Poll: How do we get them to see the truth?
This poll is closed.
Peacefull reasoning 69.23% 9 69.23%
Full attack of facts 30.77% 4 30.77%
Total 13 votes 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-06-2016, 08:56 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(13-06-2016 08:39 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(13-06-2016 05:22 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  DNA and fine-tuning of universe clearly show design. Step into theology. Study the different religions. Christianity is truth.

These are my theological beliefs after a life time of study of numerous subjects, including science. I am not trying to sound condescending or act like I am better than you. I mean it when I say that because these are my beliefs.

Sin led to all these things you mentioned.

So sin, death and disease entered the world after Adam ate the fruit?

That's a falsifiable statement.


Do we know anything about the kinds of diseases that affected dinosaurs?


"Infections were quite rare; there are only isolated known examples, which have been observed in Dilophosaurus, Troodon, Camptosaurus, Allosaurus, as well as duckbill and horned dinosaurs. The most famous instance of infection might be the skull of a duckbill dinosaur (a Lambeosaurus) which shows a dental abscess. Given the size of a duckbill dinosaur's tooth row, that must have hurt!

So there you have it, dinosaurs, who lived long before humans, had diseases.

Also, this details an age range spanning multiple species from about 185 mya to 65 mya.

Do you understand what this means?

That means that death, disease and suffering existed long before humans existed. Even before the apple tree existed!

There have been 5 major extinction events in the Earth's past. Death on an unimaginable scale dating back to 450 mya.

This simply doesn't fit your mythological narrative presented in the bible.

This leaves you with a few options:

1. Ignore the evidence
2. Reinterpret the Genesis story to match science
3. Dismiss Genesis as mere metaphor
4. Double down and default to "mystery"
5. Accept the evidence and realize it doesn't match this story

Only one of these is the honest option. Drinking Beverage

Death entered the world for man after the fall. I believe there was animal death prior to the fall of man. I believe that is how Adam knew what God meant when He told him that if he ate from the tree of knowledge he would surely die. I think animal death was the example. God knows all and in my interpretation, he knew, despite Adam seeing the example of animal death, he would still disobey. Jesus, Son of God, came to this earth to redeem us from this fall.

I believe Adam walked the earth somewhere between 50,000 - 200,000 years ago. I believe the genealogy in the Bible from Adam to Abraham are just the key highlights of descendants (great grandfathers,...). I believe the Neanderthals and the like were like monkeys and belonged to the animal kingdom and Adam and Eve were the first modern humans which all our DNA traces back to.

I believe Ellen White created the ridiculous 6000 year old earth (Young Earth Creationism) to make Christianity appear as if it is based on a weak argument. I believe she was a false prophetess and deliberately created this view as a straw man to be easily knocked down. She made up many other rules and false interpretations and made it more difficult for people to come to Christianity. She made/makes her Christian followers lives hard with all these rules as well and adds on to God's commands which is strictly forbidden.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2016, 08:58 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(13-06-2016 04:48 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  I said the 747 jumbo jet is a complete joke to the specified complexity and irreducible complexity of living systems and molecular machines. Do you know how many man-hours it takes to design and build a 747 jumbo-jets and how much intellect is behind that? Do you know how many millenium it took for mankind to gain the knowledge to just be able to conceive the design and build of a 747 jumbo jet?

I understand what you said, and what you meant. And I am trying (and apparently failing) to explain to you that your analogy does not work for biochemistry, and I tried to explain why. You do not listen to what I'm saying. It doesn't matter how many man-hours it took to design and build a 747 because the mechanisms at work in refining metal and constructing an aircraft are nothing like the way biochemistry works. The only similarity is that we are discussing incredibly complex systems. They have no other relation. For you to continue to insist that this is some sort of valid analogy shows me that you do not even understand the scientific principles to which you are attempting to object.

(13-06-2016 04:48 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  Some of the greatest achievements in science were made by scientists who did not conform to the consensus scientific opinion at the time (some even at the threat of death). So when you tell me, "It's funny, then, that I can't even think of a leading-edge quantum physicist who believes that God does any of those things" it doesn't really matter since I feel the scientific evidence and proof is so strong for a Designer and Creator, these types of explanations need to be considered.

I totally agree! If scientists were to offer legitimate challenges to the Theory of Evolution, they would be heeded, even lauded, though they might have to climb a larger hill since the evidence for evolution is so solid. It is hilarious, then, that the main defense Intelligent Design proponents try to offer for why scientists don't accept their claims is that, in this one particular case, scientists have decided to abandon the scientific method of inquiry and simply ignore an idea because they don't like its conclusions... particularly those about God, as you seem to imply with the phrase "atheist scientists". The problem is that many scientists in the field of evolutionary biology are Christians, and they have no issue with agreeing with every thing I think about how evolution works (along with the rest of the natural world). One of the main and most vocal opponents of Intelligent Design as an idea is Kenneth Miller, a Christian. The reason he gives for this is quite simple: ID has not produced the evidence or arguments they claim to make, and most of what they claim (as Chas linked you to) has been thoroughly and roundly debunked.

(13-06-2016 04:48 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  Provide chapter and verse on those alleged scientific inaccuracies. None of them hold weight. I read them all before and each can be easily refuted. Again, the information in DNA and the construction of the cell is proof of design of living systems and the fine-tuning of the universe is proof of design of the universe, so it may be time to start thinking theologically.

Look, you can repeat that mantra of yours about "proof of design" all you want, but it simply is not true and does not become true by repetition, and there are many Christians who are working in the top of their fields in science who can explain to you why that is so.

As for an example of a misunderstanding of that sort, I will show you where the story in Genesis 30, about the forefather of the nation of Israel (and after whom it was named) and how he gained his fortune by manipulating the gene pool of sheep he was tending using what we thought up until the monk Gregor Mendel discovered what genes were. It's something known as Lamarckian Inheritance:

Lamarckism (or Lamarckian inheritance) is the idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it has acquired during its lifetime to its offspring (also known as heritability of acquired characteristics or soft inheritance). It is named after the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829), who incorporated the action of soft inheritance into his evolutionary theories as a supplement to his concept of an inherent progressive tendency driving organisms continuously towards greater complexity, in parallel but separate lineages with no extinction. Lamarck did not originate the idea of soft inheritance, which proposes that individual efforts during the lifetime of the organisms were the main mechanism driving species to adaptation, as they supposedly would acquire adaptive changes and pass them on to offspring.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

This is what everyone thought, even before Lamarck put it into a codified structure to publish. Animals were seen to suit their environments, and to adapt to changing conditions over time, and the conclusion was that they acquired traits from their environment, which they then passed on to their offspring. That's what the story of Genesis 30 tells, in explaining how Laban's flocks were altered by Jacob's cleverness in cutting strips in the bark of Poplar branches (to make light/dark stripes) and placing them in front of where they mated so they'd see the "new environment" when they went to drink there and mate, since he had an agreement with Laban to keep as payment any sheep that turned up non-white.

It was a good idea, and it had its run until Mendel proved it wrong (indeed, many of the mistakes that Darwin did make--evolution by Natural Selection not being one of those mistakes, btw-- were from thinking it worked like the Bible and Lamarck suggested they do, rather than being aware of Mendel's genetic inheritance discovery. But it is my favorite example of how the Bronze/Iron-Age peoples of Israel did not know about science as we do today, and made such errors.

The problem is, of course, that once you accept that the story in Genesis 30 is completely wrong and would not have resulted in the outcome it claims for Laban and Jacob, you have no storyline basis for the wealth that let Jacob become Israel and give his name to God's Chosen People™. So it's more important a distinction than you might think, looking at it from a "duh, genetics!" modern point of view.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
13-06-2016, 09:01 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(13-06-2016 08:52 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(13-06-2016 08:42 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  He did not believe in a personal God but he believed the universe was created. There are references of him being agnostic and then also pantheistic. Never atheistic. You claimed he was an atheist and that is not the case which I was refuting and which is true.

I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.

- Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism; quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2
From the source below:

Einstein’s religion, if you have to put a label to it, is a sort of nebulous Deism: Maybe God played in role in creating the universe — because nature inspires such awe and the universe seems perfectly guided by mathematics — but that God has no direct affect on our lives today.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyath...od-or-not/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2016, 09:04 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(13-06-2016 08:56 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  
(13-06-2016 08:39 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  So sin, death and disease entered the world after Adam ate the fruit?

That's a falsifiable statement.


Do we know anything about the kinds of diseases that affected dinosaurs?


"Infections were quite rare; there are only isolated known examples, which have been observed in Dilophosaurus, Troodon, Camptosaurus, Allosaurus, as well as duckbill and horned dinosaurs. The most famous instance of infection might be the skull of a duckbill dinosaur (a Lambeosaurus) which shows a dental abscess. Given the size of a duckbill dinosaur's tooth row, that must have hurt!

So there you have it, dinosaurs, who lived long before humans, had diseases.

Also, this details an age range spanning multiple species from about 185 mya to 65 mya.

Do you understand what this means?

That means that death, disease and suffering existed long before humans existed. Even before the apple tree existed!

There have been 5 major extinction events in the Earth's past. Death on an unimaginable scale dating back to 450 mya.

This simply doesn't fit your mythological narrative presented in the bible.

This leaves you with a few options:

1. Ignore the evidence
2. Reinterpret the Genesis story to match science
3. Dismiss Genesis as mere metaphor
4. Double down and default to "mystery"
5. Accept the evidence and realize it doesn't match this story

Only one of these is the honest option. Drinking Beverage

Death entered the world for man after the fall. I believe there was animal death prior to the fall of man. I believe that is how Adam knew what God meant when He told him that if he ate from the tree of knowledge he would surely die. I think animal death was the example. God knows all and in my interpretation, he knew, despite Adam seeing the example of animal death, he would still disobey. Jesus, Son of God, came to this earth to redeem us from this fall.

I believe Adam walked the earth somewhere between 50,000 - 200,000 years ago. I believe the genealogy in the Bible from Adam to Abraham are just the key highlights of descendants (great grandfathers,...). I believe the Neanderthals and the like were like monkeys and belonged to the animal kingdom and Adam and Eve were the first modern humans which all our DNA traces back to.

I believe Ellen White created the ridiculous 6000 year old earth (Young Earth Creationism) to make Christianity appear as if it is based on a weak argument. I believe she was a false prophetess and deliberately created this view as a straw man to be easily knocked down. She made up many other rules and false interpretations and made it more difficult for people to come to Christianity. She made/makes her Christian followers lives hard with all these rules as well and adds on to God's commands which is strictly forbidden.

Well, that's just not fair. What did the animals do to deserve death? Death for them was just to serve as an example to man? What a dick move, God. Poor animals....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2016, 09:09 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
Einstein denied being an atheist, and also repeatedly said he did not believe in a God in any sense like the Jodeo-Christian mythologies meant it. He said from the point of view of a Jesuit Priest, he would be considered an atheist, since he rejected those claims utterly. Einstein's belief was that it was impossible to know, but that the structure of the universe was plenty enough to consider awe-inspiring. So give it up. He wasn't an atheist in our sense, but he did reject all of the orianized religions' claims.

Most scientists, as Neil deGrasse Tyson has explained numerous times, don't even care about the question of God because it is irrelevant to most of the work they do. The Believers don't bring it up, nor do the atheists argue with them about it, because they consider the claims of Bronze Age goatherder tribes to be ridiculous.

And you really, REALLY need to go read the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, to see where your ideas were destroyed under oath, when their chief scientific contributor was questioned about his claims in light of what has been published by others on the subjects he raises. You are clearly just as unaware as he was... and perhaps you can be excused for not knowing them. But now you have no excuse.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
13-06-2016, 09:10 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(13-06-2016 07:32 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  
(13-06-2016 04:45 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Sorry, that's the theistic approach.


"Specified complexity" is a non-starter until there is a definition of what it is. I'm still waiting for anybody to say who specified what. Irreducible complexity has been debunked countless times. Read up on the Dover/Kitzmiller trial and see what a beating Behe took when he tried to claim that.


Citation required. The only example I know what Dawkins being forced to come up with any explanation at all for life on Earth that was not the result of abiogenesis and evolution.

No reputable scientists thinks that panspermia is a final answer since, as you note, it suffers the same regression problems that "god did it" does.


Can the constants be different than they are?
Can they be altered independently?
Is the universe we observe unique?
Without being able to answer the questions all we can say is that we appear to have evolved to fit the universe. Claims to the contrary make invalid assumptions.


No, it is not nonsense but it is unsupported by evidence. If anybody is claiming that there actually is a multiverse then they are jumping the gun. At this point it is an interesting conjecture and it will be fascinating to see if science can find evidence to support or discredit the idea. In the meantime, the answer is "we don't know" and not "it is nonsense". The thing is, it answers the questions of fine tuning at least as well as the claim for a god without requiring that a hugely complex intelligence simply exists without cause. If I had to bet on one or the other then Occam's Razor favors a multiverse of some sort.

Specify means "1. identify clearly and definitely. 2. state a fact or requirement clearly and precisely."

Complexity means, "the state or quality of being intricate or complicated."

Hence, specified complexity of living systems and molecular machines means they are both 1.clearly and precisely identified and 2. intricate and complicated.

The DNA to molecular machines are beyond that even. They are so precise and so complex it boggles the mind. A fully functional 747 is a joke in comparison to how these micro-machines were built and operate.

I provide the definition of irreducible complexity in a post above and show how it is not refuted.

There is the Dawkins example and all of this:

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=ch...scientists

If constants of universe were different, life would not exist.
No, if one of the over 20 constants were off, life would not exist.
This is the only universe we know of or have any evidence for.

You did not understand the arguments or the fact that your definition of irreducible complexity reduces to Dawkins' definition.

The argument you miss is that the system as it is today is built from pieces that had some other function in the past.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2016, 09:10 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(13-06-2016 09:01 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  Einstein’s religion, if you have to put a label to it, is a sort of nebulous Deism: Maybe God played in role in creating the universe — because nature inspires such awe and the universe seems perfectly guided by mathematics — but that God has no direct affect on our lives today.

In regards to your god, Einstein said he was an atheist.


Why do theists insist on using lies and half truths?

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2016, 09:11 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(13-06-2016 07:43 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  
(13-06-2016 05:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  Constant repetition of your false dichotomy doesn't make it any less false.


So, is the ichneumon wasp intelligently designed? It paralyzes a host (such as a caterpillar) and lays an egg on, near, or inside the host's body. Upon hatching, the larval ichneumon feeds either externally or internally, killing the host when it is ready to pupate.
Note that the larva eat the host while it is alive.

Nice design.

If one looks at the actual details of life, it becomes abundantly clear that is is not intelligently designed.

Can't argue the facts or refute the obvious case that these extremely specified and complex and irreducibly complex living systems are obviously, clearly, and totally 100 percent absolutely designed so try to attack the design and the Designer. Nice try but I seen this trick before.

Your opinion is not an argument. The evidence is all against you.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2016, 09:15 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(13-06-2016 08:35 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  He was not atheist. He believed this universe was created. You incorrectly said he was atheist.

Citation required.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2016, 09:16 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(13-06-2016 08:58 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(13-06-2016 04:48 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  I said the 747 jumbo jet is a complete joke to the specified complexity and irreducible complexity of living systems and molecular machines. Do you know how many man-hours it takes to design and build a 747 jumbo-jets and how much intellect is behind that? Do you know how many millenium it took for mankind to gain the knowledge to just be able to conceive the design and build of a 747 jumbo jet?

I understand what you said, and what you meant. And I am trying (and apparently failing) to explain to you that your analogy does not work for biochemistry, and I tried to explain why. You do not listen to what I'm saying. It doesn't matter how many man-hours it took to design and build a 747 because the mechanisms at work in refining metal and constructing an aircraft are nothing like the way biochemistry works. The only similarity is that we are discussing incredibly complex systems. They have no other relation. For you to continue to insist that this is some sort of valid analogy shows me that you do not even understand the scientific principles to which you are attempting to object.

(13-06-2016 04:48 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  Some of the greatest achievements in science were made by scientists who did not conform to the consensus scientific opinion at the time (some even at the threat of death). So when you tell me, "It's funny, then, that I can't even think of a leading-edge quantum physicist who believes that God does any of those things" it doesn't really matter since I feel the scientific evidence and proof is so strong for a Designer and Creator, these types of explanations need to be considered.

I totally agree! If scientists were to offer legitimate challenges to the Theory of Evolution, they would be heeded, even lauded, though they might have to climb a larger hill since the evidence for evolution is so solid. It is hilarious, then, that the main defense Intelligent Design proponents try to offer for why scientists don't accept their claims is that, in this one particular case, scientists have decided to abandon the scientific method of inquiry and simply ignore an idea because they don't like its conclusions... particularly those about God, as you seem to imply with the phrase "atheist scientists". The problem is that many scientists in the field of evolutionary biology are Christians, and they have no issue with agreeing with every thing I think about how evolution works (along with the rest of the natural world). One of the main and most vocal opponents of Intelligent Design as an idea is Kenneth Miller, a Christian. The reason he gives for this is quite simple: ID has not produced the evidence or arguments they claim to make, and most of what they claim (as Chas linked you to) has been thoroughly and roundly debunked.

(13-06-2016 04:48 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  Provide chapter and verse on those alleged scientific inaccuracies. None of them hold weight. I read them all before and each can be easily refuted. Again, the information in DNA and the construction of the cell is proof of design of living systems and the fine-tuning of the universe is proof of design of the universe, so it may be time to start thinking theologically.

Look, you can repeat that mantra of yours about "proof of design" all you want, but it simply is not true and does not become true by repetition, and there are many Christians who are working in the top of their fields in science who can explain to you why that is so.

As for an example of a misunderstanding of that sort, I will show you where the story in Genesis 30, about the forefather of the nation of Israel (and after whom it was named) and how he gained his fortune by manipulating the gene pool of sheep he was tending using what we thought up until the monk Gregor Mendel discovered what genes were. It's something known as Lamarckian Inheritance:

Lamarckism (or Lamarckian inheritance) is the idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it has acquired during its lifetime to its offspring (also known as heritability of acquired characteristics or soft inheritance). It is named after the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829), who incorporated the action of soft inheritance into his evolutionary theories as a supplement to his concept of an inherent progressive tendency driving organisms continuously towards greater complexity, in parallel but separate lineages with no extinction. Lamarck did not originate the idea of soft inheritance, which proposes that individual efforts during the lifetime of the organisms were the main mechanism driving species to adaptation, as they supposedly would acquire adaptive changes and pass them on to offspring.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

This is what everyone thought, even before Lamarck put it into a codified structure to publish. Animals were seen to suit their environments, and to adapt to changing conditions over time, and the conclusion was that they acquired traits from their environment, which they then passed on to their offspring. That's what the story of Genesis 30 tells, in explaining how Laban's flocks were altered by Jacob's cleverness in cutting strips in the bark of Poplar branches (to make light/dark stripes) and placing them in front of where they mated so they'd see the "new environment" when they went to drink there and mate, since he had an agreement with Laban to keep as payment any sheep that turned up non-white.

It was a good idea, and it had its run until Mendel proved it wrong (indeed, many of the mistakes that Darwin did make--evolution by Natural Selection not being one of those mistakes, btw-- were from thinking it worked like the Bible and Lamarck suggested they do, rather than being aware of Mendel's genetic inheritance discovery. But it is my favorite example of how the Bronze/Iron-Age peoples of Israel did not know about science as we do today, and made such errors.

The problem is, of course, that once you accept that the story in Genesis 30 is completely wrong and would not have resulted in the outcome it claims for Laban and Jacob, you have no storyline basis for the wealth that let Jacob become Israel and give his name to God's Chosen People™. So it's more important a distinction than you might think, looking at it from a "duh, genetics!" modern point of view.

There is no way around the absolute precision, astounding specificity, and astonishing complexity of the living system. It is so precise, specific, and complex, it is beyond comprehension and then on top of all that, it is irreducibly complex, meaning one component fails and the system fails or is degraded. Then the universe is un-imaginably fine-tuned. Next step, theology.

See my response post to those earlier videos for my take on that.

The Genesis 30 story is a miracle performed. See the interpretation below:
https://www.quora.com/How-do-biblical-li...s-30-37-39
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: