Opinion by Candida Moss, special to CNN
(CNN) – When Pope Francis arrives in South Korea on Wednesday for a five-day visit, he’ll get a look at just the kind of church he’s been trying to create worldwide.
The trip, planned to coincide with Asia Youth Day, marks the first time a pope has visited the country since 1989, and is part of a new papal focus on globalization in general and on Asia in particular. (Francis plans to visit Sri Lanka, the Philippines and Japan in January.)
The time has long passed that the Catholic Church is elderly white men and women in European enclaves.
The last papal conclave and the election of the first Latin American Pope raised awareness of the Catholic Church’s growing presence in Africa, but Asian Christianity was hardly mentioned at all.
Even if it is rarely discussed in the media, Korean Catholicism is among the most vibrant in the world.
Here are five reasons South Korea might be the future of Catholic Church.
1. It’s growing.
Catholics make up almost 11% of South Korea’s 50 million population. This may seem like a small percentage, but consider this: In 1960, they only made up 2%.
In contrast to Europe, the majority of South Korean Catholics – as is the broader population of the region – are young.
Vocations to the ministry are also strong. At the end of 2013, South Korea’s 5.4 million Catholics were served by 4,261 priests, with a further 1,489 seminarians in the pipeline, according to church statistics.
In other words, not only is Christianity growing in South Korea, but it’s increasing in popularity among young people. And, in contrast to Europe and the United States, there are enough priests and seminarians to minister to this expanding group.
2. It’s rich.
Catholics in South Korea are increasingly prosperous. In an interview with Catholic News Service, Bishop William McNaughton, who served as the first bishop of Inchon from 1962 until 2002, recalled that when he arrived in the country, most of his congregation was poor. Now, he says, they wealthier than average.
While the economic prospects of Catholics have undoubtedly risen with those of South Korea as a whole, McNaughton attributes the financial success of Catholics there to the excellence of Catholic education.
Whether or not the prosperity of Korean Catholics is because of Catholic education or regional economic growth is less important than the encouraging contrast it forms to the church in other parts of the world.
Church attendance in Europe and the United States has been declining for decades. Meanwhile, in poorer, developing countries, the church has expanded and taken on an increasingly fundamentalist character.
The decline of the Catholic Church in wealthy countries is often linked to the rise of secularism, access to higher education and economic growth. The fear is that as people acquire more education and money, they no longer need God.
This doesn’t seem to be the case in South Korea, where wealth, education and church expansion continue to go together.
3. It competes in a tough environment.
Some commentators have speculated that Christianity in South Korea succeeds because of the spirituality in the region. That’s not exactly true.
In 2005, nearly half the population describe themselves are “irreligious.” The region has a rich religious history, but today South Korea is among the most secular countries in the world.
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI identified the “secular state” as one of the chief threats to the Catholic Church in the 21st century, crediting it as one of the causes of declining church attendance in Europe.
That Catholicism continues to flourish in a culture that is broadly speaking nonreligious should encourage church leaders. It proves it can be done.
4. It’s self-supporting.
The history of Christianity on the Korean Peninsula involves not only growth and increased prosperity, but also persecution and martyrdom.
Christianity was legalized in then-unified Korea only in 1886 and for much of that time has been largely self-sufficient. In the wake of World War II, the country was divided in the communist North and the capitalistic South in 1945. The CIA Factbook notes that autonomous religious activities are "now almost nonexistent" in North Korea.
The geographical distance from the Vatican has allowed local bishops to have more autonomy and decentralized the church. As Tom Fox, author of “Pentecost in Asia,” has said, “the starting point of the Asian church has always been the local church.”
This is the model of local governance and evangelization that Pope Francis has tried to encourage and promote in the church in general.
5. It’s committed to social justice.
Korea was largely evangelized by lay activists, not organized missionary campaigns. This history gives the current church in South Korea an independent streak. Masses end with instructions to “evangelize the world” rather than return home, a call that local Catholics take to heart.
This missionary activity is matched by a focus on improving the living conditions their troubled neighbors in North Korea. That charity endears the Catholic Church to both religious and nonreligious South Koreans, who might otherwise be suspicious.
It’s for all these reasons that Francis told Il Messaggero in June that “the church in Asia holds great promise.”
In the Pope’s mind, it seems, the South Korean example may hold the secret to the future of the Catholic Church.
Great MIRACLES have been discovered in the Words of Jesus Christ
in Gospel (=Matthew & Mark & Luke & John).
It will change the World forever!
BIBLICAL EXCELLENT MIRACLES
Lookie, , do not be spewing thusly pastedly and voluminously about the Coo-Ran-Ran without prior vigorous spanking of backside of yourself and closely adjacent imam.
It is written, no more shall prodigious humping of imams and goats be accomplished without sanctified vestal goats present. We have ready goats present nearby in Tehran to satisfy said requirements. Prepare yourself for red posteriority and take the appropriate stance. If Allah is willing your soreness will eventually subside and you may get back to riding your camel and your usual monkey spanking so profusely.
Here it is written and must be so.
Here it is written and must be so.
Here it is written and must be so.
Said thricely. Pay attention even in your red blushness of present moment.
the Coo-Ran-Ran. the Coo-Ran-Ran. the Coo-Ran-Ran
Mary & Jesus in Quran (Islamic Scripture)
“Mention in the scripture Mary. She isolated herself from her family, into an eastern location.” [19:16]
“While a barrier separated her from them, we sent to her our Spirit. He went to her in the form of a human being.”
“She said, "I seek refuge in the Most Gracious, that you may be righteous."”
“He said, "I am the messenger of your Lord, to grant you a pure son."”
“She said, "How can I have a son, when no man has touched me; I have never been unchaste."”
“He said, "Thus said your Lord, `It is easy for Me. We will render him a sign for the people, and mercy from us. This is a predestined matter.' "”
“When she bore him, she isolated herself to a faraway place.”
“The birth process came to her by the trunk of a palm tree. She said, "(I am so ashamed;) I wish I were dead before this happened, and completely forgotten."”
“(The infant) called her from beneath her, saying, "Do not grieve. Your Lord has provided you with a stream.”
"If you shake the trunk of this palm tree, it will drop ripe dates for you.*
"Eat and drink, and be happy. When you see anyone, say, `I have made a vow of silence, [to the Most Gracious]*; I am not talking today to anyone.' "
“She came to her family, carrying him. They said, "O Mary, you have committed something that is totally unexpected.”
"O descendant of Aaron, your father was not a bad man, nor was your mother unchaste."
“She pointed to him. They said, "How can we talk with an infant in the crib?"”
(The infant spoke and) said, "I am a servant of God. He has given me the scripture, and has appointed me a prophet.
"He made me blessed wherever I go, and enjoined me to observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and the obligatory charity (Zakat) for as long as I live.
"I am to honor my mother; He did not make me a disobedient rebel.
"And peace be upon me the day I was born, the day I die, and the day I get resurrected."
“That was Jesus, the son of Mary, and this is the truth of this matter, about which they continue to doubt.”
“It does not befit God that He begets a son, be He glorified. To have anything done, He simply says to it, "Be," and it is.”
Thanks for taking time to read my post. Please take a moment to visit whyIslam org website.
Thanks, but I read all I need to know about Islam in the New York Times on September 12, 2001.
Lookie, do not be spewing thusly pastedly and voluminously about the Coo-Ran-Ran and I-slam without prior vigorous spanking of backside of yourself and closely adjacent imam.
Here it is written and must be so.
Here it is written and must be so.
Here it is written and must be so.
Said thricely. Pay attention even in your red blushness of present moment.
yeah the Coo-Ran-Ran. the Coo-Ran-Ran. the Coo-Ran-Ran
yeah the Coo-Ran-Ran. the Coo-Ran-Ran. the Coo-Ran-Ran
Please watch Scot !
Shared DNA reveals a deep connection with our long-vanished human cousins.
Our boys DNA makers pove it.
oops proves it Scot.
dang Scot all thumbs today – DNA markers.
Scot will just come back with his usual "no transitional fossils" argument. It never ceases to astonish me that anyone could be that stupid. And be proud of it to boot!
and that coelacanth!
Scot is still quaking
Can the scot-bot 'watch' a video?
Let me ask- Hey Scot can you watch a video ?
Or can you read ?
LOL .. ok so the DNA of a man who lived long ago matches ours, how does this prove evolution? Don't believe it does. Thanks and have a great day.
"In its 4.6 billion years circling the sun, the Earth has harbored an increasing diversity of life forms:
for the last 3.6 billion years, simple cells (prokaryotes);
for the last 3.4 billion years, cyanobacteria performing photosynthesis;
for the last 2 billion years, complex cells (eukaryotes);
for the last 1 billion years, multicellular life;
for the last 600 million years, simple animals;
for the last 550 million years, bilaterians, animals with a front and a back;
for the last 500 million years, fish and proto-amphibians;
for the last 475 million years, land plants;
for the last 400 million years, insects and seeds;
for the last 360 million years, amphibians;
for the last 300 million years, reptiles;
for the last 200 million years, m-ammals;
for the last 150 million years, birds;
for the last 130 million years, flowers;
for the last 60 million years, the primates,
for the last 20 million years, the family H-ominidae (great apes);
for the last 2.5 million years, the genus H-o-mo (human predecessors);
for the last 200,000 years, anatomically modern humans.
Periodic extinctions have temporarily reduced diversity, eliminating:
2.4 billion years ago, many obligate anaerobes, in the oxygen catastrophe;
252 million years ago, the trilobites, in the Permian–Triassic extinction event;
66 million years ago, the pterosaurs and nonavian dinosaurs, in the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event."
Bryson's best seller, "A Short History of Nearly Everything" will fill in the details in language that we the common man understand.
Hey Scot and dala too. read this please – thanks..
n the wake of the success of the "Cosmos" television series, which picked up four Emmy Awards earlier this week, Neil deGrasse Tyson discussed politics, religion and science in a recent interview with AlterNet.
I got your reply. thank you.
Hope you're having a great day friend.
Many blessings & great favor throughout your day.
Setting a good example new-man, way to go.
most days I'm just tired of the arguing. so I figure even if I don't get to make my point [which as you can attest, will make no difference... we all just talk at each other any way lol] at least my heart is light and at peace and I just wanted to extend that part of me... A merry heart makes a cheerful countenance.
Have a great and blessed day.
Lovely. Thank you.
You too new-man. I enjoy our discussions. The point is not to win, it shows that there are multiple viewpoints that can succeed.
scot: "I'd have to get out my calculator to total all the words of ambiguity in your myth."
scot actually thinks ambiguity is evidence against science, when in the real world, it is evidence of intellectual honesty. scot is referring to evolution, but there is as much ambiguity in physics, chemistry, etc. That hasn't impeded us from using theses sciences to create the technologies that are throughout our societies.
scot doesn't understand the scientific method. The theory is solid, the predictions are speculative (hence the ambiguity) until objective evidence is validated to uphold the prediction. scot can't discriminate between the theory and the prediction of the theory. Just like scot can't discriminate fact from nutty story.
scot has been quite persistent in his stands. That can be admirable when there is a sound foundation. scot is holds firm on quicksand, that is amazing. His dogmatic stand in the face of facts to the contrary shows the depth of his dogma. He behaves no differently than a android with a program with no lati.tude. Sad.
Ambiguity in evolution leads to more ambiguity, more hypotheses, more ambiguity, and ultimately to more untestable hypothesis. The same thing cannot be said for the hard sciences. A comparison between the hard sciences and the pseudo-science of evolution is not fair. Not fair to hard science. Where are all the transitional forms Bostonola? Where are they? They don't exist. 150 years and they still haven't been found. You cannot distinguish between what is real and what is conjecture. Your filter is defective or nonexistent.
Asked and answered. Move on.
The fossil record and its interpretation is "hard science". Molecular biology is too. Evolutionary dynamics in relation to the science of information is quite sound. Most of your thinking, scot, depends on19th century criticism of early theory on evolution.
Actually not TomTom, Your cult still uses Darwinian theory. Again, where are the transitional forms? You guys have had over 150 years to find them and still you haven't found them. Where are they?
Transitional forms? What are you looking for, specifically? It may exist among known fossils. It may exist in genomes we have access to.
When everyone disagrees with you and you can provide no evidence to support your case, it means you have a very weak position.
Typical programmed response. I wonder if scot is actually a program written by a grad student and we are validating his thesis.
Transitional forms? Where are they in your "hard science" ?
I think we found a recursive loop the scot program is stuck in.
Thanks Bostonola. You prove over and over again that you have no answer. The best you can do is mine the group think and talking points for evolution that are on the web. You can't think for yourself.
Apparently the scot-bot program has insufficient memory. I personally have provided over a dozen transitional fossils with strong supporting evidence. Other people have provided many others.
I'm glad this is just a program with small memory. If it was a person, they would be guilty of willful lying.
To the student who created the scot-bot: Please improve the program and increase the memory. It's repeating responses are boring. It was a good first cut, but you can do better.
I'm afraid your are, in fact, correct, bostontola. The source for posts and replies by "awanderingscot" exhibits insufficient memory, based on repeti.tion of scientific misunderstanding previously addressed and corrected.
Again Bostonola you have proven absolutely nothing but absurdity. Birds and fish existed then just as they do now. Please try and provide actual facts that will prove evolution, for example, provide proof of transitional forms that directly predate and relate to the mult-itude of creatures that appeared in the Cambrian Explosion. You cannot, CHECK. Explain how the forms that are 'evolving' could have all passed the gauntlet of the five major extinctions of earth's history. You cannot, CHECK. The vast majority of macromutations it has been proven are harmful and not beneficial and also do not add genetic information to the genus which would be necessary for the growth of such things as organs. You cannot dispute this, CHECK. You are dogmatic, narrow-minded, and cannot extricate yourself from your delusional myth.
It would be more interesting if the scot-bot was AI. Sadly, it is a mere artificial repet.itive program that gets old.
"Darwin's evolutionary explanation of the origins of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of scientific and social progress.....The secular myths of evolution have had a damaging effect on scientific research, leading to distortion, to needless controversy, and to gross misuse of science....I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling."
(Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)
Oh look! The scot-bot is taking the criticisms of its weak program, and is regurgitating them back at others even though those criticisms don't apply.
Still a programmed response, not even close to AI.
Oops. The scot-bot has regressed into snat.ching opinions off the web and posting it as evidence. Too bad.
I'm sorry, awanderingscot, but your credibility value on the subject of evolution is still zero. Perhaps, like some young-earth pseudo-scientists, you can find a way to purchase some pseudo-credibility on the subject of evolution.
Dr. Patterson was quite fed up with being quote mined by creationists.
"Chelvam (a creationist) asserts that 'we are drowning' in evidence against
darwinism. He cites nothing beyond the remarks attributed
to me. It seems possible that he confuses two theories under
the name of darwinism, the general theory of common ancestry
or descent with modification, and Darwin's special theory of
mechanism, natural selection. If he knows of evidence
inconsistent with the general theory of common descent, he
should tell us what it is. I know of none." (Colin
Patterson in a letter to the editor, _Nature_ 332:580, 1988).
"I do not support the creationist movement in any way, and in
particular I am opposed to their efforts to modify school
curricula. In short the article does not fairly represent my
views. But even if it did, so what? The issue should be
resolved by rational discussion, and not by quoting
'authorities,' which seems to be the creationists' principal
mode of argument." (Letter from Colin Patterson to Steven W.
Binkley, June 17, 1982).
If the scot-bot were a person, that would be a willful misrepresentation. Because it is a simple program with small memory, we can only call it weak programming, not even an expert program, much less AI.
"If he knows of evidence inconsistent with the general theory of common descent, he should tell us what it is. I know of none." (Colin Patterson in a letter to the editor, _Nature_ 332:580, 1988).
– "If he knows of evidence" of course there is the "prove the unprovable" hypotheses of evolution too. Of course there is no evidence, this has already been stated. NO EVIDENCE of evolution. (those thick Neanderthal braincases cannot be penetrated, nose hairs anyway...)
Bostontola, apparently the bot hasn't been programmed to understand plain word meanings, such as "inconsistent."
You may want to read that quote you just gave us again.
It does not support your opinion.
scot-bot is trapped in that infinite loop. His programmer may have to remove the power plug to halt the program. Time for some new subroutines.
Snotty, you've been given many example. You refuse to accept reality.
Cute and where is the testable evidence for your creation myth?
10 PRINT "The Bible is true because"
20 GOTO 10
That sums up some people Doc. Dogma creates robots.
Young Earth Creationists may simply not be prepared to read and understand science, let alone practice it. Their core beliefs are based on certainty about things that are essentially set in stone. God said it. It is true. The progress of science is through discovery, conjecture, and constant revision of ideas. The Creationists can't apply such a system to what they believe is absolute truth.
Scientists have questions, and look for answers.
Creationists have an answer, and apply it to every question.
I'll take science. It's self-correcting.
Piltdown Man ? Self-correcting? Nebraska Man, pig's tooth? Self-correcting? More like EXPOSED.
There are cons of various degrees but the biggest con ever pulled on humankind was that of the physical resurrection and ascension of one Jesus of Nazareth who continues to decompose in the dirt outside of Jerusalem. Some say his remains were recycled via wild dogs.
You have no proof this is true, it's your opinion and entirely subjective. Over 300 people on this earth observed Jesus Christ after His resurrection. Not one verifiable transitional form has been proven to exist by evolutionists. These are the facts.
Let us start with some notes from my scrapbook of essential theology and history of religion:
Saving Christians from the Infamous Resurrection Con/
From that famous passage: In 1 Corinthians 15: 14, Paul reasoned, "If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."
Even now Catholic/Christian professors (e.g.Notre Dame, Catholic U, Georgetown) of theology are questioning the bodily resurrection of the simple, preacher man aka Jesus.
From a major Catholic university's theology professor’s grad school white-board notes:
"Heaven is a Spirit state or spiritual reality of union with God in love, without earthly – earth bound distractions.
Jesus and Mary's bodies are therefore not in Heaven.
Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an embodied person.
Again, the physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning to life), Ascension (of Jesus' crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary's corpse) into heaven did not take place.
The Ascension symbolizes the end of Jesus' earthly ministry and the beginning of the Church.
Only Luke records it. (Luke mentions it in his gospel and Acts, i.e. a single attestation and therefore historically untenable). The Ascension ties Jesus' mission to Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus' followers.
The Assumption has multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary's special role as "Christ bearer" (theotokos). It does not seem fitting that Mary, the body of Jesus' Virgin-Mother (another biblically based symbol found in Luke 1) would be derived by worms upon her death. Mary's assumption also shows God's positive regard, not only for Christ's male body, but also for female bodies." "
"In three controversial Wednesday Audiences, Pope John Paul II pointed out that the essential characteristic of heaven, hell or purgatory is that they are states of being of a spirit (angel/demon) or human soul, rather than places, as commonly perceived and represented in human language. This language of place is, according to the Pope, inadequate to describe the realities involved, since it is tied to the temporal order in which this world and we exist. In this he is applying the philosophical categories used by the Church in her theology and saying what St. Thomas Aquinas said long before him."
The Vatican quickly embellished this story with a lot CYAP.
With respect to rising from the dead, we also have this account:
An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue,
"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."
p.168. by Ted Peters:
Even so, asking historical questions is our responsibility. Did Jesus really rise from the tomb? Is it necessary to have been raised from the tomb and to appear to his disciples in order to explain the rise of early church and the transcription of the bible? Crossan answers no, Wright answers, yes. "
So where are the bones"? As per Professor Crossan's analyses in his many books, the body of Jesus would have ended up in the mass graves of the crucified, eaten by wild dogs, covered with lime in a shallow grave, or under a pile of stones.
See below for an analysis of the "witnesses" to the living Jesus post-resurrection.
Addressing the historic inauthenticity of the post-resurrection sightings of Jesus of Nazareth.
-The empty tomb myth
Mark 16:1-8 = Matt 28:1-10 = Luke 24:1-11
(1b) John 20:1,(2-10),11-18
Originated by Mark and copied by M, L and J and historically nil after rigorous analyses for number of attestations, time of publication and content. For added details:
see Professor Gerd Ludemann's analysis in his book Jesus After 2000 Years, pp. 111-114 and http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb275.html.
–The disciples on the Emmaus road
Luke 23: 13-35 Historically nil. See Ludemann's book, pp 409-412. Note: Emmaus can no longer be located.
- Revealed to Disciples
(2) Matt 28:16-20
(3) Easter Night 2.3.1 (3a) Luke 24:36-40
(3b) John 20:19-21
2.4 (4) IgnSmyr 3.2b-3
See http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb018.html and the following from Professor Luedemann:
"Matt 28:16-20 The description of Jesus's appearance is minimal, as attention is focused on the content of Jesus' message to the Eleven. Luedemann notes:
that "the historical yield is extremely meager." He accepts the early tradition that various disciples had visionary experiences, most probably located in Galilee, and that these experiences led to the founding of "a community which preached the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus as the Messiah and/or the Son of Man among their Jewish contemporaries." [Jesus, 255f.]
Luke 24:36-53 The emphatic realism in the recognition scene that begins this appearance story mans "one can hardly avoid seeing this as a thrust against docetism. Evidently in this verse Luke is combating the same challenges to the bodily reality of Jesus as Ignatius, To the Smyrneans 3.2, does at the beginning of the second century." Luedemann concludes, "The historical yield is nil, both in respect of the real historical event and in connection with
the visions which were the catalyst for the rise of Christianity." [Jesus, 413-415]"
–Rev 1: 12-20 (a reboot of Daniel 7:13)
And then there is this:
"Nineteenth-century agnostic Robert G. Ingersoll branded Revelation "the insanest of all books". Thomas Jefferson omitted it along with most of the Biblical canon, from the Jefferson Bible, and wrote that at one time, he "considered it as merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams." 
Martin Luther once "found it an offensive piece of work" and John Calvin "had grave doubts about its value."
–Appearance to James et al
1 Cor 15: 7a
/4/ and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, /5/ and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. /6/ Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. /7/ Then he appeared to
James, then to all the apostles. /8/ Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
See http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb030.html- i.e. historically nil.
You have no proof that over 300 people on this earth observed Jesus Christ after His resurrection. It's your opinion and entirely subjective. Evolution is supported by a vast quantity of evidence including transitional forms. These are the facts.
Scientists uncovered the fraud.
I think scot believes in "Truth" with a capital "T". As such, he believes that facts are facts and that a self-correcting system is a sign of weakness, not evidence of a self-correcting process.
Creation and science are not mutually exclusive. In fact they work much better than "if", "what if", "maybe", "perhaps", etc etc etc .. perpetual ambiguity. I speak of evolution here. Evolution is not a hard science, did you know this?
More opinion from the guy that can't discern fact from opinion.
I'd have to get out my calculator to total all the words of ambiguity in your myth.
Oh c'mon that should amount to zero...we know you can at least count to 188, so counting to zero shouldn't be too tough on that wee brain of yours.
Followers of the cult of evolution get defensive and don't invite or want a critical discussion of the theory when someone points out the huge flaws. They resort to ad hominem attacks, character assassination, and name-calling, never really engaging to defend the illogic and fallacy of evolution. When they do attempt to defend it, it's always a callout to their canned response sources on the web such as talk orgins in order to get their talking points. Pathetic really.
your trolling is getting a little too transparent ...
What huge flaws? All I've sen are opinions and out-of-context quotes.
Where are the transitional forms Ken? And don't start talking about a lungfish with stubbies, we've got fish like that today called catfish. Where are all the transitional forms Ken? Surely amongst all the creatures on earth you can find some in the fossil record. The fact is that you can't and you've been trying for over 150 years. Case closed.
Repeating lies such as "there are no transitional fossils" over and over again doesn't make it true.
As I've said before there are many such as tiktaalik,eambulocetus, archeopteryx, etc.
Here are some more:
Again Ken, those are not transitional forms. Fish and birds are still fish and birds. Furthermore, why only a handful if your silly assertion is true. Out of all the creatures on earth? Where are all the transitional forms? Stumped?
Also Ken, just so you know. Fossils are not transitional.
You are incorrect and denial is not refutation.
1 these examples have traits of diferent species, hence transitional.
2 theses are examples. Asking for every transitional form is ridiculous.
3 "fossils are not transitional"
They are evidence of transitional form that
Yeah Ken – where's your Crocoduck, Ken?
I can show you a rib bone from a male human's chest, thus proving the Genesis account of creation.
I can show you dirt on the ground, thus proving the Genesis account of creation.
But where's your Crocoduck?
What exactly would *you* consider a transitional form?
Don't worry, i would never ask you for the whole series but pointing to an ancient catfish as an example of a transitional species? Forgive me but aren't scientists supposed to be skeptical?
young earth creationism and science are in fact mutually exclusive.
I'm sorry, awanderingscot, but your credibility value is still zero. Perhaps, like some young-earth pseudo-scientists, you can find a way to purchase some pseudo-credibility on the subject of evolution.
"Scientists at the forefront of inquiry have put the knife to classical Darwinism. They have not gone public with this news, but have kept it in their technical papers and inner counsels."
(Dr. William Fix, in his book, "The Bone Peddlers.")
– evolution is complete and utter nonsense, it is a grown-up fairy tale.
I would have thought that Christians would love the idea of evolution.
If the Christian god really did design every animal, then he is the most inept designer ever ... as 99% of the creatures that have ever lived have been so badly designed that they have become extinct.
a 99% failure rate does not indicate an omnipotent, omniscient god. It indicates an absolute incompetent. Evolution would give Christians an escape hatch to explain such incompetence by their god, and yet they argue against it.
Seems Christians cling to the stories of bible more than they worship their 3 gods.
Fix's book Bone Peddlers has been quote mined and lied about by hundreds of Christian creationists. Creationist authors in an attempt have tried to use Fix as an example that evolution is falling apart from a secular non-Christian viewpoint, however Fix is not a scientist. Fix is an occultist and the back half of his book discusses reincarnation, out-of body experiences, psychokinesis, spirits and extrasensory perception all these things are deemed "heretical" by orthodox Christianity yet Fix believed they were all a reality. It is not suprising that the Christians who quote from Fix ignore and are silent on his paranormal and occult ideas.
People have ideas and beliefs that are varied and fall into multiple categories. You are no exception. So what.
I had a crazy uncle who thought he was a fire engine ... that falls into this category.
I think you are the crazy uncle.
And some people are compulsive liars...you for instance.
William Fix is a special kind of crazy, above and beyond the average Creationist.
The book from which Scot mined this quote is a proposal for his own theory, called "Psychogenesis" which states that human beings first existed as incorporeal spirits and then created their own meat machines through super-psycho-kinetic powers and in addition to this, we still have the capacity to wield these powers to cause matter to arrange itself in any way we want.
He also assert that ESP, telepathy, astral walking and all manner of other crackpottery from X-Men comics are real phenomena.
He is not a biologist but rather has a degree in behavioural sciences.
- And this invalidates what he stated about evolution how? How is his opinion any less valid than say .. yours?
the fact that you would even ask that question just underscores your ignorance.
Smoking is very good for you, I can get testimonials from any number of scientists, well paid by the tobacco industry, to back that conclusion. I think that you should try to get up to six packs a day, the sooner the better.
PS: I apologize for feeding the troll but I couldn't resist.
Because he provides no evidence. Wacky made up hypothesis vs. scientific evidence.
scot demonstrates how he can believe nutty stories over reality. He easily weighs unsubstantiated hypotheses more than science as clearly shown above.
I thought it was only biblical stories he would take over science, but his mental confusion is much deeper. Inability to discern fantasy from reality is an illness. scot's is much deeper than I thought.
Should Biology classrooms "teach the controversy" about Psychogenesis along with Biblical Creationism?
" He easily weighs unsubstantiated hypotheses more than science "
– by unsubstantiated hypotheses you must be referring to the myth of evolution? Evolution is not science, it's philosophical materialism, no more than that.
Thanks for confirming. You trust nut cases over fact. You discount nuclear physics as well. You don't trust radiometric dating, pure physics.
Trying to hitch your mythical bandwagon to nuclear physics is not going to work. Try again. Radiometric dating is still extremely flawed and still nothing to do with evolution. Try again. Evolution cannot stand on it own Bostonola, get a grip on reality.
wandering, It is pretty evident that is you and reality that are the strangers.
Scot, I don't know what you mean by classical Darwinism, but consider that Darwin was among the first to see an important natural principle, but at a time when many facts were unknown that are relevant to what he saw. There was no accurate concept of the gene. No clear idea of how heredity operates. So, much like Copernicus without Newton, he was right in most regards, but without essential elements of what became a modern theory.
Actually Darwin was neither a biologist nor a geologist. He graduated college with a bachelor of arts degree. It was his disdain for religion that motivated him to propose the theory.
No, it wasn't.
and even if it was that would have no bearing on whether or not evolution is true.
Research on a par with your research on evolution – none. Darwin was a believer and creationism was the only game in town in the UK. He also studied medicine. Shows you just pull it out of where the sun doesn't shine.
"Darwin was a believer"
– LOL .. take another puff hippy.
After he gave up on medicine "He ... enrolled Charles at Christ's College, Cambridge in 1827 for a Bachelor of Arts degree as the qualification required before taking a specialised divinity course and becoming an Anglican parson."
Why would a non-believer do that?
Facts are your friends – give up your superstitions.
According to Scot accepting evolution means you can't be a Christian, and most likely in his mind not being a Christian makes you a devil worshiper. Thus Darwin worshiped Satan.
Any evidence for creationism yet?
"In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin." — Chinese palaeontologist – Phillip Johnson
Your point is??? Do ever have a thought of your own?
"You can't handle the truth" !
Not capable of explaining your point or answering if you ever have a thought of your own?
Phillip Johnson is not a paleontologist.
He was a lawyer and one of the original movers and shakers in the Intelligent Design Movement. He is, in fact, author of the famous "Wedge" docu/ment in which he states that the purpose of pushing for creationism to be taught in school is not because he can falsify evolution in any way, but because he fears the cultural legacy of science's association with "atheistic naturalism".
Jun-Yuan Chen, the chinese "paleontologist" who made the comment at the "International Symposium on the Origin of Animal Body Plans and Their Fossil Records," was a plant by the Discovery Insti/tute – the very same Wedge strategy folk.
In the words of another scientist who attended,Nigel Hughes from the Department of Earth Sciences, University of California:
"Predictably enough, the Discovery Inst.itute turns out to be uninterested in scientific rigor, and they will do whatever it takes to promote their agenda, including taking advantage of Chinese scholars. Creationism is not only a specter that haunts rationality in the United States, but it is also willing to employ a little cultural imperialism if it furthers the cause."
Without a doubt Phillip Johnson lays bare the fallacy of evolution. Since evolution is more philosophical materialism and naturalism than science, he does a great job of exposing this great hoax. I've read a few of his books but the one i like most is Darwin on Trial. If you have an open mind still you might try reading it yourself. You'll find out for yourself why evolution is a myth.
I long ago read the Creationist side of things Scot.
Behe, Johnson, Ackerman, Gish, Morris, etc.
"It is a tale told by an idiot. Full of sound and fury and signifying nothing."
Interesting you think this. I find the arguments presented well and convincing. They also present facts that are indisputable. Unlike your major proponents of evolution, they don't use alot of "ifs" and "maybe" or "perhaps". I find the arguments for evolution to to full of non-verifiable suppositions.
"They also present facts that are indisputable."
- the 'Cambrian Explosion'
What about it? What irrefutable facts about the Cambrian Explosion from any of these authors proves Creationism and/or disproves modern Evolutionary Synthesis?
"Phillip Johnson" ... now there's a good Chinese name! LOLOL
Your credibility is a joke, even before people bother to research your lying posts.
Have you ever noticed there aren't many chinese people named Rusty?
You don't even need to read his posts to know it is going to be the same old boring rhetoric attempting to convince all that evolution is false...ignorance must truly be blissful...I pity him.
What is the Holy Spirit? That seems to be the part of the Christian Trinity of which people most often claim to have direct experience.
That's the warm fuzzy feeling you get right after you hand over 10% of last week's paycheck to your church of choice. Now that's the spirit!
The Holy Spirit is the executive, the creator of the universe, the divine author of the scriptures, the generator of Christ's humanity, the regenerator of those who believe, and the direct source of every vital factor in a spiritual Christian's life.
Who told you that?
The Holy Spirit, of course.
IF that is the "generator" of Jebus' humanity, that means he was not "fully human".
You must be a heretic.
All things are possible with God. You must be a child of the devil to believe otherwise.
All things are NOT possible with "god".
Lick your elbow, without injuring yourself, scot.
It also seems that your god finds convincing everyone he exists to be an impossible task.
The Holy Spirit's work of quickening (regeneration) is the incomparable purpose of God by which He is bringing “many sons unto glory”.
'For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.' Hebrews 2:10
It is decreed by God that Christ be the first-born among many brethren,
'For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.' Romans 8:29
It is the populating of the third and highest heaven (hitherto the abode only of the triune God) with beings suited to that holy and exalted sphere and, indeed, sufficiently perfected to be the all-satisfying bride of Christ; the one vital step is that of const.ituting these beings partakers of the very nature of God.
Such a structural change as this is essential in the very nature of the case. The new birth, then, is not a mere remedy for human failures: it is a creation by divine generation, a const.ituting of believers inherent, innate, legitimate sons of God.
The human mind cannot approach the comprehension of that which is involved in the immeasurable realities of an actual sonship relation to God, which makes the Christian an heir of God and a joint heir with Jesus Christ.
'and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.' Romans 8:17
In every feature of it, this is a work of God and is wrought as an expression of His sublime purpose and the satisfying of His infinite love for those He thus saves.
What a buncha nonsense.
Ahh, Paul, the first media evangelist, continues to bring in gold and silver for his church. He also brings the breath of vomit by brainwashing those who refuse to look outside the bible.
Paul – the man who turned the religion of Jesus into a religion about Jesus.
Rabbi Paul- who saw a good thing and turned into gold and silver for the good life until the Romans executed him.
Christian Economics and Greed 101:
The Baptizer drew crowds and charged for the "dunking". The historical Jesus saw a good thing and continued dunking and preaching the good word but added "healing" as an added charge to include free room and board. Sure was better than being a poor peasant but he got a bit too zealous and they nailed him to a tree. But still no greed there.
Paul picked up the money scent on the road to Damascus. He added some letters and a prophecy of the imminent second coming for a fee for salvation and "Gentilized" the good word to the "big buck" world. i.e. Paul was the first media evangelist!!! And he and the other Apostles forgot to pay their Roman taxes and the legendary actions by the Romans made them martyrs for future greed. Paul was guilty of minor greed?
Along comes Constantine. He saw the growing rich Christian community and recognized a new tax base so he set them "free". Major greed on his part!!
The Holy Roman "Empirers"/Popes/Kings/Queens/Evangelicals et al continued the money grab selling access to JC and heaven resulting in some of today's richest organizations on the globe i.e. the Christian churches (including the Mormon Church) and related aristocracies. Obvious greed!!!
An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue, ( Professors Crossan and Wright are On Faith panelists).
Some of Paul's money gathering activities some of which resulted in buying the Gentile entry into the then mostly Jewish version of Christianity:
Paul claimed almost total independence from the "mother church" in Jerusalem. and yet was eager and diligent to bring material support from the various budding Gentile churches that he planted to the mother church at Jerusalem.
When a famine occurred in Judea, around 45–46, Paul and Barnabas journeyed to Jerusalem to deliver financial support from the Antioch community. According to Acts, Antioch had become an alternative center for Christians following the dispersion of the believers after the death of Stephen. It was in Antioch that the followers of Jesus were first called "Christians."[Ac. 11:26]. This act basically "greased" the entry of non-circu-mcised Gentiles into Christianity.
"Paul collected the money from his four provinces, Galatia, Macedonia, Achaia and Asia but, for obvious reasons, of propriety, had representatives take each province's own contribution".
In the stupendous task of preparing and qualifying fallen, earthly beings for the company of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; even to be a suitable Bride for the Lamb; in the highest heaven and glory, the partaking of the divine nature by the impartation of the very life of God is one of the most important features of the whole transforming undertaking.
The receiving of the divine nature means that the individual thus blessed has been born of God. God has become his legitimate Father and he is the Father's legitimate son. This is a change so radical and so complete that there is thus achieved a passing from one order of being into another. Eventually in this great change the Adamic nature will be dismissed and the ego as a separate ent.ity will represent little else than the stupendous fact of being a son of God and a rightful member in the family and household of God.
The saved one will have become precisely what his new position in glory requires him to be. The basic metamorphosis which is achieved by a birth from above; a generating wrought by the Holy Spirit; though actually now entered by all who are saved, is too often and for want of due consideration almost wholly misapprehended. The conception that regeneration by the Holy Spirit is an indefinite influence for good in the individual's present life is far below the conception set forth in the New Testament. There it is taught that a new and eternal order of being is created with indissoluble filial relations to the Creator of all things.
The fact of the new birth, whether comprehended or not, is the basic and distinguishing feature of the Christian. The life of God which is eternal and which therefore Christ is has been imparted as definitely as the breath of natural life was breathed by God into Adam at the first creation.
Goodness. A buncha more nonsense. I don't know much about lamb husbandry but this is obviously a bizarre approach.
Very interesting article on Noah's descendants.
The section on human phylogeny is rather out of date, Robert. Otherwise it's kind of odd.
In the beginning of the article it states..
"We can also factually claim that wherever its statements can be sufficiently tested, Genesis 10 of the Bible has been found completely accurate"
It has been sufficiently tested that at no time was the entire earth under water...it kinda loses credibility after that.
I see Christian baptism continues to be a hot topic. Again:
"Baptism does not erase original sin since the sin does not exist. The old "laundry of the soul," approach to Baptism is no longer accepted.
Infant Baptism is only a rite of initiation and commits parents and godparents to bringing up the child in a Christian home."
Notes from a Catholic graduate school theology class.
I didn't bring it up to debate it.
I was just pointing out that is is a topic for debate.
It seems that would strongly suggest thte bible un unclear and even contradictory on the issue.
I don't care what people think about baptism, it proves the bible is flawed.
Indeed the bible is flawed as are all the other books of religious persuasion.
I still want to know how they reconcile the fact that they believed the world was flat and immobile for 1700 years, because the bible said so.
Forget Noah's boat,
The Garden of Eden,
Living in a fish for 3 days,
The changing morals,
The need to kill jesus,
The fact that bible scholars cannot agree to what it says,
and the 3 gods all rolled up in one thingy.
Christianity is total nonsense that requires a lot of denial and blind faith.
The Garden of Eden was in Missouri. Off the edge of their world.
As opposed to what? Denial of just one more religion than any religious person has? Who is also relying in their beliefs of no deity just like the religious relying on their own faith? How does the mere point of disagreement between religions automatically mean that all religious beliefs out there are wrong?
i was obviously talking about the bible.
What are you talking about?
I'm taking about when it comes to concluding whether or not there is a God who does not want to be made known in the first place but would rather have us develop our own faith in that deity, that your belief or POV is really in the same boat and no more provable than any believer's POV.
Well let's consider one faith at a time instead of trying to prove gods don't exist.
The bible if flawed and full of unbelievable stories.
I have to conclude that the christian god does not exist.
Again, that is merely your own conclusion as opposed to being fact. Also, how does just the mere point of discrepancies and interpretations between different Christian denominations means that automatically proves that they are all false?
The god described in the bible makes himself known lots of time, so if there is a god that doesn't want to be made known it isn't the one in the bible.
If there is no single correct interpretation of the book, then the bible is not the perfect word of any god.
It is a deeply flawed work of literature and was not inspired by any god.
The only sensible conclusiion is that the christian god does not exist.
Actually joey, The God of the Bible only revealed himself to just a few who were then sent out to testify of their experience to others who had to rely on their own judgement as to whether or not to believe those who testified of their experiences. If the God of the Bible did want himself to be made known, he would have made himself known to all of humanity throughout all time.
Exactly, he made himself known, which completely contradicts the idea of god not wanting to make himself known.
The key word in your last response is "if". So, that means there a distinct possibility that there is a correct version out there, and since you don't have all the variables to consider what an all knowing God thinks or what such a being's full intentions are, there really is no accurate calculation in determining the odds as to whether there is such a correct version out there. It all boils down to a matter of belief both theistic and atheistic.
I completely disagree. For me if god made himself known to even one person that is enough to make the idea that god didn't want to make himself known absurd.
If God really wanted himself to be made known, he would have revealed himself to you too.
Uh, if god didn't want to make himself known he wouldn't have made himself known to anybody. Seems pretty simple to me. You can't argue that god doesn't want to make himself known after he has already made himself known. You could I guess argue that god doesn't want to make himself known to everyone.
Anyhoo, It's been brief but I have to go to work, so toodles.
"So, that means there a distinct possibility that there is a correct version out there"
I disagree. There are some basic questions that are not clear – as noted below if baptism is necessary for salvation. There are different opinions and seemingly contradictory passages on the topic.
There is no 'right' answer. The bible is not clear on the issue. This is just one example, but it shows that the bible is not clear on what we are supposed to do. Do you really think god gave us an ambiguous book to try to interpret in order to save ourselves from eternal damnation?
Do you really believe that the mere act of being immersed in water is going to provide salvation? Where is the logic in that?
My point is that I don't believe any of it.
To emphasize that point, I'm pointing out that the bible is unclear about a very important issue.
I also noted other things in the bible that are unbelievable.
It's not unclear at all. Holy writ records three instances (there were of course more) of the Holy Spirit being manifest in quickening. These examples are clear proof that water baptism is not required FOR SALVATION. Nonetheless it is given as a commandment by the Lord Jesus Christ and is thus required.
Water baptism is the public manifestation of a believer's acceptance of Christ as saviour. Being born again is the spiritual quickening that is synonymous with salvation.
if your bible is so clear, why are there so many experts who disagree?
If you would bother to do any research you woul dfind it to be a topic of ongoing debate.
Indeed, Alias. Considering that it was unlikely that Peter authored Peter 2 where he allegedly gives the blessing for Paul's writings as being divine scripture, most of the NT falls apart as mere hearsay. Plenty of things in hearsay to argue about among the different sects that argued so much over the acceptance of Peter 2, Revelation, etc.
Scot hope this helps ?
Of course if there were serious doubters, fear is a good tactic to make them fall into line. You could make up something like – oh – that the devil was able to perform plagiarism in reverse time order and was re-writing what was written about history at the time. That's always a good one. Oh wait – come to think of it, someone did actually use that excuse – it was Justin Martyr and a few other early Christian apologists.....
The bible is the way it is because that's the way the Lord wanted it. It is what separates the wheat from the chaff. A born-again child of God is going to spend lots of time 'feeding' (meditating) upon His word and will derive the correct interpretation because he is indwelt with the Holy Spirit. Anyone not born-again is going to read the bible and think it's nonsense.
– If someone repeatedly denies Him, He will judicially blind them so that they will neither see nor understand.
– And He said, “Go, and tell this people:
Keep on hearing, but do not understand;
Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.
Make the heart of this people dull,
And their ears heavy,
And shut their eyes;
Lest they see with their eyes,
And hear with their ears,
And understand with their heart,
And return and be healed.” – Isaiah 6:9-10, NKJV
lol. "A born-again child of God is going to spend lots of time 'feeding' (meditating) upon His word" – thinking in circles, as the rest of the world leaves them behind. They obviously render themselves ignorant on many issues as a result of such stagnant infatuation with their imaginary play date.
Thank you for the link and i did look. However, it appears again to be just more of the same. By that i mean hypothesizing. It is crystal clear to me that the storyline just does not account for factors that would make said story unbelievable. For one thing, just postulating that the theory could be substantiated, we would have to call b.s. on the premise that early ancestors had large brains. They are given large brains by these anthropologists and paleontologists because larger brains are absolutely be required for survival of the species. However, we know that these supposed larger brains were not possessed by these supposed ancestors because the only 'decendant' in which we could confirm this trait is Lucy, (whose remains are the most complete yet not even 50%) Lucy's braincase is in fact quite small. The other issue that makes Lucy suspect as being an ancestor is of course the locking joints and the diagonal gait of an ape. Neither of these traits suggest a stage of development one would expect to find in an ancestor for that time frame. Somebody is telling stories again because grant renewal time is just around the corner.
– if you want a more factual representation of the differences between man and ape, here you go.
And Scot turned another thread back to evolution.
Your bible is still wrong.
Your god does not exist.
So then kevinite,
Your capricious and omniscient deity purposely created millions if not billions of people who he KNEW were not going to believe, and thereby go to hell.
That's an evil monster. Not a god.
"whether or not there is a God who does not want to be made known in the first place"
This has to be one of my favorite apologetic arguments. A god who does not want to be known...well maybe a little bit...but not too much...and somehow certian people KNOW this...too funny.
Why would a god not want to be known. That's a bit bass-ackwards rationalization. Any excuse to keep away the cognitive dissonances I see. Why do people have to keep making excuses for their gods.
The argument goes that god wants people to believe in lieu of demonstrable evidence (even though there are many examples of god doing just that in the bible) so that they believe of their own free will. There are a whole host of issues with this argument...
Hey Scot your favorite site for your mining deal below and are you the one with mic in the video ?
Zoidberg Jesus at Comic-Con!
Published on Aug 20, 2014
Inst-itute for Creation Research – RationalWiki – a bunch of cranks scot ?
7 days ago – The Inst-itute for Creation Research (ICR) is a young-Earth creationist faux-research organization that produces voluminous quote mines and
buckyboy and cheesy,
"Your capricious and omniscient deity purposely created millions if not billions of people who he KNEW were not going to believe, and thereby go to hell. That's an evil monster. Not a god."
Yes, such a evil monster who when the warning is given he actually lets them choose for themselves, and after all making someone accountable for their choices when they were warned such a vicious monster.
Now, what would really make one a monster would be to condemn someone without that someone ever having a chance to know about the gospel and choose in the first place, but then again I do believe that those who in life who didn't get that chance in this life will still get that chance after this life.
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
(1 Peter 3:18-20 KJV)
If these spirits were such lost causes then why would Jesus preach to these spirits?
"whether or not there is a God who does not want to be made known in the first place". "This has to be one of my favorite apologetic arguments".
"Why would a god not want to be known. That's a bit bass-ackwards rationalization. Any excuse to keep away the cognitive dissonances I see. Why do people have to keep making excuses for their gods."
Well you got me there. I just keep on making up excuses. It's not like the gospel ever discussed certain concepts like having faith as opposed to having perfect knowledge. Oh wait:
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
(Hebrews 11:1 KJV)
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
(Hebrews 11:6 KJV)
29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
(John 20:29 KJV)
God is like the guy who sets a fire in the basement of an apartment building and then plays the hero as he sounds the alarm and rescues people.
Of course the bible expounds upon the "virtue" of faith...without it the religion has nothing. Faith is not a virtue, it is not a tool, it is a crutch, its an excuse. All religions and cults use it ...that is how you know it is not a path to what is true...it is a path to delusion.
And that cheesy is your belief and just your belief.
No it is not just my belief, I can demonstrate it to be true.
What are you waiting for? I'm surprised you haven't demonstrated already.
Of course you realize that I' referring to you proving your opinion to be not really an opinion, but be an actual fact.
Religious faith has never lead to demonstrable knowledge....ever. That is a fact.
Many people claim to know things based on religious faith. Also a fact.
There is a plethora of divergent religious "knowledge" based on religious faith that contradict each other. That being the case most all people who claim religious knowledge on faith are wrong. Therefore religious faith leads to delusion and such faith can demonstrably be shown to be completely unreliable.
"Religious faith has never lead to demonstrable knowledge....ever. That is a fact."
Demonstrable knowledge of what? Of one's personal gain of happiness? One's sense of self worth? How does that prove to be a crutch, or an excuse, or a delusion? All you are doing is giving your own opinion or belief.
"Many people claim to know things based on religious faith. Also a fact.
There is a plethora of divergent religious "knowledge" based on religious faith that contradict each other. That being the case most all people who claim religious knowledge on faith are wrong. Therefore religious faith leads to delusion and such faith can demonstrably be shown to be completely unreliable."
Uh cheesy, just because those who believe they have knowledge and can't prove it doesn't actually prove that it's all delusional; only that they just can't prove it, which is what faith is all about. The lack of evidence isn't evidence in of itself. You're the one who made the claim that faith is a crutch, an excuse, and delusional and that means you're the one who has the burden of proof.
Anyhoo, I have to go to work, so toodles.
"Demonstrable knowledge of what?"
Demonstrable knowledge of the things people claim to know on faith. For instance you claim god does not want to be known...you "know" this based on faith and yet you cannot demonstrate that to actually be the case.
"just because those who believe they have knowledge and can't prove it doesn't actually prove that it's all delusional"
Not all (it could be all, we don't know) but at the very least it shows a vast majority of "knowledge" people claim to have received through religious faith is delusional because they are contradictory. There could be one that is right. But the fact that the majority are wrong shows claims based on faith lead to delusion far, far more than it doesn't. And of course there is no evidence religious faith ever actually leads to what is true.
That is a demonstration...it is not an opinion.
All you have "demonstrated" is how you formulated your own opinion. The reason is because truth is truth no matter where it comes from or what the prevailing interpretations are on it. It doesn't really matter what you feel the odds are unless you can prove that faith in God is irrefutably delusional and is a crutch in all instances, what you have is just your opinion or belief.
In addition when it comes to faith having no validation simply because of different faiths, you didn't give any clarification on just what points of faith you are referring to. Yes, there are so many different beliefs, but not every single belief one religion holds is completely different from any other religion. There are certain beliefs that can be commonly found within many religions, so when you claim that the odds are so against faith having any validation, those odds may not be as extreme as you may think.
Either way, none of what you "demonstrated" actually proves inequitably that faith is nothing but a crutch, an excuse, or a delusion. Whether you like it or not there are times in life when you do have to have faith in someone whether or not that may be a deity.
I didn't say religious faith is itself a delusion. I said it is a path to delusion. It is a path to acceptance of claims as being true that are not actually true. And all the contradictory claims stemming from religious faith bear that out...even if some of them were true (and we don't know that any on them are).
Let's take "guessing" an answer as an anology. Even if I guessed correctly once out of 100 times you would not say that "guessing" is a path to what is true. And if I accepted all 100 guesses as "true" even though I could not validate any of them I would be deluding myself into accepting answers as "true" that are not true. It would be justified to say "guessing" is a path to delusion even if I guessed correctly some of the time.
Now how is guessing an answer and accepting it as true any different than what we see when people use religious faith to come to conclusions?
The problem with that analogy is that if there truly is a correct choice out there and you choose to not take that leap of faith or take that risk , you will 100% certainty miss the mark, and in that sense you concluding that there is no correct choice, you are actually taking a leap of faith that there is no correct choice.
The other problem is that making the decision in which choice of belief to take is not just simply taking a roll of the dice or a spin of the wheel and there you have your decision. There is actually trying out the product seeing for yourself if it is the right thing for you. You can't prove that someone else but none the less you know that is was a good choice for you. That there are certain truths out there that cannot be made known without first-hand experience like knowing what salt tastes like.
If you don't know what salt tastes like and someone was recommending you should put some salt on your popcorn and you figure that with all the things out there that can be put on that popcorn and even considering that the salt is not even organic but a mineral, that out of all of those minerals out there what are the odds that this mineral would make your popcorn taste better? The person encouraging you to try the salt says that he or she has tried the salt and enjoys it but there are others who say they have tried it and did not like it on their popcorn, what is your choice? If you choose that due to all those minerals out there that are so different from each other that it seems like the odds that this mineral will make my popcorn taste better seems quite unlikely, so why would you take that leap of faith and see for yourself whether or not it will make your popcorn taste better? After all what could you possibly be missing for deciding not to take that leap of faith and trying that salt out on your popcorn?
Also, whether or not you choose that there is no correct religion no matter what the odds are whether you figure that it is simply a matter of taking a wild guess, that conclusion is still just your opinion or belief. You still haven't proven that is is a fact that having faith is a crutch, a delusion or will certainly lead to delusion.
The problem with the "choice" analogy is that beliefs are not just a matter of choosing. "Beliefs" are accepting a proposition as true based on the merits and evidence. I can no more accept the proposition the the Christian god is real than I can accept that invisible pixies are responsible for holding my feet to the ground. Religious faith is believing something not based on evidence...it is in lieu of evidence.
"There is actually trying out the product seeing for yourself if it is the right thing for you."
What is true regarding religious claims is not subjective to each individual. They are either true for everyone or they are not... regardless of whither people believe.
The salt anaology fails because there is not a question of whither salt is real. The subjective experience of the salt can be argued...but the existence of salt cannot.
But I would still like an answer to how guessing is different than accepting claims based on religious faith.
If using flawed reasoning leads to the wrong answer 9 times out of 10 and yet through such reasoning people accept wrong answers as true it is justified to say said flawed reasoning is a path to delusional beliefs. It is not necessary to prove everyone who uses such flawed reasoning are wrong...just that the reasoning is not reliable.
The thing is cheesy, you didn't prove that taking that leap of faith and trying it out for yourself is actually flawed reasoning. It is definitely flawed reasoning for sure if you go out of your way to not try it in the first place. The truth of the matter is that there are some things that can't be known first hand and that there are times in which one has to have faith and trust in somone whether or not that may be a deity.
Who exactly was teaching that the world was flat? And was it something exclusively taught by Christian teachers? I've seen early Christian writings (Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea) that show they understood the Earth was round.
When I look into the writings of early Christian theologians – and even on through the middle ages into more modern time, most seem to accept and even assume the earth is round. And there are even some writings in The Bible that suggest a round earth.
I know in elementary school I was taught that people in Columbus' time thought the world was flat and he would sail off of Earth, but I later learned that really wasn't the case.
This seems to give a rather good explanation of the flat earth thought.
Yea, I was about to post something from Wikipedia that followed along with that reasoning:
"The idea that people used to believe that the Earth was flat until only very recently, mostly due to the influence of religion, is essentially a complete myth"
Here's another site that might interest you to read...it explains on a more human level from people who actually believe the myth.
I can see how we might have thought it at one point...we haven't always had the luxuries we do but I don't understand anyone believing it today.
Yes, and I was alarmed to read this: "Given this history, it should come as a surprise to anyone that any human being existing in the developed world right now should still consider the idea of a flat Earth probable. Since the mid-1800s, though, modern pseudoscientists have been trying to prove that the Earth is flat."
Look up Copernicus and Galileo.
They were condemned by the church because their theories contradicted the teachings of the bible.
Are you sure? Both men you mention were very religious and had a lot of respect for The Bible. I think it would be fair to suggest their studies were even inspired by The Bible. I think politics had more to do with the Church (I'm not even sure who they were speaking for, but not all Christians) opposing them.
Have you looked into some of the myths associated with Copernicus and Galileo? Similar to the flat earth myth, there seems to be some anti-religious myths promoted that put Christianity as opposed to the sciences, when that really wasn't the case.
Galileo's championing of heliocentrism was controversial within his lifetime. The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was false and contrary to scripture, placing works advocating the Copernican system on the index of banned books and forbidding Galileo from advocating heliocentrism. Galileo later defended his views in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which appeared to attack Pope Urban VIII. He was tried by the Holy Office, then found "vehemently suspect of heresy", was forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.
This is easily available to anyone who puts forth a little effort to learn the history.
This might help, and if you can read Latin it even has a copy of the original findings from the Inquisition held in 1616.
I've definitely looked into it. Looks like you copied and pasted that from somewhere.
Have you read this?
"The Church is not anti-scientific. It has supported scientific endeavors for centuries. During Galileo’s time, the Jesuits had a highly respected group of astronomers and scientists in Rome. In addition, many notable scientists received encouragement and funding from the Church and from individual Church officials. Many of the scientific advances during this period were made either by clerics or as a result of Church funding. "
"Anti-Catholics often cite the Galileo case as an example of the Church refusing to abandon outdated or incorrect teaching, and clinging to a "tradition." They fail to realize that the judges who presided over Galileo’s case were not the only people who held to a geocentric view of the universe. It was the received view among scientists at the time.
Centuries earlier, Aristotle had refuted heliocentricity, and by Galileo’s time, nearly every major thinker subscribed to a geocentric view. Copernicus refrained from publishing his heliocentric theory for some time, not out of fear of censure from the Church, but out of fear of ridicule from his colleagues. "
It goes on to say Galileo didn't actually prove heliocentricity. He couldn't.
Galileo was strongly supported by the Pope until he wrote the Dialogues. The Pope wasn't bothered by heliocentrism as much as the book's style and rhetorical construct made the Pope appear stupid. It was a political error by Galileo who also lost support of other Catholic groups. The Catholic Church was not filled with dummies. They did interesting experiments to test heliocentrism, like parallax tests. Unfortunately, they didn't have good enough instrumentation and they didn't know which stars to use, so they thought they disproved heliocentrism. So I don't see the RCC as dumb persecutors in galileo's case. Now Giordano Bruno's case is pretty bad.
And what about this:
"Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved. "
Firstly, consider the fact that the church was the government. There were limited options to get funding.
Secondly, consider the sourse: http://www.catholic.com Do you really think you are getting an unbiased opinion here?
Allow me to requote "The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was false and contrary to scripture, placing works advocating the Copernican system on the index of banned books and forbidding Galileo from advocating heliocentrism. " The church banned the teaching of the idea BEFORE he made fun of the pope. They banned the teaching of heliocentrism becasue it contradicted sctipture.
Well, you didn't share your source.
But I have seen arguments that agree with the premise they outline from non-Catholic sources. That was just the first thing I found via Google. I'm surprised you haven't read similar things yet in your search of historical truths!
I would not use christian.com to learn about the history of science any more than I would use it to find the number of children touched by priests.
I agree. I am saying that Galileo was able to study heliocentrism as long as it was hypothetical. He would not have been prosecuted if he hadn't made the Pope look foolish in the Dialogue. After the Dialogue, he became persona non grata. The interesting thing is, Galileo got the draft of the Dialogue approved by the official RCC reviewers. They were satisfied that it was in hypothetical terms. What they missed was that the Pope would identify with Simplicio.
It seems to me that the Church at the time viewed it as wrong scientifically and against what the bible taught.
Scientifically, Galileo's evidence was inconclusive though.
And there are plenty of non-Christian writings about it:
Tycho Brahe viewed Copernicus' work as elegant and simple. He also viewed it as only a mathematical convenience and not representative of the actual universe. The reason was the absence of a theory of gravitation that could explain how something known to be vast, the earth, might move about the sun. Actually a pretty good reason to be skeptical.
The original point I was trying to make was that the church was teaching the bible said the world was flat and immobile.
You have all supported that point even if you refuse to accept that the teaching wre banned in 1615, before the pope was criticized.
The world is round and it revolves around the sun. The church was wrong. The bible is wrong.
I agree, there was plenty of reasons to be skeptical. Galileo's only evidence was by analogy. Since he saw moons revolving around other planets, he generalized that to the earth and sun. He was right, but in reality, it was a good guess.
In fact, in the Dialogue, Galileo makes a mistake similar to the Pope. He ridicules Kepler for his hypothesis that the moon caused tides. It's interesting to see the imperfections of the humans we lionize.
The Church in Galileo's time didn't teach that the earth was flat, though. And there were plenty of Christian writers before the 1500-1600's that had written about the world not being flat. You can find examples of that from 100's AD and on.
I agree. I think most people making an impartial, objective reading of the bible would conclude that the writer thought the earth was flat and stationary. The later interpretations by apologists seem contorted to me. That was the prevailing view at that time, I don't fault them for being wrong.
immobile and the center of the universe yes, but I am not so sure about flat.
The fact the Christian writers wrote something would have no bearing whatsoever on what the Church taught. There were Christians writing all kinds of things that the Church didn't teach at the time, lots of them were executed for doing so.
If you really want to know the truth, google "Roman Inquisition in 1615" and see what non-christian apologists think.
The bible says the world is flat and immobile. It was a crime to try to teach anything else in christian countries.
Didn't Thomas Friedman show that the world is flat after all?
Who was it that that believed the world was flat and immobile for 1700 years, because the bible said so?
Some Christians? Yes, some did. But not all. Some of them also believed it because that is what the best science of that time also told them. And weren't there people in The Church that also supported Galileo?
In more recent times people have argued over whether spacetime is flat and what sort of metric is best for it. No burnings, though. The Church seems disinterested.
I'm familiar with the Roman Inquisition. For what it i is worth – I don't support what the Romans did in 1615. It is an example of a government overstepping its bounds. It was sickening. I have no idea how they twisted what Jesus taught into something used to rule over people. But that is government. We've got examples of bad Christian, atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, secular and Humanist governments.
My point is the bible says the world is the immobile center of the universe.
It is wrong.
I also think it says the world is flat, but that is not so clear.
Dala: "We've got examples of bad Christian, atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, secular and Humanist governments."
Indeed – and individuals too, of course.
Dala: "I have no idea how they twisted what Jesus taught into something used to rule over people."
Based on the extremism we frequently see in the U.S. from various Christians today – individuals and groups, I don't find it surprising at all.
I don't think The Bible asks me to believe the world is the immobile center of the universe.
Apparently a lot of early Christians felt the same – even 2,000 years ago.
Did some of the authors of The Bible believe the world is the immobile center of the universe? Yes. Does that mean I have to? No.
Are some of the passages that suggest the world is the immobile center of the universe poetic? Like when when Nat King Cole sings "...to the ends of the Earth" is he asking me to believe the world is flat and has an end?
– Based on the extremism we frequently see in the U.S. from various Christians today – individuals and groups, I don't find it surprising at all.
I'm not surprised either. Unfortunately that extremism exists in lots of individuals and groups; it is nothing unique to Christians today.
You are truly gifted at responding but not answering questions.
You should go into politics.
The bible is wrong.
It does not matter if you think it was peotiic. It does not matter if not everyone who was a christian believed it.
If the bible is marbled with metaphoric poetry, who decides which passages are real and which are metaphor? Similar question for the poetry, who decides what the poem means?
The whole creation argument is absurd. Ancient man had no idea that our planet was an insignificant spec of matter in a massive galaxy in a universe with uncountable galaxies. To assume some deity took the time to come along and make mankind is ridiculous, even as a myth, on what we know today. Grow up people there is no god looking at your life that will pass judgement on you or any one else on this earth. We are not the center of anything.
Who decides what is the correct interpretation? That would be Theo just ask him at your peril.
You really haven't been asking me many questions. You have been telling me things. And many of them are misconceptions.
Dala: "I'm not surprised either. Unfortunately that extremism exists in lots of individuals and groups; it is nothing unique to Christians today."
To a certain degree, I agree. But, for instance do you know of any non-religious extremist group as organized and as large as the Southern Baptist Convention, for example?
I also find it strange that some people are so certain of their beliefs, and hence their interpretations. I am not certain of very much, much less how the universe got here, if there is God(s), or how life got here. It seems to me that that kind of certainty is the opposite of humble.
Well you have got to the point with Dala... where he bobs and weaves, will soon start tap dancing, then proceed to his self- deprecation mode right soon, a predictable pattern.
+ If the bible is marbled with metaphoric poetry, who decides which passages are real and which are metaphor?
I try to learn more about each book, the author, the audience addressed and what I think it is trying to communicate. I listen to what other people's reactions and understandings are. I rarely just accept the first thing. I remain open-minded and seek to learn more about them.
+ Similar question for the poetry, who decides what the poem means?
It is the same as any poetry. I try not to take anyone to seriously who tries to tell me they are the authority on what it means (whether it is a Christian telling me their way is the only way, or an atheist telling me their way is the only way). I learned along time ago that nobody gets to decide what a poem means for me.
I read the Psalms and I find people communicating doubt about God, and asking honest questions that I face today. Who is to say what that means? I know what it means for me. And it helps me.
That is a sensible approach. If all Christians used that approach, this blog would be much more peaceful (or non-existent).
I get it. You hate me. And you will take any opportunity to insult me you can find.
How come when ever I ask for evidence to support your claims – like I'm a liar and I twist other people's words out of proportion – you start to bob and weave yourself? You spend so much time insulting me, when I admit that I do do some of things you criticize me of, why do you say I go into self-deprecation mode?
Why do you do the same things you accuse me of is the most puzzling thing about you. Can you not see it?
Of course we have some on this blog that go beyond faith, belief, opinion and "know" that their god exists but have never been able to back that knowledge with a single "fact". I would be satisfied with a single provable miracle, the regrowing of an amputees limb would suffice.
Most Christians I know and respect aren't that interested in blog message boards. Most of them are actually doing better things.
Certainty is a dangerous thing. It is the handmaiden of dogma.
"When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow."
Most of the Christians i know are reasonable, productive people. Sadly, there is a very vocal minority of Christians that sees it as their duty to tell others how they should think and behave. They shrewdly use the political system to effect that aim.
I mock you because you are such an easy target, hatred is a bit harsh. Check out a quote by Thomas Jefferson, ridicule is the last defense against those that believe in a supernatural deity. Turn the other cheek Dala... you are compelled to do so by your beliefs, on the other hand I have nothing preventing me from treating you with contempt, free will and all,
Dala is not capable of honesty if the truth puts his religion in a bad light. He would rather lie through his teeth than admit that his church may not be perfect.
I have turned the other cheek. I've tried ignoring you, but you seek me out. It would be easy to mock and ridicule you. By turning the other cheek and not doing it to you I hope to end this.
I'm familiar with Thomas Jefferson quotes. He had some good ones. He also had some very bad ones. Some are downright embarrassing and cause me to not turn to him as an authority for how to behave.
+ Dala is not capable of honesty if the truth puts his religion in a bad light. He would rather lie through his teeth than admit that his church may not be perfect.
Can you provide an example of this?
I am pretty critical of the actions of some members of my religion. There are some Christians that hate me just as much as Aushpor and some of the atheists on this blog. At least they say just as horrible things to me. That is surprising you would make that claim!
And I've never said my religion was perfect. What lies have I said?
Most of them are out doing better things. Which begs the question, why do you spend so much time posting on this blog, proselytizing?
Probably the same reason you spend so much time on this blog proselytizing.
Well that is water off my back. I do have more time once the markets have closed and drop into the blog when things are quiet. BTW as for proselytizing, sorry no, but if I could convince anyone that has been hooked by religion, any religion, to look around at how much misery religions have done and are still doing, I would achieve my purpose for posting on this blog. Forgot I also enjoy mocking people that "know", LOL.
proselytizing – convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.
That sounds like what you are doing.
I usually try to share what I believe. And not tell others what they need to believe. I don't really believe in proselytizing in the way I believe you are suggesting I do it, probably because my story didn't involve it.
I'm often here killing time – whether at work while I wait for monster sized files to render out, or sitting at the hospital waiting for patients before I go to work. I sometimes end up having to stay very late at work because I get so wrapped up in conversation. I'm going back to school and that starts soon, so I won't be here much longer!
Another Dala... ruse
Most of the Christians I know ...
Most of the Deists I know .
.Most of the Atheists I know...
Most of the Protestants I know
Most of the Baptists I know...
Most of the Inuit I know....
Most of the Sasquatch I know...
You see Dala.. uses his imagination to make up consensus to try and make his dubious points that he "knows", really. Perhaps next time you use "most of the (whatever)", you may provide a list of who those most of were.
A ruse? Really? You think I'm trying to deceive people when I say most atheist I know are pretty reasonable? Or that most deists are kind to me and don't routinely insult me?
Notice I say "most I know"? I don't say "Most are this.." or "most are that...".
And I stand by that. I find most atheists are like Bostontola. And not like tallulah131. And I'm very thankful for that!
Well you stand on very thin ice. Good luck back at school, try not to bore your fellow students to death.
I'm just glad most Deists I know are not as weird and preachy as you. I'm going to go hug one of the loving ones I know right now. Later!
You forgot the most important one:
"Most scholars ... bla bla bla ".
If there were a benevolent and omnipotent god, it would kick the Bible god's ass all the way to hell until he learned to control his temper and play nice. That god would then would send the Bible god to the real heaven where he would spend some time talking to Sigmund Freud about the whole Jesus episode.
Sorry about the extra "would".
Interesting. More proof Snotty is all wrong about Creationism. Neanderthals inter-acted with modern humans far longer, and closer than they thought.
There are nineteen, and perhaps more, major haplogroups determined by Y chromosome markers, Scot. How many sons of Noah did you say there were?
It all started with Adam, so there can be only 1.
Thank you for disproving DNA and giving the bible huggers more reason to believe genesis.
///(Am I doing your logic right, Scot?)
Did you think Noah did not have grandsons?
I AM SO USING THIS LATER-
What is your point scot?
I get the feeling that you don't know what you are talking about again.
I'm sure Noah had grandsons and grandaughters. And for us to be hear, they had to... uh, you know.
Speaking of Noah...how old was he when he built that boat?
Of course Noah's off spring would have to do a lot of inbreeding and we know how that turns out. Scot's mom and dad should not have bred with their first cousins when they were just 12 years old.
"Adam" is a term sometimes used for the most recent common ancestor of the various haplogroups. For groups F through R, "Adam" lived over 100,000 years ago.
Even science suggests that all of the people on earth can trace their genealogy back to the same man through DNA sequencing (makes racism seem foolish when you think about it). This lines up quite clearly with the biblical account of the origin of man.
This person wouldn't have been the first human though.
That puzzles me, Joe. Take Neanderthals for example, if modern humans evolved from apes and Neanderthals evolved from apes, were there human like animals evolving into more human like animals in different places at the same time?
Yes indeed, Robert. And it is very hard, if not impossible, to sort out the true ancestor species from other closely related species. The fossils are scarce. In the past it seemed like everyone wanted their pet specimens to fit into our lineage somehow. That's fallen off a bit, recently.
My point is that his genes are the only ones that have survived until today.
For example if I have a kid and you have a kid, then your kid has a kid, and for whatever reason my kid doesn't then your genes will continue to be passed on and mine won't. So there was more than one male in the world alive at the time, however, all but one of them failed to have their genes passed on from then until now.
Thanks Tom and Joe. I'm still puzzled, but glad I'm not the only one.
Look at it this way, Robert Brown. Every man has a father, but not every man has a son. Think about that for a while and it all falls into place.
I take it you are good with the assumption that there must have been a minimum of 26 females on the boat as well? There are some apologetic's out that have some really good reasons for 8 males and 26 females on Ark. So if your plan is back Scott into the corner on 8 males when were you going spring the issue of genetic mtDNA pool on him?
Moses may not have wanted to tell us about some of the cuties Ham slipped in when Noah was busy.
Some of my earliest publications are on mtDNA, Fred. Anything in particular you want to know?
Yes, what is your actual confidence level that there are 26 female lines overall.
There are 8 major types of mtDNA currently recognized. Each of the 8 breaks down into a complex phylogenetic tree. These are revised periodically.
Something you should know: application of molecular clocks to human mtDNA phylogeny point to a most recent common ancestor between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago. But that only means that from tens of thousands of individuals living at the time of that one ancestor, that is the remaining continuous female line. You have tens of thousands of ancestors from that time.
The carnal man looks at his world and asks "where is God"; the spiritual man looks at God's world and says "thank you Lord".
It's OK scot – I understand why you think you have to believe that.
Well I guess Atheists aren't carnal then, we merely don't believe in your god or any god due to lack of evidence...so we're not going to be asking where god is?
It's ironic you talk about God all the time, it's really pointless for you to deny it.
It's ironic you talk about evolution all the time, it's really pointless for you to deny it.
Not at all. I'm a recovering Christian and I thought the same simple-minded thoughts you do, just not quite as blindly. I left the small town, I got an education and I opened my mind. You should attempt it, life is amazing without the god delusion attached.
Somebody ought to come up with some Scot like quotes taken out of context to make it look like highly respected religious people don't believe in god, maybe then Scot will realize why what he is doing is dishonest.
You read my mind (sort of)
“There’s no way a blind person could be in San Francisco one day and then Los Angeles a few months later without a creator. God must have zapped the person instantaneously from one city to the other,” insisted Wandering Scott.
“What,” replied Charles, “Why do you always resort to a magic-divine explanation just because you don’t understand something?”
Wandering Scott – Well, you tell me how it happened, you God denying reprobate.
Charles – Simple. The person walked.
Wandering Scott – Oh, so you’re part of the ambulatory cult are you? It would take a huge leap for a person to get from San Francisco to Los Angeles, a much bigger step than any person could make. How could a person jump about 400 miles? What, are they Superman? Next thing you’ll tell me monkey can give birth to a human.
Charles – Of course not, but you are assuming that it was only one step. What if that person took only very small steps and over a long period of time, those little steps added up. You walk to the liquor store most mornings around 11:00 AM don’t you?
Wandering Scott – Now don’t you be trying that with me, you unregenerate. I believe in micro-voyages, just not macro-voyages. There’s not enough time. Look, here’s a quote from Runner’s World, a respected magazine; “No person could walk from San Francisco to Los Angeles.” Ha, I got you!!
Charles – But that quote continues “without proper preparation and the right shoes.” You totally took it out of context.
Wandering Scott – No I didn’t. It is your wicked arrogance and pride that wants to shut God out of your life, you podiatrist-worshipper. That quote was made and now you’re stuck with it. And, anyway, where are the transitional footprints? If somebody walked from San Francisco to Los Angeles we would expect to see their transitional footsteps.
Charles – There are pathways along the route, roads, bike routes here and there. The entire route is not laid out with every single step, but there is enough evidence dotted along the way to show that it can easily be done. To expect to see every single footprint is just ridiculous.
Wandering Scott – So, you can’t explain the gaps in the footprint record, hey? Bet that makes you uncomfortable. Here’s another quote from the editor of Track and Field, another well reputed magazine, “Walking from San Francisco to Los Angeles……is a load of rubbish.”
Charles – Bur the words you omitted are “is a popular adventure. The claim that it is dangerous is.” The entire quote is, “Walking from San Francisco to Los Angeles is a popular adventure. The claim that it is dangerous is a load of rubbish.” You not only took it out of context, you intentionally turned the author’s quote around to say exactly the opposite of what he really meant. That is dishonesty of the highest order.
Wandering Scott. Ah, I’ve got you on the ropes now, haven’t I? Anyway, how would a blind person know the direction from San Francisco to Los Angeles. If they were blind, they would just be taking random steps. I am called “Wandering Scott,” so I should know!!
Charles – Well, what if there are external environmental pressures gently guiding them. What if they could feel the morning and afternoon sun on their face, knew the direction of traffic and could navigate suburbs as many blind people can, and even had a guide periodically. Every time they took a step in the wrong direction, the guide would prevented them taking another step in that direction, but would allow them to continue if they took a step in the right direction. Blind people run marathons.
Wandering Scott – Baa! There are no such things as the morning sun, guides and traffic. That’s all part of the god denying, foot worshipping cult of pseudo-scientists. The next thing you’ll try and tell me is the Earth is round and that it’s Summer in Australia when its Winter in the USA, and nighttime there when its daytime here, you pig-fvcking, Jesus hating, Satan worshipper.
I understand that you don't like what i'm doing, too bad, get over it; and it's not dishonest because you say so.
"and it's not dishonest because you say so."
No... but it is dishonest because you are misrepresenting what people are saying to further your own agenda.
It is the very definition of 'Bearing False Witness'...but if you do it for Jesus that's ok.
get over it, you just don't like your myth questioned, too bad.
I love the fact that it is questioned on a daily basis by scientists all over the world.
Misrepresenting facts is not being honest and that is all you do. Invest in a dictionary please...you'll find your picture beside the words delusional and dishonest.
I am with Scott on this one. It is not dishonest if there exists support for a position and there is not intentional misrepresentation.
Most of the anti-theists on this site are guilty of misrepresentation of scientific facts when they extrapolate such facts to claim no God needed. Much of evolution theory for example is tied with a nice bow of confidence but, it is limited to the assumptions made in the underlying proof. Here Scott is often correct and not lying however he fails to list the assumption behind the contrary positions he posts. Failure to list his assumptions is not a lie. You need to ask him what is assumptions were.
Fred, every single quote he has posted has been intentional misrepresentation.
Fred, support is not people saying something is true, not even people with impeccable credentials. Support is data. Data together with coherent, logic-based interpretation.
Then you approve of people deliberately misrepresenting the Bible by quote mining? And you don't consider that a lie?
I don't think he is intentionally trying to misrepresent the evidence, but I would not know that. I have many Christian friends with strong scientific backgrounds that believe contrary positions yet acknowledge that based on assumptions the current consensus trumps a contrary position that lacks evidence. When evidence is lacking for a contrary position and underlying assumptions violate known principles you are not in Kansas anymore Dorothy.
By the way Dorothy was not a liar and she did not misrepresent anything. You could ask the scarecrow ........if he only had a brain.
Quote mining approval for the win. Sigh.
No surprise here, fred has never been above misrepresentation himself.
Tom, Tom, the Other One
Certainly, however when you look at how much evidence is based upon a constant speed of light for example that data is only as good as what we do with it. We must all assume the speed of light is constant otherwise we cannot move forward. Technically we do not know if the speed of light is constant we take that as a base assumption because that is what we observe within our observation horizon.
Some of scotts musings require a change in the speed of light but the problem is that scott uses evidence that is only valid if the speed of light is constant. The earth cannot be 5,000 years old for example if the speed of light is constant. Unfortunately 5,000 years is within our observable horizon so such an assumption is a no go from the start.
"Then you approve of people deliberately misrepresenting the Bible by quote mining?"
=>Don't we all quote mine the Bible to align with our belief? When we do it to misrepresent then it is a lie.
=>Take homosexuality where there are 11 key verses that make it clear homosexuality is offensive to God. If my quote mining presents a harmful, hurtful negative attitude towards others it misrepresents the Bible. If I as a Christian do that intentionally it is a greater offense than if I do it out of stupidity but it is still an offense.
Scotty is a troll. He knows he is dishonest. He is very deliberately dishonest.
Ding ding ding ding !! we have a winner !
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127
– oops, there i go again being deliberately dishonest.
Glad you had a moment of self-awareness.
Yes, Scotty. There you go. Your game is up, but you had a nice trolling run. Well played.
Well it is dishonest because it selectively and clearly misrepresents Gould's purpose in making the statement given the absence of context. Furthermore, it again demonstrates your miscomprehension of the relevance of taxonomic scale, i.e. that the PE v. gradualism debate is centered on the species-level. Both ignorant and disingenuous in a single post. This quote mine is #50 at the Quote Mine Project:
Way to misquote someone from over 30 year ago!
Doesn't misrepresent his doubt at all and it is clearly expressed. He knows PE is reconsti-tuted saltation but because the fossil record does not support gradualism he felt the need to supplement the myth with another hypotheses that's already been debunked. You're just a lackey and a stooge.
This is a rather unspectacularly predictable mined quote, as everyone who has had a few hours exposure to Gould's writings on evolution can instantly see that he's arguing against gradualism and probably in favor of punctuated equilibrium, a theory that he co-originated with Eldredge in 1972. Contrary to possible first impressions of the uninformed, Gould is presenting a problem FOR gradualist evolution, and countering WITH solutions to this apparent "problem" later in the paragraph.
And, in typical quote-mining style, this sentence has been taken out of its natural ecosystem. In this section of the paper, Gould is outlining the challenge to gradualist models of macroevolution in three loosely united themes. He is not challenging evolution itself nor is he discounting the vast wealth of fossil data that already exists.
Therefore, someone unfamiliar with Gould who would read the quote alone, above, who does not understand Gould's argument in the paper nor his scientific history will not realize he's just questioning gradualism as a theory of evolutionary change, and not realize he's simultaneously proposing a better idea of evolutionary change to fit the observed data.
As far as the paper goes, the quote above is actually from point #2 in his argument, and you'll have to see the full context to see where it's been selectively snipped. Here's the full context, starting with his point #2 but not encompassing the entire section #2 (which goes on in the same vein a while longer).
" 2. The saltational initiation of major transitions: The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary states between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. St. George Mivart (1871), Darwin's most cogent critic, referred to it as the dilemma of "the incipient stages of useful structures" - of what possible benefit to a reptile is two percent of a wing? The dilemma has two potential solutions. The first, preferred by Darwinians because it preserves both gradualism and adaptation, is the principle of preadaptation: the intermediate stages functioned in another way but were, by good fortune in retrospect, pre-adapted to a new role they could play only after greater elaboration. Thus, if feathers first functioned "for" insulation and later "for" the trapping of insect prey (Ostrom 1979) a proto-wing might be built without any reference to flight.
I do not doubt the supreme importance of preadaptation, but the other alternative, treated with caution, reluctance, disdain or even fear by the modern synthesis, now deserves a rehearing in the light of renewed interest in development: perhaps, in many cases, the intermediates never existed. I do not refer to the saltational origin of entire new designs, complete in all their complex and integrated features - a fantasy that would be truly anti-Darwinian in denying any creativity to selection and relegating it to the role of eliminating new models. Instead, I envisage a potential saltational origin for the essential features of key adaptations. Why may we not imagine that gill arch bones of an ancestral agnathan moved forward in one step to surround the mouth and form proto-jaws? Such a change would scarcely establish the Bauplan of the gnathostomes. So much more must be altered in the reconstruction of agnathan design - the building of a true shoulder girdle with bony, paired appendages, to say the least. But the discontinuous origin of a proto-jaw might set up new regimes of development and selection that would quickly lead to other, coordinated modifications." (Gould, Stephen J., 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, pp. 126-127)
Gould then goes on to show that Darwin conflated gradualism with natural selection, and then talks more in point #2 about future work in the field of evolutionary development that yields testable hypothesis for small changes in developmental pathways (corresponding to small evolutionary changes) yielding large changes in adult body plans. Gould states that this is the kind of approach that will give forth real information rather than adaptive stories or hypothetical intermediates. Gould was probably not exactly a 'visionary' for proposing this in print, but evolutionary developmental biology seems to be giving plenty of support to the theory of evolution these days.
(From the talk origins website about the dishonest practice of quote mining)
"relevance of taxonomic scale, i.e. that the PE v. gradualism debate is centered on the species-level."
– if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then try to baffle them with b.s.
– it didn't work, the reference is at the species level, taxonomic scale has no relevance
– and the debate still rages on, shielded from the public view, why is that?
-The point is quote mining is a dishonest way to debate, and it is duplicitous, whether the believer or unbeliever does it.
If one wants to be known as a liar, by all means proceed.
"it didn't work, the reference is at the species level, taxonomic scale has no relevance."
As has been pointed out to you before, we don't expect to generally see a smooth transition between species, quite simply because at the species level, the morphological differences aren't all that significant and the resolution of the fossil record is generally not fine enough for their capture. Still, gradualism within speciation is represented, as Gould noted himself, in the Foraminifera. Taxonomic scale is relevant because while we don't generally expect to see transitions between species, we expect and we do find transitions at the higher levels of taxonomy. As you cited Gould as an apparently trustworthy source . . .
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
My bet is your continued posting of this argument is a nice combination of both traits suggested by Gould.
He's probably sitting in the dugout under Mommy's trailer with his Pentium 1 that he found on his weekly trip to the dump, he knows of two things on the internet-all the apologist sites and of course here. I'm just hoping his bridge is built soon, so he can troll the locals instead of the blog.
scot: "But for all your blathering and trying to sound intelligent, I believe this guy is probably smarter than all the evolutionists on this blog combined. I'll agree with him."
This quote from scot illuminates the difference between critical independent thinking and dogmatic slavish regurgitation. All people are vulnerable to confirmation bias, scientists and lay people alike. It is a human failing that is not usually conscious. It happens unknown to the person. It is shocking that a person would consciously seek out confirming opinions and summarily dismiss objective evidence to confirm their beliefs.
This is willful confirmation bias combined with willful ignorance. What a way to view the world.
"When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow."
on a much less sophisticated level, I have often wondered how much of religious morality and dogma, particularly of those who immerse their lives in it, is driven by the fact that they just can't get laid.
Lol, that is a powerful motivator (also well predicted by the ToE).
Quite right. I an sure that Theo, for example, believes that god created Eve from Adam's rib but it was Satan that gave her a nice set of boobs!!
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.