Evolution & Creationism: Why can't people believe both?

superluminal said:
Whatever. History? You believe all that crap spouted by all those overeducated pseudointellectuals? Are you gullible or what?
Click to expand...

I MUST learn never to say sorry to an Eastern American, I have made that mistake before hmmm...

Research I cannot give you a one sentance answer, and I don't hog boards.
 
davewhite04 said:
I MUST learn never to say sorry to an Eastern American, I have made that mistake before hmmm...

Research I cannot give you a one sentance answer, and I don't hog boards.
Click to expand...
You mean you took someones word for it, based on your own research? Sort of like me (who's actually studied spectra through a telescope) knows exactly what stars are made of, based on research and the data of scientists?

How could you violate your own creed of self imposed ignorance this way? (you did say you had no respect for educated scientists and such, didn't you?)
 
Is History any different to Astrophyics?

When you consider Archeology and such...

I admit I do hold Archeolgy and History high on my trust list.

I am biased but when I see in my face people who behave like they were described to behave thousands of years ago I tend to think, well maybe this is true, I mean when did paganism start?

Forget about stars for a minute.
 
davewhite04 said:
Is History any different to Astrophyics?

When you consider Archeology and such...

I admit I do hold Archeolgy and History high on my trust list.

I am biased but when I see in my face people who behave like they were described to behave thousands of years ago I tend to think, well maybe this is true, I mean when did paganism start?

Forget about stars for a minute.
Click to expand...
You trust to the vagaries of historical guesses more than the repeatable facts of science... wow. That's pretty fucked up right there.

Anyway, paganism (as in polytheistic I assume) would have been present in early humans as soon as the idea took hold that there must be something out there responsible for lightning and earthquakes and such. I imagine it is hundreds of thousands of years old.
 
superluminal said:
You trust to the vagaries of historical guesses more than the repeatable facts of science... wow. That's pretty fucked up right there.

Anyway, paganism (as in polytheistic I assume) would have been present in early humans as soon as the idea took hold that there must be something out there responsible for lightning and earthquakes and such. I imagine it is hundreds of thousands of years old.
Click to expand...

Do people guess in Astrophysics?

Let's assume they do.

How do they back up there claims?

History backs it up by current behaviour and archeological facts(observed, like you looking through your telescope).
 
davewhite04 said:
Do people guess in Astrophysics?

Let's assume they do.

How do they back up there claims?
Click to expand...
First, I must ask - do you have any knowledge of how science works? Or are you just bashing it out of ignorance? Seriously, I'd like to know.

Astrophysicists base their assertions on repeatable observations of phenomena with a wide variety of telescopes (radio through gamma-ray) and backed up by well known physical processes tested in lab experiments (for example large particle accelerators).

They generally try not to guess. Just like real archaeologists who use the findings of science to date artifacts.
 
davewhite04 said:
If your ultimate question is "Did Jesus exist" then the answer is "debatable", scientifically speaking.
Click to expand...
I actually don't care at all. What I wonder about though is why people feel the need to make such huge leaps of "faith" far beyond what any actual evidence (or lack therof) could possibly justify.
 
History requires much more guesswork than astrophysics. The evidence is spotty and secondhand, while one can study the light from stars directly. The physics can be worked out in particle accellerators.
 
superluminal said:
I actually don't care at all. What I wonder about though is why people feel the need to make such huge leaps of "faith" far beyond what any actual evidence (or lack therof) could possibly justify.
Click to expand...

I will respond to this before I go. Jesus is a superb role model.
 
Jesus would have objected to that. Acting like him is not the point, you can only embody the spirit yourself. Perhaps the difference is semantic. If you include the Gnostic gospels to paint your picture of the man, he certainly seems wise.
 
I will respond to this before I go. Jesus is a superb role model.
Click to expand...
The odd thing is, the people most insistent on asserting that are almost the least apt to adopt him as their own role model.

I can't see Jesus having much interest in creationist vs evolutionist explanation for the origin of species, at any rate.
 
Saquist said:
No Dear,Mlies
I quote the bible to apply precesedent to define context on a scripture. The scriptures are not one book. This is a common misconception among the anti bible individuals such as yourself.

Context clues are the hints provided in text, which lead the reader to meanings of words

Using context clues is not circular reasoning to understand a cultural reasoning of these scriptures. It is foundation of reading comprehension which is taught from the earilest reading age. Were you not taught how to draw out context clues?
Where did you learn that context clues were circular reasoning?

According to the Wiki you have also failed to "beg the question" which is the appropriate way reply to a circular argument. You haven't identified or illistrated a circular problem. From what i gather you're accusing the use of context clues and reading comprehension as the basis for you accusation. However I can not find any definition of a logical fallacy which includes using the fundamental skill of reading comprehension as circular reasoning. How did you come to this conclusion Miles?

If you could explicitly out line your thinking before you make an accusation you might be well undertood before you become provocative.
Click to expand...

I am aware that, in Greek, the bible is known as ta biblia which translates as the books. However, I have yet to her anyone say something like " i read in my bibles". Pedantry will get you no points.

I don't need to consult Wiki to know that begging the question means to take for granted that which one is required to explain.

The essential point is that you start from the premise that the bible contains truth in some form. You then analyze the "books" to make some sense of them ; a bit like joining up the dots. You then find the proof you need by interpreting certain passages in ways which suit your needs and present your argument as if it has been shown to be true. That is not scholarship.

You argument is circular. You use the bible to show that the bible is true. In simple terms your argument takes the form of: the bible is true because it is god's holy word and ,since god cannot be wrong, the bible must be true. As I have said, the whole of your argument is circular.

Lastly, why look elsewhere ? Because you may find that the bible is not all it is cracked up to be.
 
davewhite04 said:
Aye.

Basically the world was pagan before Abraham.
Click to expand...

Ironically,Yahweh,the biblical God was originally a pagan sky god worshipped alongside a pantheon of other Gods and Goddesses by the ancient Cannanites.
There is fair amount of research into this, and much information is corruburated between the many researchers and some other details of course they disagree with, but the general consensus was that he was incorporated into hebrew culture.

Mark S Smiths' book below is one I have read and there are other authors that have researched this as well.

http://www.amazon.com/Early-History...83972X/ref=pd_sim_b_img_1/104-6989822-9388764
 
superluminal said:
First, I must ask - do you have any knowledge of how science works? Or are you just bashing it out of ignorance? Seriously, I'd like to know.

Astrophysicists base their assertions on repeatable observations of phenomena with a wide variety of telescopes (radio through gamma-ray) and backed up by well known physical processes tested in lab experiments (for example large particle accelerators).

They generally try not to guess. Just like real archaeologists who use the findings of science to date artifacts.
Click to expand...

I have knowledge of the scientific method, so yes.

Secondly, I have not bashed science.

To your second paragraph. Astrophysics applies the scientific method.

I assume there is unreal archaeologists too?
 
spidergoat said:
Jesus would have objected to that. Acting like him is not the point, you can only embody the spirit yourself. Perhaps the difference is semantic. If you include the Gnostic gospels to paint your picture of the man, he certainly seems wise.
Click to expand...

Considering Jesus stated what the two greatest commandments were to follow, and he followed them to a tee, then anyone who follows them will automatically become similar to him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top