Debating scriptures with non-believers

Many Christians do not believe that Scripture supports the Young Earth Creationist position. This moderated forum is for good natured scholarly debate.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Roger Stanyard » Mon Mar 19, 2012 9:58 am

MrDunday wrote: Yes some can carry on, OK. But what this tells you is that the science is being interpreted both ways. For creation and against. How can that be science? Isn't science the fact, the bottom line? Or is this all about interpretations?


Science cannot invoke the supernatural as an explanation, as has been pointed out to you.

Yawn.

Why do you keep repeating yourself?

Heck, you ought to look up what St Augustine had to say in the 4th century about zealots bringing religion into disrepute. While you're at it, also take a look at when Sola Scriptura was "invented" and why. That's the basis of creationism. Why is Sola Scriptura never mentioned in the Bible?

Are you aware of religion and science being two separate magesteria?

Or are you as pig ignorant of theology as you are of science?
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Dagsannr » Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:22 am

Roger Stanyard wrote:Are you aware of religion and science being two separate magesteria?


Mmmmm, I'm going to have to call you on this point, even if it does confuse the issue for our newly acquired creationist loon.

Religion and the supernatural should be subject to exactly the same processes by which we test scientific concepts. If you claim to believe in a god, or some other unobserved and untested phenomena, and also hold the claim that said phenomena can influence the natural world, then such a thing is testable.

Gould was a brilliant scientist and communicator, but his concept of NOMA was flawed and it's muddied the water pointlessly.

However

This doesn't excuse our MrDunday from being a numpty and not understanding either a) the science or b) the bible.
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Roger Stanyard » Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:46 am

Natman wrote:
Roger Stanyard wrote:Are you aware of religion and science being two separate magesteria?


Mmmmm, I'm going to have to call you on this point, even if it does confuse the issue for our newly acquired creationist loon.

Religion and the supernatural should be subject to exactly the same processes by which we test scientific concepts. If you claim to believe in a god, or some other unobserved and untested phenomena, and also hold the claim that said phenomena can influence the natural world, then such a thing is testable.

Gould was a brilliant scientist and communicator, but his concept of NOMA was flawed and it's muddied the water pointlessly.

However

This doesn't excuse our MrDunday from being a numpty and not understanding either a) the science or b) the bible.


It was a rhetorical question to MrDunday to see if he could comprehend that other religious believers don't hold to his views and he doesn't speak for them. I was not intending to argue that NOMA reconciles religion and science. I'll leave that to others to debate if they so wish.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Michael » Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:17 am

I don't hold NOMA at all
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Dagsannr » Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:27 am

Michael wrote:I don't hold NOMA at all


You are, without a doubt, the most complex vicar I've ever encountered in terms of beliefs and theology.

I mean, are you just in the job because it involves no heavy lifting and free cups of tea?

I might just start a campaign to get Michael as the new Archbishop of Canterbury. Or into the House of Lords at the very least.
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Roger Stanyard » Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:36 am

Michael wrote:I don't hold NOMA at all


Talking to our American friends some years back, there seems to be an implicit acceptance of NOMA amongst many religious Americans not of the fundamentalist/religious persuasion. My understanding is that it is only loosely understood so I'm not really sure it is a significant or important idea, doctrinally or otherwise.

I did look at the idea at the time and wasn't convinced either way. Gould certainly got hammered on it by the New Atheists but then, I got hammered by the New Atheists so I don't really care. Out of choice, not my battle at all.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Roger Stanyard » Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:40 am

Natman wrote:
Michael wrote:I don't hold NOMA at all


You are, without a doubt, the most complex vicar I've ever encountered in terms of beliefs and theology.

I mean, are you just in the job because it involves no heavy lifting and free cups of tea?

I might just start a campaign to get Michael as the new Archbishop of Canterbury. Or into the House of Lords at the very least.


I wouldn't wish that job on my worst enemy.

Michael would be a talented bishop in the House of Lords, though.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby jon_12091 » Mon Mar 19, 2012 12:20 pm

Natman wrote:If you claim to believe in a god, or some other unobserved and untested phenomena, and also hold the claim that said phenomena can influence the natural world, then such a thing is testable.

Like 'creation' happening exactly as descibed in Genesis, whether or not it was 6000 or 10,000+ years ago or a global Flood occuring as described in Genesis.
(However there are philospical arguments for god not being testible - though how you 'define' god affects that.)
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby psiloiordinary » Mon Mar 19, 2012 5:42 pm

Natman wrote:
I might just start a campaign to get Michael as the new Archbishop of Canterbury. Or into the House of Lords at the very least.


Seconded.
User avatar
psiloiordinary
 
Posts: 798
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:03 am
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby MrDunday » Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:09 pm

cathy wrote:
But what this tells you is that the science is being interpreted both ways. For creation and against. How can that be science? Isn't science the fact, the bottom line? Or is this all about interpretations?

No Mr Dunday science is not being interpreted both ways. What evidence we have points to evolution and big bang, it is impossible to logically and sensibly interpret it any other way.

Creationists pretend to do so by lying, resorting to illogical contortions and by totally ignoring the bigger picture. In a court case many strands of evidence are considered. Same with science. Look at it this way, in court a lawyer might see a chance to try to pick holes with one piece but it is the evidence as a whole that is used to piece together what happened. And if the evidence as a whole points only one way than it is likely the most logical explanation for that one piece is the one that agrees with the rest of the evidence. And even if that one piece of evidence does turn out to be wrong, that does not make it evidence for something else nor does it effect all the other evidence.

Creationism does just that all the time. And it does not even successfully pick holes in the odd pieces of evidence it tries to misrepresent. Nor does it ever successfully turn them to evidence for Genesis.

And the more evidence there is the more likely it is that one piece is in agreement. And the more we improve our ways of understanding and looking for evidence the more likely it is to be right. And the evidence for evolution is overwhelming now. It will take a hell of a lot to change it. But if the evidence ever points away it will adapt to incorporate new understanding.

Nothing you have picked up on from the creationist websites (and nothing you have said about evolution or abiogenesis or transition fossils or life from life etc is new to anyone here - we've got a regular creationist who has already said it all but has totally and tragically switched off his mind to anything) is factually honest because none of them consider the bigger picture and none of them put forward the whole of the evidence.

In fact they don't even put forward the whole picture when they talk about the bible. Two of the biggest creationist propaganda sites have tried to reconcile the two contradictory creation Stories in Genesis and both have done so by actually leaving out the contradictory lines!!! I could not believe what I was reading when I saw it!!!You know the bible - should that not alert you to their tactics?

And if you look hard for positive evidence for Genesis and you won't find it on any creationist or ID site. The only thing they can do is cleverly misrepresent real science, play the paranoia game pretending they are expelled for philosophical/religious reasons when in fact the stuff they produce is rubbish and con people like yourself.

So please don't think science interprets the evidence in favour of both cos it doesn't. Creation science is not real science, they aren't logical or realistic or honest interpretations. They are inane gobblydegook and that is why science doesn't give them houseroom and they choose not to present stuff to real scientists for peer review.

As for a creator, science does not and can not test for that. If you believe in God science looks at the nature of his creation if you don't it looks at the nature of origins. The science is the same for both atheist and believing real scientists.

If you honestly believe than you don't and shouldn't need to prove his existence. And if, as you claim, he is eternal created the world and therefore exists before and outside of creation than you can't. Energy is a feature of this universe as is time and everything else. You can't judge what something outside of this universe is by what is here. Any more than you could find out about Shakespeare by studying Macbeth.

And in parroting creationist garbage, which you have with the abiogenesis, not trusting dating methods and no transitional fossils stuff, all you do is prove to me that there is no god. Creationist nonsense makes atheists of anyone capable of thinking.

I'm not going to post anymore responses to you cos I guess if you've been near creationist sites they will have slowly brainwashed you and it will be a pointless waste of my time and yours. But creationism is a morally bankrupt cult. There are thousands of good christians who would not touch it with a barge pole. They are far more worthy of listening to.


Actually if don't even think you have to look for ID then that tells you they have blinded themselves. If I did the same thing and said I don't have to listen to the scientists because I don't have too. You would consider that as blinding myself. What the scientists do is no different.
It also means that they have no choice to make a decision. That decision is already made before you even start to look, and the answer is predetermined no matter what the evidence says. That is blind faith that the scientists are correct.
I do not go by what many creationists have said. I think many have not represented the creation side or the bible very well.But that doesn't mean creation is wrong, and that what some have said about creation is correct.
Actually the scientists misinterpret things all the time. Like the many missing links that go missing. They went to Mars to find life. That is based on an assumption that life could start on it's own. And from the same science there are scientists that are on the different sides of this. Besides the scientists can not show, or have any evidence to prove what they say.
There is no evidence for humans 'evolution' . There no evidence of 'evolution at all. Life can not start with out creation. The scientists have to say at this point even though they don't like it, that creation is possible. They have to say that because, they can't show what they say as correct. They are to prove this by trying to create life in a lab. That is creation.
If they really believed in chance, why not just look for life starting on it's own some place?

Of course the scientists could test for ID.
1 just find life starting on it's own.
2 record all the knowledge that experience it takes to create life in a lab. This is ID
3 compare the two.
I do believe you should be able to prove a God. I don't just accept it because the scientists don't know. All evidence supports creation. It is the reason they don't know. The reason the scientists do not about a cell, is because a cell has to be put together, and the DNA code written. It is not that they don't know enough of the science, it is because the science supports creation , and does fit 'evolution' at all.That is why I started with what the scientists said about the universe. They fit exactly. They agree something has always had to be there. They also agree that energy can be converted into matter. They don't know what set that energy off, but we do have record of an intelligence saying he did that. But the point here is that the scientists can not say through their methods, God is impossible.Then they say we don't even look for an intelligence. That explains why they are not getting answers.
How would you know if a Christian is good or not?
What constitutes a good Christian?
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby MrDunday » Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:22 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:
MrDunday wrote:
Roger wrote:
Rubbish. The "scientists" who are fellows of the Discovery Institute have been looking at evidence of creationism for years. Their problem is what they have presented simply does not stack up. They can't identify which features show evidence of design and the maths behind their claims doesn't work.

The scientific world and mathematicians have listened to the likes of Dembski and Behe and found them to be seriously unconvincing.

But, then, you don't know anything about science so you can't follow the "debate".

So whats the science you want to use to show that they are wrong?
You see the scientists are doing the same thing to them as you have tried here to me. They call them stupid and idiots. But with them they can do something about it. They call them bad scientists and make jobs hard to get. That is the only way the scientists can keep this fraud going.


The "scientists" I know who are paid by the Discovery Institute seem to have no problems at all in finding jobs. How many of the "fellows" don't have jobs?

Stuart Burgess is a tenured professor at a quality British University.


The latest U.S. academic spat over science and religion was first reported in The Boston Globe newspaper on Friday. Gibbs Law Firm in Florida, which is representing Abraham, said he was seeking $500,000 in compensation.

Woods Hole, a federally funded nonprofit research center on Cape Cod, said in a statement it firmly believed its actions and those of its employees in the case were "entirely lawful" and that it does not discriminate.
Abraham, who was dismissed eight months after he was hired, said he was willing to do research using evolutionary concepts but that he had been required to accept Darwin's theory of evolution as scientific fact or lose his job.

The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination dismissed the case this year, saying Abraham's request not to work on evolutionary aspects of research would be difficult for Woods Hole because its work is based on evolutionary theories.

Abraham said this condition was never spelled out in the advertisement for the job and that his dismissal led to severe economic losses, an injured reputation, emotional pain and suffering and mental anguish.

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/c ... /15328.htm


Quite why Dr Gavriel Avital was even selected to be chief scientist at Israel's ministry of education is probably the most intriguing question that hangs over his tenure. But this week we learned that his time in office is no more for he has finally been sacked for the controversial remarks he made this year about evolution and climate change.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... on-climate
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Roger Stanyard » Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:26 pm

MrDunday wrote:
The latest U.S. academic spat over science and religion was first reported in The Boston Globe newspaper on Friday. Gibbs Law Firm in Florida, which is representing Abraham, said he was seeking $500,000 in compensation.

Woods Hole, a federally funded nonprofit research center on Cape Cod, said in a statement it firmly believed its actions and those of its employees in the case were "entirely lawful" and that it does not discriminate.
Abraham, who was dismissed eight months after he was hired, said he was willing to do research using evolutionary concepts but that he had been required to accept Darwin's theory of evolution as scientific fact or lose his job.

The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination dismissed the case this year, saying Abraham's request not to work on evolutionary aspects of research would be difficult for Woods Hole because its work is based on evolutionary theories.

Abraham said this condition was never spelled out in the advertisement for the job and that his dismissal led to severe economic losses, an injured reputation, emotional pain and suffering and mental anguish.

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/c ... /15328.htm


You forget to add the bit that he got a job in biology in academia after he was fired.

You also conveniently also "forgot" to mention that he lost his legal case against Woods Hole.

Don't worry, though. We have access to all the legal background on such cases so we can see right through your seedy cut and past scams.

BTW. Cut and past is in breach of our rules.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Brian Jordan » Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:06 am

Natman wrote:I might just start a campaign to get Michael as the new Archbishop of Canterbury. Or into the House of Lords at the very least.
Michael for Archbishop of York would suit me - I'd much rather see him all over the Yorkshire Post rather than Sentamu's misguided attempts at PR!
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4200
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Brian Jordan » Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:24 am

Michael wrote:I don't hold NOMA at all
Nor I when you dig down into the subject, but do you think it might be an adequate working hypothesis for school curricula?
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4200
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby MrDunday » Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:47 am

Roger Stanyard wrote:
MrDunday wrote:
The latest U.S. academic spat over science and religion was first reported in The Boston Globe newspaper on Friday. Gibbs Law Firm in Florida, which is representing Abraham, said he was seeking $500,000 in compensation.

Woods Hole, a federally funded nonprofit research center on Cape Cod, said in a statement it firmly believed its actions and those of its employees in the case were "entirely lawful" and that it does not discriminate.
Abraham, who was dismissed eight months after he was hired, said he was willing to do research using evolutionary concepts but that he had been required to accept Darwin's theory of evolution as scientific fact or lose his job.

The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination dismissed the case this year, saying Abraham's request not to work on evolutionary aspects of research would be difficult for Woods Hole because its work is based on evolutionary theories.

Abraham said this condition was never spelled out in the advertisement for the job and that his dismissal led to severe economic losses, an injured reputation, emotional pain and suffering and mental anguish.

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/c ... /15328.htm


You forget to add the bit that he got a job in biology in academia after he was fired.

You also conveniently also "forgot" to mention that he lost his legal case against Woods Hole.

Don't worry, though. We have access to all the legal background on such cases so we can see right through your seedy cut and past scams.

BTW. Cut and past is in breach of our rules.

Yes but why did he get fired in the first place? That really is the point, and to get hired, again means he was considered a respected scientists.I have mentioned about scientists that say the creation word, and i have some of you say what idiots they are. And what an idiot I am for believing in creation. Do you see the attitude? Time and again I hear this from those that believe in what the scientists are saying. The other problem is, this tells you that the science is interpreted by the scientists. On both sides.
I left website links where I go those from. I just brought out the part that I noticed.
I hope you guys do the same, because I would like to know what part of a paper, you felt was important. It makes it easier and more to the point.
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Scripture Debate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron