Conquer Club

This is just awesome! WM responded again!


WOOOO!

Anyway, I will respond when I'm not as drunk as I am now.

deceangli wrote:The really interesting question - to my mind, at least - is how this "debate" came to be so polarised. I don't mean in this particular forum, which is just a microcosm of the wider debate.

When did some people who call themselves Christians decide to believe in the literal truth of selected bits of Jewish theology (but not others)? Did they implicitly believe everything they were taught up to the age of 7 and then find themselves stuck with these beliefs? Where does Father Christmas fit into this ecosystem? Do creationists eat pork?

I suspect that we have an inbuilt tendency to join whichever 'gang' is the closest approximation to our current position, and then, if there's a fight, to defend even a crazy position if it belongs to the tribe we've chosen.

(Whereas a belief in the divinity of Asterix the Gaul is both logical and practical, in the 21st century)

That's exactly what I don't want people to think. I'd call myself a Roman Catholic, but it would probably be more accurate to say that I am an agnostic with pantheist beliefs. I don't believe the Bible should be taken literally. I believe that evolution and creationism are compatible. I'll criticize a militant Catholic (Nappy) just as soon as I'd criticize a militant atheist (Backglass).

But aside from the fact that very few believers are militant, almost every atheist will make blanket statements about theists that I can't accept, which is why I usually end up debating them. I'm not going to argue against

Backglass wrote:blah blah blah magic blah blah fairy tale blah blah.

,

but I've met some atheists who are willing to at least respect my beliefs, and some who even admit that parts of the Bible may be true. You can't divide people into two camps so easily.

john9blue wrote:but I've met some atheists who are willing to at least respect my beliefs, and some who even admit that parts of the Bible may be true. You can't divide people into two camps so easily.

Ahh...well I believe you can worship whatever you desire, be it Leprechauns, Fairies, Unicorns or Gods. I am sure that some parts of your bible are probably true. I am sure that parts of every religions bible are true. I am sure that Jesus/Mohammed/<insert prophet here> existed and all were probably very motivational speakers. But when stories and fables of magic, invisible supernatural beings and fantastic mythological creatures are considered real and without question, I call bullshit.

You and I aren't that much different, really. You believe that all the other gods of the worlds many religions are false and probably laugh and shake your head at how silly and wrong their beliefs are.
I just believe in one less god than you do.

Snorri1234 wrote:This is just awesome! WM responded again!


WOOOO!

Anyway, I will respond when I'm not as drunk as I am now.

FYI everyone. I do plan on getting to these responses to my response in a few days. We have people coming in from out of town and I will not have time to type everything out until at least Saturday.

Just did not want anyone to think I was not going to answer.

WM

deceangli wrote:The really interesting question - to my mind, at least - is how this "debate" came to be so polarised. I don't mean in this particular forum, which is just a microcosm of the wider debate.

When did some people who call themselves Christians decide to believe in the literal truth of selected bits of Jewish theology (but not others)? Did they implicitly believe everything they were taught up to the age of 7 and then find themselves stuck with these beliefs? Where does Father Christmas fit into this ecosystem? Do creationists eat pork?

I suspect that we have an inbuilt tendency to join whichever 'gang' is the closest approximation to our current position, and then, if there's a fight, to defend even a crazy position if it belongs to the tribe we've chosen.

(Whereas a belief in the divinity of Asterix the Gaul is both logical and practical, in the 21st century)

I will answer the first part.

The second part is simply irrelevant, not truly part of the debate. Whether God exists or not is not a matter of proof, but of belief. Some people believe God exists, some do not. Many people who follow the Bible fully, consider it divinely inspired (myself included) do not in any way agree with Widowmaker's and his ilk's interpretation that Genesis means God created the Earth in the 7 revolutions of the Earth we humans scientifically refer to as "one day". The reference is to 7 set periods of time .. GOD's time, not ours. "Day" was an understood term for non-scientific humans, not a precise allocation of a unit of time. (much as old folks talk of "in my day..." without meaning January 3rd in year XYZ). This is indeed how most modern AND HISTORIC jews have viewed Genesis. This has been covered ad nauseum already, so I won't repeat further.

The rest of your questions I will answer, if you pose them in another thread.

BUT, for the first part:

HOW did this happen?

The real truth is that all but the most basic of science is pretty difficult to understand. High school text books have been "dumbed down" quite a bit, but let's face it, it is quite leap from 1 + 1= 2 to Calculus, and THAT has been around for a couple thousand (or so ... don't know the exact age) years.

So, what happens? You start with this question: "How do I know that this is true? ". There are actually 2 differant answers. Either "I have seen it" (had it proven in various ways) OR "I believe the people who told me this".

Not so long ago ... definitely in the time of our grandparents, but even in the 1940's and 50's to a large extent, the answer was almost always "I have seen it". Basic experiments could show even the more complicated ideas. Put a stalk of celery in colored water and you see how roots, etc. work. Take some measurements of stars and you can see that the Earth really does rotate ... etc. That movie about the kids in Appalacia (blue skies???) who did rocketry is a good example. So, too, is Aldo Leopold's Sand county Almanac.

Still, even back then, there were large numbers of people who just did not "get" science. Mostly, they were the same people who don't "get" math, or spelling, the stock market or French. Not necessarily stupid people (though yes, a number were), but people who just did not have the time and inclination to learn anything "unnecessary" to their daily living and religion. That these ideas were put forward heavily by young, idealistic (some might say "arrogant" young college types) did not help matters in communties that saw even basic reading and writing as "optional" or "for those who had time".

But here is the thing. Science has quickly become so very, very, very complicated that even the experts can only possibly understand a very small portion of the whole. A doctor who can cure cancer probably does not know how to send a rocket to the moon or even what makes for good trout fish habitat, unless he happens to be an angler. (and even then, he may only know what he sees on the surface, not for example, how to create that habitat). In the days of Leonardo, it was possible for one (very intelligent) human being to more or less be an expert in "all fields" ... the idea of the Renaissance man. Now, its not even possible for one person to be a full expert in Geology, in Fisheries, in Medicine.

So, we have to trust. A good science education gives students a basic foundation... teaches the "building blocks", teaches how these basic ideas came and then sends students out to make future discoveries on their own. But, what happens when you don't get that? What happens, for example, if you have never drive across Donner Pass or any of the many road cuts in California and really looked at the clear Geologic stratifications that exist? What happens if you have never been to Cedar Breaks or Bryce Canyon and looked at the Bristol Cone Pines? What happens if the only knowledge you have of how streams work is to see massive flooding and soil deposits from the Mississippi? What happens if all you are taught instead is to read Genesis and that anything that disagrees with your teacher's view of Genesis is just to be disgarded ... it will be proven wrong eventually? If that is all you know, it becomes perfectly sensible to think that Noah's flood created the Grand Canyon, that Plate Techtonics is imaginary, and other various points that Widowmaker attempts to present (and DO understand, please, that his view is gaining wide prevalence here in the US and even gaining small footholds in Europe!).

That is where Creation Science began roughly 30 years ago. (can't say there was an exact date, but that is roughly when the Creation Science Institute began ..at least as a concept). BUT, to teach these concepts, you have to be sure that your children DO NOT learn any opposing views. The only view of Evolution you want them to have is your idea... (read Widow Maker's arguments "against Evolution" as a prime example ... he makes it quite clear he has never really studied true scientific Evolutionary theory). The answer? First, they tried challenging the teaching of Evolution in the schools. Often they "won" simply because schools did not have the money to fight a myriad of lawsuits. Also, I think most people still pretty well dismissed these ideas, did not understand how intelligent people could believe these ideas that had been so roundly disproven just a few decades earlier.

But then in the mid 1980's they hit gold.. pure gold. Suddenly, folks gained the right to "home school" in California and in other states. I want to be clear that I understand fully that people home school for many, many reasons. If I did not have a toddler, I might be homeschooling son. He is highly intelligent, strong-willed and ADHD... not exactly the best mix for a standard public school and we don't live in a community with other options. STILL, when homeschooling is used to keep information from a child instead of to expand ... you get large groups of under 50 year olds (some older) who just plain have never learned real basic Evolutionary science.. particularly given that the theories themselves have changed so much (widened, clarified, filled in many gaps) in the past 40 years.

Backglass wrote:

john9blue wrote:but I've met some atheists who are willing to at least respect my beliefs, and some who even admit that parts of the Bible may be true. You can't divide people into two camps so easily.

Ahh...well I believe you can worship whatever you desire, be it Leprechauns, Fairies, Unicorns or Gods. I am sure that some parts of your bible are probably true. I am sure that parts of every religions bible are true. I am sure that Jesus/Mohammed/<insert prophet here> existed and all were probably very motivational speakers. But when stories and fables of magic, invisible supernatural beings and fantastic mythological creatures are considered real and without question, I call bullshit.

You and I aren't that much different, really. You believe that all the other gods of the worlds many religions are false and probably laugh and shake your head at how silly and wrong their beliefs are.
I just believe in one less god than you do.

In the U.S. at least, the VAST MAJORITY of those who believe Evolution are, in fact Christian.

As a point in fact MOST Christians believe the Bible AND science ... the number of exceptions is growing, thanks largely to the home schooling movement, but whether God exists or not is a completely differant debate than whether Evolution is true or not.

WidowMakers wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:This is just awesome! WM responded again!


WOOOO!

Anyway, I will respond when I'm not as drunk as I am now.

FYI everyone. I do plan on getting to these responses to my response in a few days. We have people coming in from out of town and I will not have time to type everything out until at least Saturday.

Just did not want anyone to think I was not going to answer.

WM

I would love to see a true debate on this issue, perhaps in another forum?

PLAYER57832 wrote:In the U.S. at least, the VAST MAJORITY of those who believe Evolution are, in fact Christian.

That's not entirely fair. The vast, dare I say all, of those who don't believe in evolution also identify themselves as Christian.

PLAYER57832 wrote:As a point in fact MOST Christians believe the Bible AND science ...

This I think is the fairer statement.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

WidowMakers wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:This is just awesome! WM responded again!


WOOOO!

Anyway, I will respond when I'm not as drunk as I am now.

FYI everyone. I do plan on getting to these responses to my response in a few days. We have people coming in from out of town and I will not have time to type everything out until at least Saturday.

Just did not want anyone to think I was not going to answer.

WM

I would love to see a true debate on this issue, perhaps in another forum?

I agree. That was my original goal. I wanted to look at evolution and creation as a whole. Start to finish. Too many times I would be talking about 1 area and 15 other people would start talking about 20 other things. Now I am not mad that this happened, I just could not keep up with all of the different discussions.

Plus too many times people say "well the Big Bang is not part of evolution so we are not going to talk about it. We only want to talk about Mutations or radiometric dating, etc..." But the truth is that all areas need to be talked about.
Plus too many times peopel would look at a minute area and say "BAM! This proves evolution." But they ignored the larger implications of that "proof" and did not look at the whole picture.Then all those areas need to be looked at together as then we see what makes more logical sense.

What does science actually tell us.
And what do we MAKE science say to support out ideas.

I am fully willing to take part in this debate. Now cannot guarantee that i can respond on a daily or weekly basis (especially depending on the topic and scope of each particular area of discussion) But I will continue as long as a TRUE debate takes place.

We need:

1) Rules/Guidelines as to how we debate and to what end we go until we move on.
2) NO SPAM
3) NO adding questions not relevant to the current issue
4) A new thread
5) Subject goals (what we are actually going to debate)

I think the main issue is that this thread has gotten to full of spam and has not worked the way I initially planned.

So who wants to help plan this little endeavor?
WM

Juan_Bottom wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:In the U.S. at least, the VAST MAJORITY of those who believe Evolution are, in fact Christian.

That's not entirely fair. The vast, dare I say all, of those who don't believe in evolution also identify themselves as Christian.

True, but what I said is also true. Christians who believe in literal Creationism are still a minority portion of Christianity.

The biggest churches that accept Evolution (though some individual members disagree):
Roman Catholics
Episcopaleans/Anglicans (division is over homosexuality, not Evolution)
Presbyterians (a couple of southern bodies excepted, though division there is mostly over race)
Methodists
Evangelical Lutheran Church
Some Baptists
Some Missiouri Synod Lutheran Churches
Many many other non-denominational or independent churches.

The biggest churches believing Creationism:

Some Baptists .. mostly some southern Baptists (not even all of those!)
Nazarene Church
Four Square
Missionary Alliance Churches
Some Covenant churches
A few Missouri Synod Lutheran Churches

lots of Evangelical Churches are independent, not part of a large denomination.


HOWEVER, it should be noted that all of those churches combined still number far less than the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and they number far fewer than Roman Catholics.


I honestly do not know where LDH or Witness (Jehovah's Witnesses) sit on the issue, but I also suspect you woud not classify them as "Christian".

Juan_Bottom wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:As a point in fact MOST Christians believe the Bible AND science ...

This I think is the fairer statement.

BOTH statements are true.

But you cannot both believe in Scientific Creationism AND science ... sorry, I know many are taught that they can, but it just is not true. I would be happy to debate... that is, not so much to convince, but to clarify where the divergences are.


That is, for example ... ALL Christians believe in Christ, believe in the Bible ... so that is a point of similarity between our views. However, I would say that a Genesis "day" is a "God day", not a "human day". That is a point of differance. Those are obvious, but I am actually not realy sure where else we agree and disagree. When we disagree how much of it is reading the Bible words differantly and how much of it is having differant scientific information?

Juan_Bottom wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:In the U.S. at least, the VAST MAJORITY of those who believe Evolution are, in fact Christian.

That's not entirely fair. The vast, dare I say all, of those who don't believe in evolution also identify themselves as Christian.

Christian is such a broad term. So many organizations refer to themselves as Christians but their internal doctrine and teachings do not match at all.
Christians who believe the Bible is the inerrant Book of God (it cannot be wrong or contradict itself, which it does not but that is another thread) and believe in the literal meaning of genesis do not believe in evolution.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:As a point in fact MOST Christians believe the Bible AND science ...

This I think is the fairer statement.

I agree as well. I really want to stress the fact that I don't think science is wrong. I am a Mechanical engineer. I love the discovery channel (except the evolution stuff) science has helped man in countless ways. So don't think I am tryign to say that we need to stop taking our kids science.

I am saying that science is wrong when it comes to theories that we all came from nothing and have no purpose (which is what evolution is saying in general).
Especially when it is argued as FACT in spite of the lack of evidence and logical arguments.

WM

accidently wrote over my original post ... sorry

WidowMakers wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:In the U.S. at least, the VAST MAJORITY of those who believe Evolution are, in fact Christian.

That's not entirely fair. The vast, dare I say all, of those who don't believe in evolution also identify themselves as Christian.

Christian is such a broad term. So many organizations refer to themselves as Christians but their internal doctrine and teachings do not match at all.
Christians who believe the Bible is the inerrant Book of God (it cannot be wrong or contradict itself, which it does not but that is another thread) and believe in the literal meaning of genesis do not believe in evolution.

Who are you to tell me that I do not fully believe in Christ as my Lord and Savior?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

WidowMakers wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:In the U.S. at least, the VAST MAJORITY of those who believe Evolution are, in fact Christian.

That's not entirely fair. The vast, dare I say all, of those who don't believe in evolution also identify themselves as Christian.

Christian is such a broad term. So many organizations refer to themselves as Christians but their internal doctrine and teachings do not match at all.
Christians who believe the Bible is the inerrant Book of God (it cannot be wrong or contradict itself, which it does not but that is another thread) and believe in the literal meaning of genesis do not believe in evolution.

Who are you to tell me that I do not fully believe in Christ as my Lord and Savior?

I am nobody to tell you that and that is not what I said (if you read the writing) I said..

WidowMakers wrote:Christian is such a broad term. So many organizations refer to themselves as Christians but their internal doctrine and teachings do not match at all.

WM

EDIT: Plus this is not a debate on Christianity and what it means to be a Christian.
It is about:
1) whether the universe and everything in it happened by chance...or...it was created
2) whether life came from non life...or...it was created
3) whether small organisms underwent millions of years or mutations to produce (randomly) all living things we see today...or...living things were designed this way
4) Plus many more gap fillers that connect these questions listed above.

Except that believing everything came strictly from chance is a minority view, even among atheistic Evolutionists ... and is definitely not what Christians who accept Evolution believe. That is part of why I say you don't really know current Evolutionary theory.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Except that believing everything came strictly from chance is a minority view, even among atheistic Evolutionists ... and is definitely not what Christians who accept Evolution believe. That is part of why I say you don't really know current Evolutionary theory.

Could you please point me towards a website that lists in detail teh current evolutionary theory you are discussing. Everything I seem to find states that the universe came from nothing, that life came from non life, that simple life mutated into more complex life and eventually that made us (and everything else)

WM

WidowMakers wrote:I agree. That was my original goal. I wanted to look at evolution and creation as a whole. Start to finish. Too many times I would be talking about 1 area and 15 other people would start talking about 20 other things. Now I am not mad that this happened, I just could not keep up with all of the different discussions.

Plus too many times people say "well the Big Bang is not part of evolution so we are not going to talk about it. We only want to talk about Mutations or radiometric dating, etc..." But the truth is that all areas need to be talked about.
Plus too many times peopel would look at a minute area and say "BAM! This proves evolution." But they ignored the larger implications of that "proof" and did not look at the whole picture.Then all those areas need to be looked at together as then we see what makes more logical sense.

What does science actually tell us.
And what do we MAKE science say to support out ideas.

I am fully willing to take part in this debate. Now cannot guarantee that i can respond on a daily or weekly basis (especially depending on the topic and scope of each particular area of discussion) But I will continue as long as a TRUE debate takes place.

We need:

1) Rules/Guidelines as to how we debate and to what end we go until we move on.
2) NO SPAM
3) NO adding questions not relevant to the current issue
4) A new thread
5) Subject goals (what we are actually going to debate)

I think the main issue is that this thread has gotten to full of spam and has not worked the way I initially planned.

So who wants to help plan this little endeavor?
WM

This seems reasonable enough. Go ahead and set up a new thread.

WidowMakers wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Except that believing everything came strictly from chance is a minority view, even among atheistic Evolutionists ... and is definitely not what Christians who accept Evolution believe. That is part of why I say you don't really know current Evolutionary theory.

Could you please point me towards a website that lists in detail teh current evolutionary theory you are discussing. Everything I seem to find states that the universe came from nothing, that life came from non life, that simple life mutated into more complex life and eventually that made us (and everything else)

WM

The complex always comes from the simple.

Take computers as an example. A bit is simple - it's either off or on, 0 or 1. But it is the building block of the entire machine.

I could go on and on with more examples, but I gotta go.

WidowMakers wrote:
I am saying that science is wrong when it comes to theories that we all came from nothing and have no purpose (which is what evolution is saying in general).

No, evolution does not say that at all. It is a process enabled by a mechanism, natural selection. It does not 'say' we have no purpose, or that we came from nothing.

But this, unfortunately, can be a downside of faith - keeping on the blinkers and making them ever tighter in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is itself a declaration of unwavering belief. it is not, and has never been, a rational or argued response to the science itself.

Evolution does not "say" anything, it just is.

mpjh wrote:Evolution does not "say" anything, it just is.

It's a theory: it's a series of logically valid statements potentially based on empirically verifiable evidenced attempting to posit an explanation for a state of nature.

So, yes "Evolution", or evolutionary theory, does very much "say" things.

Nappy, nappy, don't cofuse the procee of evolution with the theory of evolution. One is the other explains.

mpjh wrote:Nappy, nappy, don't cofuse the procee of evolution with the theory of evolution. One is the other explains.

I rather think you'll find you're the one guilty of that in saying that scientific theories don't "say" things in response to widowmaker.

Nope, you need to read more carefully, nappy.

mpjh wrote:Nope, you need to read more carefully, nappy.

I'm afraid not. Let's examine the specific comments made:

Widowmaker wrote:I am saying that science is wrong when it comes to theories that we all came from nothing and have no purpose (which is what evolution is saying in general).

mpjh wrote:Evolution does not "say" anything, it just is.

In other words, a post clearly about the scientific theories that posit life coming from non-life, was spun and twisted by yourself so you could make a frankly none-too-amusing facetious remark, quoted above.