1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KSo does this mean you have no interest in the web sight I provided? You said that you have never talked to or heard an intelligent creationist and I think I have provided you with one. I don't anticipate it changing your mind but you may see the creationist position a little differently and rational.
Most Christians can manipulate the interpretation of the bible. They might say it provides an allegorical truth or a religious truth- not a scienitific truth or historical truth. This is different to fundamentalists who adamantly believe everything in the bible is true in every conceivable way. Often fundamentalism requires doublethink and irrational ideas. ...[text shortened]... ontradicts them. Fundamentalists are really brainwashed humans incapable of independent thought.
Originally posted by rwingettFor example, 'weak atheists.' They assume that ~G is true, but claim
Theists are all irrational. Belief in the supernatural is irrational. But perfectly intelligent people are capable of many irrational beliefs.
they don't believe that G is false.
A person who understand even the bare fundamentals of logic (upon
which rationale stems) would recognize this.
Just as an example.
Nemesio
Originally posted by whodeyI dont care if this Dr. is a theologian and a physicist, that doesn't make him a theologian- just a deranged theist trying to appear intelligent using science. I have explained what a fundamentalist is. ALL fundamentalists are inane.
So does this mean you have no interest in the web sight I provided? You said that you have never talked to or heard an intelligent creationist and I think I have provided you with one. I don't anticipate it changing your mind but you may see the creationist position a little differently and rational.
Originally posted by Conrau KSo you think that I am inane and not worthy of discussion? I will therefore not bore you with any more inane posts.
I dont care if this Dr. is a theologian and a physicist, that doesn't make him a theologian- just a deranged theist trying to appear intelligent using science. I have explained what a fundamentalist is. ALL fundamentalists are inane.
Originally posted by Conrau KThere is one thing I think we can both agree on. If you can show or have no respect for the person you are conversing with then there is no point in conversing. I have attempted to have atheists on this sight look at the findings of the scientist in question but to no avail. It seems no one wants to engage in debate over the creationists veiwpoint in a articulate debate. Either I get ignored or called names. I can only conclude that either none of the atheists on this board are open minded enough to hear opposing arguements to the validity of creation, or they are just plain scared to hear it presented intelligently. I don't know which.
If you are a fundamentalist (i.e. you believe everything the bible says is true- even the ones that contradict each other) then yes.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyIf creationism succeeded in producing a semi plausible argument (which would entail overturning entrenched scientific theories) then I think everyone would be a little more sympathetic, however, creationism has not done this.
There is one thing I think we can both agree on. If you can show or have no respect for the person you are conversing with then there is no point in conversing. I have attempted to have atheists on this sight look at the findings of the scientist in question but to no avail. It seems no one wants to engage in debate over the creationists veiwpoint in a art ...[text shortened]... reation, or they are just plain scared to hear it presented intelligently. I don't know which.
EDIT: But I dont think it appropriate to call you names.
Originally posted by whodeyIt's the old argument from creationists and IDers - trott out someone who has a background in science and who supports their ideas. This stuff by Gerald Schroeder is no different. For a nice slamming of his arguments check out: http://www.talkreason.org/articles/schroeder.cfm
Perhaps this is because creationists refer to Genesis and you do not think that Genesis can correlate with science. There is a problem here, however. The Bible is not book of science, and likewise science does not contemplate religion. Both come at you from two different angles and therefore, it would be easy to assume one or the other must be right and th ...[text shortened]... eo is a little long. After all, there is a lot of material to cover. Tell me what you think.
Whodey where your 'experts' fail to convince atheists - or rational theists for that matter - is that the biased viewpoint they take going into their arguments.
Scientists are often biased towards their own pet theories - who wouldn't be. Sometimes they've invested years in the work leading up to some particular theory.
But for the creationist/ID afficionado and their scientist supporters there's one key difference. They don't go into their theory biased by their belief in the rightness of that theory. THey go into their theories with an unfailing belief in the rightness of the text that supports their theory - ie. the Bible.
Schroeder for example, assumes that the Bible is true, and then attepts to apply scientific methods to demonstrate this truth.
No self respecting scientist would ever make such a claim. They may wax lyrical about how 'true' and 'right' their theory is - but never about the infallibility of the supporting documentation.
That's just plain dumb.
Now if you want to believe in the literal truth of a particular historical book that's fine - your choice.
But don't fob it off onto the rest of us as if this were the way the world is. You might wish it were so.
But thank God it isn't!
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyI did take the time to listen to the lecture that you cited on page 1. I found the crux of his explanation postively incoherent. In particular, he works under a theory that states that time is necessarily relative, while simultaneously presupposing that there is such a thing as absolute time. That doesn't quite work.
There is one thing I think we can both agree on. If you can show or have no respect for the person you are conversing with then there is no point in conversing. I have attempted to have atheists on this sight look at the findings of the scientist in question but to no avail. It seems no one wants to engage in debate over the creationists veiwpoint in a art ...[text shortened]... reation, or they are just plain scared to hear it presented intelligently. I don't know which.
Further, his statement that science has proven the first line of the Bible (i.e., that there was a 'creation'😉 is false. Additionally, many of his interpretations are very far from being cogent (e.g., when he states that the shape of the first letter in the text is somehow related to the scientific notion that we cannot know about anything that predates the Big Bang 🙄). He also apparently has no grasp of the Anthropic Principle. All that his lecture demonstrated is that if one interprets the creation account in the Bible in a certain largely arbitrary way (in concert with his notion of 'two clocks'😉, then the interpreted account is consistent with some proposed scientific theories (EDIT: actually, not really, since he didn't properly apply the theories that he referenced).
However, I did enjoy his explanations aimed at showing that many of the English versions of the account do not necessarily convey the original intent.
Originally posted by LemonJelloAs i said, fundamentalists are stupid.
I did take the time to listen to the lecture that you cited on page 1. I found the crux of his explanation postively incoherent. In particular, he works under a theory that states that time is necessarily relative, while simultaneously presupposing that there is such a thing as absolute time. That doesn't quite work.
Further, his statement that scie ...[text shortened]... many of the English versions of the account do not necessarily convey the original intent.
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloThank you for listening. I have to admit, I am no expert on the Antropic Principle, but I found many of his arguements very interesting. I will have to study up on it and then listen again to the lecture. I in no way think the man has all the answers, but he did answer some of my questions such as some of the original Hebrew wordings intent compared to English translation. I merely wanted someone to steer me in the direction of what I should study up on to see if his arguements could hold water. None of us will ever have all the answers to questions regarding the Big Bang and creation/evolution, however, I think it important to have an open mind with the realization that we will never have all the answers.
I did take the time to listen to the lecture that you cited on page 1. I found the crux of his explanation postively incoherent. In particular, he works under a theory that states that time is necessarily relative, while simultaneously presupposing that there is such a thing as absolute time. That doesn't quite work.
Further, his statement that scie many of the English versions of the account do not necessarily convey the original intent.
By the way, would you call the scsientist "stupid" as some have charged? To be stupid would be to not to listen to someones arguements and then make blind assumptions about those arguements based on their preconceived notions about the truth. Would you not agree?
Originally posted by whodeyI wouldn't call him 'stupid' exactly. However, I am concerned about the level of objectivity (or lack thereof) with which he approaches the topic. Many of his interpretations seem self-fulfilling to me. He does seem to know his Hebrew, though, and I did like some of his examples concerning how the English translations may be misinformant.
Thank you for listening. I have to admit, I am no expert on the Antropic Principle, but I found many of his arguements very interesting. I will have to study up on it and then listen again to the lecture. I in no way think the man has all the answers, but he did answer some of my questions such as some of the original Hebrew wordings intent compared to Eng ...[text shortened]... ut those arguements based on their preconceived notions about the truth. Would you not agree?