bravenrace wrote: The Bible is all the evidence I need.
That is always the discussion ender isn't it? It is a book, assembled by men, from different texts written by other men. Just like the Torah, the Koran, and Reader's Digest.
I am not selling anything - so you are welcome to believe the answers you already have but there is no harm in asking difficult questions of those who told you that was all you needed is there?
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:bravenrace wrote: In reply to DILYSI Dave: Hmm, I guess I wasn't offended. I took the magic reference to be aimed at those who do not believe in God, not those that do. Isn't his point that many things that seem like magic turn out not to be? Maybe I interpreted it wrong?No. You interpreted it correctly. There are too many gods to list them all but they all require you suspend disbelief and just accept that some supernatural stuff happened that is attributed to the deity. That to me is belief in magic. It is not intended to be offensive.
Magic is slight of hand. Magic is illusion. Magic is tricking the senses. Essentially, magic is a lie. Equating someone's faith in a supernatural to a lie is pretty offensive, intentional or not.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:bravenrace wrote: In reply to DILYSI Dave: Hmm, I guess I wasn't offended. I took the magic reference to be aimed at those who do not believe in God, not those that do. Isn't his point that many things that seem like magic turn out not to be? Maybe I interpreted it wrong?No. You interpreted it correctly. There are too many gods to list them all but they all require you suspend disbelief and just accept that some supernatural stuff happened that is attributed to the deity. That to me is belief in magic. It is not intended to be offensive.
Then I DID misinterpret. I thought you were supporting the possiblity of God, not denouncing it. Still, I'm not offended, because that is obviously what you believe. I just think you're wrong.
In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:
Do you believe the information in your high school American History text book to be true? Because it was assembled by men from different texts by other men. If you do, you need to read "The 5000 Year Leap", because most American History books leave a huge part of history out and distort some of the other parts. Do you believe GRM? Because it was assembled by men from texts of different men. The point is you don't know, you believe in certain things that you can't prove, and so do I.
Datsun1500 wrote:bravenrace wrote: The Bible is all the evidence I need.The Bible is a book written by men. How is that book evidence? Scientologists study the books written by L. Ron Hubbard and think that all the evidence they need. Your book is evidence, theirs is science fiction?
The point is that neither of us know, we believe. We may believe in different things, but we both believe, we don't know. I'm not trying to say science is all wrong, just that at some point you have to "believe" in something. But when it comes to the origins of the Earth, or even science in general, History shows that thinking you actually know the answer inconclusively is foolish. We've been wrong too many times.
bravenrace wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: Do you believe the information in your high school American History text book to be true? Because it was assembled by men from different texts by other men. If you do, you need to read "The 5000 Year Leap", because most American History books leave a huge part of history out and distort some of the other parts. Do you believe GRM? Because it was assembled by men from texts of different men. The point is you don't know, you believe in certain things that you can't prove, and so do I.
As it turns out - no. Men are fallible. Much of that history I got in school was inaccurate. The victor gets to write the history book and even with the best of intentions there is a bias. You have to read a lot of different history books and assemble the picture yourself.
As for GRM - automobiles are the result of iterative application of science and since I can see it work and prove it for myself there is no faith or belief required. Am I skeptical of the results of tests in a magazine supported by advertising dollars... sometimes. Do I do my own investigation and ask my own questions? Yes.
bravenrace wrote: Then I DID misinterpret. I thought you were supporting the possiblity of God, not denouncing it. Still, I'm not offended, because that is obviously what you believe. I just think you're wrong.
Like I said - I'm not selling anything. I was raised in a religious family and I don't love them any less for their beliefs. I was being earnest. Personally, I question everything and it has led me far away from the things I once took for granted.
I do like the discussion/debate without all of the nastiness even if we are a zillion miles off-topic.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:bravenrace wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: Do you believe the information in your high school American History text book to be true? Because it was assembled by men from different texts by other men. If you do, you need to read "The 5000 Year Leap", because most American History books leave a huge part of history out and distort some of the other parts. Do you believe GRM? Because it was assembled by men from texts of different men. The point is you don't know, you believe in certain things that you can't prove, and so do I.As it turns out - no. Men are fallible. Much of that history I got in school was inaccurate. The victor gets to write the history book and even with the best of intentions there is a bias. You have to read a lot of different history books and assemble the picture yourself. As for GRM - automobiles are the result of iterative application of science and since I can see it work and prove it for myself there is no faith or belief required. Am I skeptical of the results of tests in a magazine supported by advertising dollars... sometimes. Do I do my own investigation and ask my own questions? Yes.
I think you now understand what I'm trying to say. I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm trying to point out that I don't believe that we as human's can be 100% certain that we've proven the creation of the Earth, or for that matter other scientific issues, like our contribution to Global Warming. We simply do not have enough historical data to say that we are 100% sure. We choose to believe something, whatever that is.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: I do like the discussion/debate without all of the nastiness even if we are a zillion miles off-topic.
Well, I think we agree that we are a zillion miles off-topic. 
it has always been interesting to me how all religions think that their way is the truth. not just now, but going back to even the mayans and incas, they thought their religion was the way it was. similarly, i've always kinda thought it a bit funny how people now refer to ancient religions as "mythology", when the religions today have no greater basis in proven fact than those that came before it.
I couldn't love GRM the magazine or the website more, and believe me, I don't like to be the P.C police or anything or the guy who has a problem with everything thing, but I do have a problem with this...
I find it a bit offensive that you use terms like "Teddy Bear," "Creation," "Science," etc etc... for your little descriptions or whatever in the postings. I myself am not a priest of the Great Teddy Bear Creationists religion, but I feel sensitivity for members of the GTBC Church as I am a student taking religious classes, and my Girlfriend is pursuing her masters in the field.
These terms although I'm pretty sure are not even real words, are obviously meant to resemble the words used to describe people of the GTBCC, and it appears that they are used on these boards in a joking sense which, as I view it, makes light of people who are afflicted with scientific method disabilities.
bravenrace wrote: I think you now understand what I'm trying to say. I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm trying to point out that I don't believe that we as human's can be 100% certain that we've proven the creation of the Earth, or for that matter other scientific issues, like our contribution to Global Warming. We simply do not have enough historical data to say that we are 100% sure. We choose to believe something, whatever that is.
I understand where you are trying to take me to but I cannot go along with the part where we just believe stuff "whatever it is". I do not accept anything that requires blind faith as a suitable answer. I'd rather just say I don't know and keep looking.
1988RedT2 wrote: I did a little reading in the wiki and I thought I'd pass this on. I found especially interesting the bit about the originator of the Big Bang Theory (and it is still just a theory) being a Catholic priest, and that the Pope endorsed the Big Bang Theory and said it was in accord with the concept of creationism.
Maybe I understand what's happening here. Yes, Father Lemaitre was the first person to propose the Big Bang theory (really, I am going to let you research what a theory is on your own. Gravity is "just a theory" too.) And yes, speaking as a Catholic, I’m familiar with the Church’s stand on the origins of the Universe. As much as I kid about the Catholic Church being just plain backward about some things, as religions go, they’re pretty reasonable about this. The Catholic Catechism has a great line: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth”
But you are getting some terms confused. Father Lemaitre and the Pope agree that the Big Bang is consistent with the Catholic Church’s teaching about the creation of the Universe. But the Catholic Church is not a fundamentalist church. They do not endorse a literal interpretation of the Bible. When I say Creationism, I’m talking about the fundamentalist, literal interpretation of the Genesis story of Creation. Perhaps I’m the one who is defining the term incorrectly, and if so I apologize. Just to make sure I wasn’t crazy, I did check with Wikipedia. In their article on Creationism, there is this bit:
“In the United States some religious communities have refused to accept, as theistic evolutionists have accepted, naturalistic explanations and tried instead to counter them. The term [Creationism] started to become associated with Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth in 1929.”
That is what I’m talking about. I did not say that I can prove God didn’t create the Universe. I did not say that I am 100% sure how the Universe was created. I did not say that I can prove evolution. I did not say that God isn’t guiding evolution. I simply said, and still say, that Creationism is wrong and has been proven so. I will have a follow up post here in a bit.
bravenrace wrote: I think you now understand what I'm trying to say. I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm trying to point out that I don't believe that we as human's can be 100% certain that we've proven the creation of the Earth, or for that matter other scientific issues, like our contribution to Global Warming. We simply do not have enough historical data to say that we are 100% sure. We choose to believe something, whatever that is.
This is undeniably true. The point I've been trying to make is that this does not mean that we don't know anything. This does not mean that we can not rule out some posibilities. We know enough to know how it didn't happen. And to be fair, we have a reasonable idea how it did happen. Do we have the whole story? No, we don't and no one claims to (except the Creationists who say it happened exactly as recorded in the Bible. No one else claims to know everything). But that doesn't mean we don't have a great deal of information about it.
In reply to fast_eddie_72:
Please forgive me my confusion. Just to be sure I'm clear on this point, when you say that you're "100% sure Creationism is wrong" you're not referring to the particular notion of Creationism as espoused by the Catholic Church, but rather that brand of Creationism adhered to by fundamentalist extremists?
The debate rages within the scientific community, too. A Christian astronomer is denied a position because his peers "fear" his religious views may interfere with his science:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/17/scientist-alleges-religious-discrimination-ky/
Looks like one group has placed all its' faith in science and is aligned against one person who believes in science AND faith......... 
In reply to 1988RedT2:
Those "fundamental extremists" include the Baptist church and pretty much all the non-denominational megachurches. It is a very large, very vocal segment of the Christian population.
In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:
I don't think I meant that the way you took it. I didn't mean that we believe "whatever". I meant that there are things that we choose to believe, whatever they are for any particular person.
fast_eddie_72 wrote:bravenrace wrote: I think you now understand what I'm trying to say. I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm trying to point out that I don't believe that we as human's can be 100% certain that we've proven the creation of the Earth, or for that matter other scientific issues, like our contribution to Global Warming. We simply do not have enough historical data to say that we are 100% sure. We choose to believe something, whatever that is.This is undeniably true. The point I've been trying to make is that this does not mean that we don't know anything. This does not mean that we can not rule out some posibilities. We know *enough* to know how it didn't happen. And to be fair, we have a reasonable idea how it did happen. Do we have the whole story? No, we don't and no one claims to (except the Creationists who say it happened exactly as recorded in the Bible. No one else claims to know everything). But that doesn't mean we don't have a great deal of information about it.
I agree. But you are claiming to know for sure that creationism is false, and I say you can't possibly know that for sure, because you're conclusion is based on human understanding, which has been proven incorrect many times. In the end, you believe it. You may even believe that you know it, but you can't know it. Nobody can.
bravenrace wrote: In reply to fast_eddie_72: Seriously, how do you expect anyone here to consider you to have a lick of credibility when you just sit there and tell us all that we are wrong, and you can prove it, but you're too lazy to do it?
Okay. This deserves a response. This is what got me started:
bravenrace wrote: You don't know that creationism, hyperinflation, the wisdom of buying gold, global economic meltdown are completely wrong. You "think" they are, but you do not "know" they are. This lack of objectiveness leaves you with no credibility at all.
This is incorrect. I do know Creationism is wrong. You assume I have any interest in convincing you of that as well. Immediately it became clear you were not interested in any reasonable discussion about it, so I elected to leave it at that. Except I didn’t. Others engaged in a more reasonable manner. So you make a good point. If I had walked away when I said I was going to my position would have been a good one. But I didn’t. I kept posting. So, since I’m here, I guess I owe you one.
Now, for the record, I know exactly where this will lead. And when it does, hopefully I will have the grace and dignity to point it out and walk away as I should have in the first place. But, here it goes. One element of proof that the Biblical story of Creationism is wrong. There are many, but we’ll start with one. It will be enough to make my point about how this argument will go.
Central to the argument for Creation is the notion of a so called “young Earth”. Something on the order of 6,000 years old I believe. Yet, we know for sure, and can prove, that the Earth and Universe are much older than that. Here on Earth, radioisotope dating tells us that many things on Earth are billions of years old. More directly, we can observe the stars of the Universe. We know the speed of light and so can calculate the distance of stars. Even simple (though mind numbingly precise) parallax measurements can show stars that are sufficiently far away to disprove Young Earth theory. If a star is 20,000 light years from Earth, and we can see it, then the light we see started on its journey here 20,000 years ago. That directly and observably proves that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old. And a quick glance at the night sky shows you many, many examples of stars much further away than that. If you’ve ever seen the Andromeda Galaxy (which can be seen with the naked eye on a very dark night away from the city) you are looking back in time something on the order of 2.5 million years.
Again, to be clear, my goal here is not to convince anyone of anything. You asked how I know 100% that Creationism is wrong. This is one of the ways I know.
bravenrace wrote: I agree. But you are claiming to know for sure that creationism is false, and I say you can't possibly know that for sure, because you're conclusion is based on human understanding, which has been proven incorrect many times. In the end, you believe it. You may even believe that you know it, but you can't know it. Nobody can.
Please look over the last couple of pages. Again, if you follow this line of thought, which you are free to do, you have to conclude that nothing can be known. If I drive my car into a brick wall, my car will be damaged. How do you know? I've seen it happen before. But how do you know it will happen this time? You take it on faith that your have an understanding of the results of bashing a car into a wall? No- there's no faith there. You do know. It's academic.
If, indeed, you believe nothing can be known, there is no use in having a discussion. If you belive things can be known, there's no argument for Biblical Creation. It's simply not true.
1988RedT2 wrote: In reply to fast_eddie_72: Please forgive me my confusion. Just to be sure I'm clear on this point, when you say that you're "100% sure Creationism is wrong" you're not referring to the particular notion of Creationism as espoused by the Catholic Church, but rather that brand of Creationism adhered to by fundamentalist extremists?
Yes. The Catholic Church does not espouse Creationism.
That is your reasoning? I was expecting something a little less fundamental. Everything you just said is based on human understanding, which has been wrong many times. Because of this, and in IMHO, you can't know, unless you can prove that our current understanding will never be proven wrong, which you cannot.
fast_eddie_72 wrote: Again, if you follow this line of thought, which you are free to do, you have to conclude that nothing can be known.
It's not that I didn't read the last couple pages, I just don't agree with you on this. Some things can be proven and some cannot. You've seen what happens when a car drives into a wall. You have never seen the earth be created. They are different. I absolutely do not agree with your extrpolation that if we can't know the origins of the earth we can't know anything. That's taking it to an illogical extreme.
You'll need to log in to post.
