Ed and God

timsinclair

got it now. Thanks Collin, and jeanie

timsinclair

"Peer review is a standard process by which proposed papers for scientific journals, presentations at scientific meetings, or requests for research funding are evaluated in terms of their scientific appropriateness and possible contribution to the advancement of science. The reviewers are experts in the relevant scientific fields who have no conflict of interest with or especially close personal relationships to the authors or requestors."

I checked their credentials, many of them have a phd in philosophy and other irrelevant fields. There are a few who have the right credentials i.e. experts in the relevant scientific field. But like their website says, only one of them needs to accept a paper, it could be one of the people who have no credentials whatsoever, or by one who has the wrong credentials e.g. a professor in philosophy accepting a paper on biology.

Philosophy is not irrelevant, it is a vital component of ID, as it is for Darwinism, which is why people like Daniel Dennet are so important to Darwinists. You suggest that iscid fellows would get someone from the wrong field to review a paper, this is just silly and it shows your unwillingness to accept that these people could be rational human beings. I am glad that you now accept that these people are real scientists, but your statement that you will not read their papers because they 'openly support ID' shows your predjudice, you speak of it as if it were immorral, like supporting Hitler or something. oh and the thing about conflicts of interests, everyone has their own interests, not least Darwinists, thats why they are on such a crusade to censor ID.

catefrances

wow. i love how this thread has evolved from a 'surfing jesus' thread to the old (or should that be eternal) creation vs evolution debate.:)

Collin

timsinclair wrote:

Philosophy is not irrelevant, it is a vital component of ID, as it is for Darwinism, which is why people like Daniel Dennet are so important to Darwinists. You suggest that iscid fellows would get someone from the wrong field to review a paper, this is just silly and it shows your unwillingness to accept that these people could be rational human beings. I am glad that you now accept that these people are real scientists, but your statement that you will not read their papers because they 'openly support ID' shows your predjudice, you speak of it as if it were immorral, like supporting Hitler or something. oh and the thing about conflicts of interests, everyone has their own interests, not least Darwinists, thats why they are on such a crusade to censor ID.

Philosophy is not relevant when you're reviewing a paper on molecular biology, for example. I'm not suggesting they'd get someone from the wrong field to review a paper. But, it's possible under their own rules. So who knows who reviewed these papers?

They have an obvious agenda. Scientists usually don't have an agenda, they study data and see whether this data support their theory or not. If it doesn't they start over and try to find a theory in which the data does fit (in simplistic terms).

Intelligent design isn't a scientific theory. Simple as that. Now, the ID-ers have started to attack the scientific community, which consists out of people from all creeds and atheists and agnostics too. They are a fringe group who do not agree with the scientific method because they cannot use it. If they were to use it, you'd see there "evidence" doesn't fit their theory anymore.

They want to allow supernatural explanations into science, which is ridiculous for that simple reason that anything can then be allowed. There is no proof whatsoever that a god exists. None. Instead of studying the facts, the data... they want science to allow speculation and supernatural explanations. How can anything be scientific then? Here's a supernatural explanation; evolution is false, ID is false, everything is false; this is the will of the supernatural being Gantor the Great, he made everything up, placed "evidence" everywhere on earth to fool mankind, who still needs to be saved by the truth that Gantor is the only truth path to freedom, glory, truth etc. I know so because I am his son. Pretty easy don't you think. Evidence? Scientific methods? Who needs any of it if something intangible, something that cannot be proven is allowed as an explanation?

This is the field of philosophy and theology, not science.

timsinclair

They [ID'ers] have an obvious agenda. Scientists usually don't have an agenda, they study data and see whether this data support their theory or not. If it doesn't they start over and try to find a theory in which the data does fit (in simplistic terms).

Intelligent design isn't a scientific theory. Simple as that. Now, the ID-ers have started to attack the scientific community, which consists out of people from all creeds and atheists and agnostics too. They are a fringe group who do not agree with the scientific method because they cannot use it. If they were to use it, you'd see there "evidence" doesn't fit their theory anymore.

They want to allow supernatural explanations into science, which is ridiculous for that simple reason that anything can then be allowed. There is no proof whatsoever that a god exists. None. Instead of studying the facts, the data... they want science to allow speculation and supernatural explanations. How can anything be scientific then?

Scientists don't usually have an Agenda!!! Have you read Dawkins latest book 'The God Delusion'? Evolutionist scientists are making a living out of the many book-length rebuttals of ID that are surfacing. Of course they have an agenda. The agenda is to unphold the dogma of naturalism (materialism)Check comment of evolutionist Richard Lewontin in The New York Review, January, 1997, page 31:

'We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.'

Naturalism/materialism is the religion of evolutionists, much is at stake and ID is a direct threat to its hegemony. You say 'there is no proof God exists' but if you only allow naturalistic explanations,you blind yourself to seeing signs of design in nature. You are also wrong in suggesting that ID scientists are all Christians, many are not. ID is embraced by Jews, Christians, Muslims, agnostics and deists. Michael Denton, in fact, is a Deist. You call ID 'Bible Design' but ID does not use the Bible or any religious text. It uses the scientific method, it observes the natural world, experiments on it, and draws conclusions. The difference is that it doesn't rule out any possible expanation first as naturalism does. It returns science to its roots, a search for truth.

slightofjeff

Collin wrote:

Depends of course what you mean by almost immediately. Twenty years after his death and up to 120 years after his death, that's hardly what I'd call 'immediately'.

Twenty years, in the scheme of 2,000, is pretty much "immediately." None of the gospels were written 120 years after Christ's death, because the four gospel writers were all dead by then.

To say that the things in the bible are historical fact just as the Magna Carta or the Declaration of Independence is absolutely absurd.

I don't mean fact as in "you have to believe they were true." I mean fact as in, there was a man named Jesus, who ran around the Holy Land around 30 AD preaching and performing what some called miracles. That IS an historical fact. You don't have to believe the miracles were real, or that he was who he said he was. That is where faith (or lack thereof) comes in.

But the pure history of it: There was a man named Jesus running around doing all this stuff -- that was real. There are historical documents outside the Bible even, to back that up.

What is in the bible are the supposed words of someone who died 20 years after it was written - and in an age where information wasn't easily stored, it was mostly passed on orally.

You act as if the gospels were written by people getting the information second hand. They were eyewitness accounts. This is what these guys saw, or think they saw (unless they are making it up entirely, which is another debate).

Also, just because some of them were first "published" (or whatever you want to call it) two decades after the fact, doesn't necessarily mean they were STARTED after it happened. If it were me, and I were witnessing some of the shit these guys allege to have witnessed, I might start keeping a diary.

At any rate, I think I'd be able to get the major plot points down 20 years later.

slightofjeff

Collin wrote:

Who cares if you're going to die in this hellhole, they all believed they were going to paradise.

How does their execution mean that they're writings are accurate at all? I don't see the link. Heretics were executed by the church too. Plenty of them. I guess all they wrote and said was accurate too, after all, what did they have to gain?

I'm not saying it means they were accurate.
I'm saying it means they had no motive to lie.

If you want to believe they were insane, or just completely fooled by Jesus' parlor tricks, are on some sort of hallucinogenic drug, that's a perfectly valid belief.

I'm saying it means THEY had to have believed what they were writing, otherwise, why risk death for it? if they were lying, and they knew the whole thing was made up, then there was no "paradise" and they knew it. So, again, why risk death?

Judging by several of your posts to me on this thread, I think you are confused as to my motives. I'm not telling you that you HAVE to believe any of this. I'm not even necessarily saying I believe it. I'm just offering some historical perspective, which you can take or leave. That's all.

grazman

slightofjeff wrote:

Moses, who wrote Genesis 4,000 years ago, had never heard of evolution, so he put it in words he could understand. Genesis could be seen as a parable, just like there are parables in the New Testament.

Again, not everything in the Bible is meant to be taken literally. Saying "God created Adam out of dust" could mean God created Adam out of single cells that evolved, yada yada yada. Ie ... the "dust" isn't literal "dust." Just like the six "days" of creation weren't literal "days."

There is a whole school of thought that seeks to reconcile the scientific evidence that points to evolution with the creation story in Genesis.

If you want to interpret Genesis as word-for-word literal, that's fine. But it isn't the only way Christians -- even many mainstream Christians -- choose to interpret it.

so the only evidence for Creationism is the bible, which is a book full of words, but the words in it shouldn't be taken literally. brilliant!!!

Collin

slightofjeff wrote:

Twenty years, in the scheme of 2,000, is pretty much "immediately." None of the gospels were written 120 years after Christ's death, because the four gospel writers were all dead by then.

What does 2000 years have to do with it?

If you compare it to two billion years it's almost instantly. It's about how accurate the gospels could have been, are, being written 20 to 70 years after his death (indeed not 120 years).

I don't mean fact as in "you have to believe they were true." I mean fact as in, there was a man named Jesus, who ran around the Holy Land around 30 AD preaching and performing what some called miracles. That IS an historical fact. You don't have to believe the miracles were real, or that he was who he said he was. That is where faith (or lack thereof) comes in.

But the pure history of it: There was a man named Jesus running around doing all this stuff -- that was real. There are historical documents outside the Bible even, to back that up.

I don't know whether it is a fact that Jesus is a real historical figure. I think the evidence is very thin. But I'll give Jesus the benefit of doubt.

You act as if the gospels were written by people getting the information second hand. They were eyewitness accounts. This is what these guys saw, or think they saw (unless they are making it up entirely, which is another debate).

Well, were they really eye witnesses? If Jesus existed, I'm pretty sure Luke and Matthew didn't witness his birth. Or his childhood years. Yet it is in there. There is no way they could have known that, so it might as well be bullshit, bullshit laced with references to the OT to make Jesus sound like the savior the Jews expected. So, unless you can tell me how they know the details about Jesus' birth... I consider the whole nativity story the imagination of a few men, perhaps even propaganda to make it easier for Jewish people to convert. So how can you trust the rest of their writings?

And let's not forget the Q source too, or the Gospel of Mark which are argued to have been used by Matthew and Luke. Tell me, why would a eye witness need to copy or use someone else's eye witness account.

If I witness something and I want to write about it, I would describe what I witnessed. I would not consult another source.

There are plenty phrases, little changes... within the gospels that suggest the authors changed parts in order to be in agreement with the prophecies of the OT. I have examples of this, I will look for them.

Also, just because some of them were first "published" (or whatever you want to call it) two decades after the fact, doesn't necessarily mean they were STARTED after it happened. If it were me, and I were witnessing some of the shit these guys allege to have witnessed, I might start keeping a diary.

At any rate, I think I'd be able to get the major plot points down 20 years later.

That's true. But there you said it, the major plot points. I wonder if the people who worshipped David Koresh left behind their opinion of him. I wonder how accurate their recordings would be. It's the same thing. Even for some people on the board here, Ed seems to be this god who cannot do anything wrong, his every idea is right and just etc.

Collin

slightofjeff wrote:

I'm not saying it means they were accurate.
I'm saying it means they had no motive to lie.

I must have been confused by your statement:

"So, I'd actually say it's pretty accurate."

I'm saying it means THEY had to have believed what they were writing, otherwise, why risk death for it? if they were lying, and they knew the whole thing was made up, then there was no "paradise" and they knew it. So, again, why risk death?

I'm okay with the theory that they believed what they wrote. They could, however, have exaggerated greatly in order to convince people their boy Jesus was indeed the savior. Again, the people who believed Koresh really believed him. What makes them any different?

Judging by several of your posts to me on this thread, I think you are confused as to my motives. I'm not telling you that you HAVE to believe any of this. I'm not even necessarily saying I believe it. I'm just offering some historical perspective, which you can take or leave. That's all.

I'm sorry but you said the gospels were a historical fact like the declaration of independence and the magna carta. That's absurd.

If you meant that it is a historical fact that these works were indeed written and don't comment on their content - bullshit or truth - I'm cool with that. But I have to say I don't see the point in that argument.

And again, you actually said it was 'pretty accurate'.

So, if that was not your intention then I guess we're just having a communication problem.

timsinclair

Well, were they really eye witnesses? If Jesus existed, I'm pretty sure Luke and Matthew didn't witness his birth. Or his childhood years. Yet it is in there. There is no way they could have known that, so it might as well be bullshit, bullshit laced with references to the OT to make Jesus sound like the savior the Jews expected. So, unless you can tell me how they know the details about Jesus' birth... I consider the whole nativity story the imagination of a few men, perhaps even propaganda to make it easier for Jewish people to convert. So how can you trust the rest of their writings?

And let's not forget the Q source too, or the Gospel of Mark which are argued to have been used by Matthew and Luke. Tell me, why would a eye witness need to copy or use someone else's eye witness account.

If I witness something and I want to write about it, I would describe what I witnessed. I would not consult another source.

You are correct collin, when you say that Mathew and Luke were not eyewitnesses to the birth of Jesus, most of the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses of some of the events, but the gospels are compilations of these accounts. Luke makes this crystal clear in the introduction to his Gospel:

'Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.'

You suggest that the authors deliberately manipulated the facts to make it seem as if Jesus fulfilled prophecies from the Jewish scriptures. I look forward to hearing your examples of this. I know that your faith in naturalism demands that genuine prophecy does not exist, but Jesus fullfilled about 300 prophecies, even the year of his death was foretold in prophecy centuries before he was born. Beware! many who have attempted to refute Jesus messiahship on these grounds have ended up believers, as I think slightofjeff has already mentioned.

You mentioned that Luke used Mark and Q as sources, yes he certainly used mark and the theoretical document Q is a valid theory. You say you would not consult other sources, as if doing so is something shameful. Consulting, and evaluating primary sources is the way all good historians record history and, as many modern historians have acknowledged, Luke was a historian of the highest rank.

slightofjeff

Collin wrote:

I must have been confused by your statement:

"So, I'd actually say it's pretty accurate."

You got me there. I over-spoke. What I mean is they had no motive to lie. If they are inaccurate, it is because of some other reason (as we mentioned before).

I'm okay with the theory that they believed what they wrote. They could, however, have exaggerated greatly in order to convince people their boy Jesus was indeed the savior.

I'm still going to say they wouldn't have greatly exaggerated on purpose. The things they wrote and preached wound up with a lot of people getting killed, including themselves. They really had no motive to try and convince people Jesus was the savior except that they actually really believed it. Again, I'm not ruling out the fact that these people might have been believing a lie -- that's up to each reader to figure out on their own.

Again, the people who believed Koresh really believed him. What makes them any different?

Nothing. I think the people who followed Koresh -- at least the ones that stayed until the burned up -- firmly believed the guy was telling the truth. If you believe the early Christians were all a bunch of crazies running around, well, you wouldn't be the first.

I'm sorry but you said the gospels were a historical fact like the declaration of independence and the magna carta. That's absurd.

I don't want to go over this again. But -- I'm not saying the "teachings" in the gospels are historical fact. That would be absurd. I'm saying the story of Jesus -- that there was such a man running around preaching and performing magic tricks -- is a historical fact. He is mentioned in all kinds of historical texts outside of the Bible.

And again, you actually said it was 'pretty accurate'.

Yeah, I admit, I misspoke there.

slightofjeff

grazman wrote:

so the only evidence for Creationism is the bible, which is a book full of words, but the words in it shouldn't be taken literally. brilliant!!!

So you think the Bible is a literal book, through and through? Every single sentence to be interpreted literally? There are no metaphors. No allegory. No parables?

Have you even read it?

One more time: You seem hung up on the fact that man was created "from dust." This is how it was translated from ancient Hebrew. I don't think there was an ancient Hebrew word for "cell" or "molecule." It's not a large stretch to think "created from dust" could mean "evolved from cells."

There is another school of thought out there that this "dust" business was actually God imbuing man with a soul. Thus, "creating" him. Before man got a soul, he was still considered animal.

I don't even know why you're arguing with me. I'm not saying all this stuff is true. I'm just saying this is a school of thought out there -- and a very popular school of thought in Christian circles. I'm just saying it's a fact it exists. Nobody is forcing you to believe any of it.

Frankly, I just think it bothers you to think there are Christians out there who don't fit your "slack-jawed, don't-believe-in-evolution" stereotype.

catefrances

i heard an interesting story behind the whole tree of knowledge episode last month. twas one im seriously thinking of entertaining as the story. screw that whole apple/snake/satan explanation.

grazman

slightofjeff wrote:

So you think the Bible is a literal book, through and through? Every single sentence to be interpreted literally? There are no metaphors. No allegory. No parables?

Have you even read it?

One more time: You seem hung up on the fact that man was created "from dust." This is how it was translated from ancient Hebrew. I don't think there was an ancient Hebrew word for "cell" or "molecule." It's not a large stretch to think "created from dust" could mean "evolved from cells."

There is another school of thought out there that this "dust" business was actually God imbuing man with a soul. Thus, "creating" him. Before man got a soul, he was still considered animal.

I don't even know why you're arguing with me. I'm not saying all this stuff is true. I'm just saying this is a school of thought out there -- and a very popular school of thought in Christian circles. I'm just saying it's a fact it exists. Nobody is forcing you to believe any of it.

Frankly, I just think it bothers you to think there are Christians out there who don't fit your "slack-jawed, don't-believe-in-evolution" stereotype.

awww right, so if the words dont fit in with the evolution theory, change them into different words so it looks like it fits, i got yers. brilliant!! i wondered why it was called the 'holy' bible.

slightofjeff

grazman wrote:

awww right, so if the words dont fit in with the evolution theory, change them into different words so it looks like it fits, i got yers. brilliant!! i wondered why it was called the 'holy' bible.

I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. Probably because you don't want to. Because nobody is really this dense.

catefrances

http://youtube.com/watch?v=urlTBBKTO68



http://youtube.com/watch?v=bkhQLt1vbWU&feature=user

FinsburyParkCarrots

catefrances wrote:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=urlTBBKTO68



http://youtube.com/watch?v=bkhQLt1vbWU&feature=user

Does this mean you have broadband now?

grazman

catefrances wrote:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=urlTBBKTO68



http://youtube.com/watch?v=bkhQLt1vbWU&feature=user

LOL!!! great videos!

heres a good one specially for slightofjeff

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3POEuxG2Rnk

Pre

"There is no proof whatsoever that a god exists. None."

Of course there isn't. God wants everyone to come to him by faith.

Why not prove to everyone that he exists with a sign that would erase the doubts of all atheists/agnostics? I don't honestly know. However, he's God, and if he wants to save you he'll reveal his spirit to you.