Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
RonPrice

Apologetics Anyone?

Recommended Posts

I've never understood how evolution explains complex organs like the eye.

 

The rate of human mutation isn't high enough that it would have emerged all at once, and there's no evolutionary incentive for a half finished organ.

Fucking magnets, how do they work?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's easy to assert that they just had crappy eyeballs, but even crappy eyeballs are really complicated. Light is insane and the ability to perceive it is even more so. It seems unlikely that enough organisms would develop the ability to perceive changes in the electromagnetic spectrum through random mutation.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... did... did you even click on the link? Or does the concept of an "evolutionary pathway" not make sense to you? Or, alternately, do you have secret teleological commitments such that you think the eyespot is a "less perfect" version of the "real" eye, and as such is evolutionarily implausible, even though all the intermediary stages of the eye had definite and demonstrable evolutionary benefits and is backed up by hard science and investigation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the other hand, if you were a dissident during the Spanish Inquisition, I can see where you would have your scruples.
I think the larger point here was about perspective....but this is something to be laid at the feet of humans who fell under idols of greed--not the Jesus of the Gospels. At best you can perhaps blame a particular king.

At the end of the day--I don't lay the problems of science at its feet as a cross to bear--just as a warning for potential abuses (in the same way we might do for the police in light of the Rodney King beating)

 

oh, you are one of those. my deepest apologies to anybody near you.
Let me say I'm sorry to whatever negative effect Catholic school might have had on you. Its likely that something other than the Jesus of the Bible was guiding decisions which had a genuinely negative effect on you.

 

Science Coming to Terms With Science & Dissent

First, this is an absolute concession on your part.

 

Additionally, you don't seem to be able to come to terms with an argument from old earth creationists that design is infused in evolution (think fractals & the Mandelbrot set). The argument for complex information being able to evolve from nothing is pretty compelling--the results of that are more like entropy than evolution. See random mutation generator.

 

Two core questions:

Is it your contention that none of the insider critiques of evolution are true? Are you not at least skeptical about some aspect of the theory? Someones science has to be wrong?

 

And is there order in the universe sufficient to suggest other forces beyond random mutation & evolution at work?

On the issue of control:

Theological thinking is what drove the enlightenment & science from the get go. They sped up that evolutionary process at a minimum.

 

Humility, doing the right thing, and serving others isn't "control" in the same way we conceive of it.

 

Its also the only hope of meaning and purpose in the world.

 

There is a certain way in which control is good. Its like in Karate Kid where Daniel submits to learn the ways of the world. Mentor relationships are like that.

 

And at the end of the day...if God exists he makes the rules. Its like you standing in the middle of the Mississippi River and screaming "you should be flowing the other way." Its not particularly effective, even as it might feel personally gratifying.

Edited by nathan_debate
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... did... did you even click on the link? Or does the concept of an "evolutionary pathway" not make sense to you? Or, alternately, do you have secret teleological commitments such that you think the eyespot is a "less perfect" version of the "real" eye, and as such is evolutionarily implausible, even though all the intermediary stages of the eye had definite and demonstrable evolutionary benefits and is backed up by hard science and investigation?

 

lol, using wikipedia for arguments on evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... did... did you even click on the link? Or does the concept of an "evolutionary pathway" not make sense to you? Or, alternately, do you have secret teleological commitments such that you think the eyespot is a "less perfect" version of the "real" eye, and as such is evolutionarily implausible, even though all the intermediary stages of the eye had definite and demonstrable evolutionary benefits and is backed up by hard science and investigation?

You should try to think about what I said instead of defaulting to sarcasm and snarkiness.

 

The eyespot wouldn't have developed all at once because it is still really complicated, and there is no evolutionary incentive for a half finished eyespot. The ability to percieve light is kind of a big deal because light is crazy and even modern physics has a tough time consistently explaining its interaction with objects. You can assert the simplicity of the eyespot all you want, but it's still not true. I'm also not sure if Wikipedia should be the determinant of "hard science".

 

The transition from the eyespot to the eye also seems really complicated and all my objections also apply to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are you ignorant of the history of nontheism? I recommend Jennifer Michael Hecht's Doubt. Ignorance is only justifiable if 1. one feels neutral about the particular subject or 2. it is irrelevant to the people/society one lives in. otherwise, it's a terrible, ugly thing.

 

are you calling me ignant? :mad: :mad: :mad: i will cuuuuutchu

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was only to demonstrate that a credible evolutionary pathway exists and what explanation of observed features in terms of evolution looks like, not to defend the credibility of any particular one.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I knew I was arguing with ex-nihilo I probably wouldn't have even started. But now that we have, let's get busy!

 

What is the origin of the universe if not divinely inspired? I mean, if we are talking science here, it'd be naive to not raise the implied questions of thermodynamics.

 

That quickly raises the question - where did matter come from? (yes I will answer your question about the origin of God, keep reading)

 

We know matter could not have always been because the second law of thermodynamics (and our own eyes) tell us entropy decreases.

 

That means, matter is subject to time (a dimension) -

 

But then we must investigate, what is time? We can think of time as a timeline a beginning and end. Therefore, matter was created in a beginning, and it has an end.

 

What does this tell us about the nature of God? Well, M-law, string theory etc. tell us we have a fuckload of dimensions in our universe that we don't even know about. It's akin to a 2d object trying to contemplate a third dimension. It's IMPOSSIBLE to understand.

 

If God created the universe, God created time. Therefore in the creation of the universe God created beginning and end. This confirms the statement "I am alpha and omega, the beginning and the end" - Simply put, God has always existed.

 

So let's begin with a simple question that academia likes to dance around!

 

Where did matter come from?

Edited by The Incredible Hulk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@nathan - your posts now generate backlash
I don't see how thats relevant. I kind of thought that was the point of a debate forum (and certainly given the nature of the introductory post in the thread).

 

I will concede that my post is a little strident...but thats not a reason to turn me into an intellectual bully because I identified an issue. Thats like blaming the women for getting beat. Thats entirely backward. Now surely you are smart enough to see that pattern.

 

There are ways to minimize potential "backlash" other than silencing me.

 

I was just pointing out 2 unique nuances he was missing:

1) the internal critique of science is still valid. its a case of science vs. science. (he can't just blow that off with "you're one of them")

2) his critique of religion for being controlling misconceives of control.

Along with some other stuff.

 

If I was too strident--and I probably was--I'm sorry. But I will let you go on--until I see a reason to re-enter the discussion.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've never understood how evolution explains complex organs like the eye.

 

The rate of human mutation isn't high enough that it would have emerged all at once, and there's no evolutionary incentive for a half finished organ.

 

this is the kind of scientific literacy im bitching about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me say I'm sorry to whatever negative effect Catholic school might have had on you. Its likely that something other than the Jesus of the Bible was guiding decisions which had a genuinely negative effect on you.

.

 

You're sorry I was taught the official catholic church doctrine? yeah, me too.

 

Do you mean I was consulting the devil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the issue of control:

Theological thinking is what drove the enlightenment & science from the get go. They sped up that evolutionary process at a minimum.

 

Humility, doing the right thing, and serving others isn't "control" in the same way we conceive of it.

 

Its also the only hope of meaning and purpose in the world.

 

There is a certain way in which control is good. Its like in Karate Kid where Daniel submits to learn the ways of the world. Mentor relationships are like that.

 

And at the end of the day...if God exists he makes the rules. Its like you standing in the middle of the Mississippi River and screaming "you should be flowing the other way." Its not particularly effective, even as it might feel personally gratifying.

 

sorry for multiple posts, but i thought you all were discussing amongst and didnt need retired.

 

I think you are on the wrong side of history on this one. From mathematics to astronomy and medicine, science thrives when religious institutions try not to flex political nuts. Galileo anyone? Just because the only educated people were either filthy rich or part of a monk tradition doesn't mean religion had jackshit to do with squat.

 

Control good? No thanks. For example, why are we STILL debating a fictional text from thousands of years ago as if it were true. It may be philosophically interesting, but so are platonic dialogues. Nobody is running around claiming those conversations really took place. But enough self proclaimed pastors telling kids its really really really true and if they dont believe the devil will rape them with fire, and boom. here we are today.

 

It may be smug to appeal to your imaginary father, but understand, you get one shot at this life -- spending it on your knees might not be the best use of time or mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this is the kind of scientific literacy im bitching about.

For real if you can please explain what was wrong with my understanding of evolution please do. Other people are welcome to explain also.

 

I really do want to understand the arguments that "your side" makes.

 

What nathan was saying is that Catholic schools are pretty much terrible at actually teaching the bible. They refuse to admit the existence of doubt and they don't talk about tough issues. I used to be Catholic and have relatives who go to Catholic schools and this is definitely true in my experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double post is justified because I just realized what a jerk I was to Nathan.

 

Official apology is official.

 

I'm sorry.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For example, why are we STILL debating a fictional text from thousands of years ago as if it were true. It may be philosophically interesting, but so are platonic dialogues.

 

I don't know if you've checked into classics scholarship lately, but...

 

Actually, I'm just bullshitting. But the historicity of Plato seems like something Classics scholars would waste their time arguing about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

•James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics

• William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)

 

Early scientists were looking for the laws of God--thats where their passion & mission to be scientists & do discovery came from in the first place. This is a super short of the most famous scientists who believe in God. It obviously omits moderns like Francis Collins as well as Einstein who believed in Spinoza's God. That list is a virtual tour de force of the most important discoveries in all of human history (or at least in the science textbooks). Certainly there were others famous scientists. (Warning: You have to scan to the bottom to reach the older scientists who believe in God/were Christians. This list shows a better balance--if you scan to the bottom it has a host of Christians.)

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It may be philosophically interesting, but so are platonic dialogues. Nobody is running around claiming those conversations really took place.

 

My claim wasn't that the Bible was a philosophical document, which it is and I think the New Testament in particular stands up pretty well. Love, honestly, commitment, forgiveness, relationship, service, community, and grace. And yes, suffering, but with a realization that the suffering is something that Christ bore and that it shapes our souls and is part of the path to heaven.

 

3) The Sincerity of the Apostles. This is the flip side of #1 above. We all know of those false religions where the founders gained materially from the religion they started. Even in Christianity, we know of individuals who have abused their ministry for personal gain. Did the founders of the religion do these things however?

 

However, the Apostles did not act for material gain. They traveled, preached and eventually died because they believed what they taught was of vital importance for everyone. Consider the words of Philippians 1:

19 Yes, and I shall rejoice. For I know that through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ this will turn out for my deliverance, 20 as it is my eager expectation and hope that I shall not be at all ashamed, but that with full courage now as always Christ will be honored in my body, whether by life or by death. 21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. 22 If it is to be life in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. 23 I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. 24 But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account. 25 Convinced of this, I know that I shall remain and continue with you all, for your progress and joy in the faith, 26 so that in me you may have ample cause to glory in Christ Jesus, because of my coming to you again.

Disagree with Paul if you like, call him insane if you like, but this is a man who believes that to live is a mission to serve Christ and to die is to gain by being with Him forever.

 

 

4) The Body of Jesus would be a very permanent way to disprove the conspiracy. If Jesus was still in the tomb, why was it not produced to prove them liars? If it was no longer in the tomb, how did it leave the tomb? Are we to believe a band of Jesus' followers who were in hiding snuck past armed guards and moved a large rock, stealing the body without a trace? Would the Romans have tolerated such a lawbreaking on their watch.

 

 

Since the Apostles proclaimed the message of the Resurrection in Jerusalem, those who wanted to disprove Jesus would have been in a good position to do so. Their adversaries would have been in position to root them out and disprove them by showing discrepancies from the witnesses who saw Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what part of that document (bible) was produced hundreds of years later hundreds of miles away so i dont take it as a source document dont you understand

Edited by retired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And yes, suffering, but with a realization that the suffering is something that Christ bore and that it shapes our souls and is part of the path to heaven.

 

Nathan, I don't think you properly analyze suffering in the context of the entire Bible. I'm not saying you're wrong, you just kind of omit some key points I guess.

 

We first must understand that suffering was a choice made by humankind via Adam and Eve. It was a bit more complicated than them eating an apple. There were 3 accusations Satan made against God

1. Humankind can live independently of God

2. God lied to us - we can achieve independence

3. Would anyone remain loyal to God out of love?

 

There's a double bind here. If God is omniscient/potent/etc.etc.

then He can not be a liar/dependent on humankind.

So what do God do? He allowed these questions to be answered.

 

He granted time for us to realize the answers to these questions. I think they're pretty apparent. Look around you, you describe suffering. Funny thing, in Eden, there wasn't any suffering. In fact, God walked in the garden of Eden with Adam and Eve. They simply made a decision - a world without.

 

The same people that preach suffering this way are the same ones that usually preach hell as eternal damnation. Which, is actually a mistanslation that the Catholic church thoroughly abused. (when the Bible was translated from Hebrew/Canonic to Greek the word hades was used... which is obviously substantially different and from mythology...)

The hebrew word used is sheol - it means a death grave where many of the dead placed. The Bible uses the word sheol in very specific instances referring to the second death. We know the first death is physical. The second death however is spiritual. Hell isn't a place of eternal torment, it's complete isolation from God - meaning a spiritual death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus died in about 30 AD & they were written in between 55 to 65 AD. 20 to 30 years after, not 100 years after. Here is evidence which supports even earlier publications in 50AD:

 

The original texts were written beginning around AD 50 in Koine Greek, the lingua franca of the eastern part of the Roman Empire where they were composed. All of the works which would eventually be incorporated into the New Testament would seem to have been written no later than the mid-2nd century.[1]

 

Irrespective--the movement itself would have endured 100% more criticism in the books of the time.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nathan, I don't think you properly analyze suffering in the context of the entire Bible. I'm not saying you're wrong, you just kind of omit some key points I guess.
No doubt. A real theodicy of suffering would probably take a 1/2 page or way more.

 

I don't understand suffering entirely--I think these 7--are a good start:

1) discipline & soul shaping (analogous to pruning a tree).

2) in suffering we are caused to remember our 100% dependence on God

3) in suffering with can empathize with others

4) in suffering we are brought closer to Jesus

5) suffering changes our relationship with God from one of metaphorical Santa Clause or cosmic vending machine into real relationship and love.

6) part of his role as father to guide us...let us mess up...and learn from our mistakes.

7) a test of faith.

 

Thats a small sacrifice for a chance at life. Thats a small sacrifice for a chance at love, joy, and community. Thats a small sacrifice for a chance at eternal life. *

 

This isn't an argument for suffering being good, but rather it being justified and serving a purpose. Also, this isn't to say that all suffering does all 7 of these things--just that suffering can serve these purposes. Still further, all this has to take into account the temporary nature of suffering in relation to this world (ie its vapor).

 

* Its probably the case that I should omit "chance" here.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm siding with Retired here. It's not his job to explain his reasons why God isn't real the burden of proof is on theists to prove their God exists. The reason is because even if i spot you a deity the probability of there being an omnipresent, omniscient, perfectly good God is the same as there being an omnipresent, omniscient, perfectly evil God as well as a omnipresent, omniscient, indifferent God.

 

Meaning there's only a 33% that you are correct, 66% chance that you are wrong. Non-theists shouldn't have to prove the non-existence of God, the default position should be one of skepticism.

 

 

No doubt. A real theodicy of suffering would probably take a 1/2 page or way more.

 

I don't understand suffering entirely--I think these 7--are a good start:

1) discipline & soul shaping (analogous to pruning a tree).

2) in suffering we are caused to remember our 100% dependence on God

3) in suffering with can empathize with others

4) in suffering we are brought closer to Jesus

5) suffering changes our relationship with God from one of metaphorical Santa Clause or cosmic vending machine into real relationship and love.

6) part of his role as father to guide us...let us mess up...and learn from our mistakes.

7) a test of faith.

 

This isn't an argument for suffering being good, but rather it being justified and serving a purpose. Also, this isn't to say that all suffering does all 7 of these things--just that suffering can serve these purposes. Still further, all this has to take into account the temporary nature of suffering in relation to this world (ie its vapor).

 

What about genocide? What purposes does that serve?

Edited by Lemur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...