Did Obama jump the shark??

fast_eddie, what if the "creationists" are right about the creation of the earth, but are just wrong about the timeline?

non-believer checking-in, just playing devils advocate

bravenrace wrote: That is your reasoning? Pretty 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.

Well, as I said, you are free to believe as you like. It sounds like you are of the opinion that nothing can be known. If that's the case, then there's nothing to talk about. I can tell you the sky is blue and you can say you can't know for sure. That's your right.

As for my argument, it's absolutely fundamental. That's is strong point. We do, indeed, know and can measure the speed of light. Do you think that is in doubt? If so, I would encourage you to research it a bit more. We can, absolutely, measure the distance of many stars using parallax. It seems to me this would be quite difficult to dissagree with as it is a direct measurement. Not really too far from taking a tape measure and saying "that board is about six feet long". If you take those two items as known, then we do indeed know that those stars are more than 6,000 years old. That's not "human understanding". That's just measureable fact. There's no more understanding involved than there is in measuring an object to see if it will fit in a box.

z31maniac wrote: fast_eddie, what if the "creationists" are right about the creation of the earth, but are just wrong about the timeline? *non-believer checking-in, just playing devils advocate*

Then it's somehing else. It's not "Creationism".

bravenrace wrote:

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.

Actually, it's taking it to a logical extreme.

Look. One more time. I DID NOT SAY I CAN PROVE HOW THE EARTH WAS CREATED. So the fact that I did not observe it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CONVERSATION!!! Please stop implying that I said things I didn't say! Is that clear?

What I DID say is that the Universe is more than 6,000 years old. So Creationism is wrong. And I can, indeed, observe this as fact, as I pointed out. It is a direct observation and measurement.

Okay, I had to edit this, as I didn't read your response until after I wrote it. You are correct, I have used the wrong terms in a couple of my responses. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, I just said it wrong -My apologies. This is what I originally wrote:

"I'm going to leave it at this. One is my previous response that stated:

"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. "

The other is also a previous response that basically said that "if" there is a God, then the bible tells us that he is great and powerful beyond our comprehension. That means that somebody that thinks they have it all figured out, based on human understanding, may have in fact been incorrect, because human's can't understand it completely. Bravenrace out. "

Now, what I meant wasn't that you said you could prove how the earth was created, but that you know or can prove that creationism is false. I'm not even arguing that it is or isn't, just that everything you base that on is human understanding, which has been wrong many many times. So in my opinion, unless you can prove that our current understanding will never be proven wrong, you can't state with certainty that creationism is wrong. That's how I see it. Okay, now I'm done...maybe.

bravenrace wrote: The other is also a previous response that basically said that "if" there is a God, then the bible tells us that he is great and powerful beyond our comprehension. That means that somebody that thinks they have it all figured out, based on human understanding, may have in fact been incorrect, because human's can't understand it completely. Bravenrace out.

That's my point. If God can do anything how do you know that crashing yoru car into a wall will damage it? You can leave if you like, and it's probably the right thing to do. But you're not addressing anything I've said. I suspect you want to leave because you're becoming uncomfortable as you consider what I've said. Trust me brother, I've been there. If so, I completely understand.

You are not being consistent in your thinking or argument. If you can know that crashing a car into a wall will damage it, then you can not say nothing can be known for sure. It either can, or can not. There is no logic behind the position that says "God will allow my car to be damaged and me to be injured or maybe killed rather than divert from the laws of physics, but at other times in the past, God did not conform to the laws of physics that he himself created". Nor does it make sense for God to have given us reason and yet given us so many indications that the Universe was created differently than "faith" dictates. That characterizes God as a practical joker who is trying to trick us. I can't think of any religious tradition that would accept that as an answer.

bravenrace wrote: ...everything you base that on is human understanding, which has been wrong many many times.

I'm sorry, but no. It isn't. It isn't "human understanding" to directly measure the distance of the stars. It is simple measurement. It's the same human ability that got us to the Moon and sent crafts to the far planets and beyond. It's not a theoretical understanding of little understood ideas. It's concrete physics.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

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.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: What I DID say is that the Universe is more than 6,000 years old. So Creationism is wrong. And I can, indeed, observe this as fact, as I pointed out. It is a direct observation and measurement.

FWIW, that's a pretty narrow definition of Creationism. One can believe in a supernatural origin without believing in a young earth for instance.

"1500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that people were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow." - Agent K

“…but what I want to know is did God had a choice” – Einstein

DILYSI Dave wrote: FWIW, that's a pretty narrow definition of Creationism. One can believe in a supernatural origin without believing in a young earth for instance.

Yup. That is so. In fact, that is exactly what I'm saying.

If one believes in supernatural origin witout believing in a young earth, they do not belive in Creationism. They believe something happend other than what is recorded in the Bible. That is exactly my point. The creation story in Genesis is not literal fact.

oldsaw wrote: "1500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that people were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow." - Agent K

The Bible says the Earth is flat. It has corners. If you literally believe every word in the Bible is fact, you should be able to travel to a corner where the Earth ends.

If you write that off as a translation issue, then what else is translated wrong? And how can you take the rest of it literally if you know that one bit was translated poorly? And if God directed the people who wrote the Bible, why didn't he direct those who translated it?

In reply to RX Reven':

Which is why it's difficult (for me) to assign faith in institutions proclaimed as the be-all, end-all answer to everything. I would suggest, however, that it was the Church and not Christianity that fomented persecutions against science.

This statement, from an agnostic, is in no way intended as a slight to those who think otherwise......

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

oldsaw wrote: "1500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that people were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow." - Agent K

The Bible says the Earth is flat. It has corners. If you literally believe every word in the Bible is fact, you should be able to travel to a corner where the Earth ends. If you write that off as a translation issue, then what else is translated wrong? And how can you take the rest of it literally if you know that one bit was translated poorly? And if God directed the people who wrote the Bible, why didn't he direct those who translated it?

WTF? You're taking a freakin' quote from a comedy movie seriously?

Eddie, get a grip, my friend.

oldsaw wrote: WTF? You're taking a freakin' quote from a comedy movie seriously? Eddie, get a grip, my friend.

Just sayin'

z31maniac wrote: fast_eddie, what if the "creationists" are right about the creation of the earth, but are just wrong about the timeline? *non-believer checking-in, just playing devils advocate*

Are you insinuating that Creationism is a ruse to hide that some people are just not good at math? See I thought it was a ruse to pit a fake religion against science to set a legal footing so other groups with an agenda could have their doctrine represented as alternate truth in classrooms.

oldsaw wrote: Which is why it's difficult (for me) to assign faith in institutions proclaimed as the be-all, end-all answer to everything.

I'm curious, because I want to follow you here...

Who are you saying is proclaiming to be the be-all, end-all anser to everything?

fasteddie: I'm not saying you're right or wrong, and I'm not necessarily on either side of the fence in this argument.

What I will say is that science and archeology will never prove or disprove any religion. You're not going to dig up a house and find a sign that says "Mary and Joseph lived here."

Religion is about faith. As silly as that may sound to you, that's what it's about, and anyone on the religious side screaming and beating their chest trying to prove science wrong is wasting their time just as much as someone trying to argue the concept that there is no god to someone who believes there is.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

I'm deferring to Poopies' above response.......

And because I revel in denying you another opportunity to (again) rail against some people whose beliefs you cannot change.

Deal with it.

oldsaw wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

oldsaw wrote: "1500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that people were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow." - Agent K

The Bible says the Earth is flat. It has corners. If you literally believe every word in the Bible is fact, you should be able to travel to a corner where the Earth ends. If you write that off as a translation issue, then what else is translated wrong? And how can you take the rest of it literally if you know that one bit was translated poorly? And if God directed the people who wrote the Bible, why didn't he direct those who translated it?

WTF? You're taking a freakin' quote from a comedy movie seriously? Eddie, get a grip, my friend.

That's indicative of his "bull in a china shop" approach to debate.

I think he makes some good points, but could pare back the aggresiveness just a touch.

poopshovel wrote: What I will say is that science and archeology will never prove or disprove any religion. You're not going to dig up a house and find a sign that says "Mary and Joseph lived here."

I agree and I made no effort to prove or disprove religion. What I provided proof of is that the story of Creation told in Genesis is not literal history.

poopshovel wrote: Religion is about faith. As silly as that may sound to you, that's what it's about, and anyone on the religious side screaming and beating their chest trying to prove science wrong is wasting their time just as much as someone trying to argue the concept that there is no god to someone who believes there is.

Why do you say that may sound silly to me? As I've said several times, I am a religous person myself.

I agree with you, but wonder why you're saying this to me. I didn't say there is no God. In fact, I said there is a God. I'm not being pedantic, just trying to be clear. I agree with everythig you are saying here.

I really do like that quote from the Catholic Catechism:

"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"

There is no disconnect for me between science and religion. This seems to be a position the Catholic Church shares. That's a powerful statement. Not only does it say that science isn't wrong, it demands that religion and reason co-exist. I completely agree with that idea.

z31maniac wrote: That's indicative of his "bull in a china shop" approach to debate. I think he makes some good points, but could pare back the aggresiveness just a touch.

No doubt you are correct and my sincere apologies for coming on too strong. Believe it or not, I'm actually a lot better about it than I used to be and even in this thread have self edited a lot. But you are right. A lot of this was posted from a defensive postion and said in response to or anticipation of attacks, many of which never came. I am sorry for that. Please try to see the intent of my posts and look past the agressive language.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: There is no disconnect for me between science and religion. This seems to be a position the Catholic Church shares. That's a powerful statement. Not only does it say that science isn't wrong, it *demands* that religion and reason co-exist. I completely agree with that idea.

Umm, had you posted that to begin with, you'd have avoided a lot confrontation with those agree with you.

The devout atheists and creationists will reveal themselves and then they can start their own thread.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote: FWIW, that's a pretty narrow definition of Creationism. One can believe in a supernatural origin without believing in a young earth for instance.

Yup. That is so. In fact, that is exactly what I'm saying. If one believes in supernatural origin witout believing in a young earth, they do not belive in Creationism. They believe something happend other than what is recorded in the Bible. That is *exactly* my point. The creation story in Genesis is not literal fact.

OK - I never connected Creationism = Literal reading of Genesis. That's a new definition to me. I've always understood Creationism to be the belief that there is a creator. Thus, when you said you knew 100% that there wasn't, you got my initial response.

Thanks for continuing the exchange. I learned something.

Well, shoot.

I have to say - I didn't do this very well. I wan't trying to hide my position, but it sure seems like I didn't make it very clear. I tried.