30% of Texans Believe "The Flintstones" is a Documentary

[RainDog]

Hamartia, huh? College boy.

"We've been attacked, by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." - Pastor Ray Mummert

 

[Sassy]

Well thought out discussion, Don_P, although I have some questions...

Ok, lets say that there is a deity who originally created the world, who set up certain laws for time, space & matter...  that would assume supernatural creation/intelligent design...  if we then discounted the supernatural in creation we would deny the deity which would bring us back to a totally naturalistic/material universe - random, with no intelligent design but what somehow is birthed out of time, space & matter, but we don't know where time, space & matter came from either or how it came into being.      

Reducing science down to a totally naturalistic/material process possibly denies the most important component of science...  no scientist can truly explain how the life force came about, they break it down to a lot of chemical & electrical interactions & propose different explanations.  That causes the scientist who discounts supernatural processes in the hypothesis to have to resort to millions & billions of years.

I believe that the Creator did put into effect natural as well as moral laws when he created the universe - you see that every moment.  Most of the time natural laws work in the way they were intended to work.  But I believe, if there is a creator, then that creator or deity would have the option to do what it wanted if it so desired - you see that pointed out in the Scriptures when the Creator asks the clay if he can tell the potter what to do.  And no, naturalistic/material "science" would not be able to empirically explain or prove the supernatural process.  

What I am trying so say & feel so woefully inadequate to do so, is, if there is a supernatural component to our world, our existence - leaving it out of the equation leaves out a large chunk of empirical evidence.  Just like evolutionists can't truly support their argument for evolution except by adding the time factor into it.

At the website you shared, there is a section that discusses Intelligent design & irreducible complexity.  The writer discounts Behe's argument for irreducible complexity & then takes Behe's example of a mouse trap being of no use as a mouse trap if one of the 5 components was removed.  The writer goes on to say, "oh, but you can break down the mousetrap into smaller, useful components like a paper clip, or a paper weight or a key chain..."  yes, those are all useful components in themselves but they still don't make a mousetrap if one of them is missing - the argument is totally nonsense...  http://www.astronomynotes.com/science-religion/NormLevan/s7-annot.htm

Trying to explain the origins of life while denying the possibility that a creator could have brought into existence things as they are today with laws set in place to allow for only subtle changes over time, ie micro evolution, does not seem scientific to me.  Claiming that things have evolved over billions & billions of years with millions of macro evolutionary changes has never been empirically proven - so therefore, it is still a supposition, a belief in "time", a theory - but not the scientific fact that I keep reading evolutionary scientists claim over & over again.

If you are a deist or a theist or a believer in intelligent design, the supernatural has to be taken into the equation or you only have part of the picture.  A naturalist/material evolutionist has to add TIME into the equation or it doesn't work.  Seems like TIME then takes on the creative/supernatural force...

Hamartia     I had to look that up...  hamartia, the Greek word for error or failure, used by Aristotle in hisPoetics (4th century BCE) to designate the false step that leads the protagonist in a tragedy to his or her downfall. The term has often been translated as 'tragic flaw', but this misleadingly confines the cause of the reversal of fortunes to some personal defect of character, whereas Aristotle's emphasis was rather upon the protagonist's action, which could be brought about by misjudgement, ignorance, or some other cause.  or better yet, "a defect in tissue combination?"

So, what are you trying to say, Don_P?   

[Don_P]

Raindog, your streak is unbroken, but thanks  .

I like the word, its hard to get a handle on it. It doesn't translate well. We've translated it as all of the things you mentioned. King James scholars translated that Greek word as "sin", but we've since attached a whole lot of baggage to that word. I like "missing the mark". When we do, and then when we build upon that miss, it binds us.
 
I'm ill equipped to debate the science, I've read and listened and paid attention as I dug in the earth. The current science does not disturb me. Is it right? I don't know, time will tell. If you believe that the speed of light is constant, they are looking into some pretty distant time out there now. Why does the earth need to be young? Or, what if your heels are locked around that immovable spot and they show that just that one detail is not so?

I hadn't read that website before posting, I got there when google popped up with a pic of Lemaitre with Einstein. I read the one page, it seemed good and I posted. I've just enjoyed reading those pages though, I think he speaks better than I could.

[waggin]

Okay, here's a question for both of you.

IF dinosaurs and man coexisted WHY are dinosaurs extinct and man still in existence?

Hunted them to extinction?  Global warming caused from the first cave man fire, and mans huge desire to leave the biggest ... hugest ... carbon footprint.    

---which caused the dinosaurs to stampede en-masse like lemmings off the edge of the earth.  After all, the earth is flat, right?

[pagan]

It's easier for some people to answer "God did it" and end the discussion.

[RainDog]

 This Ig Nobel prize winning paper explains why people completely untrained and unskilled in biology, or even scientific method, from Talk Radio hosts and internet political pundits to the turkey-neck preacher out of the Church of Christ's Own Parking Facility in DeLand, Florida and Joe Sixpack down at the corner bar, feel that they are competent to argue about how change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next occurs with the 99.985% of the world's experts in relevant fields of earth and life sciences.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect

Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments

"We propose that those with limited knowledge in a domain suffer a dual burden: Not only do they reach mistaken conclusions and make regrettable errors, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it."

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.2655&rep=rep1&type=pdf


And before anyone gets upset, this can be applied to either side of the argument, depending. I've certainly made my share of unsophisticated statements.

[Pox Eclipse]

Reducing science down to a totally naturalistic/material process possibly denies the most important component of science...  no scientist can truly explain how the life force came about, they break it down to a lot of chemical & electrical interactions & propose different explanations.  

This presumes that in order to be true, science must have an answer for every question.  To the contrary, the scientist can answer "I don't know" and be completely consistent, without yielding any credence to religious mythology.  I believe that the universe is knowable and consistent with the scientific method; that does not mean science must explain all phenomena now.

[pagan]

RainDog,

Interesting read. Do you think that's the reason George H. Bush feels he made no mistakes as president? 

[ScottA]

Anyone ever stop to think that each persons reality may be based on what they can see? It's easy to spout wisdom but if the person on the reciving end can't see it then to them it may sound like BS. There is a God perhaps more than one, or if only one, maybe He has some helpers but I feel it nearly every day. Too many unexplained things happen for it to all be an accident. I was never much for church but churches are by men for men atleast those I've seen. It's sad that so many people only see the church(s).

[StinkerBell]

Seems that if I believe in God and f I happen to be a church goer obviously must lacking the inteligence area, according to certain aspects of this thread.  Plus I fit this mold and therefore I must  think that President Bush made no mistakes.

Seeing that I lack so much I must not have really anything to offer.

[RainDog]

Seems that if I believe in God and f I happen to be a church goer obviously must lacking the inteligence area, according to certain aspects of this thread.  Plus I fit this mold and therefore I must  think that President Bush made no mistakes.

Seeing that I lack so much I must not have really anything to offer.

There are highly intelligent church-goers and drooling idiot atheists, of course.

That was a cheap shot, Stinkerbell.

You know that.

[pagan]

ScottA,

Excellent point. Where some people see Gods work in nature, others see natural processes that have evolved over millennia.

Stinkerbell,

I think it goes both ways. I have some in-laws who are born again Christians so my wife and I always get lectured on God and how they're going to heaven and we're going to hell and how can we be so stupid as to NOT believe.

[StinkerBell]

Pagancelt,

I do not think I could be accused of thumping in the forum. Yes I have shared my belief here and I also know others here share the same view.  Although I have always been stumped why others can not see what I see, I do not believe I have indicate how inferior they are for that or that I have been dismissive or even backhanded their lack of intelect. Yes, I have had a few miscommunications in the past but have always worked them out because of mutual respect.   I think this thread has reached in a way that is not just fun banter among its memebers but has made some backhanded snide comments that has been delieverd in the indirect way they were meant.

As for going to Hell. I have no idea if you are going to Hell. Final judgement is not for me or anyone but God to decide.  Sure I can make some personal judgements/opinons of you, but just not final judgement

[pagan]

Stinkerbell,

Never took your posts as thumping, rather it's you expressing your beliefs. I was using my experience with my in-laws to demonstrate how some in the believing crowd can view those in the non-believing crowd as stupid, ignorant, etc. just as people in the non-believing crowd can view the believers in the same manner. Like I said, it goes both ways.

The article Raindog posted related to laypeople discussing topics of such complexity with airs of expertise while they ultimately have no expertise in the fields they're discussing. This lack of expertise then causes them to fail seeing their arguments are failing. This goes for both sides of this debate.

[Pox Eclipse]

Too many unexplained things happen for it to all be an accident.

I have never understood this logic.  The absence of an explanation does not imply proof of a creator/higher power/god.  "I don't know" is a perfectly good answer, but people seem to want to always fill in the blanks, even when it is with unsupported mythology.

[ScottA]

Too many unexplained things happen for it to all be an accident.

I have never understood this logic.  The absence of an explanation does not imply proof of a creator/higher power/god.  "I don't know" is a perfectly good answer, but people seem to want to always fill in the blanks, even when it is with unsupported mythology.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. And that's the way they want it.

It's not logic it's feeling. I can't explain God but I can feel him.

[RainDog]

Pagancelt,

I do not think I could be accused of thumping in the forum. Yes I have shared my belief here and I also know others here share the same view.  Although I have always been stumped why others can not see what I see, I do not believe I have indicate how inferior they are for that or that I have been dismissive or even backhanded their lack of intelect. Yes, I have had a few miscommunications in the past but have always worked them out because of mutual respect.   I think this thread has reached in a way that is not just fun banter among its memebers but has made some backhanded snide comments that has been delieverd in the indirect way they were meant.

As for going to Hell. I have no idea if you are going to Hell. Final judgement is not for me or anyone but God to decide.  Sure I can make some personal judgements/opinons of you, but just not final judgement

Stinkerbell, nobody here is being deliberately offensive to other forum members, from what I can see. I myself spend easily half of the time it takes for me to post in editing out all the bite and punch from my statements in a desperate attempt to not offend.

In all fairness, I do think that this needs to be considered:

What does someone who knows absolutely nothing about genetics and evolution GET when they argue evolution with virtually every single expert in applicable sciences in the whole world?

I mean, seriously.

[pagan]

The laypeople on both sides of the issue, in as far as my experience has gone, use the same talking points, irreducible complexity being a prime example. When countered with something that contradicts their talking point(s) they refuse excepting that they've entered into an argument they don't fully understand. And here I see the truth of the article as they cannot understand that they've gotten in over their heads and admit they do not understand, rather they continue using the same arguments over and over failing to see they've lost the discussion.

I am neither a biologist nor a geneticist, although in college I did take some courses in these fields although this by no means qualifies me to represent either academic field, and none of the people I've discussed religion with are experts either. Most religious people I've met aren't even well read regarding the bible but appear to feel their solid beliefs qualifies them to discuss the bible as if they were experts. I actually enjoy discussing matter of faith with people who fully understand the depths of their religions. We use what limited knowledge we have and fill in the gaps with personal experience. And here is where it gets tricky.

My brother in law is born again. When he walks outside he sees God's majesty all around him. The gentle breeze and the ocean waves are all testaments to God's greatness...for my brother in law. When I walk outside, however, I see natural processes. He sees the bible as THE word of God while I see it as a book written by men attempting to explain their world as they experienced it at that time. He sees me as a blasphemer while I see him as a religious zealot. He shares the beer he brews with me and we generally enjoy each others company and we acknowledge he has as much chances of making me a believer as I have if making him reject his faith. In essence, we do not hold our religious differences against each other.

[RainDog]

The laypeople on both sides of the issue, in as far as my experience has gone, use the same talking points, irreducible complexity being a prime example. When countered with something that contradicts their talking point(s) they refuse excepting that they've entered into an argument they don't fully understand. And here I see the truth of the article as they cannot understand that they've gotten in over their heads and admit they do not understand, rather they continue using the same arguments over and over failing to see they've lost the discussion.

I am neither a biologist nor a geneticist, although in college I did take some courses in these fields although this by no means qualifies me to represent either academic field, and none of the people I've discussed religion with are experts either. Most religious people I've met aren't even well read regarding the bible but appear to feel their solid beliefs qualifies them to discuss the bible as if they were experts. I actually enjoy discussing matter of faith with people who fully understand the depths of their religions. We use what limited knowledge we have and fill in the gaps with personal experience. And here is where it gets tricky.

My brother in law is born again. When he walks outside he sees God's majesty all around him. The gentle breeze and the ocean waves are all testaments to God's greatness...for my brother in law. When I walk outside, however, I see natural processes. He sees the bible as THE word of God while I see it as a book written by men attempting to explain their world as they experienced it at that time. He sees me as a blasphemer while I see him as a religious zealot. He shares the beer he brews with me and we generally enjoy each others company and we acknowledge he has as much chances of making me a believer as I have if making him reject his faith. In essence, we do not hold our religious differences against each other.

What I'm seeing in America now, in all the blah-blah against climate change, evolution, etc, is the breakdown of a consensus that the pursuit of knowledge is a good. Essentially a war on expertise.

As novelist David Brin puts it:

As part of a more general assault on the very notion of expertise, the narrative starts with a truism that is actually true:

"Not every smart person is wise..."

only then extrapolates it, implicitly, to a blatant falsehood

"all smartypants are unwise, all the time; and my uninformed opinion is equal to any expert testimony."

[pagan]

Agreed. That could be a whole new topic in itself; why do the powers that be want to promote ignorance?  Or who is promoting the ignorance and for what purpose?

[RainDog]

Agreed. That could be a whole new topic in itself; why do the powers that be want to promote ignorance?  Or who is promoting the ignorance and for what purpose?

The article that I swiped that David Brin quote from contains more on just that, in the context of climate change controversy.

"Let there be no mistake, this is all about power, and the struggle goes way back.  In Britain, the "Boffin Principle" long held that technical people have no business making policy suggestions to their betters. In America, waves of anti-intellectual populism - like the 19th Century Know Nothing Party - were  deliberately stoked by aristocracies who saw the new, mental elites as a threat. "

http://open.salon.com/blog/david_brin/2010/02/09/the_real_struggle_behind_climate_change_-_a_war_on_expertise

[pagan]

Interesting read. Let me digest it for a while before I reply.

[pagan]

RainDog,

The dumbing down of the middle and lower class workers of American society has been going on for decades, just get some old reading and arithmetic primers from the late eighteen hundreds and you'll see what I mean, and has accelerated since the end of WWII.

Elected government officials don't want an educated electorate. This is why rather than having debates about pertinent topics we get to hear pundits discuss the clothes and hair style of Sarah Palin, or how Barak Obama is so articulate. Sure, the pundits and talking heads touch on a few "key" issues, but by and large most of it is useless drivel. They pick the "key" issues anyway so how "key" are these issues in the end? Even political speeches now are nothing more than the same mindless talking points repeated over and over. An educated electorate would ask politicians tough questions, demand their politicians fulfill campaign promises and even force politicians to represent the voters who elected them. Ignorant boobs only care about cheap cable TV and gas. Ignorance is bliss, right?

Most Americans are ignorant because public schools operate under mandates handed down by the government. These mandates are made by members of Congress who are beholden to the wealthy and corporations who funded their election campaigns. Thus members of Congress write laws to protect the interests of the wealthy, corporations, and Congressional members. This means they need the American people to be a bunch of barely literate chumps who listen to the crap spewing forth from politicians mouths and say "We need moral fiber in Washington DC...he has my vote!" Meanwhile they're out hiring whores, chasing underage male pages around for sex, soliciting gay men in public restrooms, lying, cheating, stealing, and the American people sit back and think, "At least they're keeping cable rates low. God knows I don't want to miss an episode of CSI."

[waggin]

In three paragraphs, pagancelt just rendered an entire year of high school civics moot.  The "Schoolhouse Rock" version would be really boring.  Hey!  Who's on American Idol nowadays?

[glenn kangiser]

I think pagancelt about covered it - no need for me to comment..