Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
PureX
Well-known member
True, but it holds them together and gives them a reason to feel purposeful, knowledgable, and even superior. This has always been the attraction of fundimentalism. Unfortunately, it's a union, mindset and value system built on the disparagement and exclusion of others. It has to be at war with an "other" to function. Also unfortunately, it progresses, if unchecked, toward the extreme. The more starkly the fundimentalist can define himself against the "other", the stronger his sense of self becomes; it's predatory in that way. I don't think fundimentalism is really an ideology. I think it's more of an emotional illness being expressed as an ideology.
Terrorism is the most extreme result of fundimentalism. But yes, to them this would be called "success".
In the case of Christian fundimentalism, they often become the same thing: to destroy the sinner is to "help" him. He has to be "broken" so that he can then be indoctrinated with the truth. And if he is not, he is "dead" already.
Yes, but remember, the demons they are trying to destroy are really in their own hearts. That doesn't make them any less dangerous, when they THINK the demons are in you, though. I understand.
Psycho Dave wrote:
<Induction is when you take a series of facts, then figure out how they
are related, and then conclude new facts accurately based on observations. For example, if A +
B = C, and we know that c=5, through induction, we can conclude that b=5. That is induction.>
Where did you study math? The value of B depends on the value of A. B could be any number whatsoever if you don't restrict the value of A.
<Zakath also pointed out what I already alluded to -- there are plenty of theories about the origin
of life and the universe. Just because no single theory seems to be THE SMOKING GUN,
doesn't mean that all of those theories are useless.>
Perhaps not, but so far, have any of them proved to be useful in terms of bettering our lives? The only one that has endured the test of evidence so far is the big bang theory, and Hawkings's conjecture only pushes back the debate one more step. If God could cause the "big bang", he could cause the initial conditions from which it resulted. It is a little like arguing that God didn't necessarily create life on earth because it could have been brought from another planet. Then the argument just steps back to: where did that life come from?
I'll admit that I don't understand Hawkings's equations, but I do know enough about basic physics to have lots of questions about his conjectures. However, I am critical of Zakath for trying to intimidate his opponent by trying to describe something that he himself doesn't understand.
Of course, we would never have got into this fruitless discussion if Enyart had not made the mistake of bringing up this classical cosmological argument. IMHO, it is always a mistake to try to prove something about spiritual phenomena in terms of physical phenomena. You can't learn the truth about anything unless you study it on its own terms. E.g., you don't learn much about whales and sharks if you study them confined to a swimming pool, and you don't learn much about wild animals while you keep them caged in a laboratory. Similarly, you won't know the whole truth about God if you try to yank Him into what Zakath can see and feel. What Enyart should have done is present evidence of the existence of a world of spirit, and proceed from there.
<500 years ago, people just like Bob Enyart
were trying to tell Galileo that Coppernicus's heliocentric universe was impossible, because the
Bible and Ptolomey told us everything we needed to know.>
That is true, and it is all the more reason for science today to make some effort to keep from making the same mistake. In our day, science rules and dictates what is truth and what isn't. Teachers are fired for
suggesting that evolution is not a proven fact, despite the fact that evolutionists have never been able to answer the random variation criticism. In Galileo's day, if your logic failed you could always appeal to authority (the pope), but now you appeal to Carl Sagan or Hawkings, neither of which is more reliable when it comes to cosmological speculation.
< Most importantly, I know how Bob will respond to
Zakath. He will likely blow off all of the material that Zakath produced from scientists, and start
a new branch of discussion.>
The problem is that Zakath hasn't actually produced any evidence, only conjecture based on mathematical models, which are notoriously unreliable. (I can cite many examples, if you want to get into that.) But you are probably right about Enyart introducing one red herring after another. Most of the questions that he asked could be answered either way without proving anything at all about the existence, or nonexistence, of God.
But what worries me most about this debate is that it appears to be asymmetric. Enyart tries to argue for the existence of God, and Zakath criticizes the arguments. For the sake of fairness, it should be equally incumbent on Zakath to present arguments for the nonexistence of God.
<Induction is when you take a series of facts, then figure out how they
are related, and then conclude new facts accurately based on observations. For example, if A +
B = C, and we know that c=5, through induction, we can conclude that b=5. That is induction.>
Where did you study math? The value of B depends on the value of A. B could be any number whatsoever if you don't restrict the value of A.
<Zakath also pointed out what I already alluded to -- there are plenty of theories about the origin
of life and the universe. Just because no single theory seems to be THE SMOKING GUN,
doesn't mean that all of those theories are useless.>
Perhaps not, but so far, have any of them proved to be useful in terms of bettering our lives? The only one that has endured the test of evidence so far is the big bang theory, and Hawkings's conjecture only pushes back the debate one more step. If God could cause the "big bang", he could cause the initial conditions from which it resulted. It is a little like arguing that God didn't necessarily create life on earth because it could have been brought from another planet. Then the argument just steps back to: where did that life come from?
I'll admit that I don't understand Hawkings's equations, but I do know enough about basic physics to have lots of questions about his conjectures. However, I am critical of Zakath for trying to intimidate his opponent by trying to describe something that he himself doesn't understand.
Of course, we would never have got into this fruitless discussion if Enyart had not made the mistake of bringing up this classical cosmological argument. IMHO, it is always a mistake to try to prove something about spiritual phenomena in terms of physical phenomena. You can't learn the truth about anything unless you study it on its own terms. E.g., you don't learn much about whales and sharks if you study them confined to a swimming pool, and you don't learn much about wild animals while you keep them caged in a laboratory. Similarly, you won't know the whole truth about God if you try to yank Him into what Zakath can see and feel. What Enyart should have done is present evidence of the existence of a world of spirit, and proceed from there.
<500 years ago, people just like Bob Enyart
were trying to tell Galileo that Coppernicus's heliocentric universe was impossible, because the
Bible and Ptolomey told us everything we needed to know.>
That is true, and it is all the more reason for science today to make some effort to keep from making the same mistake. In our day, science rules and dictates what is truth and what isn't. Teachers are fired for
suggesting that evolution is not a proven fact, despite the fact that evolutionists have never been able to answer the random variation criticism. In Galileo's day, if your logic failed you could always appeal to authority (the pope), but now you appeal to Carl Sagan or Hawkings, neither of which is more reliable when it comes to cosmological speculation.
< Most importantly, I know how Bob will respond to
Zakath. He will likely blow off all of the material that Zakath produced from scientists, and start
a new branch of discussion.>
The problem is that Zakath hasn't actually produced any evidence, only conjecture based on mathematical models, which are notoriously unreliable. (I can cite many examples, if you want to get into that.) But you are probably right about Enyart introducing one red herring after another. Most of the questions that he asked could be answered either way without proving anything at all about the existence, or nonexistence, of God.
But what worries me most about this debate is that it appears to be asymmetric. Enyart tries to argue for the existence of God, and Zakath criticizes the arguments. For the sake of fairness, it should be equally incumbent on Zakath to present arguments for the nonexistence of God.
Flipper
New member
August:
Oh, and I suppose that Bob Enyart understands the mechanics of a fiat creation then, does he?
That's a ridiculous argument. There are different levels of understanding. A layperson's presentation of an theory can be accurate. The layperson must trust that the science or theoretical math behind it is reasonably sound and has been held up to the scrutiny and criticism of peers.
We can rely to a reasonable extent on descriptions of science by scientists written for the moderately educated amateur. It is possible to convey a feel for what the hypothesis is describing, and to get an idea of the current strength of evidence in favor or against it is. You can also understand what sort of support a particular theory or hypothesis might have. Unlike many creationists, I am happy to be informed by experts in a field. It doesn't mean you should accept everything they say uncritically, but the weight of scientific history has so far been on the side of the physicist and I see no reason why we should not continue to look to them for answers to increasingly fundamental questions.
If Zakath had a profound understanding of the various cosmological arguments, would it have advanced the debate any if he had thrown up an impenetrable wall of equations?
But as you point out, it was Bob who brought up the cosmological argument and drew the line in the sand. I will, most likely, continue to favor a naturalistic explanation for the creation of the universe over a theistic one, which I find unsatisfying.
Oh, and I suppose that Bob Enyart understands the mechanics of a fiat creation then, does he?
That's a ridiculous argument. There are different levels of understanding. A layperson's presentation of an theory can be accurate. The layperson must trust that the science or theoretical math behind it is reasonably sound and has been held up to the scrutiny and criticism of peers.
We can rely to a reasonable extent on descriptions of science by scientists written for the moderately educated amateur. It is possible to convey a feel for what the hypothesis is describing, and to get an idea of the current strength of evidence in favor or against it is. You can also understand what sort of support a particular theory or hypothesis might have. Unlike many creationists, I am happy to be informed by experts in a field. It doesn't mean you should accept everything they say uncritically, but the weight of scientific history has so far been on the side of the physicist and I see no reason why we should not continue to look to them for answers to increasingly fundamental questions.
If Zakath had a profound understanding of the various cosmological arguments, would it have advanced the debate any if he had thrown up an impenetrable wall of equations?
But as you point out, it was Bob who brought up the cosmological argument and drew the line in the sand. I will, most likely, continue to favor a naturalistic explanation for the creation of the universe over a theistic one, which I find unsatisfying.
Last edited:
One Eyed Jack
New member
Do you have a satisfying naturalistic explanation for the universe? If so, I'd sure like to see it. You might want to share it with the mainstream scientific community while you're at it. Last time I checked, they were still looking for one...
One Eyed Jack
New member
What do you mean by 'hostility?'
Flipper
New member
I think you'll find if you read my earlier posts that I don't think that at all. However, there are some tentative hypotheses, one of which may be testable. And there's a number of possibilities that may be foundationally sound, just tough (maybe even impossible) to prove.
If and when the majority of science throws its hands up and says "this is not possible, it must be the work of God", I will listen but I would also ask for proof other than the absence of evidence in favor of a natural explanation. I won't be holding my breath for that day, just as I'm not holding my breath for anything useful or scientifically interesting to come out of the creation science camp.
It's not asking much, is it, to have insight into the event that caused the inflationary period, and yet we are now starting to make our first tentative enquiries. I find this encouraging.
Zakath
Resident Atheist
Several of the creationist organizations are useful as case studies in securing governement funding for religious organizations, (on top of their tax exempt status).
Like my Daddy always said, "Nobody's good for nothin'; they can always be used as a bad example."
Last edited:
One Eyed Jack
New member
Don't think what -- that you have a naturalistic explanation for the universe? Well, I already knew that. I keep up with science too.
Yeah, I remember you telling me about that. I was less than impressed. Most of these new theories are pretty far out there.
Kinda like Biblical Creation, huh?
In other words, you're not interested in anything creationists have to say, unless mainstream science says "okay, maybe they have a point." That's pretty typical of a True Believer of any stripe. However, an honest person seeking answers will look at every side of the issue.
I ardently believed in evolution up until a couple years ago. I have no doubt whatsoever that this will go unreceived by most of the evolutionists here, but I was swayed by the evidence. There's plenty of it, if you'd only examine it.
We're talking about the universe coming into existence to begin with. Once it starting inflating, it was already here. This is another subject altogether.
Stratnerd
New member
OEJ,
You know there's a whole section of forums devoted to that very area. Yet, all I see there are petty personal discussions and some stuff about evolution. If the Earth and all its inhabitant were created 6000 years ago there should be overwhelming, not just "plenty", evidence of it. There should be thread about how do we explain the fact that modern organisms are in the earliest strata (including remnants of humans), why do radiometric dates give a maximum of 10,000 years, why are there more endemic plants and animals near Ararat, why do ALL population genetic models show coalescence around 10,000 years ago, etc etc.
You know there's a whole section of forums devoted to that very area. Yet, all I see there are petty personal discussions and some stuff about evolution. If the Earth and all its inhabitant were created 6000 years ago there should be overwhelming, not just "plenty", evidence of it. There should be thread about how do we explain the fact that modern organisms are in the earliest strata (including remnants of humans), why do radiometric dates give a maximum of 10,000 years, why are there more endemic plants and animals near Ararat, why do ALL population genetic models show coalescence around 10,000 years ago, etc etc.
Flipper
New member
I think I wrote: "the event that caused the inflationary period." Whether it's from some hypothetical "inflaton" or a result of two multidimensional objects colliding, or from another explanation I don't know. And neither does anyone else. However, we are at a stage where some of these hypothetical scenarios can be ruled out.
Incidentally, it's not an entirely different subject. See, the ekpyrotic universe theory is an attack on a standard inflationary model. So if it were found to be accurate, it would eliminate one model and would provide research directions for the creation event itself.
Of course these theories are far out there - we're talking about point zero. If a theory provides a mathematical framework for a creation event and also provides for the forces that govern our universe, then it should be worth pursuing. In fact, isn't that how much of physics now works? The theorists develop their theories and ensure that they are mathematically and physically consistent. Then the experimentalists go out and try to test predictions that the theorists have made. If enough evidence is found and it can be repeated, then the theory is either wholely or partially accepted.
If the evidence is sufficient, then I hold that it will inevitably be accepted, no matter what the source.
I'm somewhat interested in what creationists have to say when it's founded in science. Or when they espouse ad hoc notions like the vapor canopy, or man co-existing peaceably with dinosaurs. Mainstream science tends to marginalize and freeze out its wackos. More `respectable' creation science generally, at best, pretends they don't exist and tries to disguise rifts between Young Earthers and Old Earthers (someone is several orders of magnitude wrong - you'd think it would be an easy one to sort out), or between the crackpot populists and those who are a bit more qualified.
However, most of the creation science I have read about (and yes, I do read the web sites, the articles, and buy some of the books) seem to rely on incredulity and complexity while providing no mechanisms or explanations themselves.
Sorry, I don't find that satisfying. And using God or Gods as an explanation for events currently beyond our comprehension has not proven to be a successful strategy in the past. I see no reason why it will be a successful strategy in the future.
One Eyed Jack
New member
It's your buddies Ben and Barbarian that start all the pettiness over there.
There is. It just depends on how you interpret the evidence. We're both looking at the same evidence, you know.
I have no idea what you're talking about here.
Stratnerd
New member
hmmm... see below
Time to coalescense is the time estimated for a population to converge genetically into a single genetic unit taking into account mutation and extinction. This is what was used to date "Eve" - which was a population not an individual.
So here's an observation: All the time estimates of populations I've seen never have anything younger than 100,000 years. So my interpretation is that populations are >> 10,000 years. Yet you'd interpret that data as suggesting the organanisms were = 10,000?
Here's another observation: as we march back in time the fossil record becomes more dissimilar from that which exists today. I'd interpret that as organisms changing through time but you'd interpret that as supernatural creation within a week just 6000 years ago?
Here's another observation: one method of radiometric dating gives consistent dating within a stratum and can be corroborated with other radiometric methods. I'd interpret that as suggesting that radiometric dates give reasonable estimates of time and you'd interpret that as radiometric dates are inconsistent and the Earth being 6000 years old?
- Status