*Only* 75%? I'd have guessed it would be a much higher percentage. You would not believe how many times I have encountered such things, even from people who really should have known better. (Of course, this is/. -- most everyone here has probably experienced this, too).
You aren't the only one saying it, but I've always seen it drawn as a graph:
| Has a clue | Has no clue
Is not arrogant | ideal | acceptable
Is arrogant | acceptable | unacceptable
(Sorry the graph isn't turning out very clear;/. stupid comment filter is mangling it....)
The best person to hire or work with is the "not arrogant/has a clue person". You can work with a person who has a clue and is arrogant since they know enough not to break things, but it may not always be pleasant. You can work with a person who has no clue but is aware of the fact, because they can be taught. But the person who doesn't know jack **** but thinks they are God's gift to mankind doesn't know enough not to break things and can't be taught because they *think* they know everything.
If you sed "s/not arrogant/knows what he doesn't know/" and sed "s/arrogant/does not know what he doesn't know" you get the gist of Rumsfeld's quote and your saying -- which despite Rumsfeld's poor wording is actually a pretty insightful comment, IMHO.
A sincere question : how could you get to that point and go (back, IMHO) to one side of the fence and decide it's the right one?
Wow. I'll have to get really personal here, but okay, here goes. In a nutshell, Pascal's theorem came to play when I was 21. I found myself really, really sick -- as in, "you could die from this" kind of sick, and I got to thinking about Pascal's philosophy: "suppose there is no God, but you believe anyway. What have you lost? Not much. Suppose there is a God and you believe. What have you gained? Everything. Suppose there is a God and you don't believe. What have you lost? Everything." As someone else here on/. once said, that isn't a proof of God, and that's correct. It is rather an argument for the rationality of some kind of spirituality; which one is left as an exercise for the reader. At this point, I made an intellectual decision to believe, but in honesty, I didn't really believe. I wanted to -- just in case -- but, there was just nothing there.
Fast forward several years. Eventually, I had what one of my high-school friends called a "religious experience." While I was working through some ethical problems in my mind one day, I just felt a presence around me that was unlike anything I have ever experienced (cue the/. skeptics here...), and I felt a sudden overwhelming certainty that the decision I had been worrying over was correct. I'm really watering the story down here -- I doubt that/. is the proper forum to tell the full story with all the details, so suffice it to say that I was convinced that I was in the presence of God at this point.
This gets really cool, now. My wife has a daughter from a previous marriage, who by this point had moved out of the house. My step-daughter never felt really comfortable in the house -- she said it always felt just a little creepy, and she didn't like to be there by herself. Several hours later, she came by and was talking to my wife about something, when suddenly she stopped and said, "what have you guys done here today? It just feels so...comforting and peaceful today." I hadn't told her what had happened yet, and neither had my wife, but she still picked up the residuals of what I had experienced.
So, this leaves two options. Either I am delusional and charismatic enough to infect my step-daughter without having even spoken to her (actually, I hadn't even *seen* her when she said that to my wife; I was out at the time), or I really, truly experienced something beyond what science can explain. I choose the second option, possibly for obvious reasons. I can't *prove* anything I've said here, so I leave it to anyone reading this to decide what you want. But I am settled in my mind that there is a God, He is real, and if you honestly seek Him out, you will find Him.
A long time ago, I read a book by Gordon R. Dickson, IIRC, called "The Dosadi Experiment." There's a real short scene in the book where Dickson describes the difference between prejudice and bias like this (paraphrasing):
Bias is when you say, "If at all possible, I will judge in your favor." Prejudice is when you say, "No matter what you say, I will judge in your favor." Bias is acceptable; prejudice is not.
I will openly acknowledge that I am biased. I do not think that I am prejudiced. As I've said, I have been both atheist and Christian; I've looked at both sides, and I've been biased both ways. Christianity won, and now, it would take a lot of very compelling evidence (i.e., something on the order of you would have to convince me that I am insane) to swing my opinion again. I won't say it's impossible for you to do so, but I will say that it's very unlikely.
...in the 665th dimension. (that's the dimension right next to hell btw, which is the 666th dimension)
ROFL!!!
So again, you're not being objective nor are you trying to reconcile anything...but please, don't kid yourself or others that you are trying to reconcile anything, thats a delusion.
On the contrary -- while I might not be taking an unbiased view at science vs. religion at this point in my life, I most certainly am trying to figure out how science and religion can coexist peacefully. I could be wrong on my stance of evolution -- as I've said before Genesis does not describe in detail how God created the different species on the earth; it just says that He created them. I don't think it was through evolution, for reasons I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread. However, I will admit that, since I wasn't there when God did whatever it was that He did, I could be totally mistaken. To that extent, yes, I am objective, and I am trying to reconcile faith and science.
Speciation has already been observed [talkorigins.org].
Very interesting read so far -- I'm not through it yet, but thanks for the link. Contrary to what a lot of people say and think about Christians, I really do enjoy challenging my beliefs, but maybe I'm weird, lol.
I'd be curious if you'd answer a question for me: What would it take for you to accept evolution as the origin of the species?
Sure, here goes.
The way I understand, there are two really big flaws with evolution as the origin of species. The first is as described in the bookDarwin's Black Box. The author of this book (nuts -- I didn't jot down his name while getting the link from Amazon, sorry) is much more qualified to explain the problem, but I'll give it a shot. When Darwin proposed the theory of evolution, he acknowledged that science had not yet progressed far enough to tell if the difference between similar structures in organisms could indeed have developed in a stepping stone fashion, that is, if for example, the progression from a very simple eye that is capable only of detecting the absence or presence of light and a slightly more complex eye where the light detecting surface has folded into a cup that contains a liquid that acts as a crude lens (one of the examples in the book). Darwin wrote that if such a change could happen in discrete steps small enough to allow individual mutations to build to the more advanced structure, then evolution makes sense, but if such a change could not happen in this fashion, then evolution is a flawed theory. In "Darwin's Black Box", the author claims that these steps are far more complex than Darwin believed, and that they are in fact, too complex for evolution of new structures to occur. Why? Because even a simple change, such as described in the eye example above, is not a single discrete change -- it requires hundreds of mutations in the genome, without any one of which, the organism is no longer more competitive, but rather less competitive, since it is using resources to build structures that are not necessary, until all of the components are in place. This is a layman's explanation of the first problem I have with evolution; the author of "Darwin's Black Box" describes it much better (that is, he begins describing the structures that are required, how they are built and how the genomes code for them; I don't recall all of this information right now).
The second major problem I have with evolution as the origin of species involves the chromosome count of different species. Scientists tell us that either chimps or bonobo apes are the animals most closely related to human beings. Science also tells us that every species on the planet can be distinguished by the number of chromosomes -- IIRC, humans have 23 chromosomes, but both chimps and bonobos have a different number of chromosomes. If humans had evolved from primates, then that means that not only would we have to have evolved the physical differences between humans and apes, but we would also have had to evolve a different number of chromosomes. But that's not enough, either. Suppose through random mutation, such an uber-ape were to evolve. That's not enough, unless like the E. Coli bacteria in TFA that sparked this thread, the apes could reproduce asexually. What happens when you cross-breed two closely related, but still distinct species? In every case so far that leads to living offspring (i.e., horse and donkey, lions and tigers, etc.) you get completely sterile offspring. Thus, for the uber-ape to reproduce and create viable offspring, you would have to not only mutate the genes to create new physical structures and mutate the genes to produce a different number of chromosomes (that is, a different species), but you would also have to simultaneously have a male and female of this new species at the same time so that they could reproduce and perpetuate the species. But we still have a problem. What happens in any sufficiently small, isolated group of individuals? More mutations, most of which are distinctly bad for the mutated individuals. Think of pure-bre
Relativity says that the speed (and therefore acceleration) of two objects depends upon your frame of reference. I.E., it is every bit as accurate to say that the bowling ball is moving towards the earth as it is to say that the earth is moving towards the bowling ball. In terms of the mathematical calculations, you can use whichever frame of reference is easiest.
Yes, the earth exerts a gravitational pull on the bowling ball, thus pulling the bowling ball towards the earth, and the bowling ball also exerts a gravitational pull on the earth, thus pulling the earth towards it. However, mathematically, there is no difference between saying that your frame of reference is earth-centric, bowling ball-centric, or relative to some fixed point in space where your answer is correct.
Been there and done that. I have sat on both sides of the fence, and an honest, objective search has led me to where I am today. So yeah, I have said that God may exist, but I could be wrong and I have said that God may not exist, but I could be wrong. My experience to date tells me that He does.
At this point, can I say that God may not exist? It would take some mighty compelling evidence. As I have stated elsewhere in this thread, I have experienced God's presence in my life. God is as real to me, and for much -- but not exactly the same -- reasons as why I believe my wife is real. Have I sat down, patted God on the shoulder, spoke to Him like I spoke to my wife? Well, no. But I have felt His presence in my life every bit as much as I've felt my wife, my daughter, or my parents' presence in my life.
You may not believe any of these people exist:) but that won't affect my knowledge that they are real. So to convince me that God doesn't exist, you would have to present evidence of much the same magnitude as evidence to convince me that my aforementioned family members don't exist.
That's actually a very good point, and the best answer I can give is to read as many translations, taken from as many source documents as possible. Because the Bible is not a comprehensive whole, but rather a collection of books that were compiled from oral and written sources over thousands of years -- and often duplicated by multiple people throughout those years -- you can try to get as accurate a translation as possible by comparing these sources. I don't speak Greek, Latin, Hebrew, or Aramaic, so to some extent I am at the mercy of the scholars who do speak these languages, but that's the best I can do for now.
No, he is absolutely correct. Objectively speaking there is no other purpose in life except reproduction. He also said "and what you want to make of it."
Point taken. I withdraw my "shallow interpretation" remark.
I like how you got modded "flamebait" for no apparent reason, but I guess by now I should be used to the fact that Slashdot is one of the dumbest and most uneducated Internet communities in existence.
ROFL. In this thread, I have been -1, Troll, +4 Insightful, +2 Interesting, and now -- albeit on a separate post -- -1 Flamebait. Whatever. I decided my Karma was going down in flames before I posted on this thread:) but I do greatly enjoy the discussion. FWIW, I think/. is still a couple of levels above Digg. I still go over there sometimes too, but I get frustrated with the discussions on Digg far sooner than I do here on/.
I am familiar with Joshua, and no that doesn't really put me in a quandry. Put yourself in the perspective of the ancient Hebrew people: you don't have watches or alarm clocks; you measure time by reference to the sun. From the point of view of one of the Hebrew people in Joshua, the sun did stand still in the sky. It sounds to me very much like what my physics professor told us when we began discussing relativity:
Student: So which is right, then? Is the bowling ball accelerating towards the earth, or is the earth accelerating towards the bowling ball?
Professor: Which way makes the math easier?
If you are trying to perform computations that are simpler with the sun traveling across the sky (for example, in calculating the length of a shadow), then assume the sun moves across the sky and the earth is stationary. If you are computing something that is easier with the earth orbiting the sun (for example, the trajectory of a deep space probe), then assume that is the case. In Joshua, God was using a point of view that would make sense to the people of that time. It's just applied Relativity:) In other words, no I don't believe in a strict literal interpretation of Joshua. Did God make the day longer as described? I believe so. Did he do it by making the sun literally freeze in position in space? Well, if the earth is rotating about its poles -- and I believe that science is correct in this assertion -- then, no I don't think He did. I believe the passage you quote in Joshua is told in a way that made sense to the people who witnessed the event, rather than in a way that reflects the exact method God used to accomplish the task.
As far as the Catholic Church's position on evolution, well, Catholicism != Christianity for all flavors of Christianity. Rather, Catholicism is a subset of Christianity. Therefore, it is inaccurate to state that Catholics believe "x" therefore all Christians must believe "x."
The article by Stephen Jay Gould sounds interesting -- I'll check it out and TIA for the link.
You are entitled to believe this as you want, but just as I can't prove that God *does* exists, so you cannot prove that God *doesn't*. So stop pretending to have more understanding than anyone else, 'kay?
'Kay.
Point by point:
Or take a real look at your faith... The point I am at is the result of 37 years of reasoning. I have been both a Christian and an atheist, and I finally decided that Christianity made more sense to me than atheism. If you have come to the opposite conclusion, then that's your prerogative, and I won't shove my religion down your throat. In return, don't get condescending because I came to a different conclusion than you.
...there are somethings [sic] that just can't be explained yet... Agreed.
...there is no soul... Prove it. If you can't then we must agree to disagree, because I can't prove the converse. Maybe the true answer to that question is one of those things that can't be explained yet?
...your life has no purpose except to breed (and what you want to make of it)... That's a pretty shallow interpretation of the meaning of life. Even an atheist can believe that there is more to life than simply existing, like helping others, making the world a better place, or even simply bettering ourselves?
...and everything dies. Yeah, actually, that's found in the Biblical book of Ecclesiastes;)
Then you have nothing to reconcile, and life becomes a lot simplier [sic]. Would you rather be a simple man, or a wise man? Okay, that's a cheap shot (sorry), but in all seriousness, just because something is simpler, doesn't mean it's correct. If so, science would never have progressed beyond Newtonian physics.
If that scares you, work on reconciling that. Does anything I have said so far sound even remotely fearful? Get over yourself [:rolleyes:]
Plus, you'll be able to sleep in on Sundays for a change... Actually, I sleep about two and a half hours later on Sundays than I do on weekdays, so not exactly gaining much there.
...and not have to give part of your income to something that sucks the life out of society and produces nations of sheep. Yeah, there are those that want to abuse religion -- not just Christianity, but certainly not excluding it, either -- for power over others. My belief is that the low-rent district in Hell is reserved for such as them;) On the other hand, I have recently become involved with a group of Christians http://www.christianpilots.org/ who are trying to use their passion in aviation -- which I share -- to help others. These are some of the most genuine people I have ever met. Sucking the life out of society and producing nations of sheep? Not hardly. And FWIW, despite my Christian beliefs, I don't hesitate to confront people that I believe are doing such things. God -- assuming I am right, of course -- gave us free will. What right would any other man have to do any less?
Christians sure do work hard to believe in something that doesn't exist... You are using your conclusion to prove your thesis -- not a solid argumentative technique.
...when it's a lot less work to just live your life like you are doing now without all that crap. Maybe, but I don't mind a little hard work, now and again. And even if my way is harder, that still does nothing to prove that your way is correct.
Not that I expect the parent will actually get many mod points, as being reconciliatory doesn't tend to earn many mod points around here, but it's worth a try.
Yeah, at the moment, it appears that I am a troll...which certainly was not my intention. I probably won't lose much sleep tonight over that moderation <grin>, but it would be nice if more people would try to reconcile and stop calling each other idiots just because they happen to disagree, sigh.
Faith and religion are inherently personal. You can't explain why you believe what you believe without adding personal details.
I disagree that moderatorator's post was off-topic or rhetoric, however. This whole THREAD has been at least somewhat off-topic, at least in terms of TFA, but moderatorator's reply was very much on-topic in terms of this thread. However, I doubt there is a single person posting replies to this article that didn't expect there to be some discussion of faith vs. science in here somewhere.
IIRC, that's kind of the reasoning C.S. Lewis used to arrive at the conclusion that Jesus was who he said he was: if Jesus was legit, then end of story. If Jesus was not legit then he must have been insane to preach what he preached and challenge not just the Roman garrison in Israel, but also the Jewish priesthood in Israel.
Generally, if you are going to pick a fight with someone, you don't go out of your way to piss off both your mark and your potential backers <grin>
Lewis, however, could find no evidence -- other than Jesus' apparent disregard for the opinions of those in power -- that Jesus was insane, and therefore, Lewis concluded, Jesus had to be legit. I'm not satisfied that this is an entirely compelling argument, but I thought it was rather interesting, nonetheless.
why should I accept your authority that God exists and Jesus is real?
You shouldn't. Unfortunately, you have to find out for yourself. Although Christians like myself are satisfied in our own minds that there is a God, there is no way (at least, not that I've found) for me to prove to you that God is real.
Here comes a bad/. analogy: I'm a computer geek, so I often think of things in terms of computer science. Suppose computer scientists succeeded in creating a self-aware AI program inside a virtual environment (another program). Think "Tron" but less hokey. How would the AI program, bound by the constraints of the virtual environment inside the computer "know" that I, the programmer, actually existed? All interaction with me would be via constructs inside the virtual environment, but the program could not actually contact me like another human being can. Nothing the AI program could do inside the virtual environment could prove that I actually existed, since I am separate and apart from that environment.
So, how can you or I, bound by the physical constraints of the universe we live in prove that there is a God, if He is not also a part of this physical universe? We can't. All I can do is tell you that I am settled in my mind that there is a God. If you want to prove to yourself that God exists, you have to find Him yourself. It sucks, it's a really crappy argument, and there's a lot of room for skeptics' counter-arguments here, but that's the best I can do, sorry:)
Or you could be like me: a godist (in your terms) who really wants to reconcile science and faith. If a scientific discovery comes along that challenges my understanding of the Bible, then I need to figure out how what I understood the Bible to say is different than what God really intended to say. Back in Galileo's day, the position of the Church was that the earth was the center of the universe, and all the heavens (lower-case "h") revolved around it. No matter how hard I try, I can't find that in the Bible. Ergo, no conflict between science and religion. The Big Bang vs. creationism -- well, what do you think it would have looked like if God spoke and suddenly a universe was born?;) Evolution vs. creationism...well, the Bible says God created all of the creatures on the earth, but it doesn't describe the method by which He did it, does it? Having said that, I'm not quite ready to embrace evolution as the origin of species (as opposed to evolution within species, which I do accept), but this discovery is definitely interesting.
The answer to ignorance of science or ignorance of faith is always going to be education - school, word of mouth, whatever. We need to talk it out, show why science is useful, and why the community of religion and other aspects can also be useful, and why either can be detrimental (sure the A-bomb was neat, but geez...). Agreed 100% -- I couldn't have said it better, no matter how hard and how long I tried.
Not only that, but people with huge honking SUVs tend to cram them full of crap that they never, ever, under any circumstances, remove from the car. All of that shrapnel flying around in a roll-over just does not inspire me with confidence that I will walk away from an accident with little to no injury.
On the other hand, that's a reflection of the owner rather than the vehicle itself...
Not necessarily. A heavier car, all other things being equal, has more kinetic energy than a lighter car, but that's a two edged sword. Is it better to be in a light car that rebounds off of a heavier car, or is it better to be in a heavy SUV that continues plowing into the second heavy car/SUV?
"Huge size doesn't mean safer."
Exactly. Even ignoring the obvious logical fallacies in that oft-heard statement (i.e., roll-overs, less maneuverable, more braking distance, etc.), allow me throw some personal experience into the discussion (yes, it's anecdote, so take it for what it's worth).
I've owned a number of small cars -- a Ford EXP, a Toyota Celica, two Eagle Talons -- and I've been involved in a couple of accidents, some my fault, some not. Despite the fact that, until recently, I have always driven sport compact cars, I have never received even so much as a bruise in any accident I have ever been in, regardless of the size of the other vehicle involved. By the bigger == safer logic that so many people subscribe to, I should probably be seriously injured or dead by now.
Just to put things in perspective, two of the accidents I have been in resulted in the car I was driving being totaled (again, one my fault, one not), so these weren't all just 5mph fender-benders.
Good point. In the two Eagle Talons I used to own, I had a couple of occasions where the only reason I didn't get in a wreck was because I was able to maneuver around other drivers who did something boneheaded (usually, they were pulling out of side streets looking only to the right, conveniently ignoring traffic -- me -- coming from the left). In the SUVs or trucks that my wife owned at the time(s) there would have been no way I could have avoided those accidents.
The problem with this approach is that the light cars need to be at approximately the same height as the vehicle they hit.
More specifically, it's not the SUV's I worry about so much, it's the huge jacked up pickup trucks where their bumper is at approximately the level of my head in the Talon TSi I used to drive. All the crush space between my bumper and me will do me absolutely no good if the first thing to hit the other vehicle is my windshield pillar because the rest of the car goes *under* the other vehicle...
Dave Mustaine, frontman for Megadeth, said in the late '80s that he was glad people (the PMRC, IIRC) were burning his albums: "they have to buy them before they can burn them."
What your kid does is entirely within your control. if "they spend a lot more time talking to their friends and being on-line," try being a parent and exercising some parental control...Better yet, you could go on the road and try to teach others to avoid the mistake you made: having children without having the resources and maturity to take care of them and raise them properly.
Spoken like someone who has no f-ing idea what they are talking about. Have you ever raised a child??? Wait, I see further down in your post that you haven't -- so I would recommend a little less high-and-mighty preaching to someone who *has* been there and done that.
Yeah, you can be a Nazi in your own home if you want, but all that will do is push the child farther away. It's a fact of life: when kids hit their teenage years, they will interact more with their peers than their parents (unless you live on a homestead a bajillion miles from anywhere and homeschool your kids). The teenage years are when your kids begin to act like individuals, and stop taking advice from their parents. Overall, this is a good thing -- it's when adult traits like responsibility and the highly touted "ability to think for yourself" begin to develop, but like most learning processes, much of that development comes from screwing up and dealing with the aftermath. A parent's job at this point is to let kids make the mistakes that will help them learn while trying to prevent the mistakes that will cause them serious (i.e. legal/safety/etc.) problems.
The parent post is correct -- your kids will spend a lot more time talking to their friends and being on-line. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's a simple fact of life that this is a delicate time in the relationship between parent and child, and as such, it requires a lot of wisdom and judgment from the parent. You can stop them from interacting so much with their friends, but the result will most likely be worse than the problem you are trying to solve. Parents will be in competition with other influences -- many of which aren't so good for their childrens' well-being -- but taking your advice and being an absolute authoritarian is probably the worst thing you can do.
Slashdot Mirror
*Only* 75%? I'd have guessed it would be a much higher percentage. You would not believe how many times I have encountered such things, even from people who really should have known better. (Of course, this is /. -- most everyone here has probably experienced this, too).
You aren't the only one saying it, but I've always seen it drawn as a graph:
/. stupid comment filter is mangling it....)
| Has a clue | Has no clue
Is not arrogant | ideal | acceptable
Is arrogant | acceptable | unacceptable
(Sorry the graph isn't turning out very clear;
The best person to hire or work with is the "not arrogant/has a clue person". You can work with a person who has a clue and is arrogant since they know enough not to break things, but it may not always be pleasant. You can work with a person who has no clue but is aware of the fact, because they can be taught. But the person who doesn't know jack **** but thinks they are God's gift to mankind doesn't know enough not to break things and can't be taught because they *think* they know everything.
If you sed "s/not arrogant/knows what he doesn't know/" and sed "s/arrogant/does not know what he doesn't know" you get the gist of Rumsfeld's quote and your saying -- which despite Rumsfeld's poor wording is actually a pretty insightful comment, IMHO.
Wow. I'll have to get really personal here, but okay, here goes. In a nutshell, Pascal's theorem came to play when I was 21. I found myself really, really sick -- as in, "you could die from this" kind of sick, and I got to thinking about Pascal's philosophy: "suppose there is no God, but you believe anyway. What have you lost? Not much. Suppose there is a God and you believe. What have you gained? Everything. Suppose there is a God and you don't believe. What have you lost? Everything." As someone else here on
Fast forward several years. Eventually, I had what one of my high-school friends called a "religious experience." While I was working through some ethical problems in my mind one day, I just felt a presence around me that was unlike anything I have ever experienced (cue the
This gets really cool, now. My wife has a daughter from a previous marriage, who by this point had moved out of the house. My step-daughter never felt really comfortable in the house -- she said it always felt just a little creepy, and she didn't like to be there by herself. Several hours later, she came by and was talking to my wife about something, when suddenly she stopped and said, "what have you guys done here today? It just feels so...comforting and peaceful today." I hadn't told her what had happened yet, and neither had my wife, but she still picked up the residuals of what I had experienced.
So, this leaves two options. Either I am delusional and charismatic enough to infect my step-daughter without having even spoken to her (actually, I hadn't even *seen* her when she said that to my wife; I was out at the time), or I really, truly experienced something beyond what science can explain. I choose the second option, possibly for obvious reasons. I can't *prove* anything I've said here, so I leave it to anyone reading this to decide what you want. But I am settled in my mind that there is a God, He is real, and if you honestly seek Him out, you will find Him.
Bias is when you say, "If at all possible, I will judge in your favor." Prejudice is when you say, "No matter what you say, I will judge in your favor." Bias is acceptable; prejudice is not.
I will openly acknowledge that I am biased. I do not think that I am prejudiced. As I've said, I have been both atheist and Christian; I've looked at both sides, and I've been biased both ways. Christianity won, and now, it would take a lot of very compelling evidence (i.e., something on the order of you would have to convince me that I am insane) to swing my opinion again. I won't say it's impossible for you to do so, but I will say that it's very unlikely.
...in the 665th dimension. (that's the dimension right next to hell btw, which is the 666th dimension)ROFL!!!
So again, you're not being objective nor are you trying to reconcile anything...but please, don't kid yourself or others that you are trying to reconcile anything, thats a delusion.
On the contrary -- while I might not be taking an unbiased view at science vs. religion at this point in my life, I most certainly am trying to figure out how science and religion can coexist peacefully. I could be wrong on my stance of evolution -- as I've said before Genesis does not describe in detail how God created the different species on the earth; it just says that He created them. I don't think it was through evolution, for reasons I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread. However, I will admit that, since I wasn't there when God did whatever it was that He did, I could be totally mistaken. To that extent, yes, I am objective, and I am trying to reconcile faith and science.
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. I don't see that it says how He did it here, it just says "So God created......." But that's just my interpretation, YMMV
Speciation has already been observed [talkorigins.org].
Very interesting read so far -- I'm not through it yet, but thanks for the link. Contrary to what a lot of people say and think about Christians, I really do enjoy challenging my beliefs, but maybe I'm weird, lol.
I'd be curious if you'd answer a question for me: What would it take for you to accept evolution as the origin of the species?
Sure, here goes.
The way I understand, there are two really big flaws with evolution as the origin of species. The first is as described in the bookDarwin's Black Box. The author of this book (nuts -- I didn't jot down his name while getting the link from Amazon, sorry) is much more qualified to explain the problem, but I'll give it a shot. When Darwin proposed the theory of evolution, he acknowledged that science had not yet progressed far enough to tell if the difference between similar structures in organisms could indeed have developed in a stepping stone fashion, that is, if for example, the progression from a very simple eye that is capable only of detecting the absence or presence of light and a slightly more complex eye where the light detecting surface has folded into a cup that contains a liquid that acts as a crude lens (one of the examples in the book). Darwin wrote that if such a change could happen in discrete steps small enough to allow individual mutations to build to the more advanced structure, then evolution makes sense, but if such a change could not happen in this fashion, then evolution is a flawed theory. In "Darwin's Black Box", the author claims that these steps are far more complex than Darwin believed, and that they are in fact, too complex for evolution of new structures to occur. Why? Because even a simple change, such as described in the eye example above, is not a single discrete change -- it requires hundreds of mutations in the genome, without any one of which, the organism is no longer more competitive, but rather less competitive, since it is using resources to build structures that are not necessary, until all of the components are in place. This is a layman's explanation of the first problem I have with evolution; the author of "Darwin's Black Box" describes it much better (that is, he begins describing the structures that are required, how they are built and how the genomes code for them; I don't recall all of this information right now).
The second major problem I have with evolution as the origin of species involves the chromosome count of different species. Scientists tell us that either chimps or bonobo apes are the animals most closely related to human beings. Science also tells us that every species on the planet can be distinguished by the number of chromosomes -- IIRC, humans have 23 chromosomes, but both chimps and bonobos have a different number of chromosomes. If humans had evolved from primates, then that means that not only would we have to have evolved the physical differences between humans and apes, but we would also have had to evolve a different number of chromosomes. But that's not enough, either. Suppose through random mutation, such an uber-ape were to evolve. That's not enough, unless like the E. Coli bacteria in TFA that sparked this thread, the apes could reproduce asexually. What happens when you cross-breed two closely related, but still distinct species? In every case so far that leads to living offspring (i.e., horse and donkey, lions and tigers, etc.) you get completely sterile offspring. Thus, for the uber-ape to reproduce and create viable offspring, you would have to not only mutate the genes to create new physical structures and mutate the genes to produce a different number of chromosomes (that is, a different species), but you would also have to simultaneously have a male and female of this new species at the same time so that they could reproduce and perpetuate the species. But we still have a problem. What happens in any sufficiently small, isolated group of individuals? More mutations, most of which are distinctly bad for the mutated individuals. Think of pure-bre
Nack.
Relativity says that the speed (and therefore acceleration) of two objects depends upon your frame of reference. I.E., it is every bit as accurate to say that the bowling ball is moving towards the earth as it is to say that the earth is moving towards the bowling ball. In terms of the mathematical calculations, you can use whichever frame of reference is easiest.
Yes, the earth exerts a gravitational pull on the bowling ball, thus pulling the bowling ball towards the earth, and the bowling ball also exerts a gravitational pull on the earth, thus pulling the earth towards it. However, mathematically, there is no difference between saying that your frame of reference is earth-centric, bowling ball-centric, or relative to some fixed point in space where your answer is correct.
Been there and done that. I have sat on both sides of the fence, and an honest, objective search has led me to where I am today. So yeah, I have said that God may exist, but I could be wrong and I have said that God may not exist, but I could be wrong. My experience to date tells me that He does.
:) but that won't affect my knowledge that they are real. So to convince me that God doesn't exist, you would have to present evidence of much the same magnitude as evidence to convince me that my aforementioned family members don't exist.
At this point, can I say that God may not exist? It would take some mighty compelling evidence. As I have stated elsewhere in this thread, I have experienced God's presence in my life. God is as real to me, and for much -- but not exactly the same -- reasons as why I believe my wife is real. Have I sat down, patted God on the shoulder, spoke to Him like I spoke to my wife? Well, no. But I have felt His presence in my life every bit as much as I've felt my wife, my daughter, or my parents' presence in my life.
You may not believe any of these people exist
That's actually a very good point, and the best answer I can give is to read as many translations, taken from as many source documents as possible. Because the Bible is not a comprehensive whole, but rather a collection of books that were compiled from oral and written sources over thousands of years -- and often duplicated by multiple people throughout those years -- you can try to get as accurate a translation as possible by comparing these sources. I don't speak Greek, Latin, Hebrew, or Aramaic, so to some extent I am at the mercy of the scholars who do speak these languages, but that's the best I can do for now.
Point taken. I withdraw my "shallow interpretation" remark.
I like how you got modded "flamebait" for no apparent reason, but I guess by now I should be used to the fact that Slashdot is one of the dumbest and most uneducated Internet communities in existence.
ROFL. In this thread, I have been -1, Troll, +4 Insightful, +2 Interesting, and now -- albeit on a separate post -- -1 Flamebait. Whatever. I decided my Karma was going down in flames before I posted on this thread
I am familiar with Joshua, and no that doesn't really put me in a quandry. Put yourself in the perspective of the ancient Hebrew people: you don't have watches or alarm clocks; you measure time by reference to the sun. From the point of view of one of the Hebrew people in Joshua, the sun did stand still in the sky. It sounds to me very much like what my physics professor told us when we began discussing relativity:
:) In other words, no I don't believe in a strict literal interpretation of Joshua. Did God make the day longer as described? I believe so. Did he do it by making the sun literally freeze in position in space? Well, if the earth is rotating about its poles -- and I believe that science is correct in this assertion -- then, no I don't think He did. I believe the passage you quote in Joshua is told in a way that made sense to the people who witnessed the event, rather than in a way that reflects the exact method God used to accomplish the task.
Student: So which is right, then? Is the bowling ball accelerating towards the earth, or is the earth accelerating towards the bowling ball?
Professor: Which way makes the math easier?
If you are trying to perform computations that are simpler with the sun traveling across the sky (for example, in calculating the length of a shadow), then assume the sun moves across the sky and the earth is stationary. If you are computing something that is easier with the earth orbiting the sun (for example, the trajectory of a deep space probe), then assume that is the case. In Joshua, God was using a point of view that would make sense to the people of that time. It's just applied Relativity
As far as the Catholic Church's position on evolution, well, Catholicism != Christianity for all flavors of Christianity. Rather, Catholicism is a subset of Christianity. Therefore, it is inaccurate to state that Catholics believe "x" therefore all Christians must believe "x."
The article by Stephen Jay Gould sounds interesting -- I'll check it out and TIA for the link.
'Kay.
Point by point:
Or take a real look at your faith... The point I am at is the result of 37 years of reasoning. I have been both a Christian and an atheist, and I finally decided that Christianity made more sense to me than atheism. If you have come to the opposite conclusion, then that's your prerogative, and I won't shove my religion down your throat. In return, don't get condescending because I came to a different conclusion than you.
...there are somethings [sic] that just can't be explained yet... Agreed.
...there is no soul... Prove it. If you can't then we must agree to disagree, because I can't prove the converse. Maybe the true answer to that question is one of those things that can't be explained yet?
...your life has no purpose except to breed (and what you want to make of it)... That's a pretty shallow interpretation of the meaning of life. Even an atheist can believe that there is more to life than simply existing, like helping others, making the world a better place, or even simply bettering ourselves?
...and everything dies. Yeah, actually, that's found in the Biblical book of EcclesiastesThen you have nothing to reconcile, and life becomes a lot simplier [sic]. Would you rather be a simple man, or a wise man? Okay, that's a cheap shot (sorry), but in all seriousness, just because something is simpler, doesn't mean it's correct. If so, science would never have progressed beyond Newtonian physics.
If that scares you, work on reconciling that. Does anything I have said so far sound even remotely fearful? Get over yourself [:rolleyes:]
Plus, you'll be able to sleep in on Sundays for a change... Actually, I sleep about two and a half hours later on Sundays than I do on weekdays, so not exactly gaining much there.
...and not have to give part of your income to something that sucks the life out of society and produces nations of sheep. Yeah, there are those that want to abuse religion -- not just Christianity, but certainly not excluding it, either -- for power over others. My belief is that the low-rent district in Hell is reserved for such as themChristians sure do work hard to believe in something that doesn't exist... You are using your conclusion to prove your thesis -- not a solid argumentative technique.
...when it's a lot less work to just live your life like you are doing now without all that crap. Maybe, but I don't mind a little hard work, now and again. And even if my way is harder, that still does nothing to prove that your way is correct.Yeah, at the moment, it appears that I am a troll...which certainly was not my intention. I probably won't lose much sleep tonight over that moderation <grin>, but it would be nice if more people would try to reconcile and stop calling each other idiots just because they happen to disagree, sigh.
In any case, thanks for the kind words!
Faith and religion are inherently personal. You can't explain why you believe what you believe without adding personal details.
I disagree that moderatorator's post was off-topic or rhetoric, however. This whole THREAD has been at least somewhat off-topic, at least in terms of TFA, but moderatorator's reply was very much on-topic in terms of this thread. However, I doubt there is a single person posting replies to this article that didn't expect there to be some discussion of faith vs. science in here somewhere.
IIRC, that's kind of the reasoning C.S. Lewis used to arrive at the conclusion that Jesus was who he said he was: if Jesus was legit, then end of story. If Jesus was not legit then he must have been insane to preach what he preached and challenge not just the Roman garrison in Israel, but also the Jewish priesthood in Israel.
Generally, if you are going to pick a fight with someone, you don't go out of your way to piss off both your mark and your potential backers <grin>
Lewis, however, could find no evidence -- other than Jesus' apparent disregard for the opinions of those in power -- that Jesus was insane, and therefore, Lewis concluded, Jesus had to be legit. I'm not satisfied that this is an entirely compelling argument, but I thought it was rather interesting, nonetheless.
You shouldn't. Unfortunately, you have to find out for yourself. Although Christians like myself are satisfied in our own minds that there is a God, there is no way (at least, not that I've found) for me to prove to you that God is real.
Here comes a bad
So, how can you or I, bound by the physical constraints of the universe we live in prove that there is a God, if He is not also a part of this physical universe? We can't. All I can do is tell you that I am settled in my mind that there is a God. If you want to prove to yourself that God exists, you have to find Him yourself. It sucks, it's a really crappy argument, and there's a lot of room for skeptics' counter-arguments here, but that's the best I can do, sorry
The answer to ignorance of science or ignorance of faith is always going to be education - school, word of mouth, whatever. We need to talk it out, show why science is useful, and why the community of religion and other aspects can also be useful, and why either can be detrimental (sure the A-bomb was neat, but geez...). Agreed 100% -- I couldn't have said it better, no matter how hard and how long I tried.
Not only that, but people with huge honking SUVs tend to cram them full of crap that they never, ever, under any circumstances, remove from the car. All of that shrapnel flying around in a roll-over just does not inspire me with confidence that I will walk away from an accident with little to no injury.
On the other hand, that's a reflection of the owner rather than the vehicle itself...
You could always buy a Lotus Elise (1600 lbs) or an Ariel Atom :D
Not necessarily. A heavier car, all other things being equal, has more kinetic energy than a lighter car, but that's a two edged sword. Is it better to be in a light car that rebounds off of a heavier car, or is it better to be in a heavy SUV that continues plowing into the second heavy car/SUV?
Exactly. Even ignoring the obvious logical fallacies in that oft-heard statement (i.e., roll-overs, less maneuverable, more braking distance, etc.), allow me throw some personal experience into the discussion (yes, it's anecdote, so take it for what it's worth).
I've owned a number of small cars -- a Ford EXP, a Toyota Celica, two Eagle Talons -- and I've been involved in a couple of accidents, some my fault, some not. Despite the fact that, until recently, I have always driven sport compact cars, I have never received even so much as a bruise in any accident I have ever been in, regardless of the size of the other vehicle involved. By the bigger == safer logic that so many people subscribe to, I should probably be seriously injured or dead by now.
Just to put things in perspective, two of the accidents I have been in resulted in the car I was driving being totaled (again, one my fault, one not), so these weren't all just 5mph fender-benders.
Good point. In the two Eagle Talons I used to own, I had a couple of occasions where the only reason I didn't get in a wreck was because I was able to maneuver around other drivers who did something boneheaded (usually, they were pulling out of side streets looking only to the right, conveniently ignoring traffic -- me -- coming from the left). In the SUVs or trucks that my wife owned at the time(s) there would have been no way I could have avoided those accidents.
The problem with this approach is that the light cars need to be at approximately the same height as the vehicle they hit.
More specifically, it's not the SUV's I worry about so much, it's the huge jacked up pickup trucks where their bumper is at approximately the level of my head in the Talon TSi I used to drive. All the crush space between my bumper and me will do me absolutely no good if the first thing to hit the other vehicle is my windshield pillar because the rest of the car goes *under* the other vehicle...
Dave Mustaine, frontman for Megadeth, said in the late '80s that he was glad people (the PMRC, IIRC) were burning his albums: "they have to buy them before they can burn them."
Spoken like someone who has no f-ing idea what they are talking about. Have you ever raised a child??? Wait, I see further down in your post that you haven't -- so I would recommend a little less high-and-mighty preaching to someone who *has* been there and done that.
Yeah, you can be a Nazi in your own home if you want, but all that will do is push the child farther away. It's a fact of life: when kids hit their teenage years, they will interact more with their peers than their parents (unless you live on a homestead a bajillion miles from anywhere and homeschool your kids). The teenage years are when your kids begin to act like individuals, and stop taking advice from their parents. Overall, this is a good thing -- it's when adult traits like responsibility and the highly touted "ability to think for yourself" begin to develop, but like most learning processes, much of that development comes from screwing up and dealing with the aftermath. A parent's job at this point is to let kids make the mistakes that will help them learn while trying to prevent the mistakes that will cause them serious (i.e. legal/safety/etc.) problems.
The parent post is correct -- your kids will spend a lot more time talking to their friends and being on-line. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's a simple fact of life that this is a delicate time in the relationship between parent and child, and as such, it requires a lot of wisdom and judgment from the parent. You can stop them from interacting so much with their friends, but the result will most likely be worse than the problem you are trying to solve. Parents will be in competition with other influences -- many of which aren't so good for their childrens' well-being -- but taking your advice and being an absolute authoritarian is probably the worst thing you can do.