The Bible

[Sleipnir]

That's common knowledge, even for you.

Common knowledge aren't so common anymore.

[Mighty AC]

After all, if your faith is pinned on accidents, and coincidences, and luck

Betsy, are you aware that evolution is not just a hypothesis, it is being observed, by people, in real time? Humans have witnessed the birth of new species of complex animals like birds and reptiles, not just microbes. Here is an article about the splitting of a new species of finch.

I only mention microbes because those with a limited knowledge of biology tend to scoff at microbe and insect examples. Despite the fact that we share 60% of our genes with the fruit fly and 9 out of every 10 cells in our bodies are microorganisms like bacteria and viruses.

I would suggest that you avoid using science to confirm various biblical passages. That just opens the whole book up to examination and our current body of scientific knowledge disproves far more than it lends credence to. You quoted an article that attempted to use biological knowledge to validate a passage in genesis that states the earth was seeded with all species as adults at the dawn of time. However, that same branch of science has observed the formation of new species in the modern day.

[GostHacked]

Perhaps it was created across the road.

They're only talking about the protein that makes egg-shells hard. Eggs came along far before chickens or any other species of bird. Dinosaurs were hatching from soft-shelled eggs eons before birds even existed. That's common knowledge, even for you.

-k

And from what has been learned is that the birds of today had evolved from those dinosaurs of the past who took to the air. Then that brings a new conundrum of which came first, the dinosaur or the egg?

[Sleipnir]

Betsy, are you aware that evolution is not just a hypothesis, it is being observed, by people, in real time?

Betsy probably believes the Earth is flat and 6,000 years old....and that gravity was invented by Gravais Hellman in 1452.

I would suggest that you avoid using science to confirm various biblical passages.

quoted because it's true. I also want to add that the topic of religion is subjective while the topic of science is objective. When debating ideas in both aspect of subjective and objective terms together, the latter always shall always prevail over subjectivity.

In this case, the scientific explanations always supersede explanations by mythological scriptures.

Hence, betsy has no legs to stand on in this argument about the chicken versus egg if she's going to be subjective.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Sleipnir

[Mr.Canada]

Ask betsy and TimG

Whose to say that creationism can't both be true. God is all powerful. We cannot pretend to understand his wisdom. Listen to that voice in your head when you're alone. That's not just your brain humming along, that's God trying to guide you to His path. Listen to Him.

[Mighty AC]

I like religious games so let's say I take your advice Mr. C:

I listen to that voice in my head and for weeks it tells me I need to kill my son because I love him more than the creator. God is all powerful and must have a plan that I don't comprehend so I drag my son outside and put a gun in his mouth. Many people witness this and phone the police. As the police arrive the voice says "just kidding, let him live", so I don't pull the trigger and they haul me away. So now I'm on trial for attempted murder. If polygraphs and brain scans show I honestly believe I heard voices should I get off? I mean the big guy has pulled shit like that before right? So there is history to back up my story. Should the jury set me free? Should I be labelled a schizophrenic? Do you think a jury in Texas or Alabama would rule differently than one in New York or Ontario?

[Mr.Canada]

I like religious games so let's say I take your advice Mr. C:

I listen to that voice in my head and for weeks it tells me I need to kill my son because I love him more than the creator. God is all powerful and must have a plan that I don't comprehend so I drag my son outside and put a gun in his mouth. Many people witness this and phone the police. As the police arrive the voice says "just kidding, let him live", so I don't pull the trigger and they haul me away. So now I'm on trial for attempted murder. If polygraphs and brain scans show I honestly believe I heard voices should I get off? I mean the big guy has pulled shit like that before right? So there is history to back up my story. Should the jury set me free? Should I be labelled a schizophrenic? Do you think a jury in Texas or Alabama would rule differently than one in New York or Ontario?

God and the devil speak to each of us pulling us this way and that. One must study the Bible for answers and to know which is speaking to you, trying to influence you.

It is the devil that speaks to people and convinces them that God doesn't exist, for this I must tell you the truth. Follow God and salvation shall be yours.

[WIP]

Really? Why do you say that? Do you not believe that morality can be universal and ultimately lies in the advancement of human well being?

Making morality "universal" has been an intended and unintended goal of human society ever since the first farming communities forced unrelated strangers to live and work together thousands of years ago. Before then, moral norms developed right along with human evolution and helped small extended family tribes to live in harmony.

The morality we are hardwired for is based on the principle of kin altruism, and does not extend to strangers...that has to be taught and learned. Hunter/gatherer tribes were not necessarily hostile to other tribal groups; alot would depend on the availability of food and whether another tribe had artifacts to trade....so we have obvious signs of reciprocal altruism had been well developed thousands of years ago, from the evidence found in many archaeological digs all across Europe, Asia and Africa, that found mammoth ivory beads that would have had their origins with mammoth hunters in Siberia. So, in that long era when everyone lived off the land, they traded luxury items with no intrinsic value.

The challenge for human societies over the last 6000 years or so is how to motivate people to extend moral principles beyond family and friends. This is where religion and nationalism comes in, but in today's overcrowded world, nations fighting over declining natural resources and sectarian religions that teach followers to disregard others, or even to go to war against those who believe differently could sow the seeds of our extinction.

Getting all that out of the way, the problem for Sam Harris and many other humanist philosophers before him, is how to derive universal moral principles from facts of human evolution and knowledge gained through neuroscience in particular. But, that is exactly what he is claiming in his latest book: The Moral Landscape. He claims that science and an understanding of evolutionary principles can resolve David Hume's "Is/ Ought Paradox wherein Hume claimed that you cannot derive solutions or 'oughts' from mere facts alone. Harris has gained a lot of praise from people who were already his fans in the first place, but I don't think he has made fans among the people he should have been talking with in the first place - philosophers! The problem is that, unless someone is a creative evolutionist like Francis Collins or Michael Behe (who accepts common origins of life), there is no way to get moral principles from natural selection processes that guide evolution. They may provide the facts, but deciding right from wrong is still a judgment call that can be informed by the facts, but not derived from them.

I would further add that Harris himself does special pleading many times in his talks when he will make a statement like:'surely we all agree that slavery is immoral,' and that may be true today, but it wasn't during earlier times and the institution of slavery did not end for altruistic, enlightened reasons primarily --- it ended mostly for economic reasons - because slaveholders in the South wanted to expand to putting slaves in factories and taking away the already meager wages that low paid workers were earning. And, for someone claiming to have found a way to universal morality, Harris himself has made some astonishing statements in the past, like justifying the use of torture on prisoners and dropping a nuclear bomb on Mecca. In reality, Harris is just one more theorist trying to make his own ideas universal...no different than Catholic theologians, politicians or many philosophers that he disregards.

[Mighty AC]

God and the devil speak to each of us pulling us this way and that. One must study the Bible for answers and to know which is speaking to you, trying to influence you.

It is the devil that speaks to people and convinces them that God doesn't exist, for this I must tell you the truth. Follow God and salvation shall be yours.

Mr. C, why do you believe this? How do you know what you are telling me is the truth?

Edited November 1, 2012 by Mighty AC

[Mighty AC]

Getting all that out of the way, the problem for Sam Harris and many other humanist philosophers before him, is how to derive universal moral principles from facts of human evolution and knowledge gained through neuroscience in particular. But, that is exactly what he is claiming in his latest book: The Moral Landscape. He claims that science and an understanding of evolutionary principles can resolve David Hume's "Is/ Ought Paradox wherein Hume claimed that you cannot derive solutions or 'oughts' from mere facts alone.[/Quote] I took it as insight into human well being gained through neuroscience will help us derive solutions. He also claims repeatedly that our current understanding is currently too limited. He doesn't claim to have the answers.

I would further add that Harris himself does special pleading many times in his talks when he will make a statement like:'surely we all agree that slavery is immoral,' and that may be true today, but it wasn't during earlier times [/Quote] I think this depends on whether or not you're a relativist. I'd say that like racism, sexism or sexual orientationism, slavery was always immoral even if it was considered normal and acceptable at one time.

In reality, Harris is just one more theorist trying to make his own ideas universal...no different than Catholic theologians, politicians or many philosophers that he disregards.

He is certainly just a theorist and I don't agree with all of his ideas. However, the fact that he believes that morality should be based on fact, reason and the advancement of human well being certainly make him different than most theologians, politicians and philosophers. I especially like the fact that he is challenging the notion that science can have no input into moral issues.

[GostHacked]

Whose to say that creationism can't both be true.

What???

[Moonlight Graham]

Whose to say that creationism can't both be true. God is all powerful. We cannot pretend to understand his wisdom. Listen to that voice in your head when you're alone. That's not just your brain humming along, that's God trying to guide you to His path. Listen to Him.

You have voices in your head? I've never heard any voices speaking to me in my head, and I grew up a good Christian lad.

[betsy]

Perhaps it was created across the road.

They're only talking about the protein that makes egg-shells hard. Eggs came along far before chickens or any other species of bird. Dinosaurs were hatching from soft-shelled eggs eons before birds even existed. That's common knowledge, even for you.

Genesis also says that plants came before the sun and stars, so clearly it is not a reliable source of information.

Ok. Here's University of Minnesota evolutionary biology professor P.Z. Myers discussing the "chicken or egg" article.

He says it's a bad article that doesn't accurately reflect the science being discussed:

-k

A word of a scientist against another. Just because he sez, therefore it is?

Furthermore, who's PZ Myers?

]Paul Zachary "PZ" Myers[/b] (born March 9, 1957) is an American scientist and biology professor at the University of Minnesota Morris (UMM) and the founder and co-author of the Pharyngula science blog, hosted on both the Science Blogs and Freethought Blogs blog networks. He is currently an associate professor of biology at UMM,^[1] works with zebrafish in the field of evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo), and also cultivates an interest in cephalopods.

He is a public critic of intelligent design (ID) and of the creationist movement in general and is an activist in the American creation–evolution controversy. He is widely regarded as a confrontationalist.^[2]

I googled for other refutations against the new findings and have not seen any other than that blog of PZ Myers. You'd think, if it's as simple as PZ Myers explained it (which makes the other scientist seem like an idiot)...that there'd be other scientists who'd point out the same things that PZ Myers did, and correct any misconceptions!

Given PZ Myers background....care to give another source? Someone who's not an activist against ID and Creation - someone who's not biased.

Edited November 1, 2012 by betsy

[Sleipnir]

God is all powerful. We cannot pretend to understand his wisdom. Listen to that voice in your head when you're alone. That's not just your brain humming along, that's God trying to guide you to His path. Listen to Him.

His? Him? Is god a male? Let me reason this out.

To be a male is to be an anthropomorphic figure.

To be an anthropomorphic figure, would imply being an independent unit from nature.

To be an independent unit from nature, would subject you to the forces of nature.

If you are subjected to the forces of the nature, then you would have no control over nature.

If you have no control over nature, you cannot be omnipotent.

If you are not omnipotent, then you cannot reasonably be called God.

Hence...God cannot be male nor female.

[cybercoma]

Given PZ Myers background....

Why should she? PZ Myers is an evolutionary biologist. He's an authority on biology and his argument corroborates that of other scientists in the field. If you don't like that he's a critic of ID and creationism that's your problem. It has nothing to do with the validity of his argument. Saying that it makes his points invalid is an ad hominem fallacy.

[Sleipnir]

A word of a scientist against another. Just because he sez, therefore it is?

Lol she's clueless.

Given PZ Myers background....care to give another source? Someone who's not an activist against ID and Creation - someone who's not biased.

According to you, any information presented to you that would contradict your mythological belief would be labeled as bias. A source has been provided to you, try following up on research to learn more.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Sleipnir

[betsy]

Kimmy, here's also something about PZ Myers....

Treasure in the Genetic Goldmine: PZ Myers Fails on "Junk DNA"

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/finding_treasur054241.html

[cybercoma]

Kimmy, here's also something about PZ Myers....

Treasure in the Genetic Goldmine: PZ Myers Fails on "Junk DNA"

http://www.evolution...asur054241.html

This has nothing to do with the current argument. Stick to that first.

[betsy]

Below is from an atheist site.

Idiot of the Week: PZ Myers

I do not think I've ever selected an atheist as Idiot of the Week, and I do not remember selecting a blogger, although it is certainly possible. What I am fairly sure of is that Idiot of the Week has never gone to a fellow atheist blogger. And no, I don't really think PZ is an idiot. I have way too much respect for him even though he has declared his hatred for people like me and even though he's quite wrong about the meaning of atheism. But the thing about PZ is that he manages to be thought-provoking even when he's wrong.

Not satisfied with antagonizing religious believers, PZ has decided to go after those of us who understand the meaning of atheism. We are "superficial," and he hates us. Rather than say that he disagrees with us or that he thinks we are wrong, PZ decided to jump directly to hate.

Your source is an extremist.

[cybercoma]

Also irrelevant to the current discussion and does nothing to refute what is being argued here.

[betsy]

Below is from an atheist site.

]Idiot of the Week: PZ Myers[/b]

I do not think I've ever selected an atheist as Idiot of the Week, and I do not remember selecting a blogger, although it is certainly possible. What I am fairly sure of is that Idiot of the Week has never gone to a fellow atheist blogger. And no, I don't really think PZ is an idiot. I have way too much respect for him even though he has declared his hatred for people like me and even though he's quite wrong about the meaning of atheism. But the thing about PZ is that he manages to be thought-provoking even when he's wrong.

Not satisfied with antagonizing religious believers, PZ has decided to go after those of us who understand the meaning of atheism. We are "superficial," and he hates us. Rather than say that he disagrees with us or that he thinks we are wrong, PZ decided to jump directly to hate.

Your source is an extremist. Therefore his views regarding the said article is highly questionable - especially when there doesn't seem to be any other scientists who collaborated his "scientific" explanation, and corrected the said article.

Sorry, as far as I'm concerned, all you gave was someone's personal opinion. Need back-up. Credible back-up.

[cybercoma]

Also irrelevant to the current discussion and does nothing to refute what is being argued here.

[Mighty AC]

Your source is an extremist.

The fact that Newton was an alchemist did not detract from his work in math and physics. The fact that Ty Cobb was a racist and once pummeled a man in a wheelchair did not detract from his ability to play baseball. Get it?

[Mr.Canada]

The fact that Newton was an alchemist did not detract from his work in math and physics. The fact that Ty Cobb was a racist and once pummeled a man in a wheelchair did not detract from his ability to play baseball. Get it?

Lol, that is ridiculous.

[betsy]

The fact that Newton was an alchemist did not detract from his work in math and physics. The fact that Ty Cobb was a racist and once pummeled a man in a wheelchair did not detract from his ability to play baseball. Get it?

Compare with the samples you gave above:

"He is a public critic of intelligent design (ID) and of the creationist movement in general and is an activist in the American creation–evolution controversy. He is widely regarded as a confrontationalist.^[2]"

And an extremist to boot! Clearly driven by his faith.

"Not satisfied with antagonizing religious believers, PZ has decided to go after those of us who understand the meaning of atheism. We are "superficial," and he hates us. Rather than say that he disagrees with us or that he thinks we are wrong, PZ decided to jump directly to hate."

Conflict of interest, Mighty AC.

Conflict of interest. Get it now?

Edited November 1, 2012 by betsy