Notices
Results 1 to 73 of 73

Thread: Did Darwin Kill God? (Documentary BBC)

  1. #1 Did Darwin Kill God? (Documentary BBC) 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    814
    Interesting Documentary

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...rwin_Kill_God/

    If you can't watch it because of I.P. location then hide it!


    Absum! has never been bored in her life, but is becoming increasingly bored of the Science Forum! :?


    (.·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Pimp thy IP!

    http://www.pimpmyip.org/

    EDIT:

    Well, that failed miserably. I can't find any other free proxy sites which will do the trick.

    Here's a link to YouTube:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VNeRU5dwXI


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    In my opinion science in general will never be able to "kill god".

    Science cannot be used to either advocate religion.

    Likewise it cannot be used to advocate atheism.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    wow when he said that he thought intelligent design was crap I was getting ready to turn off, but then he said he was a christian!

    I AM SO GOING TO WATCH THIS.

    Though my above post still holds. :wink:

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    i do not agree with intelligent design either. i think they are wrong on many fronts and hurt the cause of Christ.

    neitzsche tried to say that God was dead but guess who died first.

    i will have to watch the youtube versin later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    That cave woman... looks like some puppet out of a horror movie

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    That was quite interesting. Good to see a documentary where they have many of the notable authors of thsi topic being interviewed (if briefly).

    Makes me want to take a look at memes...

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Yes this film is excellent, putting the whole controversy into good perspective. Anti-evolutionism clearly arises from the anti-Catholic fundamentalist wacko extremists, for there was never any reason for there to be any conflict between evolution and Orthodox Christianity. The founding fathers of Christianity did not hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis and Augustine warned against holding such an interpretation in opposition to the discoveries of science.

    There was an interesting quote of Darwin: "It seemed to me absurd to doubt that a man may be a ardent theist and an evolutionist." So while the followers of the ideas of Usher opposed evolution the vast majority saw no conflict between evolution and Christianity when Darwin's theory came out. The only God killed by Darwin was the rather peculiar god of Paley that sees all of creation as a complex machine and God as a watchmaker.

    The explanation of the origin of the modern polarization between evolution and Christianity in an American political/economic controversy is also enlightening. The Scopes trial was a battle between Christian Socialist Bryant and anti-religion social Darwinist Darrow, neither of whom had any interest in seeing any compatability between evolution and Christianity. As a result most of Europe views this opposition between evolution and Christianity as an American peculiarity.

    There is a bit of a contradiction when he claims that 6 day creationism or Young Earth Creationism doesn't exist until 1961 for he already made it clear that this was the view promoted by Usher back before Darwin. But Connor's analysis of the social motivations for this new attempt to generate something that sounds like a scientific theory supporting a literal interpretation of Genesis in 1961 in a kind of desperate attempt to oppose the breakdown of traditional values in the 60's is right on target. I completely share Conner Cunningham's feeling of the grotesque when encountering this weird pseudo-science of "The Genesis Flood" and their Creationist museum with dinosaurs living together with human beings.

    Like Cunningham, my objections to this resurrection of Paley's God in intellegent design are as much theological objections as scientific. I too cannot worhsip this God with no moral quality. I will worship God because He is good and NEVER because of some bizarre claim that he has a right to my worship. I too have seen this turning of Genesis into some sort of weird pseudo-science textbook as replacing God in our worhip with a worship of this pseudo-science. Science is a useful tool to understand the world but never an object of worship and by remaking Genesis into some kind of science they have thrown out all the spirtual meaning of Christianity for the pure physicality of a fantasy world. But my real objection lies in the poverty of its understanding of God and man, for if God is to be a complex machine maker then man is no more than a robot. I would rather be a live monkey than nothing more than a dead tool.

    I was completely delighted by Cunningham's intoduction of the next stage of this saga as entry of "another group of fundamentalists", Darwinist fundamentalists boiling life down to nothing more than the competition of selfish genes. I think the comments of the atheist Michael Ruse were right on the nose! That is the comments of what I would call a truly atheist scientist. Science does not find God because that is not what science is about. Science is science not theology.

    This theory of selfish genes and memes to explain everything in ultra-darwinistic terms is the same kind of anthropomorphizing (giving motivations and control over to inanimate objects) that you find in the way men of the ancient world anthropomorphized the things of nature to see spirits and gods in mountains, rivers and forests. Thus for all its claim to be atheistic this Ultra-darwinist selfish gene-meme thinking is a fundamentalist theology that completely belongs in the category of religion.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    I can't remmeber this being advertised on the TV.

    Recently what with it being the big anniversary of Darwin and so on, there have been a number of documentaries about evolution and about the controversies it caused.

    All these programmes have been on channel 1 or channel 2 (for those of you from outside the UK, channel 1 and channel 2 are the standard channels for the BBC to use, they're the ones msot watched).

    Howveer I cannot recall this one being advertised. Has it been shown on BBC3 or 4?

    If so that's a disgrace as it deserves just as much attention as any of the other documentaries surrounding evolution.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    I can't remmeber this being advertised on the TV.

    Recently what with it being the big anniversary of Darwin and so on, there have been a number of documentaries about evolution and about the controversies it caused.

    All these programmes have been on channel 1 or channel 2 (for those of you from outside the UK, channel 1 and channel 2 are the standard channels for the BBC to use, they're the ones msot watched).

    Howveer I cannot recall this one being advertised. Has it been shown on BBC3 or 4?

    If so that's a disgrace as it deserves just as much attention as any of the other documentaries surrounding evolution.
    I certainly don't remember hearing anything about it, and I was getting a little pissed off when it would not download during peek hours, I had to spend all night in order to watch through all 6 parts. But still, lets not do the "how dare they ignore us" act. I am sure that it has nothing to do with that. Besides one problem might be precisely that this lies in this no man's land between science and religion. It may be the extremists on either side who invent or exacerbate the conflict between the two but these extremes have been growing rather large in numbers of late. It is a little scary, in fact, because it does not bode well for the stability of the world.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    He couldn't of killed God. Because God doesn't exist. :P
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    I accept you premise but not your conclusion!

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Everything is relative. I respect your opinion.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    i am watching the video right now and my first impressionis it is melo-dramatic and just another program saying it will be academic yet fail to be academic when it pertains to the Biblical side of the argument.

    cunningham may be a 'theologian' but he does not know God and is no where near the truth. is accusation about Gen. 1 & 2 being contradictory is done without proof but a synopsis of a reading by a biased party.

    i doubt i will finish the video as i have seen many similar ones and they are all done withthe same perspective--evolution is right and God is wrong.

    darwin did not kill God, darwin was not right and evolution does not exist. it is a delusion that deceives people because they refuse to accept God's word and they call Him a liar (without proof) when God does not lie and has no need to lie.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    word and they call Him a liar (without proof)
    So what you are saying is that if I told you that I was abducted by Aliens and anal probed and someone called me a liar, they would need to find proof to back up their claim that I lied?
    Your "logic is irriducibly complex". I can't fathom what actually goes on in that little head of yours.
    Burden of Proof - Logical fallacy. If a person makes a claim and they can't back up that claim with evidence then their opposition has every right to call them a liar. There is no reason to believe in their claim to begin with if it is impossible for them to gather the evidence of their claims. You say God has no reason to lie. Yet, we have no evidence supporting the claim that God actually wrote the bible and we have no evidence supporting the claim that the bible is God's word.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    verezen, i have stopped replying ot you because you dismiss all dissenting opinion to you or belief without any evidence your reason is correct.

    your reliance on your definition of 'evidence'shows that you are being closed-minded and refuse to even think about the proof unless it is wrapped up in a nice little package according to your specifics.

    not going to happen. you are looking at God and His work you have to do it God's way or you ar just out of luck. one of the keys is the little word 'faith' without it you will never see the truth.

    'faith' is a vital element in lookng at all things inthsi world. evolution uses faith as well yet you refuse to apply to God what you will use for 'the process'. thatis willfully being deceived as the Bible says people do and it is unwilling to being honest.


    ***on another note, i did watch more of the video and it shows that cunningham only looks at what he wants in God and rejects what he doesn't like. so he is not accepting God who He is but changing Him to be what cunningham wants Him to be.

    that is wrong.

    also, if God does not exist, why do ultra-darwinists and other atheists have such hatred fo rhim.so much so that they attack the Bible and try to keep the Bible out of the schools?

    if you want evidence for God, investigate your opposition for Him and ask yourself why that feeling is really there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    your reliance on your definition of 'evidence'shows that you are being closed-minded and refuse to even think about the proof unless it is wrapped up in a nice little package according to your specifics.
    AKA because I don't accept everything anyone tells me as true, I am being close minded? Or am I just avoiding gullibility?

    not going to happen. you are looking at God and His work you have to do it God's way or you ar just out of luck. one of the keys is the little word 'faith' without it you will never see the truth.
    So people who aren't Christian aren't able to do scientific research and get accurate results? I'm a little confused here. And faith means the belief in something without evidence. Isn't science all about the evidence? So how can you have science without evidence?

    ***on another note, i did watch more of the video and it shows that Archaeologist only looks at what he wants in God and rejects what he doesn't like. so he is not accepting God who He is but changing Him to be what archaeologist wants Him to be.
    Fixed for accuracy

    also, if God does not exist, why do ultra-darwinists and other atheists have such hatred fo rhim.so much so that they attack the Bible and try to keep the Bible out of the schools?
    Im just curious, but do you think Islam is a correct religion? What if a group of fundamentalist muslims took a break from blowing themselves up and tried forcing us to teach the "truth" of Islam in public schools? Would you be outraged if reading the Quran was manditory?
    Substitute Islam for any Pagan belief system, does that hold the same bearing? Do you still feel the same way? If they tried forcing your children to learn this stuff in school, would you begin to hate those belief systems? But oh no, they aren't true belief systems are they? But you would still hate them, correct? That is what Atheists feel like with your belief system trying to impose on our public schools. Does this make sense? The Pagan Gods do not exist, but you would have a hatred for that religion if it tried imposing its beliefs on to you.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Just finished the video and I enjoyed it very much. It has made a few points clear and given a perspective on Dawkins and his ilk that I have not seen before (I haven't really read much of his stuff). Michael Ruse speaks the truth. There are many finer points that I would love to delve into here (not with archaeologist), like memes and such. I think that Cunningham goes a bit off the tracks through the last few parts.

    I am actually excited! Hopefully this will develop into a very productive discussion. I am glad to realise that my own convictions are still valid and I am now able to see better why I don't quite fit into any of the discussed corners. I am an existential humanist.

    I would love Dayton to join as well.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Verzen said:

    Yet, we have no evidence supporting the claim that God actually wrote the bible and we have no evidence supporting the claim that the bible is God's word.
    Well, that is not exactly true. Christians believe there is sufficient evidence to convince them that the Bible is the word of God. Some people do not understand that evidence others just plain reject that evidence. Some reject the evidence only because they do not believe there is a God regardless of whatever evidence might be presented to them. There would be no quantum of evidence that would convince them that God exists and the Bible is his written communication to mankind. A truly open minded person would at least admit the possibility that God exists and the Bible is His product.

    Verzen would be more accurate (and open minded) were he disposed to say he does not believe the evidence Bible believers accept as indications that the Bible is God's word. To say he is unaware of what evidence Christians accept would be a more honest statement. To say there is "no" evidence indicates an ignorance on the subject and/or closed mindedness.

    I must point out that a similar argument revolves around evolution where some people feel there is adequate evidence to prove that evolution shows, uh . . . well, there are a number of different opinions as to what evolution is and shows. I'm not convinced there is enough consensus among advocates to completely define exactly what evolution actually involves. Some people, however, will never accept any aspect of evolution, even though we have observed both variation and speciation. Others will believe anything and everything that someone says evolution shows.

    I will admit the Bible somewhat oversimplifies that question when, in it, God sort of claims, "I done it." But it never explains HOW he done it.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Just finished the video and I enjoyed it very much. It has made a few points clear and given a perspective on Dawkins and his ilk that I have not seen before (I haven't really read much of his stuff). Michael Ruse speaks the truth. There are many finer points that I would love to delve into here (not with archaeologist), like memes and such. I think that Cunningham goes a bit off the tracks through the last few parts.
    Can you clarify what you mean by that last sentence? Does it mean you do not agree with his comments on the meme religion. Don't you see how this selfish gene-meme stuff is the same kind of anthropomorphizing (attributing motives and control to inanimate objects) as seeing gods and spirits in mountains and rivers? Actually I think the latter is more reasonable because as ecosystems mountains and rivers are more alive than genes and memes. Just because genes play a critical role in the process does not mean that they are the totality of life. They are simply material components like atoms and molecules and are no more alive than these.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I am actually excited! Hopefully this will develop into a very productive discussion. I am glad to realise that my own convictions are still valid and I am now able to see better why I don't quite fit into any of the discussed corners. I am an existential humanist.
    I guess your optimism comes from your automatic exclusion of archaeologist.

    As a little teasing sort of prod: I think that both existentialism and humanism has Christian roots - the first in Kierkegaard and the second in Quakerism. It is true that archaeologist's creativity crushing, life killing, science destroying cult which is trying to turn us all into robots under the control of His amoral pocket god may make it seem like Christianity cannot contribute anything good in the world but that simply isn't true.



    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    cunningham may be a 'theologian' but he does not know God and is no where near the truth.
    Your delusions aside, you are not God and so the fact that Cunningham does not know you does not mean that He does not know God. Perhaps he does not know the god you keep in your pocket ready for your use, but I don't think he wants to know that god any more than I do.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    is accusation about Gen. 1 & 2 being contradictory is done without proof but a synopsis of a reading by a biased party.
    He made no such accusation. He was telling us what Philo said. Philo was a helenistic Jewish philosopher who lived at the time of Christ and whose writings were enthusiastically recieved by the early Christians. Thus Cunningham simply read Philo's comments to get an idea about how people at the time of Jesus and during the early Christian church read and understood the story of Genesis.

    By scientific standards the Bible is contradradictory. If you force it to be science textbook then you either have to be an idiot or deslusional or both. But it is not a science textbook and so the fact that it sucks as a science textbook is irrelevant. A physics textbook would suck as a play, and a play would suck as a computer repair manual. The question is why would this cult of archaeologist insist on turning Genesis into a science textbook? I think there is really only one reason that makes any sense and that is to oppose the methodology of science that looks for the objective truth. They oppose such an inquiry into the truth about things and so they insist on a theological methodology only. If they deny this and say that they support science, what they really mean is that they are willing to keep scientists as slaves and pet dogs to do and say what their cult tells them to say.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    i doubt i will finish the video as i have seen many similar ones and they are all done withthe same perspective--evolution is right and God is wrong.
    Evolution is right because God is right, and the scientist are right because the simply look at what God has done rather than just believing in whatever ancient theories and fairy stories are written in old books. Archaeologist is wrong because Paley is wrong. Even if archaeologist's bizzare cult of mechanistic religiousity completely fails to understand how living things must be created, God understands that living things are not machines and dead tools and thus it is not the designer and watchmaker that creates living things but the farmer, shepherd and teacher.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Evolution does not exist.
    Repeating that lie a thousand times may succeed in maintaining the brain washing of your self, your cult members and your children, but it does not make it true. Perhaps you could even convince yourself the that the moon does not exist by such techniques and maybe the Flat earth wackos do the same thing, but you don't have to live in a fantasy world in order to believe in God, because your fairy tale necromancer of long ago is not the real God. The real God makes yours look like a pathetic joke.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    it is a delusion that deceives people because they refuse to accept God's word and they call Him a liar (without proof) when God does not lie and has no need to lie.
    I repeat you are not God and your delusions and lies are not the delusions and lies of God. Despite the teaching of the cults to its members that God is depending on them and so they must do whatever it takes (lying for Jesus), the truth is the God does not need you at all. God does not need you to speak for Him. You do not speak for God.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    would love to delve into here (not with archaeologist),
    so you are intolerant then? ha ha


    MM is not being responded too atthis time as he continues the insult trail he started and leaps to conclusions not in evidence showing his intolerant and narrow mind.. i heard what i heard and it was cunningham not philo's comments i was responding to.

    for those who believe in a theistic evolution that is trying to have their cake and eat it to. they want the best of both worlds and do not have the courage to pick one side or the other.

    it is impossible for a believer to accept evolution or even any form of theistic ev. for all such alternatives fly in the face of what God said in Gen. 1:31:

    thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array
    you cannot say you believe in God then turn around and say He lied in that verse and the preceeding ones. if you do then you are custom designing God and the Bible to fit your desires and that is wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Archaeologist are you a young earth creationist?

    I noticed how you said evolution hasn't happenned. The fossil record isn't particularly overwhelming in supporting it, however the clues are still there even if not in the numbers we would like.

    How do you explain these fossils which we can safely say are millions of years old due to our use of carbon dating?

    This isn't a dig or an attack, I'm just curious to see what your thoughts are.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Verzen would be more accurate (and open minded) were he disposed to say he does not believe the evidence Bible believers accept as indications that the Bible is God's word. To say he is unaware of what evidence Christians accept would be a more honest statement. To say there is "no" evidence indicates an ignorance on the subject and/or closed mindedness.
    Dayton, welcome back. If I were to be open minded then I would allow all this crap in. I would also think that its possible there is an invisible dragon behind your back or that aliens came down to Anal prove Archaeologist. But I don't believe any of that since there is no evidence to back it up. And just believing something is true is NOT enough evidence to back up your claim. Simply because a Christian thinks that the bible is God's word does not mean it really is. A delusional person such as the son of Sam thought he was talking to his neighbors Dog, does that mean his dog was actually talking to him? No it doesn't. And it doesn't mean that you are close minded if you dont think that dog was actually telling him to kill people. It's the same thing with the bible. There is NO evidence that the apostles actually wrote the new testament. It is also commonly believed that the new testament was written by people who didn't even meet Jesus and it was all hearsay. The old testament was also written between 1700 - 400 BC. I am more inclined to believe that the old testament was written in 400 BC since it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to keep parchment from being destroyed before then. So how does the old testament know who moses was if the parchment would have been destroyed?
    Hell, the constitution is in a glass case for fear of the constitution being destroyed. Time will destroy paper, since paper is made out of a living organism. And the constitution is only 300 years old. What you guys are basically saying is that the information which is on parchment would have survived for 1,300 years without getting destroyed, then to be written in a holy book in 400 BC, yeah that's realistic.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Having seen it all I liked it. I actually devised a new concept of religion from it. The video was ignorant in many ways and how he used one analogy of one term to dismiss the next, he used that dismissal to dismiss another analogy. Namely the memes. Memes is interesting, in fact everything in that video was interesting. But all of it was mere theory.

    Just because its all there, doesn't mean I need to go believing in a God. Will humanity believe in God when they themselves become as equal to God? The way I see it... This universe does not need a God. He DOES NOT intervene on our plane so He might as wel not exist.

    As for my new concept. Evolution by Darwin gave Christianity (PLEASE BARE IN MIND that the video only approached Christians side to believing in evolution, therefore can only have at most 'killed' the Christian God). See the hidden conditioning and mind control and propoganda that was made in that video? (this would mean they tried to get you to believe in Christainity as the true religion without you realising it by ignoring. The title 'did Darwin kill God' was applied to God in total yet did not investigate others beliefs on God in a non-Christian way. You wouldn't recognise it but a simple minded person would be secretly brainwashed by that). Also the song by Kylie Minogue 'I can't get you out of my head'. Applying that song to the point being made about memes at the time? These rats are very clever.... Anyway. Evolution by Darwin gave Christians no choice but to accept. Now we see people believing all kinds of stuff and changing how the bible is read to best suit their beliefs....

    Whats next when another milestone of science is made and Christians have to 'interperet' again differently. It will go on like that milestone after milestone until the Bible is that changed in interpretation it can no longer sustain any meaning in any form with what the text orignally writes. That being said if anyone reads it wrong or changes it for them to accomodate new scientific facts, they are changing it and by as it says in the bible. You are to suffer the 7 plauges of Egypt.

    Case closed. Religion is a dead end and I don't care what anyone says. As time goes forwards the road of religion will get smaller and smaller and smaller. Narrower and narrower until there is no road.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    There is NO evidence that the apostles actually wrote the new testament. It is also commonly believed that the new testament was written by people who didn't even meet Jesus and it was all hearsay. The old testament was also written between 1700 - 400 BC. I am more inclined to believe that the old testament was written in 400 BC since it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to keep parchment from being destroyed before then. So how does the old testament know who moses was if the parchment would have been destroyed?
    Hell, the constitution is in a glass case for fear of the constitution being destroyed. Time will destroy paper, since paper is made out of a living organism. And the constitution is only 300 years old. What you guys are basically saying is that the information which is on parchment would have survived for 1,300 years without getting destroyed, then to be written in a holy book in 400 BC, yeah that's realistic.
    Will you supply evidence for your assertions? Almost everything you have just stated could be disputed. How do you know it is "commonly believed that the new testament was written by people who didn't even meet Jesus and it was all hearsay"? Who thinks this and what is THEIR reasoning? Can you supply references?

    Also you state that it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to keep parchment from being destroyed before then. Well there are some problems with this statement. First of all it is irellevant as it is certain that things were copied down more than once.

    To say that religious people belive that "the information which is on parchment would have survived for 1,300 years without getting destroyed, then to be written in a holy book in 400 BC, yeah that's realistic" is naive at the very least and dishonest at the worst. Mainstream christians do not believe this. Like their own texts, jewish people made copies.

    Secondly have you not heard of the dead sea scrolls? By your reasoning they should not be around??

    The next problem with your argument is that you assume everything HAD to be written down. There are other ways of communication and even if there weren't, there are other things to write on. Are you aware that Jewish priests of the time regularly learned entire books of the bible word for word?

    I thought you had come on since I was last using these boards verzen but it seems I was wrong. You are again making assertions and offering no substance to back them up. And before you try and accuse me of the same I CAN provide references for what I've said.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    verzen said:

    It's the same thing with the bible. There is NO evidence that the apostles actually wrote the new testament. It is also commonly believed that the new testament was written by people who didn't even meet Jesus and it was all hearsay. The old testament was also written between 1700 - 400 BC. I am more inclined to believe that the old testament was written in 400 BC since it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to keep parchment from being destroyed before then. So how does the old testament know who moses was if the parchment would have been destroyed?
    My goodness! How can anyone be this close minded and so ignorant of the history of these things. Have you lived in a closet all your life?

    First of all, are you calling everyone who believes the Bible is the word of God delusional? That is surely the largest single group of delusional people on earth. What is your opinion of those who believe the Koran is the word of God? Do you deny that it is the work of Muhammed?

    It is NOT commonly believed by Christians or even most rational, intelligent people that all of the new testament was written by people who did not ever meet Jesus. Matthew, Mark, John, James Peter and Jude, are all thought to be contemporaries of Jesus while Luke was a doctor who also dabbled in histrionics. Paul does not record any history of Jesus but rather expounds mostly in theological writings. Mark was not a disciple, but was among those who spent time with Jesus and after Jesus death, was a part of Peter's entourage and what we have in his account are mostly stories as related by Peter. So what you are saying is that if Mark wrote down these stories as Peter told them, they are not as valid as they would be if Peter had written them?

    By what you say here, any historical account ever written by other than the actual participants is suspect. Most historical accounts are exactly as Luke's and Mark's accounts. They are collected accounts from actual witnesses, sometimes from interviews and sometimes from accounts recorded by the witness.

    You are in one sense correct that the parchment upon which Moses may have written (although I suspect he had a secretary of some sort writing down his thoughts) long ago disappeared and were destroyed because of deterioration. But your ignorance as to how the Bible was passed down has to be self imposed. No one could be so mis-informed and uninformed without extra special efforts to remain so.

    I find it reprehensible that a person as outspoken as you on these topics can be so abysmally devoid of knowledge in the area. It is horribly shameful.

    The Jews had a class of people called scribes whose job it was to continually be in the process of copying scriptures. It is not like they made one copy and tried to keep it around for thousands of years as we are trying to do with out constitution. Your contention suggesting that is what they did is pure stupidity. There were literally thousands of copies of scriptures around and many of which were stored in such a way that they were preserved. The Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, are only a small portion of the existing hundreds of ancient copies and portions available today. Your view here is as ignorant and as disturbing as the Irani Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust. Such ignorance is dangerous.

    The Bible was not a book such as we have, but a collection of scrolls, each containing a small portion of scripture. If they were reading a part of Genesis, the scrolls dealing with Numbers were not disturbed or even opened. Anytime a scroll became worn such that it might become difficult to read, it was replaced and the defective copy destroyed.

    You continued claim that there is "NO" evidence relating to the truth of the Bible or its writers is just plain ignorant. It is devoid of any intelligence. It is so close minded it is not even indicative of any mindedness.

    Ignorance such as this is a reason I often get so fed up I have to take a vacation from this forum.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Look, the Bible can present no evidence and neither can atheists. That being relative to each other. So just give it a rest. Don't turn it into an argument because arguments cannot win on either side, an argument meaning there needs to be a winner. Keep it a discussion and then more learning and better understanding can come out of it instead of being some ego trip.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Bad Wolf whimpered:

    Look, the Bible can present no evidence and neither can atheists. That being relative to each other. So just give it a rest. Don't turn it into an argument because arguments cannot win on either side, an argument meaning there needs to be a winner. Keep it a discussion and then more learning and better understanding can come out of it instead of being some ego trip.
    Well, that is how you atheists approach these topics. When someone interjects some logic, facts and intelligence to expose your idiotic tirades, you start whining, "Well, let's not get all argumentative about it," as though you should be allowed to continue to expound, unchallenged, out of your ignorance.

    The truth is the Bible does present evidence if one is open minded and willing to look at it. What atheists do is totally disregard any evidence of the Bible's authenticity while accepting anything and everything that anyone can offer in an attempt to discredit the Bible. They are like someone who would listen only to the prosecution's case at a trial and sleep through the defense's case and then say the defense presented no evidence.

    The information as to why Christians accept the Bible as the authoritative word of God is readily available in numerous writings by numerous authors to anyone who wishes to be informed. This forum lacks the space to present a long, well developed essay on that topic.

    When idiots say there is no evidence, it is ignorance or, as Sox suggests, possibly dishonest. The least detractors could do is take some aspect of Biblical apologetics and dispute it with something other than their own unsupported, unfounded, biased, close minded, intolerant thinking. Unfortunately, they are so uninformed, they do not even know what to challenge.

    Those who are educated evolution skeptics do not claim there is NO evidence of evolution. They, instead, claim the evidence does not confirm the entirety of evolutionary thinking. They claim (for one thing) the fossil record, for example, shows only successful, completed animals. There are, at best, woefully few and very questionable examples of possible transition animals. This is not a claim that there is no evidence, the claim is that the available evidence is insufficient to show what it claims to show without a lot of interim speculations. Evolution enthusiasts accept those interim speculations as valid, skeptics don't.

    In contrast, the Bible records historical events, none of which have been proven to be substantially inaccurate but many of which have been shown to be remarkably accurate. The Bible presents an archeological record, none of which has been shown to be substantially inaccurate, but much of which has been shown to be remarkably accurate.

    You want to dispute the Bible? Prove that the Jews did not spend about 400 years in Egypt. Prove that they did not return to Palestine. Prove they did not set up their own kingdom and prove they were not subsequently subdued by the Assyrians and Babylonians and taken into exile. Prove they did not return, yet again, to Palestine. Prove that the cities and places talked about in the Bible did not exist. Prove that the rulers talked about in the Bible were fictitious. The problem for you here, is that just about everything we have been able uncover and learn from external sources, validates what the Bible says. You cannot undermine the Bible by merely complaining that the Bible is full of historical and archeological inaccuracies, you have to show what those inaccuracies are and also prove that your suspected inaccuracy is concerning the same event or site mentioned in the Bible.

    If you don't want to be argumentative here, it is best to go to someplace where people are not argumentative. But where would that be? Not even a return to kindergarten would avail you of a non-argumentative environment. Hey, you might try verzen's closet.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    for those who believe in a theistic evolution that is trying to have their cake and eat it to. they want the best of both worlds and do not have the courage to pick one side or the other.
    On the contrary, they reject your fantasy world and your pocket god utterly.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    it is impossible for a believer to accept evolution or even any form of theistic ev. for all such alternatives fly in the face of what God said in Gen. 1:31:

    thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array
    you cannot say you believe in God then turn around and say He lied in that verse and the preceeding ones. if you do then you are custom designing God and the Bible to fit your desires and that is wrong.
    You are not God. I do not say that God lied. I say that you lie. I am saying that your interpretation of this verse and the preceding ones is a lie to serve your vanity. Does this verse mean that no new stars are created? No. Does this verse mean that no new particles are created? No. Does this mean that no new living creatures are created? No. Does this mean that no new species are created? No. How do we know that it does not mean these things, which it does not say but you change the words to mean? Because we can see all of these things happening right in front of our eyes.

    On the cross, Jesus said "it is done". Does that mean that no new souls are saved? No. Does that mean that God no longer speaks to man? No. Does that mean that God is no longer active in the world? No. Does it mean that God is done? No. God was not done on the cross any more than He was done in Genesis 1:31. In both cases He finished an important task. In Genesis 1:31 He finished giving to us all that we needed for our world to be a paradise. On the cross, He finished giving to us all that we needed to make an eternal relationship with Him. But no God did not cease in His creative work in Genesis 1:31 and God did not finish with the world on the cross. God has not and never will abdicate His role as Creator and Savior and He will certainly not hand over His authority to you or any other human being.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Dayton dayton dayton. I've been on both sides of the fence. I was theist. I know the arguments put forth and now I know ahteists'. I know now after being this way and arguing both sides frutilessly... its futile. So put a pi in it... :wink:
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    wel things are heating up here and i will not address everyone's post in this response.

    Archaeologist are you a young earth creationist?

    I noticed how you said evolution hasn't happenned. The fossil record isn't particularly overwhelming in supporting it, however the clues are still there even if not in the numbers we would like.

    How do you explain these fossils which we can safely say are millions of years old due to our use of carbon dating?

    This isn't a dig or an attack, I'm just curious to see what your thoughts are.
    I believe what the Bible says, "in the beginning God..." we do not knwo when the beginning was and the important factor is not 'wwhen' but 'who'

    carbon dating is unprovable, inaccurate and i would suggest very flawed. i do not believe that the decline rate would or could slow down and it is producing artifical ancient dates.

    See the hidden conditioning and mind control and propoganda that was made in that video? (this would mean they tried to get you to believe in Christainity as the true religion without you realising it by ignoring.
    no i would say that it was the reverse. it was trying to get christians to believe in evolution and desert God. What was presented was not christianity but a compromised perversion.

    Hitler may have said it in modern times but God said it first, 'you are either for Him or against Him' there is no middle ground, no room for compromise no room for evil to enter what is Holy.

    unfortunately AIG has just compromised recently and i am very disappointed with them.

    The Bible was not a book such as we have, but a collection of scrolls, each containing a small portion of scripture. If they were reading a part of Genesis, the scrolls dealing with Numbers were not disturbed or even opened. Anytime a scroll became worn such that it might become difficult to read, it was replaced and the defective copy destroyed.
    were you there? this is an over-simplified explanation ignoring the life long study of scriptures that was done by jewish priests and religious leaders.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    This theory of selfish genes and memes to explain everything in ultra-darwinistic terms is the same kind of anthropomorphizing (giving motivations and control over to inanimate objects) that you find in the way men of the ancient world anthropomorphized the things of nature to see spirits and gods in mountains, rivers and forests. Thus for all its claim to be atheistic this Ultra-darwinist selfish gene-meme thinking is a fundamentalist theology that completely belongs in the category of religion........Can you clarify what you mean by that last sentence? Does it mean you do not agree with his comments on the meme religion. Don't you see how this selfish gene-meme stuff is the same kind of anthropomorphizing (attributing motives and control to inanimate objects) as seeing gods and spirits in mountains and rivers? Actually I think the latter is more reasonable because as ecosystems mountains and rivers are more alive than genes and memes. Just because genes play a critical role in the process does not mean that they are the totality of life. They are simply material components like atoms and molecules and are no more alive than these.
    To be honest, I don't know how you can think that it is actually what they are doing. The anthropomorphic aspect is only a tool used to help explain how it works, of course. One might say that at high temperatures an oxygen atom might really want to bond to a carbon atom to describe the reactivity of oxygen, but nobody is expected to believe that the oxygen atom has any convictions of its own. Or am I misinterpreting what you are saying?

    The vessel (or tool if you will ) that DNA describes is very much geared towards duplicating itself as efficiently as possible. This is a natural consequence of natural selection. What people generally miss is that the behaviour of that vessel towards other vessels and the general environment is very much part of it all. In fact, I struggle to understand why the idea of memes is so revolutionary in the first place. To me it is simply a straight forward and obvious part of the whole idea of evolution.

    I am very strongly of the opinion that simply knowing how stuff works does not destroy the validity of it. To love someone is a wonderful thing, along with everything that goes with it. Simply knowing why we love (well, more a general idea than being an actual point by point analysis of every part of the near infinite realm of it) does absolutely nothing to the subjective reality and splendour of it. I still feel it just as before. There is a very strong qualitative difference between the subjective and objective reality of love. Stubbing my toe on a chair is painful whether I know about the pain receptors and the electric pulse being sent to my brain or not.

    I guess your optimism comes from your automatic exclusion of archaeologist.
    Not really. I just think that he has little to no value to add to this discussion. We already know what he is going to say. My enthusiasm is because of the possibility that some common misconceptions of evolution might be dispelled. I would actually love it if Paralith could come swing her heavy axe as well.
    As a little teasing sort of prod: I think that both existentialism and humanism has Christian roots - the first in Kierkegaard and the second in Quakerism. It is true that archaeologist's creativity crushing, life killing, science destroying cult which is trying to turn us all into robots under the control of His amoral pocket god may make it seem like Christianity cannot contribute anything good in the world but that simply isn't true.
    To tell you the truth, I am not really a huge fan of ‘ism labels. I have mostly come to the place I am at by my own steam. I have never read Kierkegaard, Niche, Kafka, Dostoyevsky or any philosophy texts before. I simply read the wiki articles on humanism and existentialism at different times and thought that each describes parts of my world view fairly accurately. I have no problem with it if Christianity has a lot to do with existentialism and humanism and agree fully that Christianity has the capacity to contribute a lot of good to society and individuals.


    Where Cunningham derails, is with his characterisations of meme theory and by using it on itself. I don’t think I am missing something when I say that for an actual practicing and presumably recognised philosopher he is really playing a broken banjo and making the sounds with his mouth.

    From a transcript of the documentary:

    But I can't see how the theory of memes can be true. There's a fundamental flaw at the heart of the theory.
    Consider this -
    I also believe in evolution. Doesn't that mean that I have also been colonised by the theory of evolution meme? How can I trust this meme to be any more true than any other meme?
    Why not throw out all of science then?
    This may sound like clever wordplay, but this is a philosophical problem that confronts anyone who believes in the theory of memes. You see, science requires truth to be objective. It requires benchmarks to decide between what is true, and what is not true.
    But with ultra-Darwinism, there can be no benchmark, because all that matters is which memes survive. And their survival has nothing to do with their truth. As one atheist philosopher put it, Evolution does not care whether most of our beliefs are true. Like Rhett Butler in the movie, it just doesn't give a damn.
    Again, this is obviously not always the case. It is pretty much disingenuous to refer to science as a meme. The objectivity of throwing a ball and taking note that it falls to the ground is not a meme. He is effectively saying that meme theory requires that all objectivity is destroyed and is merely a product of delusion. He is basically erecting a strawman.
    In undermining the objectivity of truth, ultra-Darwinism not only threatens the truth of God, it inadvertently also destroys the truth of the theory of evolution itself. Although the theory of memes has been around for some time, ultra-Darwinists have been unable to answer this philosophical problem. The irony being that having fatally undermined itself, ultra-Darwinism cannot destroy our sense of self, threaten ethics, and it cannot kill the idea of God.
    That is just the thing. Meme theory and evolution in general does not destroy the idea of a god. All it can ever do is attack some of the tenets of religion. It still does not discount the involvement of a god through the whole process either. Meme theory does not describe the underlying mechanisms and interactions comprising it in a quantitative sense.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Archy said:
    Quoting me:
    The Bible was not a book such as we have, but a collection of scrolls, each containing a small portion of scripture. If they were reading a part of Genesis, the scrolls dealing with Numbers were not disturbed or even opened. Anytime a scroll became worn such that it might become difficult to read, it was replaced and the defective copy destroyed.
    were you there? this is an over-simplified explanation ignoring the life long study of scriptures that was done by jewish priests and religious leaders.
    What are you, another nut case?

    What does a simplistic explanation of Bible transmission have to do with Jewish priests studying them other than that they needed accurate copies of the scriptures to study which is why the scribes were constantly in the process of producing new copies? It is not like they had mass production capability via offset presses, you know.

    The scribes' copying techniques employed such a meticulous system of checks and balances that Bible scholars are confident that existing copies of the ancient scriptures are virtually exact copies of the originals. This conclusion is drawn from comparing texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls thought to be from about 100 B.C. to the previously earliest texts from around 900 AD or about 1,000 years later. The Dead Sea copy of Isaiah proved to be 95 percent perfect when compared to modern Jewish scriptures with most of the differences being obvious pen slips and spelling variations.

    Plus, it appears that the Jewish priests studied the scriptures to no avail and helped the ancient Jews misunderstand the core teachings of God.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    This theory of selfish genes and memes to explain everything in ultra-darwinistic terms is the same kind of anthropomorphizing (giving motivations and control over to inanimate objects) that you find in the way men of the ancient world anthropomorphized the things of nature to see spirits and gods in mountains, rivers and forests. Thus for all its claim to be atheistic this Ultra-darwinist selfish gene-meme thinking is a fundamentalist theology that completely belongs in the category of religion........Can you clarify what you mean by that last sentence? Does it mean you do not agree with his comments on the meme religion. Don't you see how this selfish gene-meme stuff is the same kind of anthropomorphizing (attributing motives and control to inanimate objects) as seeing gods and spirits in mountains and rivers? Actually I think the latter is more reasonable because as ecosystems mountains and rivers are more alive than genes and memes. Just because genes play a critical role in the process does not mean that they are the totality of life. They are simply material components like atoms and molecules and are no more alive than these.
    To be honest, I don't know how you can think that it is actually what they are doing. The anthropomorphic aspect is only a tool used to help explain how it works, of course. One might say that at high temperatures an oxygen atom might really want to bond to a carbon atom to describe the reactivity of oxygen, but nobody is expected to believe that the oxygen atom has any convictions of its own. Or am I misinterpreting what you are saying?
    Well I disagree. I think that is exactly what it is doing. Why attribute "selfishness" to a gene? It is arguing that the reason why living things do what they do is found in this replicating feature of DNA. Living things do what they have learned to do, and DNA is a way they have of passing what they have learned to the next generation.

    Furthermore, I think it is an TOE that is empty of usefulness. It is as non-explanatory as "Goddidit", because it doesn't really say anything. Yes they survive because they are good at surviving, but this is not much improvement on God did it because he wanted to.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The vessel (or tool if you will ) that DNA describes is very much geared towards duplicating itself as efficiently as possible. This is a natural consequence of natural selection.
    You could also say that on the contary, it evolves mechanisms for the specific purpose of preventing its accurate duplication.

    But the real point is where you put the motivation for what DNA does. Does the gene use us or do we use the genes? Are books using readers or are readers using books. In both cases the former is anthropomorphizing inanimate objects. Genes and books by themselves as inanimate objects do not have any such motivations. They have their meaning and function ONLY as part of a greater whole.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I would actually love it if Paralith could come swing her heavy axe as well.
    sounds intriguing... what don't I know about Paralith?


    But with ultra-Darwinism, there can be no benchmark, because all that matters is which memes survive. And their survival has nothing to do with their truth. As one atheist philosopher put it, Evolution does not care whether most of our beliefs are true.
    Yes his point here is probably overstated. The evolutionary process is weakly selective and there is a positive correlation between the survival value of a meme and its truth value - especially in the epistemology known as pragmatism.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    In undermining the objectivity of truth, ultra-Darwinism not only threatens the truth of God, it inadvertently also destroys the truth of the theory of evolution itself. Although the theory of memes has been around for some time, ultra-Darwinists have been unable to answer this philosophical problem. The irony being that having fatally undermined itself, ultra-Darwinism cannot destroy our sense of self, threaten ethics, and it cannot kill the idea of God.
    That is just the thing. Meme theory and evolution in general does not destroy the idea of a god. All it can ever do is attack some of the tenets of religion. It still does not discount the involvement of a god through the whole process either. Meme theory does not describe the underlying mechanisms and interactions comprising it in a quantitative sense.
    But I don't think this is a strawman because what you are saying here is exactly the point he is trying to make. You have to look at the wider context which is him arguing against this idea that evolution precludes Christianity. What he says appears like a strawman because you are granting his main contention and saying his argument does not prove there is no validity to the idea of memes. I don't hear him arguing that and thus you yourself have constructed/imagined exactly the same kind of strawman you see him making.

    I think this should be read as an if A then B conditional: If meme theory destroys the idea of God then by the same argument it would destroy the truth of evolution itself. If you grant A is false then the truth of the conditional automatically follows.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    What are you, another nut case?
    are you talking to me? if so, you do not know me and you certainly assume to much. oh and i know a lot more than you do. stop telling me things i already know.

    i have left you alone in the intolerant thread as i saw you were pretty much on target and i was letting you handle things there.

    Where Cunningham derails, is with his characterisations of meme theory and by using it on itself
    i would disagree. i felt that he derailed when he did not present a compelling case for creation but was drawing people to a forgone conclusion on his part. he had already decided to go with evolution which makes his little t.v. show nothing but a waste of everyone's time because he was NOT pointing out any weaknesses of that theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Well I disagree. I think that is exactly what it is doing. Why attribute "selfishness" to a gene? It is arguing that the reason why living things do what they do is found in this replicating feature of DNA. Living things do what they have learned to do, and DNA is a way they have of passing what they have learned to the next generation.
    But these are the same things. When an organism/DNA "learns" something it can only ever be in the capacity of having a result of a random mutation. That is, it learns in the sense that it affects their survivability, either directly or in combination with other existing genes. The process is cumulative. I am sure you know that there is no mechanism for the kind of Lamarckian evolution that would give meaning to organisms "learning" in the traditional sense. Look at THIS again (only the part with dawkins is relevant). That guy initially did his experiments with dice. Evolution is essentially a cumulative feedback loop.

    Furthermore, I think it is an TOE that is empty of usefulness. It is as non-explanatory as "Goddidit", because it doesn't really say anything. Yes they survive because they are good at surviving, but this is not much improvement on God did it because he wanted to.
    On the contrary, I think it can be incredibly illuminating. Evolutionary psychology and animal psychology give us priceless windows into our behaviour. Studying the behaviour and specifically the different levels of learned behaviour of animals is intertwined with the theory of memes. The competing nature of memes is directly advantageous because of the relative benefits some behaviours enjoy in comparison with others. It explains sexual selection as well.

    sounds intriguing... what don't I know about Paralith?
    She really knows her stuff when it comes to evolutionary psychology etc. and generally are much more adept at explaining it than I am. She also essentially has the same worldview that I do.

    You could also say that on the contary, it evolves mechanisms for the specific purpose of preventing its accurate duplication.
    I don't think it is contrary at all. In fact, I think it is probably true.

    But the real point is where you put the motivation for what DNA does. Does the gene use us or do we use the genes? Are books using readers or are readers using books. In both cases the former is anthropomorphizing inanimate objects. Genes and books by themselves as inanimate objects do not have any such motivations. They have their meaning and function ONLY as part of a greater whole.
    I'd say that the body and genes are part of the same system. DNA is just where the information is stored. Like I said, anthropomorphizing the process is just a tool used to explain it, so we actually agree on this point, as well as with what Dawkins et.al. are saying in regards to the science only. Evolution has no motivation behind it. It just happens. When you program a computer to work out orbital mechanics or something, the computer itself has no motivation for what it is doing. Evolution works in a reverse sort of way where the most optimal outcome is the one it automatically gravitates towards. It would be like putting the desired orbital height and attitude into the computer and letting it work out how much fuel is needed and when to burn it by using which components. With evolution the desired outcome is determined by the environment.


    But I don't think this is a strawman because what you are saying here is exactly the point he is trying to make. You have to look at the wider context which is him arguing against this idea that evolution precludes Christianity. What he says appears like a strawman because you are granting his main contention and saying his argument does not prove there is no validity to the idea of memes. I don't hear him arguing that and thus you yourself have constructed/imagined exactly the same kind of strawman you see him making.
    He says: "But ultra-Darwinists haven't given up. They have built on the idea of the selfish gene to try and show the theory of evolution does after all imply atheism." He is presenting the idea of memes as if it directly motivated by a desire to discredit Christianity and God in general. This is simply not true: strawman.

    "The theory of memes attempts to explain all human activity in evolutionary terms, including culture, religion and morality. It goes much further than saying there's no God - it concludes that there's no you or me." How does it do that? We are individual because we are all unique. Our perceptions and behaviours are all unique. Simply suggesting that our experiences of life are all interdependent does not destroy individuality at all. It is a pretty absurd notion if you ask me.

    I think this should be read as an if A then B conditional: If meme theory destroys the idea of God then by the same argument it would destroy the truth of evolution itself. If you grant A is false then the truth of the conditional automatically follows.
    I disagree. As you would agree, science and religion are separate. We simply can never know how god would be involved in our lives if he existed. He might be involved by steering randomness in the underlying physics for all we know. This is where Dawkins and Cunningham fail. They cannot in their minds separate the two independent issues. God is proposed as all powerful after all, so how could knowing a little bit more about ourselves even dream of encroaching on the kind of unfathomable greatness that is implied by the idea of a god. Like I have been saying, we might have an idea of where our emotions and sense of morality comes from, but it can never destroy the validity of it. We are what we are, independent of what we think we are or what the human limitations dressed onto an unfathomable god entail.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Evolution is essentially a cumulative feedback loop.
    So is learning. Learning is the same kind of trial and error cumulative feedback loop.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    But the real point is where you put the motivation for what DNA does. Does the gene use us or do we use the genes? Are books using readers or are readers using books. In both cases the former is anthropomorphizing inanimate objects. Genes and books by themselves as inanimate objects do not have any such motivations. They have their meaning and function ONLY as part of a greater whole.
    I'd say that the body and genes are part of the same system. DNA is just where the information is stored. Like I said, anthropomorphizing the process is just a tool used to explain it, so we actually agree on this point, as well as with what Dawkins et.al. are saying in regards to the science only. Evolution has no motivation behind it. It just happens.
    I certainly disagree. It is entirely intentional. It has just as much motivation as anything else that living things do. It is just as much a creative learning process as anything else that living things do.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    When you program a computer to work out orbital mechanics or something, the computer itself has no motivation for what it is doing.
    Yep. It just follows instructions. All the motivation is in those who have given the instructions. DNA has no motivation for what it is doing. All the motivation is found in the living organisms you use DNA to pass this inheritance of information on to the next generation.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Evolution works in a reverse sort of way where the most optimal outcome is the one it automatically gravitates towards. It would be like putting the desired orbital height and attitude into the computer and letting it work out how much fuel is needed and when to burn it by using which components. With evolution the desired outcome is determined by the environment.
    But evolution does NOT work like that. Its outcome is NOT determined by the environment. It is only weakly selective. Evolution is not primarily driven by natural selection at all but by variation. It is like saying that the paintings an artist makes is determined by the market. That is such a weakly selective force that this claim is absurd.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    But I don't think this is a strawman because what you are saying here is exactly the point he is trying to make. You have to look at the wider context which is him arguing against this idea that evolution precludes Christianity. What he says appears like a strawman because you are granting his main contention and saying his argument does not prove there is no validity to the idea of memes. I don't hear him arguing that and thus you yourself have constructed/imagined exactly the same kind of strawman you see him making.
    He says: "But ultra-Darwinists haven't given up. They have built on the idea of the selfish gene to try and show the theory of evolution does after all imply atheism." He is presenting the idea of memes as if it directly motivated by a desire to discredit Christianity and God in general. This is simply not true: strawman.
    No. Again you are taking this out of context. He is not trying to present the theory of memes in any kind of objective manner. He is addressing the question of whether Darwin killed God and thus whether evolution is compatable with Christianity. That you already concede the point simply means that this part of his effort is not aimed at you.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    "The theory of memes attempts to explain all human activity in evolutionary terms, including culture, religion and morality. It goes much further than saying there's no God - it concludes that there's no you or me." How does it do that? We are individual because we are all unique. Our perceptions and behaviours are all unique. Simply suggesting that our experiences of life are all interdependent does not destroy individuality at all. It is a pretty absurd notion if you ask me.
    And yet the people he interviews DO give that impression. They use the word illusion and it is that use of the theory of memes which he is arguing against, just as it is THAT use of the theory of memes which I am saying is an absurd anthropomophization, attributing motivation and control to inanimate objects. This does not say that the theory of memes has no utility in general.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I think this should be read as an if A then B conditional: If meme theory destroys the idea of God then by the same argument it would destroy the truth of evolution itself. If you grant A is false then the truth of the conditional automatically follows.
    I disagree. As you would agree, science and religion are separate. We simply can never know how god would be involved in our lives if he existed. He might be involved by steering randomness in the underlying physics for all we know. This is where Dawkins and Cunningham fail. They cannot in their minds separate the two independent issues.
    On the contrary, I think his inclusion of Michael Ruse suggests quite the opposite that Cunningham, unlike Dawkins, does separate the two.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    verzen seems to have gone quiet... hopefully he's just away finding the evidence on which he based his assertions... assuming he did use evidence when he was asserting things ofcourse :-D

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    verzen seems to have gone quiet... hopefully he's just away finding the evidence on which he based his assertions... assuming he did use evidence when he was asserting things ofcourse :-D
    Huh? What? I was sleeping... What was the question?
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    wel things are heating up here and i will not address everyone's post in this response.
    Typically cowardly; you refuse to fight the battles you are losing.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I think this should be read as an if A then B conditional: If meme theory destroys the idea of God then by the same argument it would destroy the truth of evolution itself. If you grant A is false then the truth of the conditional automatically follows.
    I disagree. As you would agree, science and religion are separate. We simply can never know how god would be involved in our lives if he existed. He might be involved by steering randomness in the underlying physics for all we know. This is where Dawkins and Cunningham fail. They cannot in their minds separate the two independent issues.
    On the contrary, I think his inclusion of Michael Ruse suggests quite the opposite that Cunningham, unlike Dawkins, does separate the two.
    HOWEVER, I don't think Cunningham is a scientist and for that reason his understanding of science does lack some of the crisp clarity that a scientist would have. I don't think you can expect that from a non-scientist and thus I think it is enough that he accepts the explanation of this distinction by a scientist like Michael Ruse.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Typically cowardly; you refuse to fight the battles you are losing.
    no. i just do not have time to respond to books. i work over 40 hours a week and must find time in between other resp. to respond to you all.

    HOWEVER, I don't think Cunningham is a scientist and for that reason his understanding of science does lack some of the crisp clarity that a scientist would have
    ou just like him because he agrees with you or validates your position while disagreeing with the Bible.

    if he was honest, objective and scientific, he would have presented the biblical case far better than he did. as it stands, that whole show was tainted because the conclusion was known within the first 5 minutes of the start.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    The conclusion has been known for over a hundred years.

    Sooner or later extremists like yourself may start to realise this...
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    drowsey said:

    The conclusion has been known for over a hundred years.
    You are a little short on your time estimate. The conclusion has been know for nearly 2,000 years. Jesus will one day return and put an end to all this unholy madness.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I certainly disagree. It is entirely intentional. It has just as much motivation as anything else that living things do. It is just as much a creative learning process as anything else that living things do.
    I am puzzled. Are you saying that evolution has some kind of consciousness of life behind it? Intention entails a consciousness, no? What would your definition of consciousness be then? Does a bacterium display consciousness when it responds to stimulae? I don't think it does so in any qualitatively different way to a tree bending in the wind. That is a two step action/reaction setup, while the bacterium might have hundreds of steps in a chain of reactions that ultimately leads it to react to stimulae in a certain way.

    To me, life is a natural consequence of the laws of the universe. Emergent properties and self assembly is just multiple processes reinforcing each other. Life is then the ultimate product of such processes. I don't see any objective or scientific motivation behind it.

    I think at this point it becomes necessary to separate philosophical reasoning from objective, scientific reasoning.

    For instance, Cunningham says: "But I can't see how the theory of memes can be true." and then provides an entirely philosophical argument behind his reasoning. This, to me, adds very little if anything to the objective validity of meme theory.

    But evolution does NOT work like that. Its outcome is NOT determined by the environment. It is only weakly selective. Evolution is not primarily driven by natural selection at all but by variation. It is like saying that the paintings an artist makes is determined by the market. That is such a weakly selective force that this claim is absurd.
    It doesn't? It just sounds to me the whole time as if you are suggesting a kind of Lamarckian type of evolution. Again, this has never been shown to exist. Giraffes did not evolve long necks because they spent much of their lives reaching for the top leaves on trees. The variation you are talking about is essentially random and only happens at the DNA level during the formation of the gametes and during fertilization when the male and female genes fuse. The only input the parent organism adds is that it did not die before it became a parent and it did that entirely by having the right genes to be able to do so, genes whose usefulness is directly and entirely affected by the environment. The life of the organism is like a test. The better it passes, the more likely its children will be able to do the same. By "environment" I mean everything that happens after the moment of fertilization.

    No. Again you are taking this out of context. He is not trying to present the theory of memes in any kind of objective manner. He is addressing the question of whether Darwin killed God and thus whether evolution is compatible with Christianity. That you already concede the point simply means that this part of his effort is not aimed at you.
    I don't know, his words: "But ultra-Darwinists haven't given up. They have built on the idea of the selfish gene to try and show the theory of evolution does after all imply atheism" and "But I can't see how the theory of memes can be true." seem pretty clear cut to me. The reason why I concede the point is vastly different from why he does.



    He says: "I also believe in evolution. Doesn't that mean that I have also been colonised by the theory of evolution meme? How can I trust this meme to be any more true than any other meme?" and "In undermining the objectivity of truth, ultra-Darwinism not only threatens the truth of God, it inadvertently also destroys the truth of the theory of evolution itself ". These are all non sequiturs. He is confusing scientific enquiry with that which it discovers and forgets about how these discoveries are tested. That is why I earlier asked why he doesn't just discard the whole of science then. I mean, meme theory is directly observable. We humans are born with a certain set of behaviours and an "operating system" of sorts, which is designed ( :P ) to process the environment. Just think about how many things are learned from birth. If those things did not serve some kind of subjective and/or objective purpose or have some level of aesthetic value , they would never have been learned in the first place.


    They use the word illusion and it is that use of the theory of memes which he is arguing against, just as it is THAT use of the theory of memes which I am saying is an absurd anthropomophization, attributing motivation and control to inanimate objects. This does not say that the theory of memes has no utility in general.
    He argues against the theory of memes as a valid theory by using philosophical means, because, according to him and Dawkins, God would effectively be destroyed and everything would be an illusion if it were true. "If true, the theory of memes is devastating." Michael Ruse is used, not to argue for or against the idea that meme theory destroys God, but for the objective validity of it. This is made apparent by Cunningham's admission that he does not believe meme theory to be true. He gets Ruse, as a standard Darwinist, to say that Darwinism cannot say anything about God like Dawkins et.al. says and then directly goes to the new Ultra-Darwinist theory of memes that is supposedly conjured to kill god. The illusion bit acts as motivation for his arguments, while only the objective validity should.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I certainly disagree. It is entirely intentional. It has just as much motivation as anything else that living things do. It is just as much a creative learning process as anything else that living things do.
    I am puzzled. Are you saying that evolution has some kind of consciousness of life behind it?
    No I am saying that the process of life is the process of consciousness and visa versa. Evolution is simply a name for the learning ability that this process of life has on that particular time scale.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Intention entails a consciousness, no? What would your definition of consciousness be then?
    About the same as my definition of life. It is a self-organizing dynamic process that responds creatively to environmental changes and stimulus in order to maintain a dynamic identity apart from the environment.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Does a bacterium display consciousness when it responds to stimulae?
    Yes.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I don't think it does so in any qualitatively different way to a tree bending in the wind.
    Wrong. A tree bending in the wind is an external effect of a external force. There is no similarity whatsoever. Now if you look for the reason why the tree has made itself flexible so that it does bend in the wind then that is an entirely different matter. Therefore if choose another example more like that, then I would agree with you, for as much as we like to think of ourselves as special, life and consciousness is a quantitative difference not a qualitative one.

    Life originates in self-orgnizing physical processes. That may be a highly non-linear process in a far from equillibrium environment, but there are examples of this that are far more simple than any example of what we recognize as life. But the difference is time. What we call life has had billions of years to learn what it has become.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    That is a two step action/reaction setup, while the bacterium might have hundreds of steps in a chain of reactions that ultimately leads it to react to stimulae in a certain way.
    Refering to how the tree made itself flexible to bend with the wind, sometimes technology is simplicity itself even though the process by which that technology came into being is quite complex.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    To me, life is a natural consequence of the laws of the universe.
    Yes the process of life is indeed a natural consequence of the laws of the universe. BUT living things are NOT simply a nautral consequence of the laws of the universe because the laws of the universe are NOT deterministic. The process of life is one by which something organizes itself, makes choices and learns, and thus it participates in the process of its own development.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Emergent properties and self assembly is just multiple processes reinforcing each other. Life is then the ultimate product of such processes. I don't see any objective or scientific motivation behind it.
    Of course not. The motivations are not objective. These living things "delude" themselves that they are actually alive and apart from their environment and acting for their own reasons. But wait a minute.... that is what it means to be alive. LOL


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I think at this point it becomes necessary to separate philosophical reasoning from objective, scientific reasoning.
    Yes. As a physical scientist I have very high standards in that regards and thus I do not have such conversations as this under the topic of one of the sciences.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    For instance, Cunningham says: "But I can't see how the theory of memes can be true." and then provides an entirely philosophical argument behind his reasoning. This, to me, adds very little if anything to the objective validity of meme theory.
    I think this statement of Cunningham's is severely flawed and perhaps the same kind of flaw underlies similar claims by those such as archaeologist. I think the flaw is a hidden subtext (or unspoken premise if you prefer). Archaeologist's hidden subtext seems to be that, "the theory of evolution says there is no God". If that were indeed a part of the theory of evolution then it would not be scientific. Perhaps Cunningham's hidden subtext for the theory of memes is quite similar, "that the theory of memes says that there are no revelations from God".


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    But evolution does NOT work like that. Its outcome is NOT determined by the environment. It is only weakly selective. Evolution is not primarily driven by natural selection at all but by variation. It is like saying that the paintings an artist makes is determined by the market. That is such a weakly selective force that this claim is absurd.
    It doesn't? It just sounds to me the whole time as if you are suggesting a kind of Lamarckian type of evolution. Again, this has never been shown to exist. Giraffes did not evolve long necks because they spent much of their lives reaching for the top leaves on trees.
    Ok now you are being a bit foolish. If the ancestors of giraffes did not reach for leaves higher on trees to eat then there is no way that those with longer necks would have any survival advantage and thus there would not have been any natural selection in that direction. I think what you mean to say is that the process of evolution was not some kind of conscious wish fulfillment process, such that the ancestors of the giraffes looked longingly up at the leaves on the top of the trees and that this magically made their necks grow longer. But of course you did not say it like that because then it would have sounded too foolish and nothing like what I was saying. But in your attempt to make it sound more like what I was saying you have accidently blundered, and I hope that blunder will prove my point in part.

    My point is that this is not an accidental process. Living things evolve means to enhance the process of evolution itself bringing it more and more under their own control. Evolution works because the reproductive process is also an exploratory process and it is not this way by any accident.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The variation you are talking about is essentially random and only happens at the DNA level during the formation of the gametes and during fertilization when the male and female genes fuse.
    It is no more or less random that the first attempts of any living thing in the process by which they learn new skills. The process by which variation is now generated is just as much a product of the process of evolution as everything else.

    I think you are caught by a chicken or the egg sort of paradox in understanding the relationship between evolution and life. Like myself you believe in the theory of abiogenesis and so you think that if life came from non life then clearly evolution came first. But this is simply not correct. The truth is that the chicken and the egg are inseperable and both came into being by an incremental (evolutionary) process. But the relationship between life and evolution is exactly the same and this is why most biological scientists are quick to point out the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. This means that evolution itself is just as much a product of abiogenesis as the living things that are engaged in it.

    I think the more general language is that living things and the self-organizing physical processes which are their progenators, all have this basic capacity to respond creatively (or unpredictably, or non-determinstically, or whatever you want to call it) to their environment and learn (or change, or adapt, or whatever you want to call it), so that they progressively become more than they were.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The only input the parent organism adds is that it did not die before it became a parent and it did that entirely by having the right genes to be able to do so, genes whose usefulness is directly and entirely affected by the environment.
    That is not quite true and when you correct it you will find the result a tiresome tautology (... but I will add a little more info to make it more interesting): The only information the parent organism passes to its offspring via DNA is a subset of the information that it already had in its DNA at the time of procreation, which for higher forms of life (eukaryotic) is likely, to a very very high probability, to be exactly the same as the information in its DNA at the time of its own conception, but the process of combination with another subset from the DNA of the other parent in sexual reproduction, results in a DNA information inheritance that is unique.

    However, many of the higher forms of life have evolved means to pass other kinds of information on to their offspring and none more so than human kind, where our society with the help of technology is moving in the direction of making this DNA inheritance less and less important.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The life of the organism is like a test. The better it passes, the more likely its children will be able to do the same.
    Yes this is the basic idea in every learning process. Each attempt can be considered a test or "trial" and errors provide negative reinforment while the sucesses provide positive reinforcement and so through this process of trial and error, our leaning process eventually accomplishes great things. LOL

    Yes with the advent of sexual reproduction every life is a unique "test" of a unique inheritance.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    He says: "I also believe in evolution. Doesn't that mean that I have also been colonised by the theory of evolution meme? How can I trust this meme to be any more true than any other meme?" and "In undermining the objectivity of truth, ultra-Darwinism not only threatens the truth of God, it inadvertently also destroys the truth of the theory of evolution itself ". These are all non sequiturs.
    Yes I agree that taken by themselves in isolation these are not only non sequiturs but are also things on which I would have enormous disagreements with him. But doing this is an overestimation of the clarity of language. His words have a meaning to him which I do not share and so I would certainly say things in quite a different way. Thus to some degree, I think real communication requires focusing more on what he is driving at and this at least is pretty simple: Evolution does not precude Christianity or visa versa and if the ultra-Darwinists clam that the theory of memes makes this so, then they are wrong.

    For example, it is quite clear to me that what he is calling "objective truth" is not what I would call objective truth. For me the only truth I would call objective truth is science, where he seems to think that this would include the "truth of God". Perhaps based on the acceptance of a few premises that only Chrisitans would accept, some theologians (including Cunningham perhaps) can define something that they might call "objective truth", but personally I don't find that sort of thing very useful.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    They use the word illusion and it is that use of the theory of memes which he is arguing against, just as it is THAT use of the theory of memes which I am saying is an absurd anthropomophization, attributing motivation and control to inanimate objects. This does not say that the theory of memes has no utility in general.
    He argues against the theory of memes as a valid theory by using philosophical means, because, according to him and Dawkins, God would effectively be destroyed and everything would be an illusion if it were true. "If true, the theory of memes is devastating." Michael Ruse is used, not to argue for or against the idea that meme theory destroys God, but for the objective validity of it. This is made apparent by Cunningham's admission that he does not believe meme theory to be true. He gets Ruse, as a standard Darwinist, to say that Darwinism cannot say anything about God like Dawkins et.al. says and then directly goes to the new Ultra-Darwinist theory of memes that is supposedly conjured to kill god. The illusion bit acts as motivation for his arguments, while only the objective validity should.
    Ok, I do see your point. And perhaps the problem is that Cunningham's production suffers from the same flaws that is found rather generally in mass media in that it reaches more for the sensationalism of extreme statements than looking for the kind of reasonable and well balanced statements that they think will put people to sleep. Perhaps I am so used to this that to some degree I filter it out and ignore it. But of course, that is what makes reflection and criticism that much more important so that we do not allow ourselves to be "colonized by faulty memes", LOL, i.e. that by ignoring the excessive sensationalism we do not allow these unbalanced statements to become part of our own thinking without critical examination.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    verzen seems to have gone quiet... hopefully he's just away finding the evidence on which he based his assertions... assuming he did use evidence when he was asserting things ofcourse :-D
    Huh? What? I was sleeping... What was the question?
    No you were probably just hoping nobody would mention it so you wouldnt have to justify yourself.

    Go back and read one of my previous posts/

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Sorry, I actually missed what you said. Here is your response with everything you said being refuted.

    Will you supply evidence for your assertions? Almost everything you have just stated could be disputed. How do you know it is "commonly believed that the new testament was written by people who didn't even meet Jesus and it was all hearsay"? Who thinks this and what is THEIR reasoning? Can you supply references?
    link

    Often times, in order for the books in the new testement to be "valid" they have to have been "written" by someone who knew Jesus or who was close to Jesus. It was also often practiced that those names would be placed on the books to offer validity to the text. Many liberal historians said that there is no evidence or proof that they wrote those books and that the bible was written/finished in 100-200 AD. I learned this from the history channel as well, plus my ancient history instructor at my college who has a PHD in Ancient History.

    Also you state that it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to keep parchment from being destroyed before then. Well there are some problems with this statement. First of all it is irellevant as it is certain that things were copied down more than once.
    And whenever something is copied down, it loses a little bit of validity. The reason is, is that the original manuscript isn't able to be found anymore to try to appropriately date it. Many things may have been mistranslated when being written down. Not all of a scripture could have been written down. New things could have been added to the scripture. Quite frankly, if someone copies it down on to a new piece of paper it loses ALL of it's validity since that person who just copied it down could have altered it or changed it.

    Mainstream christians do not believe this. Like their own texts, jewish people made copies.
    And no one knows what they could have done with the copy they just made.

    Secondly have you not heard of the dead sea scrolls? By your reasoning they should not be around??
    So they found bits and pieces of scrolls. They are to be believed to have been between 150 BCE and 70 CE. HOWEVER. The church wont let scientists carbon date the scrolls because of their sacredness. They had a hard enough time trying to date the "cloth" that wrapped up Jesus because the church did not want any of it destroyed. And one of the processes of Carbon dating is to destroy the end result. So your argument doesn't hold water. Quite frankly, we don't know who wrote those scrolls and we don't know if they are valid. Simply because something is old and written down does NOT mean it's true.

    The next problem with your argument is that you assume everything HAD to be written down. There are other ways of communication and even if there weren't, there are other things to write on. Are you aware that Jewish priests of the time regularly learned entire books of the bible word for word?
    Yeah because you know THAT is more reliable than the written word. Hearsay, yup. Memories are faulty. People have a chance of forgetting things the older they get. It is impossible to remember an entire book word for word in your head. So if you tried writing something down based off of memory, how does that even EQUATE to validity again? You make no sense.

    And before you try and accuse me of the same I CAN provide references for what I've said.
    Ok, go for it.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    link
    Not a good supporting answer at all. All this is saying is "Mr ABC says XYZ in his book"

    There isn't any reasoning. You could just have done a google search for all we know. Based on the link you probably did. Have you even read that book?


    And whenever something is copied down, it loses a little bit of validity.
    Really? Watch this: And whenever something is copied down, it loses a little bit of validity.

    Astounding! I didn't even use cut, copy or paste!

    Just because something is copied down, does not mean the message is altered.

    New things could have been added to the scripture. Quite frankly, if someone copies it down on to a new piece of paper it loses ALL of it's validity since that person who just copied it down could have altered it or changed it.
    Problem here. Saying something could have happenned is not the same as proving or providing evidence that something DID happen. Again you have not provided any argument here to say that what could have happenned did in fact happen.

    Mainstream christians do not believe this. Like their own texts, jewish people made copies.
    And no one knows what they could have done with the copy they just made.
    See above.

    Secondly have you not heard of the dead sea scrolls? By your reasoning they should not be around??
    So they found bits and pieces of scrolls. They are to be believed to have been between 150 BCE and 70 CE. HOWEVER. The church wont let scientists carbon date the scrolls because of their sacredness. They had a hard enough time trying to date the "cloth" that wrapped up Jesus because the church did not want any of it destroyed. And one of the processes of Carbon dating is to destroy the end result. So your argument doesn't hold water.
    Oh really... http://packrat.aml.arizona.edu/Journal/v37n1/jull.pdf

    Simply because something is old and written down does NOT mean it's true.
    The flip side to that coin is that it does NOT mean it's false.

    So we still await the strong arguments to back up your assertions old boy!

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Wrong. A tree bending in the wind is an external effect of a external force. There is no similarity whatsoever. Now if you look for the reason why the tree has made itself flexible so that it does bend in the wind then that is an entirely different matter. Therefore if choose another example more like that, then I would agree with you, for as much as we like to think of ourselves as special, life and consciousness is a quantitative difference not a qualitative one.
    Ok, I failed with yet another analogy. What I mean is that evolution has erected a complex maze of dominoes and different stimulae set a different cascade of reactions in motion that has a unique ending pattern. I think I understand your definition of consciousness now and I loosely agree with it.

    Life originates in self-organizing physical processes. That may be a highly non-linear process in a far from equilibrium environment, but there are examples of this that are far more simple than any example of what we recognize as life. But the difference is time. What we call life has had billions of years to learn what it has become.
    I agree. I think what threw me off was the two interpretations of consciousness on the table and the use of all the associated terms like "choose", "learn" and "creative".

    Yes the process of life is indeed a natural consequence of the laws of the universe. BUT living things are NOT simply a nautral consequence of the laws of the universe because the laws of the universe are NOT deterministic. The process of life is one by which something organizes itself, makes choices and learns, and thus it participates in the process of its own development.
    Chicken and egg. I think the simplest definition of life, to me, is the presence of a self replicating molecule. This would then include things like viruses and even prions and such. The bodies of living things are the direct result of trial and error mutation/adaptation and provides a number of benefits. Bacteria can respond effectively to a number of outside influences and through adapted mechanisms acquire more stuff to use so it can make imperfect copies of itself. It was correct what you said about variation being a positive adaptation itself as it permits adaptation, which is invariably necessary for the organisms to be able to persist into the future. Unadaptable organisms will die in adverse conditions and disappear. I am pretty sure also that a large number of traits were the direct result of a kind of symbiosis, where the traits of a distinct organism is incorporated into the genome itself. This would provide for the kind of cell specialisation needed in complex organisms, where the pertinent traits are turned on in favour of others.

    How does an organisms make choices? I think it is the kind of domino effect I described earlier. When you look closer at dominoes, one could easily imagine a complex arrangement where minute variations can set the path of the cascade in a different direction (chaos). Perhaps this is where our spirit comes in according to you, by providing the impetus for a certain direction? The overall picture constantly changes also so that no two responses are the same in a quantitative way. Essentially there is a constant and concurrent set of cascades going on at the same time that is constantly changing the character of the overall system. The problem with non-determinacy for me is where exactly the random part comes in. While quantum effects are random, they still provide a statistical predictability which is the underlying determining factor in the chaotic cascade. One consequence of evolution is the ability of the system to steer the chaotic cascade down somewhat predictable qualitative paths, in so doing ensuring that the outcome is within certain bounds. While life in general is dynamic, individual life forms are still very much bound by their limitations. Our human brains allow for a wide range of possible and immediately adaptable behaviours that has enabled us to become what we have, but even we have our limitations. The counter intuitive nature of quantum mechanics is one example.

    P.S: While most of the above is directed at you and the discussion, some of it was just me talking to myself. :?
    P.P.S: Could you maybe fix versen's link so it doesn't screw up the page format?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    verzen reiterates a previously debunked idea:
    And whenever something is copied down, it loses a little bit of validity. The reason is, is that the original manuscript isn't able to be found anymore to try to appropriately date it. Many things may have been mistranslated when being written down. Not all of a scripture could have been written down. New things could have been added to the scripture. Quite frankly, if someone copies it down on to a new piece of paper it loses ALL of it's validity since that person who just copied it down could have altered it or changed it.
    This could be true if the writings in question were copied in a linear fashion. That is, if there was copy A which was copied to copy B which was copied to copy C which was copied to copy D and so on down the line as in the old parlor game where you whisper something in your neighbor's ear and he repeats it to the next person around the room and what the last person hears is vastly different from what the first person said.

    But that is not the process by which extant copies of New Testament writings have been passed down. What we have is copy A from which numerous copy B's were made and then each of those was copied by many other people into several copy C's and so on for several generations such that there was a geometric multiplication of documents not a linear compilation.

    If one of the copies from generation B had an error in it; that error would show up only the the copy C's made from that particular copy. Copy C's made from the other accurate copies would not contain that error. And the same thing would be true of generation D copies.

    If you had 10 copies of a document separately made by 10 different people and nine of them said the same thing, you could be reasonably certain that one which was different contained an error, rather than the other nine.

    Even if you have only generation C and D or later documents, the descendants of error copy B would be in conflict with those made from correct copy B's. There are more extent copies of the New Testament in Greek than all the rest of what would be considered ancient literature put together.

    There are 5,600 Greek New Testament documents of ancient origin available for scholars to pour over. If you add in those translated into Syriac, Coptic, Latin and Aramaic, there are some 24,000 texts and pieces of texts available.

    They include full texts of every book of the New Testament plus various fragments of books. Wherein comparisons can be made, the texts are 99.5 per cent in agreement. This would include texts from various generations of copies.

    This information is expanded upon at http://www.carm.org/questions/about-...nt-reliability.

    verzen remains in a school of people who have no knowledge or understanding as to the reliability of the texts that are available to study for translations into modern languages. With all the copies and fragments to compare, it is reasonably well settled as to what the actual original document said. That is why good Bible include notes that certain passages do not appear in earlier texts or that variants exist. Even if the information contained in the New Testament is not true, what we have accurately reflects the original texts.

    But there is a degree to which verzen's claim that some alterations have been made is true. Even so, it is not as though we are unaware of where there are discrepancies. Whatever discrepancies may exist are well documented and very well known by Bible scholars.

    It is one thing to say, as verzen does, "Well, there have been alterations," without having any idea what they are and knowing what they discrepancies are and determining why they exist.

    The biggest problem with the claim advanced by verzen is that no other piece of literature from that period come even close to having as many copies available. To suggest that the text of the Bible is unreliable virtually renders all ancient literature as being unreliable.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    How does an organisms make choices? I think it is the kind of domino effect I described earlier. When you look closer at dominoes, one could easily imagine a complex arrangement where minute variations can set the path of the cascade in a different direction (chaos).
    Yes, the name of the phenomenon which is indeed found in chaotic dynamics is called bifurcation. It means that even a theoretically deterministic process, if nonlinear, can have points of instability where the direction of events are determined by the smallest perturbations. The reality of quantum physics means that the smallest perturbations are not deterministic and logical consequence is that even macroscopic processes which are non-linear are not deterministic either.

    But this is kind made obvious in context of our discussion by the incredible diversity of life. Evolution is an endlessly branching tree because it is not deteminstic, and that is just the effect of the primary force of variation. Even selection can be somewhat random when a massive disaster like a gigantic asteroid simply wipes out all species in an area regardless of what survival advantages they may have. More generally, just because a organism has a survival advantage does not necessarily mean it is the one that survives... because... sometimes life just isn't fair. LOL


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Perhaps this is where our spirit comes in according to you, by providing the impetus for a certain direction?
    It is more important that the spirit owns these choices and sees itself as responsible. I think the crucial point is that the spirit derives its form and identity from these choices and therein lies its responsibility because it is by these choices that it becomes what it becomes. It cannot be a matter of time-ordered causality, the spirit becomes the cause rather than is the cause. If you restrict yourself to time-ordered causality then no extension to non-physical sources can make free-will a logically consistent concept.

    Therefore the main impact which I see the spirit having is this sense that we are the cause of our own actions rather than just a domino in a chain of dominoes. You can dismiss this as a delusion but to that degree the spirit refuses own these choices and thus refuses to become anything. I think this is a fundamental choice between live and death.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The overall picture constantly changes also so that no two responses are the same in a quantitative way. Essentially there is a constant and concurrent set of cascades going on at the same time that is constantly changing the character of the overall system. The problem with non-determinacy for me is where exactly the random part comes in. While quantum effects are random, they still provide a statistical predictability which is the underlying determining factor in the chaotic cascade.
    But non-linear processes don't necessarily respond to the overall effect. Sometimes they ignore most perturbations and their behavior hinges on just one. This is the essence of the butterfly effect. Obviously the essentially random behavior of the butterflies means that any effect they would have on the motion of the air should cancel each other out, but the fact is that the nonlinearity of the weather means that it can effectively ignore all the butterflies except one.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    One consequence of evolution is the ability of the system to steer the chaotic cascade down somewhat predictable qualitative paths, in so doing ensuring that the outcome is within certain bounds.
    I see no evidence of that at all. The weakly selective nature of the process usually means that the only prediction is the tautological one of: that which can survive will survive. Its explanatory power is nearly always a matter of hindsight. We can see that something enabled survival but except for rare examples I don't think we could have predicted it beforehand. These examples done in a lab, for all that they confirm that evolution is a reality is nevertheless a highly contrived process where we are manipulating the evironment and taking care our sample is not overwhelmed but survives. To make these a model for evolution in general practically argues for divine involvement.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I see no evidence of that at all.
    Convergent evolution as an answer to what you said, but what I meant was that beavers act like beavers and humans act like humans.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I see no evidence of that at all.
    Convergent evolution as an answer to what you said, but what I meant was that beavers act like beavers and humans act like humans.
    Come on! The evidence does not support this. Evolution 101 is that isolation results in divergent evolution. It is the natural conclusion that greater isolation will result not in convergent evolution but in something competely different.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I see no evidence of that at all.
    Convergent evolution as an answer to what you said, but what I meant was that beavers act like beavers and humans act like humans.
    Come on! The evidence does not support this. Evolution 101 is that isolation results in divergent evolution. It is the natural conclusion that greater isolation will result not in convergent evolution but in something competely different.
    Sorry, I wanted to respond with a more comprehensive post the last time, but I ran out of time. I will do so in a few hours.

    Just quickly: I think we are talking past each other. Divergent evolution is as you said, but the convergent evolution I cited is when similar structures develop in different species independantly as a direct consequence of the environmental pressures. Fins and eyes are examples of it. I'll check back later.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I see no evidence of that at all.
    Convergent evolution as an answer to what you said, but what I meant was that beavers act like beavers and humans act like humans.
    Come on! The evidence does not support this. Evolution 101 is that isolation results in divergent evolution. It is the natural conclusion that greater isolation will result not in convergent evolution but in something competely different.
    Sorry, I wanted to respond with a more comprehensive post the last time, but I ran out of time. I will do so in a few hours.

    Just quickly: I think we are talking past each other. Divergent evolution is as you said, but the convergent evolution I cited is when similar structures develop in different species independantly as a direct consequence of the environmental pressures. Fins and eyes are examples of it. I'll check back later.
    Ok, I clicked on the link. I have to admit that it is a factor though a rather obscure one. "Convergence is difficult to quantify, so there is no way to objectively resolve this argument." This could be described as grasping at straws.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    verzem, you've gone quiet again. im still waiting to be thrashed by your "considerable logic"

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    verzen you've gone quiet again... I am still waiting to face the full onslaught of your "considerable logic".

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    verzen you've gone quiet again... I am still waiting to face the full onslaught of your "considerable logic".


    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Thats because your claims are retarded and I dont have the patience to deal with moronic claims at the moment. You just told me that when you copy something down enough times, the meaning doesn't change. Well guess what, there are some words in different languages which don't have a word for their meaning in other languages. The original OT was in Greek. It was translated to Latin, then it was translated to Hebrew, then it was translated to English. What you basically told me is that the Greek version is the EXACT same as the English one. Unfortunately, it is not the same. Plus the Catholic Popes added stuff to the bible that was not originally there.
    Plus, each story in the Bible is just a rehash of older stories. For instance - Adam and Eve? Pandora's Box.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    240
    Is the tale of Pandora's Box related at all to the story of Adam and Eve? Also what exactly did the Catholic popes add to the bible? Was there a Maccabee rebellion in Egypt, Babylon, and Persia? Im not being mean Verzen, I would just like some examples or else we can all make claims about history without any evidence, like so...

    "Joseph Stalin tried to breed an army of monkey soldiers to spread communism and atheism to British India"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    The original OT was in Greek.
    excuse me???? no the original OT was in HEBREW and translated into greek the first time by the 70-72 jewish scholars in alexandria. that is wy it is called the septuagent.

    The NT was writtten in Greek and Aramaic.

    Is the tale of Pandora's Box related at all to the story of Adam and Eve
    it is possible but pandora's box was a perversion of the Biblical account not vice versa.

    Also what exactly did the Catholic popes add to the bible?
    the apocyrypha, celibacy of priests, purgatory, indulgences, praying to the saints. praying to mary, and a host of other false doctrines.

    Was there a Maccabee rebellion in Egypt, Babylon, and Persia
    no, just in the land of israel.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    verzen said:

    Thats because your claims are retarded and I dont have the patience to deal with moronic claims at the moment. You just told me that when you copy something down enough times, the meaning doesn't change. Well guess what, there are some words in different languages which don't have a word for their meaning in other languages. The original OT was in Greek. It was translated to Latin, then it was translated to Hebrew, then it was translated to English. What you basically told me is that the Greek version is the EXACT same as the English one. Unfortunately, it is not the same. Plus the Catholic Popes added stuff to the bible that was not originally there.
    Plus, each story in the Bible is just a rehash of older stories. For instance - Adam and Eve? Pandora's Box.
    I cannot understand why you would continue to post your total ignorance on this topic. You are embarrassing yourself in front of a lot of people. The only moronic claims being made are the ones in your post. You don't seem to know anything about what you are writing about.

    It does not make any difference how many times you copy down a word correctly, it is still the same word and it remains the same word that was written. It retains the same meaning in that context that it had at the time it was written. The fact that modern scholars may have more than one potential meaning for a specific word does not change what it actually means.

    For example:

    the Genesis record says: “Now Israel [Jacob] loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age: and he made him a coat of many colors” (Genesis 37:3).

    The sentence contains the expression Ketoneth passiym. The first word is clearly “coat,” but the second term is very rare. Scholars have suggested that it may mean “with long sleeves,” “with much embroidery,” “of choice wool,” or the traditional, “of many colors.” But no one knows for certain.
    taken from http://www.christiancourier.com/arti...s-of-the-bible

    The Old Testament was not originally written in Greek. Most of it was written in Hebrew and some small portions of it were written in Aramaic. All of the New Testament, however, is thought to have been written in Greek.

    Hebrew was a Semitic language that was similar to several other languages of Palestine even prior to the Israelites going to Egypt. These languages centuries later merged into a common language of Palestine called Aramaic. This was the local language of the area in the time of Alexander the Great and into the early centuries A.D.

    After Alexander conquered this area, Greek became a second language of the area and remained the main language of the entire Mediterranean area for many centuries, even after the Roman conquests.

    Greek and Latin had a strange relationship around the First Century. While Latin remained the official language of Rome, Greek was actually more commonly spoken throughout the region.

    The Old Testament was translated from Hebrew texts into Greek and also into Coptic which was the first century language of Egypt.

    After the formation of the Roman church, they undertook to make a Latin version of the Bible and after beginning to do so from Greek translation of the Hebrew, they then started over using then extant copies of Hebrew texts.

    The first "official" English Bible, the King James version, was translated from some of the ancient Hebrew texts, but relied heavily on the Latin Vulgate for meanings of several words.

    Almost all other English translations and paraphrases available today have been developed from the earliest available original language Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts.

    You continue to look foolish on this topic, verzen. Your ignorance on this topic is compounded when you stupidly avoid reading up on it so that you can discuss it from knowledge. I have no idea where you are getting the foolish misinformation you have been repeating unless you are making it up in your own head. Do you have anything remotely authoritative which supports what you are saying? So what is it, verzen? Are you that ignorant on this subject, or is this self-imposed stupidity, or are you just an insane raving maniac?
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Dayton - all I hear is blah blah blah whine whine whine.

    Here, let me help you out.
    There is a word in Amsterdam which means something similar to "legal but illegal." That type of word does not translated to english... at all. Legal but illegal makes no sense to us.
    There are also some words in Russian which, if translated to english, make no sense whatsoever. There are some words that if translated from Greek to Latin make absolutely no sense. There are some words that when translated from Hewbrew to greek make no sense. Then you got people who may have translated the books wrong their entire life. People are fallible. Then you times this process by about 2000 years and what do you got? A whole shit ton of mistranslation and guesses to what words would be when translated to a different language.
    You are the one who sounds foolish in thinking that the "telephone game" has no merit in this conversation. It does. Anything that is hear say or written down can be changed or altered. You take too much faith into the written word. You think it's exacly accurate. Well, none of the people of the bible had a scribe following them around, so how do they know what exact conversations took place? How do they know exacly what Jesus said? That is like taking a few veterans and asking them what were the exact conversations and what exactly happened during WW2. They would not know. Their memory would be fuzzy. Oh and btw, the concept of Hell was added to the bible by one of the popes to scare people into believing.
    You should look up translations sometime. It often has multiple meanings and they only pick one of the meanings to be written down.. or they guess what it should mean. How can anything be completely accurate if its translated.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Verzen,
    take a deep breath. Dayton has the high ground on this one. A graceful retreat is in order. I know you can do it.
    John
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    yeah, he has already stated that the meanings don't always match up, but in the sme breadth it doesn't change it THAT much. I would focus more on the muslim attack of a translated qu'ran
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    verzen says:

    There is a word in Amsterdam which means something similar to "legal but illegal." That type of word does not translated to english... at all. Legal but illegal makes no sense to us.
    Well, I hate to tell you this, but we do have a similar concept in English. We say "quasi legal" to convey this thought. With all due respect to Hollanders, I doubt they have a concept that something is both legal and illegal at the same time. There is no system of logic which permits something to be and to not be at the same time. My feeling is that they they are saying the same thing we say with "quasi legal."

    verzen further ignorates:


    Then you got people who may have translated the books wrong their entire life. People are fallible. Then you times this process by about 2000 years and what do you got? A whole shit ton of mistranslation and guesses to what words would be when translated to a different language.
    This makes no sense at all. How do different people making translations all come up with the exact same "wrong" translation? If you have many people independently translating and coming up with the same "wrong" translation, maybe it is not really wrong. Now then, if you have "people" translating a book wrong their entire life, I would suggest they have not been translating their entire life but repeating their original translation.

    The 2,000 years (another factoid you seem to have pulled out of thin air), works both ways. While we are further removed from the cultural contexts, we also have more period literature to use as reference material which helps us develop a more complete understanding of the different meanings which words had in their different contexts.

    Also, after (whatever arbitrary number you choose) many people have offered suggestions as to what the word may have meant in the context of a specific passage, we are able to select the most plausible or most likely meaning. Translations are not done by some guy down in a dungeon someplace working by himself.

    Usually there are a number of people who are comparing and discussing and eventually agreeing on a translation. And, usually, if there is vehement disagreement, the alternate translations are footnoted.

    In the example used in my last post, the question as to the actual meaning of the phrase translated "coat of many colors" is typical of questionable words and phrases. They have nothing to do with the substance of the message of the Bible. Does it alter the real significance of the Bible if we do not know the exact description of the coat so long as we understand that it was very special and aroused the jealousy of the brothers? But those are the kinds of nit-picky things Bible detractors love to point to as casting huge doubts as to the authority of the Bible.

    verzen then pettyfogs:


    You are the one who sounds foolish in thinking that the "telephone game" has no merit in this conversation. It does. Anything that is hear say or written down can be changed or altered. You take too much faith into the written word. You think it's exacly accurate. Well, none of the people of the bible had a scribe following them around, so how do they know what exact conversations took place? How do they know exacly what Jesus said? That is like taking a few veterans and asking them what were the exact conversations and what exactly happened during WW2. They would not know. Their memory would be fuzzy.
    I can only reiterate that your standard brings into question all historical accounts of those days. But the telephone game is not really a good comparison. It would be more like if you were trying to figure out what a prof said during his lecture and you compared notes. If person A asks person's B through Z what the prof said in the lecture, he is likely to get a pretty good idea of what was said. If person B tells person C who tells person D until you get to person Z and then person Z tells you what person B said, you have the telephone game and a highly suspect quote.

    A telephone game is not what we have. We have the book of Mark which is thought to have been the first of the synoptic gospels to be set down in writing. Mark, by the way, is thought to be a person who was among Jesus' close followers who was present at the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus was arrested and who is also thought to have been present at the crucifixion. He is also thought to have been a longtime companion of Peter in the following days and that many of the accounts are as Peter related them when he spoke to crowds telling them stories about Jesus' deeds and teachings. This is not 25th hand as you attempt to portray.

    Writers of the books we call Mathew and Luke apparently had access to at least portions of Mark's writing as evidenced by some close similarities and phrasing in some accounts. The book of John is considered to have been the last of the gospels and while the John may have had access to the other accounts, he tells many different stories that do not appear in the others.

    Actually, Wikipedia does a pretty good job of explaining who wrote and when they wrote. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_testament#The_Gospels It also supports the idea that the accounts are first or second hand eyewitness accounts.
    There do remain questions about some passages and words, but they have nothing to do with the core message of the Bible.

    verzen declares?

    Oh and btw, the concept of Hell was added to the bible by one of the popes to scare people into believing.
    I think this goes down as pure unadulterated male bovine feces. Where is your documentation for this outrageous claim? What you need is a pre Roman Catholic produced Bible with no references to Hell followed by a Roman Catholic rendition which inserts that concept. What I can say is that if this were true, it would have been revealed long, long ago by protestant scholars.

    And finally verzen pontificates:


    You should look up translations sometime. It often has multiple meanings and they only pick one of the meanings to be written down.. or they guess what it should mean. How can anything be completely accurate if its translated.
    As I said above, it is obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about as to the process by which various Bible translations and paraphrases have been developed, let alone period literature. I really think verzen is the person who needs to look up the history of literary translations as they relate, first to probably all of pre 200 AD literature, as compare to the far more documented history of Bible literature.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    verzen says:

    There is a word in Amsterdam which means something similar to "legal but illegal." That type of word does not translated to english... at all. Legal but illegal makes no sense to us.
    isn't that sort of the subject of "sacrificng one, to save thousands?"
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Well, I hate to tell you this, but we do have a similar concept in English. We say "quasi legal" to convey this thought. With all due respect to Hollanders, I doubt they have a concept that something is both legal and illegal at the same time. There is no system of logic which permits something to be and to not be at the same time. My feeling is that they they are saying the same thing we say with "quasi legal."
    When a person from Holland told me about this concept, they were referring to drug use and prostitution. In Amsterdam, it is known that both drug use and prostitution is legal. However, they are considered, "legal but illegal." I THINK the concept would translate roughly to acceptable but still illegal. Similar to how we view traffic violations. It is illegal to go over the speed limit. But if you go over the speed limit by 3 miles, cops often do not give you a ticket. It is acceptable to go over the speed limit, but it is still illegal. I think that is the concept that they were going for, but I MAY BE WRONG. That is what alot of translations do. They think that is the concept they were going for without knowing 100% if they were right or wrong and they throw it in anyway.

    This makes no sense at all. How do different people making translations all come up with the exact same "wrong" translation? If you have many people independently translating and coming up with the same "wrong" translation, maybe it is not really wrong.
    And yet individuals didn't translate it very often. They translated the bible and other holy books as a group of scribes and scholars and came to a consensus. However, believing that is what it really means simply because it is a consensus is a logical fallacy. - Appeal to Authority/Popularity.

    Usually there are a number of people who are comparing and discussing and eventually agreeing on a translation. And, usually, if there is vehement disagreement, the alternate translations are footnoted.
    I may be a little off on the date, but we covered this in my ancient history class last quarter. Footnoting was implimented around 300-600 AD. There were many translations before footnoting was implimented.


    I think this goes down as pure unadulterated male bovine feces. Where is your documentation for this outrageous claim? What you need is a pre Roman Catholic produced Bible with no references to Hell followed by a Roman Catholic rendition which inserts that concept. What I can say is that if this were true, it would have been revealed long, long ago by protestant scholars.
    Because protestant scholars are the only scholars to declare the history of the bible, am I right?
    Infernus
    The Latin word infernus means "being underneath" and is often translated as "Hell".
    Couldn't this also mean being buried, since being buried is a time honored tradition going back to around 3,000 BC?
    Yet it's translated to "hell" imagine that.

    Abaddon
    The Hebrew word Abaddon, meaning "destruction", is sometimes used as a synonym of Hell
    I don't even know how they came up with this one... How does destruction mean hell exacly?

    Hades
    Hades is the Greek word traditionally used for the Hebrew word Sheol in such works as the Septuagint, the Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible. Like other first-century Jews literate in Greek, Christian writers of the New Testament followed this use. While earlier translations (i.e. the KJV) most often translated Hades as "hell", modern translations use the transliteration "Hades" or render the word as "the grave" in most contexts.
    So if Hades means, "The grave" how is it translated to an underworld filled with ghosts, later to be translated to a place where bad people/non christians go to burn in hell???

    Tartarus
    Appearing only in II Peter 2:4 in the New Testament, both early and modern translations often translate Tartarus as "Hell." Again, Young's Literal Translation is an exception, using "Tartarus".
    This is a story taken from GREEK mythology

    Gehenna
    In the New Testament, both early (i.e. the KJV) and modern translations often translate Gehenna as "Hell."[22] Young's Literal Translation is one notable exception, simply using "Gehenna", which was in fact a geographic location just outside Jerusalem (the Valley of Hinnom).
    So Gehenna was a real place? Wow, with that logic, I am sure that alot of veterans who fought in Iraq would say that place is hell as well.

    Sheol
    In the King James Bible, the Old Testament term Sheol is translated as "Hell" 31 times.[19] However, Sheol was translated as "the grave" 31 other times.[20] Sheol is also translated as "the pit" three times.[21]
    Modern translations, however, do not translate Sheol as "Hell" at all, instead rendering it "the grave," "the pit," or "death." See Intermediate state‎.
    So Sheol means to bury. The pit, the grave, both resemble funerals and burying their dead. Yet, it was translated at first as Hell.

    Evidence enough for you?

    It is apparent to me that you know nothing of what you speak of.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Writers of the books we call Mathew and Luke apparently had access to at least portions of Mark's writing as evidenced by some close similarities and phrasing in some accounts
    i would question this a). since matthew was a disciple and an eyewitness to the events. he surely would not need mark's help and b). you are forgetting the God factor here.

    similarities are NOt an indication of usage, but an indication of common knowledge.

    He is also thought to have been a longtime companion of Peter in the following days and that many of the accounts are as Peter related them when he spoke to crowds telling them stories about Jesus' deeds and teachings
    it is thought that he was first a companion of paul who dismissed him and then mark went to be with peter.

    a good book to read on the subjectis The Search for the 12 Apostles' by Mcbirine
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    arche said:

    It is thought that he was first a companion of paul who dismissed him and then mark went to be with peter.
    Not sure that is still current prevailing thought as there remains some question as to whether the Mark who wrote the Gospel of Mark is the same as the John Mark who was in, out and then back into Paul's ministry.

    The writer of Mark is popularly considered to be the person mentioned in Mark 14:51-52 -- "And a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body; and they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked." If so, this person would have been an eyewitness to things in the latter part of Jesus ministry but perhaps not so familiar with the early part, necessitating his reliance on someone who had been in the ministry for the duration.

    John Mark of Acts was the son of Mary, the sister of Barnabas who accompanied Paul on his first missionary journey and lobbied to have John Mark accompany them. During the trip John Mark became discouraged or became homesick and returned home. Paul refused to let him go on his second trip but we later find that this same John Mark has become an important cog in Paul's ministry. We see this in Colossians 4:10 where he is clearly identified as Barnabas' nephew and in 2 Timothy 4:11 .

    Peter mentions him in 1 Peter 5:13 and I think this would most likely be the Mark who is credited with writing the Gospel of Mark. But there is a time problem as to whether the same person could have been so deeply involved in both ministries.

    The Gospel of Mark was most likely written after the death of Paul so we also have the problem of no obvious Pauline influences in the Gospel of Mark (or any of the others) which some people think would surely be there.

    I do not, personally, think it is a critical question, just one of the things which is not completely settled and may never be to the satisfaction of all. I think the worst thing anyone can do is become adamant on one position or the other.

    There are a lot of things we don't know whether we are talking religion, politics or science. It is always counterproductive as well as stagnant to take an immovable stand on things which are just not fully known and settled.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Not sure that is still current prevailing thought as there remains some question as to whether the Mark who wrote the Gospel of Mark is the same as the John Mark who was in, out and then back into Paul's ministry.
    okay but i will stick with the original as i highly doubt an annonymous mentioning of a boy running away is enough evidence to reconsider.

    The Gospel of Mark was most likely written after the death of Paul so we also have the problem of no obvious Pauline influences in the Gospel of Mark (or any of the others) which some people think would surely be there.
    that is highly debatable and the scholars i have read give wide latitude though most indicate an early authorship not a late one.

    But there is a time problem as to whether the same person could have been so deeply involved in both ministries.
    peter and paul were both in rome, so tradition says, which means it is highly possible for him to be involved with both people. we do not know the scope of his duties so who is to say what he did or did not do.

    one thing that is critical is that we do not label an annonymous person with an identity without proof, so i would dismiss that secondary line of thinking as pure speculation and not worth mentioning.

    i didn't mean to interupt your discussion with verzen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    trust me, you didn't interrupt it, you simply gave verzen a chance to back out quietly (which he won't do) and forget this horrible HORRIBLE line of questioning and evidence that shows he has a slight... problem... with his line of logic.

    Sorry man, but it is difficult for your point to maintain validity here. As much as I agree about your opinion, this facet of the history of the bible is true, the translations aren't, really, that much different. Nearly anything can be expressed in ALL languages, whether or not you feel that way. It just may take more or less words than the original language. I notice this when I talk and learn Spanish from my coworkers, they express one word in Spanish, that can take a whole sentence in English. It's wrong to say that mistranslations can easily happen, because if the translator is careful, there won't be any loss of information. Point goes to DT
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •