered simultaneously and continually?

My answer is yes. The dichotomy of religious teaching and scientifc teaching does not have to exist.

I think it is possible to live in a world where facts and values, reality and morality, science and religion, causal necessity and human freedom are the same thing. It is all processes, choices, and actions.


What do you say?

[Eric Philson]

Steve,

First let me make sure that I understand the question. I think you are asking whether or not I believe that one can ponder numerous varying aspects of a topic that is common to human experience simultaneously. In essence, treat science, technology, ethics, aesthetics, politics, economics, philosophy, religion, maybe even intuitive sensibilities etc. as a unit. If that is indeed what you are asking, my answer is yes.....conditionally. I think a person must gain some level of mastery of individual topics/issues on a principal level before one can make accurate observations of the intertwined nature they all really have.

Examples:

If we isolate economics as a case in point; we know that in order to accurately envision the workings of a national or global economy (macro-economics), we must first understand individual economic principles(micro-economics). In order to understand economies of scale, we must know how basic supply and demand effect price and how availability of resources and infrastructure affect the demagraphics of, say, manufacturing.

In art, we understand that issues such as light, shading, texture, color, balance, motion, depth, plane, line and skill all combine in the artists mind and transfer from deep in the mind to the tip of the brush. In doing so something is created that the human mind comprehends on a different level than what three dimensional perception can accomplish. We grasp and falter at finding words to describe this condition of human sensibility, but we all know it exists.

These two topics on the surface appear to have no commonality, yet when truly understood, there are economics in the most masterful of artistic expressions. As well, Achieving optimal economic efficiencies in business is as much a nuanced art form as it is a number crunching game. Both, when considered together, simultaneously, enhance ones understanding of the other to a degree beyond principals' reach. We are forever understanding more, climbing, ascending, and yet forever standing on the shoulders of those very first principles.

In our relationship with reality, principle is and must be first and foremost.

So is there a real dichotomy between science and religion? Only if science is illusion or if there is no God. But, if both have a basis in reality, then there is a relationship between them. We must go, then, to principle to find out if that relationship exists, and if so, what does it entail?

On a more subjective note(subjective at least at this point of the discussion), I'm personally NOT inclined to be of the opinion that mankind holds within itself the capacity to overcome all hurdles, to heal all ills, know all things, resolve all issues and especially to grasp all truth. That does not exclude us, though, from recognizing blocks of truth, seeing reality as it is on some level. I view truth and reality as being harmonized. In other words it does not contradict itself. Any perceived paradox we find is just that... perception. Truth itself is interconnected, a unit, and infinite.

Well, after all that writing, I sure hope I understood the question and addressed it adequately. :)

Eric

[Steven Hauser]

Hi Eric,

Thanks for your answer and yes you did understand the question.

I will need more time to think about your response.

Your answer represents a different approach than what I use.

:)

[Eric Philson]

Steve,
Well,....now you've got me itching to know your viewpoint. :) I think this is a great arena to just take our time and think out our responses. :idea: Not many places to go anymore to be able to do that. Looks like everyone else has bugged out on us anyway.

Eric

[John Bridge]

No, everyone has not bugged out. Biding my time and waiting for your responses to get down to a manageable word count. Looks like it's happening. ;)

[Hamilton]

Ever had a "real" religious experience? sure you have... its logged somewhere
in your memory, deep in your soul. its the kind of thing that when you dream
of it you feel at one with your maker. Its also the same feeling that is just
beyond your grasp but will almost make you feel obligated to give credence
to both science and religion. Some things are so far beyond big words and
tricky sentences its pointless to argue about them. it only confuses the
obvious. So in laymens terms what the hell are you guys talking about!!!! :rofl:

[Eric Philson]

You mock what you don't understand. :tongue: : :) No really, this isn't an arguement, it's a discussion that is sort of a mental exercise. Imo, if something can be experienced, it can be expressed in words, even if it is with inadequate words. Whether we use big or small words, It's really interesting to me to know the process others use to understand and reason through issues like the one that Steve brought up. If he's taking this idea in the direction I suspect he is then it will be a really interesting discussion. It has to do with the process people use that makes us all conclude differing things about issues. For me these kind of discussions help clarify the vague, not confuse the obvious. His point in his question was to ask if it is valid for people to make judgements, moral or otherwise based on what we sense from our lifes experiences. So, in a nut shell, If you have no idea what I'm talking about, then you're in good company, cause I probably don't either. :rolleyes:

[Hamilton]

Ok i understand better whats goin on here. I base my judgements on life
experiences sure but they evolve as i mature. i may feel differently about
something now compared to how i felt about something when i was 20 years
old. Its not only a matter of how a person feels, but the fact that things
might be seen differently as one ages. i think as we age we gain a deeper
insight into many different areas that were not even available to understand
when we were younger, mental or physical age.

[Hamilton]

oh and i wasnt trying to mock, its just my nature to speak the way i do, its me.

[Eric Philson]

Yeah, we all need to return to the drawing board in life from time to time. Reconsider what we thought we knew. But still when we do that, that same maturing process takes different people in totally different directions. one might mature and turn toward faith, another toward atheism. One may turn toward conservatism, another toward liberalism. We all describe the same process, but the results of that process vary widely. So, why is that? My statement to Steve was that I think we all in general tend to base our outlook on experience first, but we have no common basis from which to enterpret our experiences. So my viewpoint is that if we were to base ourselves in common agreement based on fundamental principle, that would provide a basis from which we all could more closely agree. Or, at least we could understand one anothers positions.

The problem with that in the year 2005 is that thinking about that kind of stuff has come to be seen as sorta weird. We're so accustomed to thinking logically and experientially that abstract thought has become something for geeks and freaks, philosophers and lunatics. Only for extreme weirdos....like me I guess. :twitch:

Eric

[jjwq8]

And all this started from a thread about an article by a 15 year old columnist with just enough life experience to bounce off the surface.:D

Eric, Steve et al.

Whether God exists or not is an irrelevent public discussion. It is whether he exists for you.

Jack

Epiphany invariably occurs when you least expect it. M is Catholic, I am not. I fundamentally dislike the hooplah that goes with the practice of the religion. That said however M and I have visited Lourdes on a number of occasions. The first time I experienced something I can only describe as Himself reminding a sceptic not to become too glib. While M was praying in the grotto what felt like two hands cupped my heart and imparted significant warmth, leaving me stunned, and no I hadn't been drinking or otherwise compromising my sobriety.

Later as my Father lay dieing he described the angels that came for him and departed in a state of grace.

Does He exist? You betcha.

Did he create Man in His own image? Give me a break!

[Eric Philson]

Jeremy,

Great input. I want to respond, because I think your post brings out some things very worthwhile to the discussion. Problem is it's 12:40 and my mind is fried for today. I'll have a stab at it tomorrow when I'm a little fresher.

Eric

[Steven Hauser]

I have read this thread again and I am struck as I typically am by how insightful tile people are. :)

Jack, I think you are correct, it was indeed very difficult to follow what Eric and I started speaking about. :crazy:

John, I am glad you are ready to jump in. :cool:

Jeremy, I don't understand why it is defined as a personal relationship when it is written that we are to spread the word. :confused:

Jack hit a chord with me, one thing I have been trying to do over the last several years is to effectively communicate ideas simply. Sometimes I can't articulate what I am thinking simply though. My comments in this thread is what happens. Gobbledegook.

I'm going to try again.

All things reduce to processes, choices, and actions. It is the simplest derivation that I can think of at this point. I hope it will get simpler.

Applying that idea to our discussion goes like this for me.

I read Erics post. I see a statement that implies to me that we should start with the same fundamental understanding and mastery of an issue in order to fully discuss it. I think about it and disagree. (one type of process)

I decide to quote Michael Shermer's article about The Soul of Science (one type of choice) as an example of challenging some fundamental principals.

The action has not commenced because Eric and I are still working out the framework of the discussion.

Thus far we agree (Eric conditionally) that dichotomy between science and religion does not need to exist.

I derailed it because I didn't agree with the examples of art and economics that Eric used.

BTW Eric, I am impressed with your writing. :bow:.

My thesis started with a question about the idea of fundamental principal that you speak of. Initially the boat was the boat, over time the physical characterisitcs of the boat changed, and eventually was no longer the physical boat.

The essence of the boat remains the same to all observers. The question still remains though, is it actually Theseus' boat?

Your idea of mastering fundamental principal seems to involve accepting such principals as correct. This is what I find different. I don't.

I do learn about the fundamental principals but I also examine the fundamental principal. Many times I find that circular logic is used, gross misperceptions are accepted as fact, and many times conclusions don't match the facts.

You used the idea of mastering micro economics in order to understand macro economics. I don't see the need. Macro economics make predictions on whole populations by analyzing certain samples. Micro economics may provide the sampling but you don't have to necessarily master microeconomics.

When you described art, you alluded to something beyond three dimensional perception. This was vague and I still don't understand what you mean.

I know that light, texture, angle, and color may alter the perception but I don't see how the human mind will add n dimensions to it.

The talk of dimensions makes me think about astronomy. As an aside, I took an astronomy course and lab in my first or second year of college. It was supposed to be easy.Instead it hooked me and I have always been interested in astronomy and astrophysics. It is truly fascinating from a couple of different perspectives.

1) The basic fundamental principals are constantly being challenged and tested.

2) It illustrates our complete insignificance in the universe.

:)

[oma]

"We all describe the same process, but the results of that process vary widely. So, why is that?"

Because we all come from different backgrounds, different cultural and genetic mixes, and have different current experiences. Some of us grew up in environments where strength and stoic actions were encouraged. Some of us grew up in touchy feely family groups where group behavior was encouraged. I grew up in a family that encouraged self-reliance and individual independence. As a result, I tend to rely on myself and am an over-achiever. If I had been rasied in a large family where everyone was encouraged to function socially as one unit, I would be mentally and emotionally different. You do change outlook somewhat as you mature, but I think the basic tendencies are in place by the time you are ten years old or so.

[Eric Philson]

Jeremy,

You said that, concerning God, the relevent issue is whether or not He exists for each individual on an individual basis. Please clarify for me, are you saying that truth is contingent on perception, or that the belief in such things are personal issues, or that such things are not provable, or something else? After thinking about it, I don't want to respond without being more clear on what you were actually saying.

Steve,

First of all, I would like to thank you for your nice complement on my writing. That really meant a lot to me. Writing is not something that has come naturally for me and I have worked hard to try to improve it. Perhaps I'm having some success.

This post will probably get pretty long, so I apologize for that in advance.

Let me try another example on you that is closer to home. I do not know much of the principle knowledge having to do with stone fabrication. As a result, I can't hold an informed conversation with you concerning that subject. I don't understand the nature of stone slabs or how to polish them. Even so, If you taught me how, I could master the skill of polishing seams. That skill, though, would still not be enough understanding to give me an intelligent view of the fabricating process (at least I hope not for the purposes of this conversation). Although it would be better than nothing, it is obvious that there are more fundamental things to learn than just polishing seams. Granted, it is debatable whether your knowledge of the principles of stone fabrication are all totally accurate. You do, however, definately posess an adequate understanding that is real that provides for you to do fabrication successfully.

With my example of economics, yes, one could certainly have knowledge of many aspects of the macro economic arena, but not of the micro economic arena. I still hold, though, that knowledge of the former very much enhances ones knowledge of the prior. In my example of art, my mention of the affects of art on the human psyche were only an aside and were basically irrelevent to my main point. The example was the use of line, form, etc. as principle elements in that arena.

Now let me quote to you what my exact words were in my previous post. Please read it carefully so as to exact it's meaning. I wrote, "I think a person must gain some level of mastery of individual topics/issues on a principle level before one can make accurate observations of the intertwined nature they all(meaning various topics/issues) really have." That seems different than your interpretation of my statement that you said you disagree with.

Please bear with me as I attempt to bring all these previous ideas together.

Putting practical legs on my statements, they mean; I can't know the intertwining truths of stone fabrication and art, for example, if I do not have some level (not necessarily a comprehensive level) of mastery of the principles of stone fabrication. If I know nothing of stone fab, how can I possibly see with accuracy how it has a relationship with art? Inversely, the more I know about the two issues, the more I should be able to see the relationship between them. Thus, an incomplete understanding, like me only knowing how to polish seams, would possibly help, or could possibly skew my view of the relationship stone fab has to artistic principle, since it only represents some portion of the spectrum of truth related to stone fab and not the whole. So, as I previously said and tried here to illustrate, Understanding on a principle level (whether it is seen as principle or not)allows us to see the bonding link that truth provides us between all aspects of life and life's issues, events etc. The more we understand, the more accurately we relate.

I don't disagree that even fundamental principles concerning any subject are worthy fodder for examination and re-consideration. That does not change the fact, though, that they are utilized as foundational truths if they are seen as actually being true. Establishing those principles as initial common ground in a discussion certainly helps opposing parties to discuss things using common terms. A statement I made was that agreeing on principle truths would help opposing parties to agree, or at least to better understand one anothers viewpoint. As it stands opposing sides of cultural, moral, religious, and other such points of view never achieve true connecting communication because there are no mutual connecting truths which all sides embrace.

You say that you don't accept fundamental principles as correct. I would like here to propose that you in fact do accept them as correct, true and act upon them with regularity. If you didn't you would literally not be able to do your work, not eat your breakfast, not exercise your body, not drive your truck down the street, you would not learn from your experiences, you'd have no confidence in gravity or in cause and effect relationships, etc. etc. That does not mean that you can't question principles or that you owe some allegience to them, but you and I and everyone reading this post rely on them at this very instant. Otherwise noone could even read this post and have confidence in the meaning of my words or even in the english language (please, no funny remarks here :) ) I do not debate that someone may use circular logic to attempt to prove a principles' correctness. That does not mean, however that there is only circular logic to it, it only means that someone else only attempts to understand it with such.

Obviously, I still maintain that principle rules, but I'm still open to more denate on this. Oh and concerning the question about the boat, it depends. :) Concerning the statement about our insignificance in the universe, who says? Just because we can't know everything doesn't establish that we know nothing.

Eric

[oma]

I realize that I am not really a part of this particular conversation, but concerning the boat issue, it depends on your own beliefs of what makes a person or any other "thing". Is it the physical being, down to the molecular level of being, or is it the "spirit", for lack of a better word, of the person or other object of observation. Am I the 5'2" blonde middle age woman or am I the adventurous hard-headed spirited little firecracker who is highly driven? If reincarnation of souls was a fact, as is accepted in some of the Eastern religions, is a person only who he is at the moment, or is he the "soul" that has lived a thousand lives? Is the boat the wood and mortise and tenon joinery, or is it the shape, the function, and the idea? These questions are fundamental in assessing one's belief system and principles, and the answers vary widely among the human population. IMO, truth is largely just perception and past experience, although I suspect that there are infallible truths which we don't really grasp due to our lack of scope.

[jjwq8]

Eric

In my experience, disciussions upon the existence of God take two forms, one an argument over the accuracy of scriptures that have become sanctified over time, which in my opinion is an exercise in futility or the more useful discussion of evidence that is with us every day.

I tend to dismiss the scriptures insofar as there are too many versions offering differing representations of single incidents. A perfect example is the depiction of the birth of Jesus beneath a palm tree, that the Moslem scripture offers, written 600 years after the event yet taken as gospel by 1.5 billion people.

God exists. You simply have to look around to find the evidence. Whether God exists as a divine being or not or as a force of nature and all it's natural laws is a matter for personal determination.

In my opinion the scriptures were an early attempt to explain the unexplainable. Not because the events were miracles in and of themselves, but because those witnessing the events or attempting to explain them with hindsight did not possess the necessary knowledge to properly do so.

[Steven Hauser]

Oma,

So I interpret your response to assert the essence of the boat is intact. Further, you extrapolate this analogy to our human essence. Although you invoke eastern religious assertions I am going to ignore that portion.:)

The essence then can be identified as a compendium of your experiences. Information, colored by your personal perceptions defined by enviromental influences and genetic influences.

OK, now do you want to define purpose?

_________________________________________________________________

Jeremy,

I agree with you about actual scripture, but, would be willing to discuss the idea of provisional purpose that the sanctity of the scripture provides.

To me the actual religion is not worth discussing, but, the purpose and truths that define them, and the potential misunderstandings that arise from scriptural interpretations is worth discussing.

_________________________________________________________________

Eric,

Your analogy about polishing is interesting. There is a great deal of subjective interpretation right now about what is acceptable.

This is why so many people argue the case.

I don't argue it for this reason. I will say that I can teach you to fabricate and polish so that you can draw your own conclusions.

The other point is technical progress means that the truths about surface polishing will change. The rules established with the provisional limits now will change.

I think that is the essence of my argument.

[oma]

I'm not attempting to argue with you or anyone else on this forum. The question of what is the boat was posed. This is just my own take on it.
What is purpose? In what context do you ask?

[Eric Philson]

Jeremy,

I don't debate the accuracy of all "scriptures". I only believe in the accuracy of one, the Judeo christian bible. The reason why is that I believe that it coincides with the evidence we see every day. Also, it has withstood, unchanged, the forces of time and man, and it's prophecies, geographic claims, and historical claims have played out in reality. Geology and outside historical sources have also served to verify its' claims and accounts. For me, I can't seperate it from my perception of reality. Unfortunately, we view those who lived in the ancient past as being our mental, technological, educational and perceptual inferiors. The evidence just doesn't support those claims to the degree that we want to believe. Judeo christian scripture is one of two things. It is either, as you believe, men trying to explain the unexplainable in their limited, faultering knowledge, or it is the true creator revealing himself to the world through the history of a people.

I'm not necessarily trying to start a debate on this particular thread concerning this issue. It would expand this discussion in too many directions IMO. I would be willing to discuss this on a seperate thread after this current discussion is exhausted though.

Eric

[Eric Philson]

Steve,

I'm aware of the nature of the debate concerning polishing. I've kept up with your as well as others' input on that issue on another forum. I'm glad I used that example. Inadvertantly, it clarified your point for me. This is a perfect point to draw out a differentiation that exists between three types of principle level truth.

First, there is what I will refer to here as durable principle. This is the highest order of principle. It is the type that is unchanging, constant, and unreliant on changing circumstances in the world or in the universe in its' current state(stress on current state). As examples, I will submit, for you to consider, the law of cause and effect, mathematics, entropy, spirit/intellect, the three dimensional nature of all objects (excluding the highly speculative arena of quantum physics) and infinity(perhaps actually a fourth and higher order yet), et al..

Second, there is what I will call here physical principle. This is the middle order of principle. this is the sort that we see in the make up of our physical universe. These are the type that are constant and reliable, but are able to be affected as applies to physical things by outside influences including each other. Examples of this type are the laws of motion, gravitation, magnetism, matter, biology, the elements and time(depending on the definition used), et al.

Third, is what I'll define as human principle. This is the lowest order of principle. Some would say that these are inventions of mankind. I believe they are created and implemented by the creator as are all the others(my opinion). This is the type that is also constant yet somewhat fluid and evolving as humanity moves along and are somewhat contingent upon human nature and development. Examples are technology (which I will define here as the discovery and utilization of the other principle types), economics, cultural development, historical account, language, navigation, government, judicial systems and law, ethics, methods, skills and procedures, et al.

One primary difference in these types of principle is that the lower order principles are able to be affected and changed by those of a higher order, but not the inverse. It is preceivable, though, that various types of changes could occur in all forms of principle truth. Universal cateclysm(sp?) could take place, Our solar system could collapse, the earth could explode, social or world wide chaos could break out, The stone industry could enter into a heated debate. In the mean time, we hold these principles to be true, but with varying degrees of certainty (or uncertainty as the case may be) contingent upon the height of order. We function on varying levels of certainty concerning them, but upon them all we still function, that is, until something proves them to be untrustworthy. Hence, we comfort ourselves by saying things like, 'the stone industry may be in upheaval, but it's not like the world is ending'.

Also, we verify the validity of the lower level, less certain, principles by measuring them against principles of a higher order that are seen as being more certain.

Now, in my perspective, I have also defined truth here in a way. It is something that we function with and in on varying levels. Because of our limited capacity to know, however, we recognize that we may not be perceiving reality as it truly is. In this case, we would need to modify our view if some new revolutionary truth that gave us fresh insight on other arenas of reality became apparent. In the mean time though, we can say, "what is truth?", but in reality we all function and operate in it on one level or another and hold some level of it as operationally/functionally valid and unchanging. But is it? I'd like to suggest here that reflection upon these three arenas of principle lead naturally to the existance of a fourth order that is the highest yet and is indeed unchangable and inviolable. That, however, would bring us into the realm of religion, which is not really our topic here.

Eric

[Hamilton]

I think. Therefore I am. :)

[Eric Philson]

That's one conclusion out of very many that can be deduced from this line of thought. :idea: :)

[Steven Hauser]

Egads,

I just read your reply Eric. Nicely done.

I'll cogitate about it. I look at it as there are many different principles so I will try to refine that perspective and keep in mind your basic three.

So now, do you want to discuss purpose?

:D

[Eric Philson]

Yeah, that sounds good. The question of purpose is a pretty vast topic though, It's hard to know where to start. I will say though that I think to ask the question, 'Does the universe, world or my life have purpose?' suggests the existance of an agent which establishes purpose. Or are you thinking of purpose in a different context?

[Hamilton]

Doesnt the potter become the pot? is that not purpose?

[Eric Philson]

Could you expand on that idea a little bit Jack? I'm not quite sure I follow you.

[John Bridge]

"I don't debate the accuracy of all "scriptures". I only believe in the accuracy of one, the Judeo christian bible. The reason why is that I believe that it coincides with the evidence we see every day. Also, it has withstood, unchanged, the forces of time and man, and it's prophecies, geographic claims, and historical claims have played out in reality. Geology and outside historical sources have also served to verify its' claims and accounts."

Eric, I saw an observation somewhere back down the line on your writing ability and that you've worked at it. It looks good to me, too. There's a lot of it, though. ;)

There are two exceptions I'll take with the statement quoted above: I never heard the term "Judeo-Christian" until about ten years ago. It's pretty recent, and you still don't hear a lot of Jews alluding to it, only Christians. The Jews, for the most part, still go their own way as far as their Bible is concerned.

Second, I've read many of the books on how the Bible is backed up by independent scholarship, including "The Bible as History" in several of its renditions. There have also been programs on the History Channel and other TV stations on how archeology, geology and secular history relate to the Bible. What results from all of this is still conjecture -- you either believe it or you don't. Nothing presented has come close to proof, and little can even be considered evidence beyond the vague and circumstantial. The area we refer to as the Middle East did in fact flood several thousand years ago, for example.

What you are making here is a statement of faith, and I respect you for that. In fact, I welcome and encourage it. :)

[Hamilton]

We had a couple potters come to the local calvary eric. they did a whole sermon
on that statement i made. im not real good with words but i thought id share
the quote and let the rest think about it. words can mean different things to
different people and when it comes to purpose i think we all find our own.
im not even gonna bother tackling the deeper side of this conversation. I understand the words used but i cant put statements together like you and
steve do. i prefer smaller statements that make folks think.

[Eric Philson]

John,

The term "Judeo christian" started being used in the late 1800's I think. I'm sure it only seems like ten years or so to you, time flies eh? :twitch: It came more into common use during WWII. It indicates the view that christianity is the daughter of Judaism Obviously, Those practicing mosaic(Moses) Judaism would not allude to it since they don't recognize Jesus as the messiah promised in prophetic scripture. They look for a more military figure as opposed to what they view Jesus as representing. They reject the New Testament since Jesus is the central theme. Remember though, the first christians, and the first ones to die for their beliefs, were Jews.

The Jews use the same writings that christians refer to as the old testament. They also use a group of writings that are a compilation of writings of ancient rabii's. The only issue of real contention between Judaism and christianity is Jesus, but that is obviously a very big issue.

PBS and the history channel have never offered the best of what history and archeology reveal concerning the accuracy of biblical data. What some describe as conjecture others see as the denial of existing data evidence by a few, but not even most, secular authorities on the issue. You say nothing comes close to proof, hmmm. What's proof? There is more valid historical evidence of Jesus' life, death and resurrection than there is that suggests even someone as recent as Napolean ever actually existed. At the bottom of the gulf of aquaba, lies the remains of several thousand ancient egyptian chariots. Ancient obelisks mark each side of the gulf with the biblical account recorded on them and indicating that Solomon erected them. The city of Jericho has been unearthed. Some amazing oobservations of the sight have been reported. There exist ancient written records, originating in unassociated peoples of the world, of the descendants of Noah from which various peoples originated. Literally a series of family trees. They coincide with the biblical record. I feel compelled to offer many more such examples, but I could literally go on for pages. There are sources of valid historical and geologic evidence that are totally ignored or wrongly discounted by an influential few within the secular historic and scientific arenas .

Concerning flood evidence, there are areas even here in this country that have been used to establish the existance of what the evolution religion calls the geological column. What they have failed to report is that on a worldwide scale these layers of sediment, which supposedly represent millions of years of evolutionary history, have ancient petrified trees standing upright through several million years worth of layers. That is only known to be replicated on a small scale in areas that experience cataclysmic devastation, like in the lake bottoms of the mount st. Helens area. However, this condition of which I speak exists in a common layer of strata on a global scale. In a nutshell though, and this IS a nutshell :) , there are sources of valid geologic evidence that are totally ignored by an influential few within the secular scientific world that offer support to a worldwide flood as well as serve to negate the idea of vast evolutionary eras.

Vague and circumstantial? maybe, but most of history is. We look at historic record, weigh outside evidence and make a judgement concerning its' accuracy. We have 3,000 +- year old scrolls containing biblical writings (although not a complete body) that show the uncanny accuracy with which scripture has been handed down through several millenia. There is no other body of literature that can make that claim. Yet, its' content is held with much more disdain and suspicion than are bodies of literature much more recent, yet of origins known to be suspect at best.

Nothing has come close to proof in one sense. There is no account in historic or archeological record which anyone can support with irrefutable proof. That applies to everything, not just the biblical account. I believe that faith based on pure conjecture is foolish. However, I also believe that historic and principle level evidence, if found to be of reasonably sound origins, should be viewed as factual. Otherwise no truth outside the immediate could be known on an objective basis. Just because some deny or question biblical accounts doesn't mean scripture should be banished to the boneyard of conjecture.

By the way, if you want to discuss conjecture sometime, let's talk about the evidence used to claim that the earth is millions of years old.

You're right I do make an unashamed claim of faith. I don't define faith as a leap, though. Thanks for being accepting of my beliefs. :)

I highly regard your complement concerning my writing. I know I need to work on the wordiness thing. :)

Eric

[Eric Philson]

Jack,

So, in asking if the potter becomes the pot, you're saying we each mold our own life? Problem is, on my potters wheel, someone else keeps shoving their finger into my clay. :cry: Does that mean I'm partly a product of how outside forces affect me? If so, how can I ever become what I'm trying to mold myself into? Seems like the task of protecting myself from outside influences would become more my purpose than the use of the pot. Maybe those outside forces actually help to determine my purpose. Also, am I a skilled enough potter to make myself into what I oughtta be? What if I crack in the oven? Maybe I'm cracked already! :twitch:

[Hamilton]

As much control as we have over our lives, we are guided and shaped by god.
I never planned on being a tileguy or a father but this is where ive been placed.
and to accept what god has givin me i do my very best with what im handed.
I struggle to control every direction my life twists and turns into, but ultimately
i believe god is in control over everything. So when you think about the potter
becoming the pot you may come to the conclusion that you are both. :crazy:

[flatfloor]

So Jack, does that mean you believe in Calvin's doctrine of predestination?

[Hamilton]

I beleive i have free will but god is greater than me. ive never read calvins doctrine so i cant anwer that.

[oma]

The potter becomes the pot. Hmm, that's an interesting take on things. I tend to think of what one creates or makes is a part of oneself, not that the maker becomes the thing or object. The child I had was himself, but a part of me. He has my genetics and my teachings, but he is not me, and I am not him. The garden shed I built has part of my energy and sweat and blood in it (knocked a few chunks out of fingers with the hammer :) ). but I did not become the garden shed. It's a physical form based on my imagination and energy. From my point of view, that statement is not accurate. I tend to think that anything created has a little part of its maker, either physically or emotionally, or a combination.

[Steven Hauser]

Ah,

I love it when the conversation expands.

Jack, In the sense that the pot and the potter are linked you can assert sameness. In the sense that the creator leaves an essence of self when creating, you can assert sameness. When you apply human perception of tangible evidence you see uniqueness.

I like the thought though.

Calvin's predestination doctrine is fascinating, you ought to read it some time. I also suggest reading Jean Jacque Rouseau.

_________________________________________________________________

:uhh: Eric, what about the Chinese? :D

[Hamilton]

Ive been reluctant to get into this...
Quoting Romans 9 - 21-22-23-24 The holy bible new testament.
When a man makes a jar out of clay, doesnt he have a right
to use the same lump of clay to make one jar beautiful, to
be used for holding flowers, and another to throw garbage into?
Does not God have a perfect right to show his fury and power against
those he has been patient with for all this time? And he has right to
take others such as ourselves, who have been made for pouring the
riches of his of his glory into, whether we are Jews or Gentiles, and
to be kind to us so that everyone can see how very great his glory is.

now have i made any sense yet? The potter becomes the pot.

[John Bridge]

Well, Eric, I think you are going to have to get more specific with all these references to primary sources. The only contemporary account of actual history I have read is Josephus, and most historians think it was a bit tainted by the author's predisposition to the Romans.

Other than Josephus I don't know of any other actual history that was written on the spot during the early Christian period in the Holy Land. I'm not saying it's not there; I'm only saying I'm ignorant of it.

No true scientist ignores evidence. Scientists do tend to give short shrift to evidence they think is insignificant or in doubt. There is no huge global conspiracy to ignore acheological or geological finds that might give credence to "the scriptures." THE BIBLE AS HISTORY, mentioned above, is only one example of the types of books I've read on the subject. Written originally in German in 1955 by Werner Keller, it has been translated into many languages. It has also been added to through the years. The copy I posess is from William Morrow and Company (New York, 1981).

The book's intent is to show how archeology might confirm Bible teachings, but even the author admits it comes up a bit short in that regard, and the explanations offered admittedly could point in various directions.

I have a shelf of similar books, all from accredited authors and sources, all of them thoroughly read by me. I have yet to come up with anything solid.

I am an agnostic. I'm not bent on proving or disproving anything. I've got to have hard history and or science to ponder, though. :)

As to the age of the Earth, the best evidence is that it's precisely 4.2 billion years old. Modern astronomers can literally look back through time to verify it. There is virtually no doubt in the scientific community as to the validity of that knowledge. Please don't tell me the Earth is only 7,000 years old.

[oma]

Well, Jack, I suppose you make sense, but I must be misunderstanding the connection you are making. What does having a right to make a pot for any desired purpose or having the right to be pissed off have to do with a potter becoming that thing which he created? Am I missing your point entirely?

[Hamilton]

I guess i lead this in a direction towards a connection with god and i apologize
if i went off topic. Im a bit of an agnostic as john mentioned but i also tend to
lean towards faith. I take scientific evidence and combine that with my religious
beliefs to make sense of the world. Too many things can never be explained
but sometimes the inner self can explain things that cant be spoken in words
regardless of what religion you practice.

[Hamilton]

I understand alot about things i cannot express in words as you folks do so
well. I do my best.

[Eric Philson]

John,

It seems that you're reading more into my last response than what I actually said, but here goes my response.

Historic evidence for Christ:

Secular evidence:

1. Suetonius 69-140AD
2. Thallus 52 AD
3. Lucian 120-180 AD
4. Phlegon 140 AD
5. Pliny the Younger 112 AD
6. Cornelius Tacitus born 52-55 AD writings 116 AD
7. Trajan 53-117 AD
8. Seneca 3 BC-65 AD
9. Antonius Pius 86-161 AD

Early church references:

1. Clement of Rome 100 AD
2. Ignatius of Antioch 50 107 AD
3. Aristides 138-161 AD
4. Justin Martyr 106-167 AD
5. Quadratus 125 AD

Only a couple of these could be called actual contemporaries, but all save a few were close enough to have first hand accounts of the events which occured with Christ's life, crucifixion and the odd events that surrounded the death of christ. Only a couple were actually historians. The others made reference in letters or books. In todays context, this would be like us knowing JFK, Tom Edison, Woodrow Wilson or Abe Lincoln actually existed. There are some others, but they are a little later in time, so I didn't think them worth mentioning.

Concerning archeology and geology, I never said there is a vast conspiracy, actually quite the opposite. What I said was that an influential few suppress evidence. Some of them willingly have admitted to it.

Actually the majority seems to be having a lot less problem with the biblical record than they are with the Evolution theory and the current teachings concerning the age of the universe. I'm not suggesting that they are becoming creationists, but intelligent design is a growing trend among them. Essentially, the idea that the earth is 4.2 billion years old is more like a religious belief than it is science. Yes, there is much doubt concerning the age of the earth and the universe. This is an interesting subject that I really find fascinating. I'd be willing to discuss it more if you want.

Scientists cannot literally look back through time. They record and interpret incoming light data. Incoming light does have a pattern and characteristics that records a history, but interpretation of that data is far from being mastered. Distance cannot be accurately measured past I think it is 300 light years. We just don't have measuring points distant enough to have a reasonable angle to do the geometry (everything is measured as a triangle with two known points with a known distance between them and two known angles). Granted, the nearby universe alone is VAST and incoming light is known to be coming in from unimaginable distances. And yet there are complications. These are things like red shifts, The variable speed of light, entropy of light, white and black holes, A potentially bent universe (unlikely), the increasing rate of expansion of the universe and progressive entropy. These are some big hurdles with some incredible, mind boggling possibilities attached to them. Fact is, we just don't have any clue how old the universe is, and we aren't that close to knowing. There is not enough info to even hazard a guess that is remotely scientific. Claims have been made that are now leaving egg on the faces of those who have made them. We want to think the scientific method is king in the scientific arena, but there are issues that supersede method, like presupposition and money.

I'm not sure what you meant by saying that as an agnostic you're not bent on proving or disproving anything. We all want to be right, that's just being human. Being agnostic doesn't automatically give anyone the high ground concerning objectivity. I did not come to believe as I do by trying to validate the biblical account. In fact I refused to accept christianity for years because I thought it would require me to take a leap so to speak. I was wrong, it was merely a step. I want hard history and science too. The problem is that both history and science only get just so hard and no more. It's all subjectable to scrutiny of one sort or another and none of mankind are as objective about it as we want to let on. I do believe that truth is concrete, but we can only recognize evidence about it and draw our best conclusions. Of course, we modify those conclusions as necessity dictates, but we don't always embrace that process. Also, not every wind of change rocks our beliefs, nor should it. I do believe in the accuracy of the biblical account. It makes sense to me and seems to be the more readily verifiable viewpoint. yes, I do believe in a 7,000 year or so old earth. But not simply because the bible told me so. Yes, it pointed me in a direction, but the evidence I've seen appears to bear it up. Otherwise I wouldn't be a biblical literalist. Admittedly, I am not 100% objective in my views. I have come to believe, objectively, in the bibles' authenticity and so now I view things through that lens. But, agnosticism is your lens. Agnosticism is a belief system, same as atheism or christianity. None can be proven to be true in an absolute sense that is convincing to everyone. Every belief system has been brushed off by someone as mere conjecture, like you do mine. I happen to think other belief systems contain more conjecture than mine. Does that make me a freakish zealot because the one I adhere to contains a moral ramification and makes historic claims? They all do.

Eric

Ps: I just re-read this post and thought I should make something clear before I submit it just so things don't "sound" offensive because of the tone of my post. I am not offended in any way by your skepticism concerning my beliefs, nor do I mean anything in my post to seem derogatory toward your beliefs. I am enjoying the open dynamics of this discussion immensely. :) :)

[Eric Philson]

Jack, (and Oma and Steve)

In your biblical reference, it refers to God as potter making vessels of his choosing with the character and nature that he decides. If one combines that idea with the scriptural references that discuss God (actually Christ) living within his believers, then yes your statement is most certainly valid within that context. The inverse is not valid, though. His believers do not become God.

[Eric Philson]

Jeremy,

I said in an earlier post to you that I wasn't trying to start a religious discussion in this thread. It appears that the can of worms is opened though, so if you want, we can continue the discussion you started previosly. :)

Eric

[oma]

I have no idea how old the universe is, and it doesn't really matter to me personally, but I don't recall ever reading in the Bible that the Earth is 7000 years old. With just the fossil records we have, and paleo period flint tools that have been found, there's no way that could be accurate. The existence of dinosaurs could not have occured within the past seven thousand years either.

[Eric Philson]

The biblical record, when pieced together in order of known time suggests only about 7,000 years of human existance. No men with dinouaurs? Why not? You should go to Glen Rose Texas and see the fossilized human footprints alongside dinosaur footprints. There is nothng that can be scientifically substanciated indicating any fossilized tools are that so old as to disqualify the biblical record. The info given to us about the paleo period and other periods is a fabrication with absolutely no substantiating evidence to support it. What evidence has been used has either been disproven outright or shown to be unscientific. No dinosaurs in 7,000 years? The problem is, human artifacts have been found in common strata, even in coal deposits, where dinosaur fossils have been located. The big question is, why have million year old dates been put on fossils when there is no accurate scientific method for making such assertions? The old earth, evolutionary theory is the one that is currently on the hot seat in the scientific arena, much more so than the young earth theory. Some real fabrications have been made out to be good science.

[oma]

I have been to Glen Rose many times. I don't live too far away from there. I have seen the dinosaur footprints, but no human prints. There were stories that human prints had been discovered in the Paluxy river bed, but they have since eroded away, and I have not read or heard that they were "next to" or in the same level of river bed with any dinosaur prints. They were also reportedly huge in comparison to modern day man.

[Steven Hauser]

Who woo.....

I tell you Eric, when you get started you get started. :D

I guess what we have to do is pick one element of your discussion and start from there. I have no role in Jack's analogy, I was acknowledging and trying to encourage him to articulate his position.

You on the other hand are like a bomb. The writing is so articulate and a pleasure to read, but your points about this being the case and those guys not having facts to support their theories, etc., so what do you want to discuss first?

I love astronomy, so I can discuss some of the present theories. I am weakest at particle physics, but do understand its basis.


Religious doctrine and writings are interesting, but I don't ascribe to the literal interpretations, especially when you have a minimum of 40 years of time elapsing. Anyway, pick one and let's get the party rolling.

:aparty:

[Eric Philson]

Oma,

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm

This page shows human tracks within dino tracks and also shows dino and human foot tracks crossing. Yes, some of the human tracks were apparently very large.

[Eric Philson]

By the way, on the sight I posted, make sure you read about how quickly after being uncovered the prints are now eroding. This indicates that they were covered up fairly shortly after being made.

[Hamilton]

Radio carbon dating determines the age of ancient objects by means of measuring the amount of carbon-14 there is left in an object. A man called Willard F Libby pioneered it at the University of Chicago in the 50's. In 1960, he won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry. This is now the most widely used method of age estimation in the field of archaeology.

How it works

Certain chemical elements have more than one type of atom. Different atoms of the same element are called isotopes. Carbon has three main isotopes. They are carbon-12, carbon-13 and carbon-14. Carbon-12 makes up 99% of an atom, carbon-13 makes up 1% and carbon-14 - makes up 1 part per million. Carbon-14 is radioactive and it is this radioactivity which is used to measure age.

Radioactive atoms decay into stable atoms by a simple mathematical process. Half of the available atoms will change in a given period of time, known as the half-life. For instance, if 1000 atoms in the year 2000 had a half-life of ten years, then in 2010 there would be 500 left. In 2020, there would be 250 left, and in 2030 there would be 125 left.

By counting how many carbon-14 atoms in any object with carbon in it, we can work out how old the object is - or how long ago it died. So we only have to know two things, the half-life of carbon-14 and how many carbon-14 atoms the object had before it died. The half-life of carbon-14 is 5,730 years. However knowing how many carbon-14 atoms something had before it died can only be guessed at. The assumption is that the proportion of carbon-14 in any living organism is constant. It can be deduced then that today's readings would be the same as those many years ago. When a particular fossil was alive, it had the same amount of carbon-14 as the same living organism today.

The fact that carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,730 years helps archaeologists date artefacts. Dates derived from carbon samples can be carried back to about 50,000 years. Potassium or uranium isotopes which have much longer half-lives, are used to date very ancient geological events that have to be measured in millions or billions of years.
index

[Westie]

OF course there are two different explanation of the same thing depending on what you want to believe.

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/tsite.htm

[oma]

Jack, thanks for the explanation on carbon dating. I've wondered how it works, and although I don't understand it completely, that gives me a better idea than I had.

Eric, being skeptical by nature, or maybe from experience, I don't tend to believe most things that I read or hear until I find credible explanations. I find the human/ dinosaur coexistence theory a little hard to buy based on everything I've been taught and observed for a fair number of years. The link I've provided gives a little different perspective on the subject matter at hand.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/nbc.html

[Eric Philson]

Oma,

I'm a skeptic too. I don't readily trust all that I've been taught. From what I can see, a lot of good science and even better mathematics is being utilized. Some very valid questions have been asked. The trouble is, The methods for dating, measuring distance and time and so forth are not very accurate. I could go into the carbon and isotopic dating stuff, but a simple web search will offer a better taste of the views of that subject than I can muster. There is not a consensus, even in the secular science community, regarding its' accuracy. Although it is widely seen as having value for certain applications, there are variables that can skew the conclusions. It's the same as so many of the supposed proofs about the age of things, there have to be assumptions made in order for the data to coincide with a given theory. To me, the sight at Glen Rose looks too obviously like human foot prints. Where is a dinosaur skeleton with that foot print? Is that absolute proof? Absolutely not. Is it evidence? Yep. Anyway, for me these suppositions like the Hubble constant, The big bang, even the expanding universe, are all theories. They haven't been conclusively proven and yet they are being treated as though they are scientifically proven fact. I guess I am a skeptic, because I don't buy the old age thing.

[Eric Philson]

Steve,

Gee, I guess I really opened one up! First off, I'm not saying they have no scientific facts, they do, just not enough of them yet. I am saying though, that their truly wonderful formulas for calculating distances and so forth work great, as long as right information is fed into the formulas.

I guess a good starting point is with the Hubble constant. It has now been modified again (meaning it has not been constant), and the results are that the universe is younger than some of the "known" ages of certain stars and galaxies within the universe. :crazy: This "constant" though is being used as the difinitive number for calculating the age of the universe. Hubble was a brilliant guy, and even he was haunted by this problem.

While this topic is up front and center, we might as well discuss the problems involved with decifering incoming light from sources remote in the known universe. They say it has been traveling for billions of years before hitting earth, yet, they don't know difinitively some critical information. For example: what is lights true top speed if unaffected by entropy? Is it possible to achieve speed greater than known light speed? Is light subject to entropy? What about red shifts? Is the shift in light spectrum really due to greater distances? At what rate has the universe expanded? At what rate has the rate of expansion increased? Has the universe expanded at all, or is the appearance of distant galaxies speeding away from us only the affect of disintegrating light or some other anomaly? What would be the ramifications of some multiple of these possibilities existing simultaneously?

I am admitedly a novice in astronomy, but it really interests me. I have read an immense amount about it in years past, so I'm shaking off some rust here. I'll try my best to keep up with you. :)

[Steven Hauser]

:)

OK Eric, before I get into the the reasons for the variances in Hubble's Constant, yes, red shift is a critical factor, do you have any problems accepting the notion that the radial velocities of the stellar objects are receding rather than approaching?

I think acceptance of this fact can help me try and debate this with you.

Another interesting notion is the idea of what type of matter the universe actually contains.

[Hamilton]

Anybody follow popular science magazine. i subscribe to it. has some great
info on current and upcoming telescopes antennas and mirrors. one of the
coolest ones ive seen is the "Ice Cube" studying cosmic neutrinos below the
surface of antarctica.

[Davestone]

You guys think too much! :D

[Eric Philson]

Steve,

I don't necesarily debate the existance of Hubbles constant. I'm just recognizing that each time it gets adjusted, the universe gets younger. I'm also aware that because of great distances, it's value cannot be positively established beyond a factor of two. Actually, I'm fairly well aware of why the constant has been adjusted. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with it either. We must admit though that it's value is not known with certainty. Perhaps surprisingly, I also have no problem with the distances of billions of light years that light is observed from.

In discussing red shifts, do you agree that the doppler effect does not apply to this part of the debate, being an issue of special relativity concerning the effect on light by gravity? The red shift we are discussing has to do with general theory relativity and refers to the stretching out of space and time.

Radial velocities receding rather than approaching....do you mean to ask if I agree that the universe appears to be expanding at an excellerating rate? If so then yes, I pretty much think so. I'm not sure velocities are significant here, though, since that indicates doppler shift. If by "radial" though you are referring to big bang expansion, then no. I believe that red shift is showing the stretching out of the universe. I'm also aware that excellerating expansion means that there is an outside limit/boundary to the universe and that a material center exists. This is a big, actually nearly insurmountable, problem for the big bang theory since it requires an infinite universe in order for the math to work since there can be no gravitational center. Steven Hawking also recognized in his book "a brief history of time" that the copernican principle, which states that the universe is unbounded and homogenous is mere "admixture of ideology". Without universal homogenaity the big bang would have fallen back into a black hole situation. It is interesting to note that this brings back into the arena of consideration the idea which suggests that we are near the center of the material universe...Something that has been arbitrarily dismissed in the past.

I'm aware of grey matter if that is what you're asking concerning the different types. It has gravitational consequense. If I recall, though, it has been shown to not be that constant, kind of lumpy throughout space. There is a theory that huge quantities of it exist beyond the event horizon of red shift and are pulling visible objects toward it. Of course, that cannot be verified, it can only be theorized. Besides, to have that much grey matter concentrated beyond the event horizon would nullify the homogenious universe theory since matter, and thus gravity, would be concentrated at some other position in the universe establishing a material center. That would also be trouble for big bang ideology.

Are you familiar with gravitational time dilation?

[Steven Hauser]

Hi Eric,

Sorry, I 've been busy lately.

Lessee, Well Yes, the idea behind Hubble's constant is still widely accepted though. Vesto Slipher observation that the spectral lines shifted toward longer (redder) wavelengths. Most all texts I have read conclude this means the universe is expanding. The interesting thing about the universe and what has confounded cosmologists for decades is how much matter the universe contains. This is important because in trying to measure the rate of expansion, density is important to know.

The most salient aspect of the age hypothesis is there is a standard of deviation applied to any projection of age. Right now, I think the most widely held age is 13.7 billion years.

Yes, if I shake the rust completely off I usta be familiar with all the formulas and terms.

I think the most exciting thing happening right now is the cosmic microwave background is getting some interesting tests applied to it. This is the stuff that was around when the universe was in its infancy.

The idea of matter was meant to bring in this concept that I found quite interesting.

It is hypothesized that 4% of the density of the universe is composed of ordinary matter. (us, atoms, electrons, etc. etc.) 23% is dark matter. No one knows what that is. 73% is dark energy. This is what I founfd interesting. The dark energy seems to have repulsive gravity, which along the lines of relativity would accelerate expansion.

Yep, denser than average regions of space caused "clumping".


I dunno where the center is. I dunno where the limits are. I think that some of the current research will bring about a more clear picture.

I have been following some research on how stars are formed. I think this research might reveal a clearer picture. Then again, maybe it won't.

As to the big bang ideology, I think the idea can still be debated. The most interesting notion thus far, is the idea that there was not a homogeneous star creating machine. That there was a period of more and now there is period of less.

Time dilation. I always thought that it was explained that at points A & B both observes would think that each other's clock was slower because of the angle of the observation. Some approaching and some moving away. I always thought about roping a bull. All the different angles you came at the bull would be different unless you adjusted to a straight line and ran along side the bull, equalled the speed, and ran at the same speed. Now if you were approaching the bull's horns things would move a little faster, if'n you were like me and ran from the bull thingas would be a little slower.

:)

I like astronomy dagnabbit, I didn't get my degree in it. :)

[Eric Philson]

Hi Steve, things are starting to gear up work wise for me a little too, but not at full speed yet. No sweat, reply whenever you can fit it in. By the way, I've watched your posts recently over yonder about you getting ready for Boston. I'm really proud of ya! I'll be keeping track of the race with renewed interest. We're about the same age. I run from the house to the mail box every day whether I need to or not. Sometimes I run back to the house. I get my jollies trekking through the woods. I reach target heart rate by splitting fieldstone. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)

Concerning time dilation what you said is true in a universe that is unbounded and where matter is distributed evenly. If that is not the case though, it is different in an important way. In a different scenario, in a bounded universe with a gravitational center, As one moves away from gravitational influence time just speeds up. The clock runs faster. It does not look the same, however, from two distant points looking back on one another. The point nearer to the gravitational center of mass is moving slower than the point that is remote from gravitational center, which is moving fast.

If that is combined with the notion that the universe has expanded greatly at some point at a rate faster than the speed of light, stretching light and space, then a young universe could actually exist that includes light that is literally billions upon billions of light years away and billions upon billions of years old. This expansion/stretching accounts for red shift. This could be an especially strong possibility if the universe started out in a white hole, the possibility of which is being revisited. So, it is feasible that the local regions of space could be young while the farthest reaches are extremely old, but it all would have a common point of origination. This allows the Hubble constant to be somewhat accurate. It would also fit snugly with general theory relativity as well as thermodynamics. Kinda wild! It also fits, incidentally with biblical creationism. It interests me to consider this with some of the evidence for a young earth.

The cosmic microwave background, appears uniform. Seems to fit well with the Big Bang. They also fit with this alternative theory. If Space was filled with a homogenous blanket of thermal radiation before it expanded, which it appears to have been, the result of expansion/stretching would be similar on thermal radiation as it would be on light which made it red shift. The stretching out and red shifting of thermal radiation would cool it resulting in low temperature microwaves like what are known to exist. Interesting theory.

Your point about the current study of stars is interesting to me. I mean the point you made that their study may be revealing or maybe not. The same goes for your recognition of uncertainty with the big bang. These are all just theories to which are applied mathematics and known natural law. If the math works and the natural law seems to fit, that still does not afford truth to the theory. It doesn't prove the theory right, it just shows that it is feasable. Referring back to my post which responded to John, I stated that we're not that close to knowing about the universes origin or age with absolute certainty. There are ever changing ideas about this. I like Hawkings honesty. He stated somewhere that what we know about the "known" universe constitutes only a small single digit fraction of what there is to know. I think that's part of what makes cosmology and astronomy so fixating for my attention. It's like standing in awe atop the highest mountain and looking out and wondering what is in every nook and cranny in my line of sight...only bigger and more. How cool is that? anyway, for us, this comes down to belief systems. We see evidence and draw conclusions, hopefully objective ones.

John Eddy said that there is not much in the way of observational astronomy that proves the universe is old.

Robert Jastrow, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies wrote: "For the scientist who lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

these aren't proof for anything, just a couple of smart guys' opinions.

All science has limitations beyond the boundaries of which, conjecture takes over. Sometimes though, that conjecture is mistaken for the science.

The math involved in this stuff is beyond me somewhat. But in my mind I can follow cause and effect scenarios that help me understand it.

At some point Neutrinos would be an excellent topic too. Maybe that would pull Jack back into the topic. You out there Jack?

[Eric Philson]

Oh yeah, I forgot. concerning the density issue, it makes a difference whether the density in the universe is homogenous or just isotropic. Is there another issue concerning density that you were thinking of?

[Hamilton]

Ive been here lurking and reading a bit. This week has been the top of enjoyment and the bottom of sadness all in one. funny how life can do that.

[Eric Philson]

Sounds bumpy Jack, what's up?

[Steven Hauser]

He's talkning about the Terry thread. I've left that one alone. :cry:

[Steven Hauser]

Thanks Eric,

Getting ready for Boston has been a booger, because it is run at 12 EST I have been adjusting my training regiment so that I run between 12-3. This takes a toll because I am spending less time on the boards and work has been gearing up. I accepted more work in the last 3 months than I did all of 2003. :crazy:. Anyway, I am trying to go around 2:50 to 3:05 at Boston. It depends on the weather and whether or not I pull any more muscles at work.


The density issue brings up a few interesting notions.

1st maybe there was a star generating baby boom.

2nd gasses having to cool to form stars.

3rd the fact that only 4% of the matter forming density is knowable.

4th Why is big bang not consistent to creation? Why does it matter where the center is? What does time have to do with creation? I have always thought humans are too arrogant. Just because our brains can't wrap around a concept doesn't mean the concept is wrong. Maybe a day is a millenium or a billion years. :D

OK enough loopy stuff. Happy Easter. I'll check in Monday.

[Eric Philson]

Happy Easter, guy. Catch ya first of the week.

[Eric Philson]

Well, things got real busy real fast this week, but I finally made it back. Anyway, the point that I hope is clear is that some things that have been touted as scientific fact are in reality only theoretical. We have a strong body of fact though which tells us much. Unfortunately, though nothing is definitive enough to substantiate anyones philosophy of the universe. I believe this is also true for the age of the earth, dinosaurs, the creation/evolution debate and all that. Some things have been taught as absolute fact that really can't be substantiated as such. Theories are all fine and good, but when a theory, by no other virtue than the world view it seems to support, is pushed on us as scientific fact, well, that is dogma and not science at all.

[Hamilton]

Very true eric. the world was considered flat at one time and accepted truth
by mostly all. who knows what lay in store for us in the future and what common
beliefs are destroyed by evidence and or technology in the future. just because
we have advanced rapidly doesnt mean we actually know anything at all. the
reality of existence could inevitabley be a 180 degree turn from what we percieve it as now. problem is only time will tell.

[Eric Philson]

Yeah, that's right...or, the idea I prefer is that maybe the reality will wind up being what some have professed it to be for a few thousand years.

Strangely enough, if my memory serves me right, the earth was widely believed to be round long before the theory of flatness became predominate. Weird huh? I read something about that a while back.

The evolution theory has been the only view taught in public schools since 1963. In recent years though, that has been challenged more and more by those who prefer the intelligent design theory. Evolutionists complain that intelligent design is unscientific. They say that religious zealots are pushing it. If that is true then the same applies to evolution and those who endorse it. There is no science that substantiates evolution above any other theory, and yet it has been the sacred cow for forty years. Time for a change. Social agendas and world views tend to push science as much as actual scientific method does. That applies to all sides of the dogmatic ring.

This is like The Terri Shiavo thing. These type issues serve to create cultural division. World views clash around these things. The differences in viewpoint are very real though as are the life choices that each world view brings each of us to choose between. To remain in the middle and choose no world view has come into vogue also. It has become a world view in and of itself.

[oma]

There seems to be a general consensus here that the evolution vs creation theory is an either/ or subject. It seems to me that both can be correct, at least partially. I was not taught evolution in school, but my experience and observations plus years and years of reading and studying various scientific, historical, and geographic sources leads me to believe that evolution does occur. I don't necessarily buy that humans evolved from lower primates, but there is solid evidence of evolution of all species, along with extinction of species. It's the adapt or disappear problem. If humans did evolve from lower primates, I have a problem with just where the differentiation took place. OTOH, I am not opposed to the idea that a "creator" or intelligent force of some kind sparked the big bang. I just don't view this creator as a personal entity with human characteristics. Why couldn't the universe have been created, then evolved? It just isn't an either/or subject imo.

[Eric Philson]

There's lots of evidence for adaptation type micro-evolution going on. Lots of species can adapt to their environment for survival. There's just no evidence whatsoever for one species adapting by becoming another species, macro-evolution.

I don't see where a personal entity, like humans, can come from a source that does not have similar characteristics (conscious intelligence and superior sensibilities, not arms, legs, a nose, etc.). Something doesn't come from nothing. Everything observable in the universe has characteristics linking it to its' origin. Why should humans be different? There must be greater personal intelligence in order to create lesser personal intelligence. It would otherwise be the same as saying that entropy is working backwards in some way that we don't see. If that's the case then we should see things becoming more complex. instead, all that is observable is becoming less complex, ie., falling apart. All mutation we see occur is a negative contributor to survival, not beneficial.

Creation theory suggests something greater creating something lesser. Evolution theory suggests something lesser creating something greater. They are truely opposing views. It really gets confusing when we try to marry the two by saying that something greater created something lesser by first creating something lesser that eventually became something greater. :crazy: If we cannot observe evidence that something like that actually happened then belief in it is faith, not science.

I've read and studied lots too and come to an opposing conclusion. I don't have a problem with someone holding an opposing viewpoint to mine. I do, however, have a problem with evolutionists calling their belief in macroevolution science. It is not science any more than my believing in a six day creation is, which does have scientific evidence that suggests it is possible, but most certainly does not prove it is true. Macro-evolution is a belief system that is unproven and yet is being pushed on us all as if it were scientifically validated, which it is not. I also have a really big problem with evolution being the only viewpoint that is commonly accepted in the public school system. There is as much if not more valid science to support intelligent design as there is to support evolution and it should be given equal standing in the educational setting.

[Steven Hauser]

Before I say this Eirc, remember I respect you.

Why can't you use that formidable intellect and direct it toward religious writings?

:eek:

[jjwq8]

Something doesn't come from nothing.
Forgive the cynicism Eric but isn't that precisely what both creationists and big bang evolutionists both agree upon?

[flatfloor]

evolution being the only viewpoint that is commonly accepted in the public school system. There is as much if not more valid science to support intelligent design Eric

Why must one exclude the other?

I must admit I have not been following this thread closely so if I'm missing a point please excuse me.

[Eric Philson]

Steve,

I don't consider my intellect to be all that formidable, but if you think I should write religiously, maybe I'll start by preaching at YOU!! I'll go get my Bible, wait here. :laugh2:

Jeremy,

There seem to be theologians of evolutionism and of creationism who believe that. I simply am not one of them.

Jim,

I realize that there are those who don't see the two as mutually exclusive, and that is fine. Those who are predominate in the opposing arenas, however, do see them as mutually exclusive. For me, I believe in the literal interpretation of the scriptural account, ie., a literal six day creation. There are many reasons why I think this way which I won't elaborate on here. I will say, though, that what is known as the day/age theory and ideas like it contain ramifications that don't hold water for me.

[Steven Hauser]

Eric,

If you are willing to overlook blatent inconsistencies, then who am I to say you shouldn't? Yet, if you apply the same type of thought process to literal biblical interpretation, instead of broad based guidance, then ow do you reconcile the inconsistency you generate on this issue?

The idea that you won't elaborate seems very weak, in light of your willingness to expound on issues surrounding this.

:wtf:

[oma]

I've never seen anything that made me think a literal six day creation was a possibility, much less a likelihood. What is the basis for your convictions? (Bible excluded). I'm just curious as to where you are coming from, not as a challenge, but an attempt to view the subject from your standpoint.

[Tool Guy - Kg]

The Bible is all I need. A book written thousands of years ago from many places all coming together as God intended it. I know that there are many who believe that there are inconsistancies in the Bible, but I believe the Bible is pretty clear and without errors. God wrote this book, not people.

[jjwq8]

Kurt,
Depending upon the edition to which you refer, I believe He may disagree with you.:D

[John Bridge]

. . . and this sums up the crux of the problem. Once a person accepts the Bible as the word of God there is no longer any room for deliberation, and thus there is no feasible way to discuss the issue. One either believes outright, or one simply leaves the debate.

:)

[flatfloor]

Okay, let me pose another question;

What happens during translation from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English, could not something be lost in the process?

Which version of the bible to you subscribe to, the King James or the Vulgate?

[Tool Guy - Kg]

I thought that when a new edition is published, it it simply translated from the oldest Hebrew. It doesn't get translated from a former translation. To minimize the human error. :)

[Eric Philson]

I think I've been misunderstood. In my last post I said I wasn't going to discuss it here. By that I meant that I wasn't going to go into depth in that one post. If someone wants to debate the literal interpretation of the Bible, I'm game. I have no reason to shelter scripture. It has stood on it's own for quite a while. I see no inconsistencies in it. One reason I favor a literal interpretation is because of all the prophecies contained in it that literally came about. That's not all though. I've got to get to work right now, but I'll address this further after work. Good day all. :)

[Eric Philson]

It took me a bit to get back here. Work's getting busy. Anyway, about the Bible. I guess I'll just start by asking one question. Exactly what is it about the Bible that you all think is so shaky? Everyone seems to think that for me to believe it in its' literal sence is a departure from my normal modus operandi. I don't think so.

Here's one thing that I think I already addressed, but I'll reiterate in a different way. Some may want me to scientifically prove that a six day creation really happened. This is a higher standard that is asked of any other theory, but seems to be required of this particular view. All I can provide evidence for is that it is scientifically possible. That is all that can be provided for any other theory as well. The scientific method does not apply that way to historical writings or claims. One cannot prove scientifically that historical events are true. One can only look to evidence for them and draw conclusions based on that evidence. Whether it is archeology or outside historical record or carbon dating or anything else, historic events are outside the scope of the scientific realm. science can only be utilized in this arena to validate certain kinds of evidence, but can never prove an event itself.

This is all I ask. If you want me to defend scripture historically, lets use common methods for establishing historical proof. If you want me to defend it scientifically, let's compare it, using the same criteria, to other views and see how they hold up under that same scrutiny.

Well John, I'm not leaving the debate nor have I considered it. There is a point at which your comment about believing in the Bible is true. It is, however, also true for yours and everyone elses belief systems too. At some point, we all simply choose what we are going to believe. There is also a point in your belief and mine as well where our understanding and defenses simply fall short. What I believe in is as defensible as what you believe, maybe more. But, as all debates go, the proof is in the putting. :)

I'm still having fun here! Regards,
Eric

[Hamilton]

There is also a point in your belief and mine as well where our understanding and defenses simply fall short.
God says that there are things in life we will never understand until we get
to heaven. I interperate that into the bible as well as it is part of my life.
It doesnt seem possible for certain things to happen as described. Maybe they
did happen in such manner maybe not. Maybe described incidents were written
in such a way for an impression to lead to a revelation or maybe it is purely
truth. I will never know until i meet god. I wont bother debating this. I will get
answers later.

[flatfloor]

Kurt
If I'm not mistaken the original Bible was written in several languages particularly the new testament. Even translating from Aramaic and Hebrew leaves a little room for the translator's interpretation of the meaning of the word. I wonder what you might get if a person who never read the bible translated a Chinese edition back into English.

BTW, I hold no opposing views to what either you or Eric believe, just wondering. Although if pressed I would lean towards evolution over a span of time as planned by God.

[Hamilton]

I believe in evolution although it is not covered in the Bible. what does that
make me? I think there are things about life the bible (God-jesus) didnt bother
going on about because it didnt pertain to a spiritual life. The end goal of the
bible is to bring you to God. I do agree that scientists have done massive
research and proven many many things. I guess i stand somewhere in between
science and religion and im not sure what i would be "labeld" as.

[oma]

I guess I'm a little perplexed here because I don't view acceptance of evolution as a belief "in" something. To me, that denotes a bit of religious emphasis on something that is not a religious matter. Whether or not evolution or creationism is or is not true does not impact spirituality, imo. It seems to me that religion and belief systems are more focused on how one lives one's life and how belief systems effect positive changes in individuals, not on the actual subject of belief itself. Does this make any sense, or am I just confusing matters?

[Hamilton]

It seems to me as though evolution has become a thing to either agree as
a possibility, or either totally deny, in which to a certain extent you would
be required to believe in it to some degree or disagree with the people who study
it and provide the scientific data they report to the world.

[John Bridge]

So you say a six-day creation is scientifically possible, but it's not scientifically feasible based on what scientists have developed thus far. Just as you accept the biblical account of creation, I accept the Big Bang and evolution. Neither of us has all the answers.

There is a thing called theistic evolution, and that might be what Jack is inferring. There is no reason, for example, why a person who accepts evolution cannot also accept a higher being, even "intelligent design." In that case, the six-day creation must be completely discarded. And that seems to be the problem again. One either accepts the Bible at face value or one doesn't. :)

[Tool Guy - Kg]

I don't think that is true that you either take the Bible at face value, or you don't. For instance: If you believe in the Bible, you are generally labeled a Christian. But if you only believe in old testament, but not the new, then chances are you are Orthodox Jew. If you believe in the Bible, the whole bible, and nothing but the Bible, you are probably Lutheran. If you believe in the Bible, but maybe have a few other things that you belive in, then you might be a XXXXXXXXXX.

I am not the super expert here, nor am I one on TV. But an amazing number of religions are based on the Bible, or certain portions of it.

But the most important part is the LOVE. I love you guys.

[oma]

Judaism and Christianity are the only religions based on the Bible that I am aware of. I am including all Christian sects under the heading of Christianity, though.

[Eric Philson]

John,

[QUOTE=John Bridge]So you say a six-day creation is scientifically possible, but it's not scientifically feasible based on what scientists have developed thus far. Just as you accept the biblical account of creation, I accept the Big Bang and evolution. Neither of us has all the answers.

Neither of us has all the answers, and neither view is any more scientifically feasible than the other (well, actually maybe mine is). Both views are beliefs and that is all that they are in terms of scientific evaluation. That is why I say that the Bible is not proven on the grounds of the scientific method, neither is the big bang for that matter. It is true that believing in the big bang does not exclude the existance of a creator. Actually, I believe that even if one does believe in the big bang it still cannot be fully explained without an intelligent creator in the mix. Belief in the big bang theory in its current state would seem to rule out a six day creation. Especially if we throw the religion, excuse me I mean theory, of evolution into the mix. The theory that I suggested previously, though, fits the big event idea that scientists search for and also leaves open the possibility of a short creation. It actually fits the known science extremely well. However, these are only theories anyway that cannot be proven one way or the other.

The criteria for accepting the Bible need not be reduced to a face value belief simply because the scientific method is too limited to evaluate it. There are other ways. There is archeology. There are accepted methods for evaluating historical and legal writings as well as events. The Bible holds up extremely well under that type of scrutiny as well. In my view an appeal to reason as well points in a direction that supports the scriptural account. You're a historian, why don't we evaluate the Bible based on historical merits? Surely you should be able to blow gaping holes in my claim that it is historically reliable. :)

Oma and Jack,

The reason I address evolution as though it is a religious matter is because it is adhered to as though it is a religious institution. Many refer to it as science, but it is really no more than a belief that some who evaluate scienctific data think the data points to. There is actually no scientific proof positively ( or even as a likelyhood) linking the known nature of the creation to the idea that the earth is very old or that evolution has ever taken place. There are those who infer that evolution is a scientific fact, however, although there are some intriguing questions that some data presents, no scientifically sound proof has been found or created in a lab that even begins to verify evolution. Thus, it is a theory and only a theory.

Not by any means do all the scientists who report information to the world believe in evolution. The question is, then, how did it become so predominate a view? maybe John, our resident historian, can give us some insight on that one :) .

This may not seem to have a spiritual weight or to affect how we live our lives, but I would like to submit that it does indeed in some very important ways. If we are the product of random chance and truely believe that, we will make much different choices than if we are the product of a knowing creator and all the ramifications of that are actually considered. If we are evolving into something better, we will view ourselves as the masters of our destiny, but if we were created to be what we are and nothing more, then we will view ourselves as not in control of much of anything. This again leads to different choices. If survival of the fittest establishes who survives to evolve, we will make different choices than if life itself belongs to and is given to us by a creator. So the two have spiritual ramifications. Also, if random chance was the method of a distant uninvolved force or creator, we will still view things very differently than if we were creatid specifically for a purpose by a personal and knowing and involved creator. Incidentally, if a creative force is not a knowing force, how would it "know" how to initiate a reality in which randomness could produce an affect?

Jack stated that the Bible Doesn't go on about certain issues like the ones being discussed here. Actually it does. It just happens to be the case that the description of such things in the Bible has become unsuitable to most people. The assumption has become, then, that either the Bible is untrue or that it is merely a general guideline, a good story and nothing else. Actually, the Bible even addresses the issue of people who believe such things.

It would also be of value to actually put into words exactly what it means to be spiritual or what spirit actually is. In doing so, I believe it can be seen that everything is a spiritual event or action and that using the term spirit in discussion of an issue changes the focus to a different level of perceiving things than we normally use in our everyday language.

All that said, it is not necessary to just decide what one is going to believe and then stick to ones' guns so to speak. I believe that there is evidence for a knowing God. If I say I won't address that here someone is gonna shout "see, I told ya so". So instead, I'll say that this is all I'll say in this post regarding this issue, but if someone wishes to discuss it further, I am willing.

Kurt,

You are indeed correct. When a new translation of the Bible is produced, the oldest texts are used to translate. This by the way is an improving field of study with more ancient transcripts being available for translation and comparison than for any other literary work in history. It is also more verifiably true to the original than any other major literary work in history in which the original is not in existance, which is most (John, refute this claim if you can). Not all Bible versions are true translations. some are intentionally put together with the goal of making the Bible more readable in modern culture. In these cases Ideas rather than words are usually conveyed.

The Bible was not originally written in several languages. Hebrew and Yittish I believe for the old testament. Koine (I think) greek for the new testament. Of all the modern biblical translations, that are true translations, there is some small differing nuance, but they all essentially say the same thing. This, debatably, is even true of the King James Version which is translated from Latin, I think Germanic and some other various old Bibles into English.

Eric

[Steven Hauser]

Hmm... I left this thread and all of a sudden it gets interesting. :D

Eric, Why is yours scientifically more feasible?

Historically reliable for whom? Women? Chinese, European? Slaves?

What about the fact it was primarily an oral tradition even up until 70 AD?

Just stirring the stew a little
:)

[Toddl]

Eric,

I'll have an easier time believing God is the creator, when somebody explains who created God! Ultimately someone in the line of creation (no matter how long it may be) had to have been created by nobody or evolved from something. If I were to believe that God exists, then by extension, I must believe that evolution is possible. If evolution could "create" someone as powerful as God, then surely evolution could create us lowly Human Beans!

Please don't give me the cop-out "God has always existed!"

[flatfloor]

Please don't give me the cop-out "God has always existed!"

Todd, either you accept that or you don't. :)

[flatfloor]

Do you mean Yiddish? If so that language did not evolve until the 13-14th century it is a form of Hebrew merged with the German language.

[John Bridge]

Jim, you've just reiterated my point. Take it or leave it, but if you take it, it has to be on "faith," not science. ;)

[flatfloor]

Yup, exactly. :)

[Hamilton]

Eric maybe im mistaken but i dont recall the bible disussing wooly mamoth
bones, dinosaurs. A single mention of the grand canyon and the study of the
earths age through layers of earth exposed or any of the modern methods
our doctors and scientist use to format the descisions they base the information
they give us. That being said, no the bible didnt cover everything as i stated,
and also as i said the bible did not cover it because when it was written god
probably didnt feel it was important or necessary to get the point across.Accept
the lord jesus or burn in hell for eternity. I hope i made my point a bit
clearer, with all do respect.

[Tool Guy - Kg]

It is interesting that there are theories upon theories explaining evolution. Every year, a little more hard data is collected......and these theories are eroded partially or completely away as more info comes to light. The theories are either thrown out, or re-organized and come out with new and improved versions of how this new theory shows that evolution is where we came from. Sounds just like the method we use to learn anything in this world. We build our knowledge and test it, and adjust it as we understand more and more.

If we did just evolve from "billions" of years of natural mutations and such......that would mean that we were just an accident that happened in an incredibly long chain of random events. We got mutated here, not for any reason whatsoever. And no reason would imply that we have no purpose being here. Nobody put us here, we just happened to form a blob of tissues and such to make us a creature. Nothing matters.


Meanwhile the Bible has been holding firm for thousands of years. (long before we had scientists to help formulate what the Bible says) It doesn't change. It explains where we came from, what we are to do while we are here, and where we are going. God says that he is the Alpha and the Omega....the first and the last. He says that to believe is faith, not by our own doing,.....so yes, either you believe or you reject Him. God also says to not put your faith in man....while I may be really interested in a scientist showing how God must have done "this or that" because all the evidence points to it, be forewarned, trusting and counting on something man says could be pretty dangerous. Man doesn't know much, so don't listen to him. Listen to God. He speaks in the Bible. God says love.

Think of this. How much knowledge has the world collectively gathered so far in all of history? I'm talking about everything. Now......how much do you think there is to know, if we knew everything. I'm not trying to be a smart-ass here. What percentage do you think we know of all the available knowledge in existance? I'll take a crack at guessing 1%...if we're lucky. At the rate we collect knowledge and the continuous signs that there is exponentially more.......there is much more to learn than what we can even describe.

I'll place my faith where God wants it. Like others have said.....whats the worst that can happen to me as a Bible believer if I'm wrong? I'll be in the same boat as non-believers at the end of my life. Now, what's the worst that can happen to a non-beliver if they are wrong? Different boat....not good. Purely from a mathematical viewpoint, people would be better off believing than not. I'm siding with the better odds. :) Great topic.

[flatfloor]

Accept the lord jesus or burn in hell for eternity.

You're saying Mahatma Ghandi, Mohammed, and Abraham Lincoln are burning in Hell ?

[John Bridge]

The dinosaur bones Jack mentioned are not "theory." You can examine them in museums around the world. The only arguing point might be their age. I believe the most recent of them died 62 million years ago. That one statement negates the the biblical account of creation. But it does not negate the theory of "intellegent design." This is how a theistic evolutionist might think. I used to be one of those and still might be, but I slipped into agnosticism. :)

Whereas the Bible has been around for "thousands of years," the Universe has been around for billions. We don't know whether there is any "life" at all elsewhere in the Cosmos. All we know about is Earth (and precious little about that). I do accept, though that Earth is about 4.3 billion years of age, that the dinosaurs parished about 62 million years ago, and that some sort of "man" poked out from under a rock maybe a couple million years ago. The Bible has been around a few thousand years, hardly measurable in the scheme of things. :)

Don't get me wrong. There is room for a master plan, and I do truly hope there is someone at the helm. :)

P.S. I don't necessarily believe we are related to apes, but I don't discount the theory. Some of us bear a striking resemblance. :D

[Jo3]

The term "evolution" applies to both theory and fact.

Most accomplished and highly accredited scientists, including all of the scientists whose disciplines are in the biological and genomic sciences who belong to the National Academy of Science in the United States and the Royal Academy in Britain believe that evolution is a fact.

It is a fact that scientists have observed occurring in the laboratory while observing short lived species IE the fruit fly.

What the "theory" part of evolution is applies to what the intermediate steps that any species underwent and to what periods of time it took, not to the fact that evolution occurred and is still occurring.

By the way, the use of the word "theory" when used in scientific connotation does not imply diminished scale of credibility.

In science, a theory must have the ability to explain phenomena and make specific predictions based on observable phenomena. A theory produces sets of hypotheses which in turn can be verified or falsified (i.e., rejected, Popper, 1968). A scientific hypothesis can be investigated by empirical means using the science method.

For example, the Big Bang - cosmologists and astrophysicists postulated a complex theory explaining the origin of the universe known as the “Big Bang Theory.” One of many predictions made by the theory is that the universe would still be permeated by background radiation, constant throughout the universe, a result of residual heat produced by the initial explosion. This hypothesis was subject to empirical investigation and indeed, the background radiation that was predicted was discovered by radiotelescopic observation in the 1960s (Hawking, 1993), and it matches perfectly (i.e., quantitatively) the theoretical predictions as does the constant temperature in "empty" space" which unknown at the time the theory was wrought, turned out to be a true prediction.

There are many accurate theories that never turn into laws, especially in modern science but are probable to the highest degree nonetheless. One of Einstein's most famous theories resulted in the production of the atomic bomb. The bomb obviously worked, but it is still a theory.

You can read what the National Academy of Sciences says about evolution and creationism here:
http://www.nationalacademies.org/attic/evolution/index.html

And statements from other science organizations here:
http://www.nationalacademies.org/attic/evolution/statements_from_other_organizations.html

[Shaughnn]

John,
Let's not forget that the National Academy of Science is currently being re-staffed by the Bush administration with academics who are more in line with their opinions. Quietly, over the past five years, scientists who have opposed the direction of the Bush administration have been eased out of discussion and ultimately out of the Academy to be replaced by more "agreeable" members. Easy enough to confirm if you compare membership rolls and the alarming number of resignations during this time period. Soon, the theory of "intelligent design" will have enough supporters within the Academy to argue it's inclussion or preemption over archaeological or geological sciences. Now, if only "because I said so" would stop the rain from falling and prevent the spread of disease? :bang:
Shaughnn

[Jo3]

Yes. One of the reasons why I'm considering leaving this country.

[Shaughnn]

John,
Don't leave! Americans don't back down from a fight. We kick ass and drink a beer while sitting on their grave. We need as many people who have read and understand our history as we can keep to offset the teeming masses who think the American Revolution is a ride at Six Flags and that a secret treasure map is hidden on the back of the U.S. Constitution. Think of the children! For the sake of everything that's currently on sale at Wallmart, think of the children and stay!!! :crazy:
Shaughnn

[Tool Guy - Kg]

First of all........WallMart sucks.

Secondly: How long does it take for geological events to occur? Apparently not very long. Do some research on your own about Mt. St. Helens and the environment since the eruption. You will see that apparently "thousands" of years have passed since the eruption since 1980. What am I talking about? If not for us witnessing the eruption, the erosion pattern left in areas would be defined by geologists as taking thousands of years to be carved out........and there is the set-up for "petrified forests" in lakebeds.........and all the ingredients for coal have accumulated into a mass that is partially through it’s process of becoming coal. All of these events take thousands of years according to conventional scientific reasoning, but....whoops, it has all taken place in less than 25 years. :uhh: Take a look yourself. You don't need theories, you can see direct results and compare for yourself.

[Jo3]

I have done some reading on this.
Check this site and see for yourself how creationists narrow the facts to fit their own "logic",
if you can call it that.
There is a scientific explanation for everything.
Just because you can't handle not knowing all the awnsers doesn't make the bible truth.
It just makes you willingly ignorant
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html

[Jo3]

Shaughnn,
I have to agree with Kg on one thing.
Wal-mart does suck.
I'm worried that there is a grave danger in leaving my children exposed to the oncoming theocracy in this country. I've been thinking about going back to the "mother land",if you will.
They are turning churches into useful buildings like libraries, museums, and schools.
Here we've got people going to churches sometimes three times a week, droping their money into little dishes that get passed around, then go home and bitch about not enough schools and funding for education. The church owns about 25% of all the land here and they're not taxed. Big, beautiful tax free churches but we have our children learning in packed portables.
Critical thinking huh?
Make sense of that! :crazy:

[John Bridge]

John, I thank you for the scientific references, but I don't think the nation will reach the theocracy level during the course of one administration. We went from Clinton to Bush in one fell swoop. We can just as easily go the other way again. I believe in the pendulum of history and the startling frequency with which it swings.

Whether people choose to spend their money on their churches, on their schools or both, is their own business and has very little to say about the state of "education" in this country. It is a fact that some of the best trained scientists have at one time attended church-related schools. One example would be the number of outstanding doctors and medical scientists who have been produced by the Baylor College of Medicine (Baptist) right here in Texas. I believe that it is the responsibility of parents to educate their young. It is also the individual's responsibility to educate himself.

Finally, folks in the "mother country" can't even manage the English language. Why in the world would you want to go there? :D

What has made this country great is the serendipitous nature of our thought processes and our resulting knowledge pool, and our willingness to listen to and respect the ideas of others. I will argue all day and night with creationists, but I respect their right to believe what they will. I don't believe that the bulk of them are trying to force themselves upon me and mine. And of the millions upon millions of "people of faith" in this country, a surprising minority of them are actually "creationists" in the sense of the word being used here.

I ain't worried. I'm sticking around. ;)

[Eric Philson]

Steve,

The Bible is found to be historically reliable based on what established criteria is used to evaluate historical writings. What do you see as being so obviously falacious about the Bible? The Old Testament has been aroun in written form a long long time. It was assembled into the current complete volume till sometime between 1400-700 BC. The New testament writings floated around in letter form and various forms of groupings and were not totally compiled till around 300 AD or so. That is totally by memory, so don't hold me to an exact time on the New Testament, but it was around there. No part of it has been oral tradition for a long long time. I don't remember how long though. I'll try to check it out though.

Toddl,

Your line of reasoning indeed suggests that all things are receivers of existance, therefore God could be as well which would render Him as not really God. That avenue of reason, however, does not end there. When we step back and see the forest for the trees, we see a universe made up entirely of things that receive existence/being through a line of cause and effect. A closed system. For now, it does not matter if it is an infinite or finite system. The law of cause and effect requires that existance/being get into the picture somehow. Thus, there is a natural end to the chain of reason which suggests a creator. :)

John O,

If you have read my previous posts, you will see that I too believe in a form of evolution, micro evolution. Another word for it is adaptation. The fruit fly project indeed shows adaptation. After "evolving" though, it was still a fruit fly. It did not, however, become a fruit bat or a fruit loop or anything else besides a fruit fly. Please show me an example of one critter becoming another critter. That is the type of evolution we are talking about here. Also, in the case of mutation, the results are always negative. the results of mutation never obtain a possitive result that can be genetically passed on.

Eric

[Eric Philson]

Oh, yeah, and J.B.,

The dating methods for those dinosaur bones you mentioned are very flawed, that's been known for a long time now.

[Eric Philson]

Jack,

I see what you mean now. The Bible touches on these issues in general terms, but not specifically as in the age of dinosaur bones etc.

[Jo3]

Eric,
Evolution is a fact, as real as gravity. The fact that all species alive today have descended from a common ancestor can be denied, but not refuted. We know it happens because we can observe it directly in short-lived species, and for longer lived species there is genetic and fossil evidence that is unambiguous. We don't yet have all the peices, but nonetheless, the puzzle is here.
As you've said earlier "The theories are either thrown out, or re-organized and come out with new and improved versions of how this new theory shows that evolution is where we came from. Sounds just like the method we use to learn anything in this world. We build our knowledge and test it, and adjust it as we understand more and more."
Theory does not mean guess, or hunch, or hypothesis. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always be a theory, a law will always be a law. A theory will never become a law, and a law never was a theory. So there is the theory of evolution. Then there is the FACT of evolution. It is not a guess. It is not a "beleif",( as in the theist definition of it.)


Quote:
"The law of cause and effect requires that existance/being get into the picture somehow. Thus, there is a natural end to the chain of reason which suggests a creator."

Which leads to the phrase- Where reason ends, faith begins.
That again Eric, suggests that you just can't handle the fact that we don't know it all.
The theist's concept of faith not only applys to things completely void of reason (e.g., prayer to provide them "faith" they'll win the lottery), but their faith is even further extended to things which are themselves illogical.
Faith must ALWAYS be accompanied by reason, there is never an end to, nor a suspension of, reason.

[Eric Philson]

Jo,

The idea that a theory can't be refuted doesn't make it true. Refute creationism, can't be done with any more affect than can evolution. Give it a try. Common ancestry within species does not equate to one common original species. Similarity in species design suggests a common creator, not a common beginning. There are too many genetic impossibilities to provide support for the few similarities that exist being meaningful to support your assertion. If evolution of this type is a fact, show me one, just one, species in transitional mode. How about a fossil. I'm sorry, you can't because there is none. Your missing pieces to the puzzle add up to be the whole puzzle missing. Every fossil thus far used to suggest a missing link has been proven either a hoax or a mistaken identity. Maybe you know of a new one though, I'm open to it.

If you had read my previous posts in this thread you would see that my exact point is that we cannot know it all. That means neither your point or mine can be proven by science. Too many puzzle peices missing, like you said.
What I meant by the natural end to reason is that the chain of reason naturally leads to an end cause in the chain of cause and effect. Concerning faith, mine does not begin where reason ends. Thats not my definition of faith, and that is not what I was suggesting. I see how my wording may have suggested that though. In making your appeal to reason in your post, you just didn't continue the line of thought far enough. The end result is that in a closed system of cause and effect that contains all matter, and all of it is a reciever of its being, There had to be a greater cause. If all the universe is an effect, full of receivers of existence, there has to be a cause that accounts for existence itself. A cause that accounts in and of itself for existence makes it by nature the end of cause and effect, ie. the creator. The law of cause and effect requires it to be so, if not, then cause and effect would be unreliable as a principle. Otherwise, the system would just be, kind of like you suggested that I believe about God. The only difference would be that you would believe that matter just is and had no beginning and nothing accounts for its existence. In my account, the reason leads to a source outside of matter that accounts for the existence of the entire material universe. It is a reasonable end as opposed to an open end with no explanation which is what you are suggesting. That on your part is a faith assertion.

You see, here is my whole arguement in a nutshell. Early in this thread I was challenged that my view of a creator, God, was unscientific and unprovable. My whole contention throughout has been that the opposing views are no more supportable than mine. IMO, less supportable, but hey, that's me. What you call the fact of evolution is really no more than a belief, like my belief in God. If it's not, show me proof using the scientific method that macro evolution has and does occur. This evolutionist view hides behind the veil of billions of years to shroud itself from ordinary scientific scrutiny. If you can't prove it then you believe it by faith, and your faith picks up where your reason fails you. This is a two way street. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding and you're saying that you can't prove it with science, but you can through reason. If so, I'm game for that too.

If you're suggesting that I can't handle the fact that we don't know it all, then please account for yourself when you cling to the theory of macro-evolution which you cannot prove. If I am wrong, then please prove macro-evolution to me for my benefit and that of all others reading this thread. Where is this unambiguous fossil evidence that shows one species becoming another? Prove to me the accuracy of carbon dating methods. Where is the evidence that proves all species to be genetically linked? Let's take a good hard look at the geological column. Do your home work on this one, because I have. If you say I'll deny the truth even if I see it, remember, that arguement is also a two way street. If you want, pick something off your talk origins web site that you posted and start there. These are old arguements, bring em.

If I sound like I'm attacking you personally, please believe that I am not. It is my sincere hope that we can all discuss this normally hotbed topic with civility and friendliness. So far so good. I simply believe that my previous assertions are accurate, and that my belief in a creator is at least as reasonable an assertion as is your belief in the preeminance of well...dirt. Actually I think my belief in a literal Biblical six day creation is as reasonable an explanation for the universe as what anyone else has to offer. None of the present theories, including my own, can be proven using the scientific method. My claim/approach uses several arenas of knowledge other than the scientific method, which is limited in its appropriate arena of application. So far in this thread, noone, myself included has provided irrefutable evidence for anything. That fact provides proof for only one thing, that I choose my belief on no looser of ground than you, JB, Steve, Oma, Jack, Shaughnn or anyone else. If you just make derogatory attacks about my beliefs, I won't even respond. Let's leave our peeing match to the Shiavo thread.

Eric

[Jo3]

Eric,
I don't have the time to go into this how I would
like..no, love to right now. :) However, I definatly will
respond to this as long as you are willing to have
this debate.(and I hope you are willing)

In my next response I will prove that in fact, your
beleif is on looser ground than mine by using
'reason' and 'logic' which has been proven by
scientific LAW. I will use refrences to the bible which
in the 'material universe' and what we KNOW to be true, is an impossibility and therfore would be unreasonable as well as illogical.

I do need to correct you now on one thing though. The first line in your response.
"The idea that a theory can't be refuted doesn't make it true."

I didn't say it to refute a theory. In fact, you can refute a theory. However, the atom bomb is still a theory, but it is also a fact. You cannot refute that. You can deny it, but it still doesn't make it false. Refute a fact. You cannot prove a fact to be false, therefor it must be true. So, if you can't refute it than how can it not be true?
"The fact that all species alive today have descended from a common ancestor can be denied, but not refuted."
I can refute creatonism because it cannot be proven true. It IS ambiguous.

Stick with me Eric. I don't hold grudges. And if we must rake each other through the 'coals' :), after it's done, I'll dust you off ,if you'll dust me off.

[jjwq8]

Semantics.
A fact is only a fact IF it can be or has been proven. Otherwise it is an allegation.

[John Bridge]

Jeremy, in this dialog facts seem to be subjective. :)

The more I learn the less I know, etc.

[Jo3]

A scientific fact is a highly corroborated hypothesis that has been so repeatedly tested and for which so much reliable evidence exists, that it would be perverse or irrational to deny it.



"To those searching for truth-not the truth of dogma and darkness but the truth brought by reason, search, examination, and inquiry, disipline is required. For faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction- faith in fiction is a damnable false hope."
---Thomas Edison

[Jo3]

JB & Shaughnn,
Here is an article E-mailed to me from a freind.
It has exactly what I was talking about earlier with the problem of leaving my children exposed to what is happening in this country.
If I were religious I would say it were "an act of god" that it came to me as this discussion was going on.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2005-02-18/cols_ventura.html

[John Bridge]

John,

Read the article. Actually, I've read most of that stuff before, scattered around here and there. It's not new, except for the Libertarian spin on it. :)

The same things have been said about students in this country for decades. And there is really no way to check it out. How do you compare the high school students of today to the high school students of my era (fifties)? We think we were better taught, of course. :)

If you could check, though, I'll bet about the same percentages then as now believed in the creationism. I know that everybody in public schools back then was just assumed to be a Christian. (Not that I was ever in favor of that).

I guess I just don't believe the sky is falling. :)

One thing. I'm against public education as we know it. I think everyone ought to pay for his own education one way or another.

[Tool Guy - Kg]

John O,
After reading the past several posts, I wonder why you said you were interested in leaving the country. I'm scratchin my noodle becuase I don't think I've ever heard someone say they wanted to leave the US unless it was to reutrn to their families. The first thing I'd be thinkin would be...what's it going to be like there?....can I do what I want there?......I don't think I'd wanna go.

Are you allowed to think and say what you wnat in this country?
Or is it somewhat suppressed?

I'm wondering what kind of government they have there.

[Jo3]

Eric & whoever wishes to read this,
People tend to use god to fill in the gaps of our knowledge. For example, the term "god knows how/what/why.....". This does not make a statement true or a question answered. It simply completes an equation which one cannot awnser themselves. It's a simplistic and childish way of filling a void that is either to hard, or not possible for one to know. Science does not work in this manner. If it did, we still would think the world was flat or that rain is angels crying, ect. This is why critical thinking is such an important skill we should all practice. Science may not be able to answer all the questions man has, but it is the best tool we have to do so. It does not hang on faith that something is, or is not. It simply trys to find the most reasonable and logical answers to those questions. When science has a question to be answered there is a hypothesis, or prediction. The prediction is then tested. This is not "faith" as in the religious sense of the word because when the tests no longer match the prediction it changes the experiments. When the prediction does match then a theory is established. The theory can be accepted if the results obtained are repeatable and cannot be made false.
Eric, when you said that it is faith on my part, you are mistaken because I can change my thoughts by the evidence which is presented to me. Simply because I don't have the answers to the entire chian of events does not imply I have faith in whatever chain it is.(hope that made sense)
Religious faith does not ask questions, it just is, whether it is proven wrong or not.

There was a guy in another forum that posted something I saved because it was a question
which people should ask using critical thinking. This was the question:

If a benevolent God gave us essentially one tool--the mind--to use on Earth, then how could He make throwing it away (i.e. having faith) the one prerequisite for eternal salvation?

Critical thinking means you must be a skeptic. You must be able to question your own beleifs, awnsers, or faith in a logical, reasonable manner. You must always examine the reasons and evidence for the paticular beleif or awnser. Logic sometimes forces people to deny emotions and face reality, this is often painful. But emotions are not evidence, feelings are not facts, and subjective beliefs are not substantive beliefs. Most people would rather believe something is true because they feel, hope, or wish it were true, rather than deny their emotions and accept that their beliefs are false. Scientific facts interfere with the common views and beliefs of old philosophies and religions, so many people just simply deny them.



This should partialy take care of, and I am quoting you,
1)"What you call the fact of evolution is really no more than a belief, like my belief in God. If it's not, show me proof using the scientific method that macro evolution has and does occur."
2)"If you're suggesting that I can't handle the fact that we don't know it all, then please account for yourself when you cling to the theory of macro-evolution which you cannot prove."
3)"That fact provides proof for only one thing, that I choose my belief on no looser of ground than you"
4)"Actually I think my belief in a literal Biblical six day creation is as reasonable an explanation for the universe as what anyone else has to offer"

I will expand on these four and add six more as I get into actual scientific facts and findings to answer your questions and to show the "looseness" in your beleifs.
I will not go into the "scientific method" as it is taught in schools simply because I don't think you can stick to those strict set of "rules" in order to preform scientific experiments. However I will show you results which have been tested and consistantly been proven true in the theory of evolution.
First, you must understand that evolution does not explain the origins of the universe, rather the species which inhabit it. If you would like me to go into that we will have to talk about another theory. This is called the "big bang".
Second, I must make it clear that I don't have an explanation for what was before the big bang. However, I personally "beleive"(there's that word) that there was some type of matter on a larger scale than the matter which resulted in the big bang. This does not lead to a creator as the biblical scriptures would have you beleive. I'm simply suggesting a larger scale of matter which somehow, someway resulted into the bang and the universe we know. This does not exlude an occurance of a "creator" in the chain of cause and effect, but it DOES exclude a creator in the biblical being of one. I'm suggesting an accident of some sort which led to the chain of cause and effect which then led to the big bang and so on/so forth.

I'm going to take a break here but will post again with scientific evidence FOR the theory of evolution and AGAINST creationism.

Soak it in for a little. :) :crazy:

When I say "beleive" it is used more in terms of "think" (i.e. I beleive I forgot something.)

[Eric Philson]

Keep it coming, I'm not going anywhere. :)

[Jo3]

Sorry Eric, not tonight. :yawn:
I'm just going to edit some things. :)

[Jo3]

John O,
After reading the past several posts, I wonder why you said you were interested in leaving the country. I'm scratchin my noodle becuase I don't think I've ever heard someone say they wanted to leave the US unless it was to reutrn to their families. The first thing I'd be thinkin would be...what's it going to be like there?....can I do what I want there?......I don't think I'd wanna go.

Are you allowed to think and say what you wnat in this country?
Or is it somewhat suppressed?

I'm wondering what kind of government they have there.

To answer half of those questions would be..yes.
As far as the first, I don't know, but fear has never held me back.
The last one is more complicated.
I actually feel more suppressed in this country being what in recent years has been pretty much labeled SATAN:devil:. That is, liberal and what is known as "atheist" but what I'd preffer "anti-theist". :x:
Beleive it or not that is not such a bad thing in most the rest of the free world.

[John Bridge]

John, I don't think it's such a bad thing in this country. I think you're mis-interpreting what's going on here. We go through it periodically. Roughly speaking, this is the third time on this side of the Atlantic.

I think I've said everything I can in this thread. Gotta move on. ;)

[Steven Hauser]

Hi Eric and John,

Seems like you fellas are doing OK here.

I'm checking out of the thread also, but want you both to know its been a pleasure to learn what others think.

:)

[Eric Philson]

My season is really starting to kick in big time for me too. I won't be able to check in as often starting soon, but I will continue the discussion anyway if anyone desires. It's been a pleasureable and dignified discussion and I feel that I've come to know several of you, especially you Steve, much better. Thank you all for the stimulating discussion :) .

Eric