The Bible

[DogOnPorch]

Uhhhh...if a shark eats you...it's game over. I refer you to the Hollywood classic, Jaws.

'It is as if God created the Devil and gave him Jaws'

:lol:

Aren't you late for church, Flanders?

[cybercoma]

Science is awesome! TRUE science, that is. The real sincere quest for real knowledge/truth! After all where do all that knowledge comes from? It is reliable. I agree with you on that.

Congratulations on your breakthrough. I'm glad you finally accept evolution, since it's a finding of TRUE science.

[DogOnPorch]

Congratulations on your breakthrough. I'm glad you finally accept evolution, since it's a finding of TRUE science.

I have a feeling the One True Science is a wee bit like the One True God.

[cybercoma]

Oh...

[DogOnPorch]

Oh...

For betsy...

[segnosaur]

Just a little history about the ocean floor lest some of you ends up buying the fanciful yarn of one of the posters here claiming that ancient people must've known about the mountains in the ocean because of their boat "anchors."

This is to enlighten him too because apparently he's dead serious about it!

About two thirds of the Earth's surface lies beneath the oceans. Before the 19th century, the depths of the open ocean were largely a matter of speculation, and most people thought that the ocean floor was relatively flat and featureless.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/developing.html

So, you're whole argument is based on the fact that you don't understand the meaning of various words!

See the phrase "Most people"? Here's a little hint... the word "most" is not the same as "all". So the idea that the bottom of the ocean was "flat" was hardly universal.

Oh, and another thing... notice it says "relatively flat"? Do you know that the term "relatively" does not mean "Completely"?

So your very own reference doesn't prove "everyone thought the ocean floor was completely flat"... instead, it suggests that some thought it varied, and others thought it may have varied, but just wasn't sure how much.

The fact is, your very own bible quotes are incredibly vague.. they do not mention where those "undersea mountains" are, nor how tall they are.

Oh, and does everyone else notice that she still hasn't addressed the issues I brought up? (Yet she went through the trouble of cut-and-pasting a bunch more stuff.) Why is that? Could it be betsy is incapable of addressing these issues?

- who on Noah's ark had AIDS? Who had herpes? Who had Ebola? Or one of any number of diseases?

- If there was a global flood, how did the fish survive? After all, most species of fish have very specific salinity requirements. A massive flood is going to make the water far less salty and probably kill most of the fresh water species

- What is your scientific definition of a "kind"?

- Why is micro-evolution acceptable but not macro-evolution? What is limiting micro-evolution to prevent large-scale changes?

- Why does the bible (which supposedly has no contradictions) give different paternal grandparents for jebus?

- Why does the bible (which supposedly has no contradictions) give a different order of creation in Genesis 1 and 2?

- Why does the bible (which supposedly has no contradictions) give a different method of death for Judas?

- Why does jebus (the "son of god, the creator of everything) not know that the mustard seed is not the smallest?

- Why does the bible not know that rabbits do not chew their own cud?

Look besty, I know you actually prefer to run away from actually dealing with these issues, but since you claimed to "want a debate" I figure I should continue throwing them at you.

Betsy... the liar and the thief.

Edited June 6, 2011 by segnosaur

[betsy]

Sounds like the jungle or the zoo in here, what with the excited monkeys chattering and chittering. They're throwing bananas.....and poo!

Trying to change the channel! All the silly questions!

Going over the petty details.....but refusing to see the obvious!

Three of them symbolically caricatures of the three monkeys covering ears, eyes and mouth

(hear, see and say no evil), except these three refuse to hear, see.....and cannot refute the obvious!

The Biblical declarations listed as facts are right on! Proven by science!

That's a very big fact!

Edited June 6, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

One of the monkeys caught in the net

wiggling to be free but can't be let

desperate to set his blunder straight

that shows he's just full of nothing,

his words has no weight!

Anchors indeed!

Moral: See when you blab with nothing to back you up?

Edited June 6, 2011 by betsy

[Saipan]

Congratulations on your breakthrough. I'm glad you finally accept evolution, since it's a finding of TRUE science.

You have evidence of real evolution?

Let's have it.

[Sir Bandelot]

I have a feeling the One True Science is a wee bit like the One True God.

Everyone has to have a 'one true' something to believe in.

[Saipan]

I don't. I'm openminded to discuss anything.

[segnosaur]

You have evidence of real evolution?

Let's have it.

Actually we have plenty of evidence of evolution:

- The fossil record, which in some cases gives a pretty well-illustrated picture of how particular species evolved. (The evolution of the whale has some pretty spectacular transitional fossils). Its true that gaps do exist for many species (and possibly always will), but the fossil record does point to evolution

- Genetics, which pretty much matches what we see in the fossil record. (i.e. the species that appear to be closely related in the fossil record also tend to have the most genetic similarities.) The logical explanation is the species appeared via descent and modification (e.g. evolution)

- Actual observations... they've actually witnessed speciation in the lab. For example: a new species of Oenothera gigas (evening primrose) was bred in the lab which cannot breed with related species. And then there's Culex pipiens molestus (mosquito in London subway systems; mating between it and other mosquitoes is generally unsuccessful). Given the fact that the subway system didn't exist 2 centuries ago, this new species evolved in the wild in the past hundred years or so

Of course there is other information out there: we know the age of the universe through astronomy, and the age of the earth via radiometric dating. That isn't exactly evidence of evolution (since the origins of the planet is a different issue than the origins of species). However, it does debunk the arguments made by "young earth" creationists. It is notable however that it fits in with the idea that evolution requires multiple generations (and possibly millions of years) to occur. (It would be extremely suspicious if evolution required millions of years but astronomy/geology showed an earth only thousands of years old)

[DogOnPorch]

Everyone has to have a 'one true' something to believe in.

Science, in your opinion, is something one 'believes in'?

[segnosaur]

Trying to change the channel! All the silly questions!

Valid questions. You just are unable to answer them. Guess you can't find a site to cut and paste the answers from.

In case you forgotten them, here they are again.

- who on Noah's ark had AIDS? Who had herpes? Who had Ebola? Or one of any number of diseases?

- If there was a global flood, how did the fish survive? After all, most species of fish have very specific salinity requirements. A massive flood is going to make the water far less salty and probably kill most of the fresh water species

- What is your scientific definition of a "kind"?

- Why is micro-evolution acceptable but not macro-evolution? What is limiting micro-evolution to prevent large-scale changes?

- Why does the bible (which supposedly has no contradictions) give different paternal grandparents for jebus?

- Why does the bible (which supposedly has no contradictions) give a different order of creation in Genesis 1 and 2?

- Why does the bible (which supposedly has no contradictions) give a different method of death for Judas?

- Why does jebus (the "son of god, the creator of everything) not know that the mustard seed is not the smallest?

- Why does the bible not know that rabbits do not chew their own cud?

Besty.... liar, hypocrite, thief.

Liar, because she claimed she wanted "debate", but when issues were raised that she can't deal with she runs away rather than deal with them.

Hypocrite, because she "demanded" I answer a particular question she raised, yet she refuses to answer issues others have directed at her.

Thief, because she breaks copyright law by taking excessive amounts of material from other sources (and in some cases doesn't give proper references.)

I'm pretty sure at least 2 of those actually break commandments.

[BubberMiley]

I'm pretty sure at least 2 of those actually break commandments.

I think you've left her with no choice but to utter another "Bwa-ha-ha" in the hopes that she might not appear to be utterly vanquished.

[segnosaur]

I'm pretty sure at least 2 of those actually break commandments.

I think you've left her with no choice but to utter another "Bwa-ha-ha" in the hopes that she might not appear to be utterly vanquished.

Yeah, she's like the Charlie Sheen of the thread. Always "Winning", regardless of how badly things go for her.

I'd almost be tempted to classify her as a "troll", someone who doesn't believe the nonsense she's spouting. However, I've actually dealt with people in real life who have that exact same mentality.

[Sir Bandelot]

Science, in your opinion, is something one 'believes in'?

I believe in science because it is self-correcting. But scientific men and women also tend to resist new ideas that go against the established belief. Many of the people that we accept and honour today as having revolutionized science, were ridiculed and held in contempt by their peers. This despite the real scientific evidence that was put forth, because of their interpretation. So it is a form of belief.

I work in a physics laboratory, amongst many PHD scientists. Surprisingly most of them are devout evangelical christians. And it's not just the culture of my workplace, as I have travelled to other centres across the country and found it to be consistent. Not all of them, of course, but more than I encounter when interacting with other groups. It's clear to me that they are able to reconcile their belief in science with their belief in god, because as they see it they are only exposing the truth that god creates!

[segnosaur]

I believe in science because it is self-correcting. But scientific men and women also tend to resist new ideas that go against the established belief. Many of the people that we accept and honour today as having revolutionized science, were ridiculed and held in contempt by their peers. This despite the real scientific evidence that was put forth, because of their interpretation. So it is a form of belief.

However, "belief" implies the acceptance of something without evidence. If a discovery is challenging existing scientific thought, the existing thought isn't accepted as a matter of "belief", it was accepted because the evidence originally pointed that way. (In many cases, the "revolutionized" science doesn't replace existing thought, but is an addition to them. For example, Newton came up with the laws of motion. Einstein's theory of Relativity challenged those laws. However, Newton's laws still work quite well in many cases. (You only need to invoke relativity in certain situations... high velocity, extreme gravity.)

And, lets face it, such "revolutionary ideas" are probably not as common as people might think. Most scientific discovery is through the methodological progression and building on previous ideas.)

Two quotes from Carl Sagan apply:

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. (I think most people here would recognize that betsy is the "bozo the clown" example, not the "columbus/wright brothers" example.)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Edited June 6, 2011 by segnosaur

[Saipan]

However, "belief" implies the acceptance of something without evidence.

If you believe in your evidence you're right. And all those who believe in that same evidence will accept you. (peer "review")

There were many evidences why Earth cannot be round. One of them was that people and animals would fall off except those on the top.

Evidences come and go. So will the one of evolution and other "irrefutable" facts.

[segnosaur]

However, "belief" implies the acceptance of something without evidence.

If you believe in your evidence you're right.

But you're still not believing the evidence for evolution.

You're accepting the evidence, because to dismiss it would be illogical.

If something appears in a peer reviewed journal (e.g. Journal of Paleontology) we assume the information has been properly vetted by experts in the field. (And the fact is, articles DO routinely get rejected from publications.) For us to reject evidence appearing in such journals would be to assume there's some sort of massive conspiracy to "hide the truth", a position that would be highly illogical. (And conspiracies never seem to work out the way you expect.)

Evidences come and go. So will the one of evolution and other "irrefutable" facts.

I doubt it. The theory of evolution has been around for over a century. There is a mountain of evidence to support it (everything from fossils, genetics, morphology, chemistry, and direct observation.) That evidence isn't likely going to go anywhere. This isn't some "flash in the pan" idea.

Furthermore, evidence does not typically "go" anywhere. (Assuming it hasn't been exposed as a fake or faulty in some way.) If new observations are made that require the modification of theories, any such modifications have to incorporate both old and new evidence.

[Saipan]

But you're still not believing the evidence for evolution.

I didn't say either. I'm too open minded for that.

You're accepting the evidence, because to dismiss it would be illogical.

I accept nothing but debate about it. Illogical is only blind belief.

For us to reject evidence appearing in such journals would be to assume there's some sort of massive conspiracy to "hide the truth"

No need for "conspiracy". People have been wrong without it.

If new observations are made that require the modification of theories, any such modifications have to incorporate both old and new evidence.

Why it has to? How much of the flat Earth evidence was "incorporated"? Or even the 60 million year old extinction of coelacanth? Non that I know.

Edited June 6, 2011 by Saipan

[Sir Bandelot]

However, "belief" implies the acceptance of something without evidence. If a discovery is challenging existing scientific thought, the existing thought isn't accepted as a matter of "belief", it was accepted because the evidence originally pointed that way. (In many cases, the "revolutionized" science doesn't replace existing thought, but is an addition to them. For example, Newton came up with the laws of motion. Einstein's theory of Relativity challenged those laws. However, Newton's laws still work quite well in many cases. (You only need to invoke relativity in certain situations... high velocity, extreme gravity.)

And, lets face it, such "revolutionary ideas" are probably not as common as people might think. Most scientific discovery is through the methodological progression and building on previous ideas.)

Two quotes from Carl Sagan apply:

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. (I think most people here would recognize that betsy is the "bozo the clown" example, not the "columbus/wright brothers" example.)

Excuses and personal insults aside, belief is also the dogmatic attachment to an idea, despite evidence to the contrary. A better word for such thoughts would be scientific "faith".

Still, despite its tendency to resist change and accept wholly new ideas, science is capable of eventually revising its beliefs. The same can be said for religion, in some cases as christianity, or rather the Vatican has come to accept new scientific ideas. It just takes them longer.

So it seems to me that there are the same kinds of people within both 'camps', those who are conservative and more traditional and those who are progressive and more willing to accept new ideas. There is no line dividing science and religion, if one realizes religion deals with the abstract and metaphysical. Human beings are far more complex than can be described by purely analytical/ rational means. That is why our brains are divided into two halves, and the more evolved ones are capable of embracing the ideas in both, and not seeing any contradiction.

Edited June 6, 2011 by Sir Bandelot

[segnosaur]

But you're still not believing the evidence for evolution.

I didn't say either. I'm too open minded for that.

You're accepting the evidence, because to dismiss it would be illogical.

I accept nothing but debate about it. Illogical is only blind belief.

Sorry, guess I didn't state that clear enough.

When I said "you don't believe in evolution. You accept evolution" I was not using the word "you" to mean you specifically. I was using it to apply to anyone in general who understands that the logical explanation for the diversity of life on the planet was through evolution.

For us to reject evidence appearing in such journals would be to assume there's some sort of massive conspiracy to "hide the truth"

No need for "conspiracy". People have been wrong without it.

Really? Listening to people like betsy you'd assume that all scientists were ganging up to quash anything they disagreed with.

At the very least it would require a massive amount of incompetence to dismiss large amounts of evidence that we've found supporting evolution.

If new observations are made that require the modification of theories, any such modifications have to incorporate both old and new evidence.

Why it has to?

Because, the old observations still exist, and must be explained. (I think you might be confusing observations with theories. An observation (assuming it was legitimate) will always exist in science. Theories/hypothesis are the things that get modified.

They have, for example, found plenty of evidence supporting the relationship between birds and dinosaurs. (Transitional fossils, chemistry, genetics, etc.) If tomorrow we found evidence that suggested birds appeared before the Triassic, that would not negate the transitional fossils that were found. Instead, we'd have to adjust the phylogenic tree to put the relationship in the context. But we'd still keep the transitional fossils as a discovery of science.

How much of the flat Earth evidence was "incorporated"?

Probably nothing, because as far as I can tell, there were no real scientific observations from the "flat earth" idea.

Or even the 60 million year old extinction of coelacanth? Non that I know.

Ummm... first of all, keep in mind that the Coelocanth comprises a whole order of fishes, not just a single species. And despite claims that the Coelocanth is a "living fossil", the species that are alive today are not the same as those that existed 60 million years ago. They did evolve.

Secondly, with science it is pretty much impossible to "prove" a species is extinct (or never existed). They thought they had disappeared because they'd never been seen live, but that doesn't mean you can't have isolated populations in areas that have minimal human contact.

The fact that they exist now, modified slightly (but similar to) fossil forms is an illustration of how genetic and morphological changes will occur slowly when there is little selective pressure. (Given the fact that the subject of the rate of change of evolution is an area of active study, such information is actually useful.)

Edited June 6, 2011 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

Excuses and personal insults aside, belief is also the dogmatic attachment to an idea, despite evidence to the contrary. A better word for such thoughts would be scientific "faith".

Still, despite its tendency to resist change and accept wholly new ideas, science is capable of eventually revising its beliefs.

Ummm... if science is capable of revising its beliefs, then it is not "dogma". By definition, "dogma" is "authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioner or believers." (Wikipedia).

The same can be said for religion, in some cases as christianity, or rather the Vatican has come to accept new scientific ideas. It just takes them longer.

Except the vatican is not the "leader" of all of christianity. Sadly, people like betsy are still clinging to creationism long after they've been dismissed by both secular scientists, and more open minded theologans. She does not have the capacity to incorporate new evidence.

So it seems to me that there are the same kinds of people within both 'camps', those who are conservative and more traditional and those who are progressive and more willing to accept new ideas. There is no line dividing science and religion, if one realizes religion deals with the abstract and metaphysical.

Except the problem is that people like betsy are unable to make the distinction.

If you want to believe in god, or the flying spaghetti monster, or the invisible pink unicorn living in your sock drawer, you can do so, as long as you understand that there is no actual evidence that these things exist, and have had absolutely no impact on the world. However, if you think there's actual proof that your invisible sky daddy has actually had an observable effect, then that particular challenge must be smacked down, and smacked down hard.

Human beings are far more complex than can be described by purely analytical/ rational means.

Nope, we're not. We're animals. We evolved. We may not know everything that lead us to this particular point in our evolution, but we're learning, and we're learning via rational, logical thinking.

[cybercoma]

segnosaur, you don't actually have to reply to Saipan.