# How Old Do You Believe The Earth Is?



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Spin-off from another thread.

How old is the earth?

[Diehard] Christians believe in the 6,000 year old range.

It is generally accepted by the scientific and non-religious communities that the Earth is about 4.4 to 4.6 billion years old.

What is your take?

(Personally, I think people who hold to the 6,000 year old thing are delusional nut jobs...but that's just my opinion.)


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I don't think you'll be able to lure any YECs out of the woodwork around here.

But you may be able to get an ID argument going if you're subtle about it.

You should edit your post to say that "some Christians and Muslims believe that the earth is about 6000 years old." Not all Christians take their bible literally.


Cheers


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Christians believe in the 6,000 year old range.


Please don't stereotype all of us. Broad brush and all that.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> What is your take?
> 
> (Personally, I think people who hold to the 6,000 year old thing are delusional nut jobs...but that's just my opinion.)


My take is that people who hold the beliefs of others in such disdain that they stoop to calling them delusional nut jobs, should remember that when pointing a finger at others, there are three pointing back at them.


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> Christians believe in the 6,000 year old range.


No. SOME fundamentalist Christians believe the earth is 6,000 years old.

Funny how the Old Testament, from which is culled the so-called fact of a 6,000 year old earth, is the Jewish heritage yet you would be hard pressed to find a Jewish creationist. Why is that?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I was looking for a figure of 4.55 billion years and found a perfect "home" in your range of 4+ billion years.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> My take is that people who hold the beliefs of others in such disdain that they stoop to calling them delusional nut jobs, should remember that when pointing a finger at others, there are three pointing back at them.


So what should we call the proponents of such obvious irrationalities? I got quite a bit of grief for describing them as mentally ill, which is how I see them. My reading of the DSM IV places these folks squarely in the schizophrenic camp, but apparently describing them as such is hurtful. I'd agree that 'delusional nut job' is probably not much of an improvement, but what do you call someone who denies mountains of empirical evidence and insists that their favorite bronze-age fairy tale is literally true, that they hear the voices of characters in this story, and that they have supernatural friends that will protect them and torture anyone who doubts their existence for all eternity? I mean, really, 'delusional nut job' is a perfect fit.

Cheers


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

I'm amended my initial post to say the the diehard Christians believe it's 6000yo.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> My take is that people who hold the beliefs of others in such disdain that they stoop to calling them delusional nut jobs, should remember that when pointing a finger at others, there are three pointing back at them.


I'm waiting for those three pointing back at me. I see nine (so far) pointing at Stockwell Day.

So, SINC. If someone said to you water isn't made of hydrogen and oxygen, but rather a balanced mixture of love and Playdough, what would you call that person? Sane or nutjob?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

There has to be some kind of gentle medium between empiricists and the people they so desperately need to brand as nut jobs. What this thread sorely needs is more diplomacy and consideration, not the polarizing extremism we're seeing now. 

All I can say is that too many in the scientist camp are doing an excellent job of besmirching their own reputation. If you're so confident of your findings you needn't stoop to the insecure measures of calling your opponents nutjobs. It's like advertising your own frailty with a big fat neon sign. What a strange campaign to convince others of the validity of one's opinion.

I side with those who consider the earth far greater than a few thousand years. But this thread is a perfect example of the greater folly of mankind. Evidently we would rather bicker and make enemies of our own kind than unite for our own greater good. What bloody foolishness it can amount to.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> I'm waiting for those three pointing back at me. I see nine (so far) pointing at Stockwell Day.
> 
> So, SINC. If someone said to you water isn't made of hydrogen and oxygen, but rather a balanced mixture of love and Playdough, what would you call that person? Sane or nutjob?


One can respond to persons of a different belief in a polite and respectful manner in a spirit of live and let live, or one can choose to be snide and mean spirited.

I choose the former and you obviously choose the latter. I much prefer my choice.


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> I'm amended my initial post to say the the diehard Christians believe it's 6000yo.


Actually, the year shown on today's issue of Haaretz is 5767.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> There has to be some kind of gentle medium between empiricists and the people they so desperately need to brand as nut jobs. What this thread sorely needs is more diplomacy and consideration, not the polarizing extremism we're seeing now.
> 
> All I can say is that too many in the scientist camp are doing an excellent job of besmirching their own reputation. If you're so confident of your findings you needn't stoop to the insecure measures of calling your opponents nutjobs. It's like advertising your own frailty with a big fat neon sign. What a strange campaign to convince others of the validity of one's opinion.
> 
> I side with those who consider the earth far greater than a few thousand years. But this thread is a perfect example of the greater folly of mankind. Evidently we would rather bicker and make enemies of our own kind than unite for our own greater good. What bloody foolishness it can amount to.


:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: 

I agree Max, the scientific types use public ridicule to support their views.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
> 
> I agree Max, the scientific types use public ridicule to support their views.


No, the scientific types use scientific evidence to support their views. They use public ridicule to shame those who use a 1500yo book as evidence.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Well, at least you admit to using ridicule, which is just plain mean spirited.


----------



## JAMG (Apr 1, 2003)

I have no direct evidence that the world is more than 42 years old...

My parent insist that the world is at least twice that...

but i don't believe them... They are so old...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

The problem with the ridicule is not knowing when to stop. Too easy to damage your own credibilty by appearing anxious and easily riled. Erodes the stability of your platform. Makes you look weak. I shouldn't have to point this out. It amazes me, time after time, to see otherwise fascinating and lively arguments run aground on the shoals of spite and bitter invective.


----------



## modsuperstar (Nov 23, 2004)

I think the part that is toughest to swallow with the 6000 year idea is the fact that I would have been alive for .004333% of the Earth's existance to this point. And that just seems inordinately high for me to buy into.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So what would you term those whose beliefs include mutilating young girls' genitals. Nutjobs or criminals.

Toleration of ignorance disguised as "sacred belief" is a slippery slope.

When neurotic eccentricities start to intrude on the advancement and teaching of human knowledge and the safety of children both mentally and physically....it's time to call account.

Time is now.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Slippery slope indeed. Why stick with just religion, then? An easy target, perhaps? I'll buy that. But hey, there's lots of targets out there for moral outrage. Let's talk about how sane it is that humans kill people who kill people to prove that killing people is wrong; that brings into the sphere of debate all sorts of people, not just self-defined religious ones. We could talk about how moral it is to jet about the world, yet rail on against others who apparently aren't alarmed about global warming. How sane is _that?_ We could talk about Apple and their dismal track record with regard to implementing green measures. Lots of meat in these and other subjects.

There are plenty of instances wherein people act in an unscientific way. There are plenty of ways in which self-proclaimed 'tolerant' folks act astonishingly intolerant of those whose opinions they disagree with.

If we're going to 'call account,' better get in line. It's going to be a loooong thread. There's a good deal of hypocrisy to flush out.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Dave


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Frankly why is it so hard for some religious people to accept science? Can we not be both scientific and spiritual equally? Regardless of whatever we learn about our environment, science can't and won't be able explain everything.

My, some like to crap on science, but do they sure embrace its spin-offs.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MannyP Design said:


> My, some like to crap on science, but do they sure embrace its spin-offs.


They do indeed. I'm guessing that those who hold the primacy of religious belief above all else feel terribly threatened by science - something for which they have no adequate defense. It's often easier to discredit a thing than to genuinely try and understand it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

It seems to me that people don't crap on science until those who believe only science start with the ridicule. That's when the problem starts. While science has given us many benefits as Manny has so correctly pointed out, only fools believe that all science is right all the time.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> only fools believe that all science is right all the time.


You are correct. We should always question science, and demand evidence to support conclusions.

Is it fair to say that only fools believe in religious teachings in the face of massive supporting evidence to the contrary?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> You are correct. We should always question science, and demand evidence to support conclusions.
> 
> Is it fair to say that only fools believe in religious teachings in the face of massive supporting evidence to the contrary?


No, but it would be fair to say, "only fools believe that all religion is right all the time".

Religions do in fact get some things right.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> Religions do in fact get some things right.


Such as...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Such as...


Why did I just know that would be next? 

Oh, things like . . .

* Goodwill toward your fellow man.

* Love thy neighbour.

* Thou shalt not steal.

* Thou shalt not kill.

There are many others that would not be part of our laws had it not been for religion of one kind or another.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> * Goodwill toward your fellow man.


Unless he happens to be Muslim


SINC said:


> * Love thy neighbour.


But not if he's gay or a SSM 


SINC said:


> * Thou shalt not steal.


Unless we need the oil... then we can safely invade a country and use any excuse. 


SINC said:


> * Thou shalt not kill.


Unless it's for capital punishment


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Because time iteself isn't actually easy to comprehend or quantify (relativity, quantum physics, etc. have made the definition more fluid) I've seen many hybrid religious views that attempt to reconcile the two. Example: the universe was created 6,000 years ago, but fully formed with rocks that appeared ancient and stars that were created with light streaming from them, already in progress. At a certain point, it no longer matters if we perceive the Earth as billions of years old or if it just acts that way.

Mutilating the genitals of a little girl has real-life ranmifications and is an extremely bad comparison.

Max: Good post on hypocrisy.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> Unless he...


gets banned from EhMac for cruelly defaming fellow forum members.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Why am I not surprised you are starting with the harassment again so soon?

For the record:



ArtistSeries said:


> Unless he happens to be Muslim


* One of my best friends, Habib, is Muslim. We've been friends since we met back in the mid 70s when he worked for the old Winnipeg Tribune. Over the years I have shared many of his customs at his invitation and have the utmost respect for him and his religion.


ArtistSeries said:


> But not if he's gay or a SSM


* Being gay or having a same sex relationship are not issues with me, only the legal definition of marriage. I said it before here hundreds of times.


ArtistSeries said:


> Unless we need the oil... then we can safely invade a country and use any excuse.


* Bringing your personal interpretation of world politics into it just doesn't cut it. It's a reach and a long one at that given the subject matter of the item posted.


ArtistSeries said:


> Unless it's for capital punishment


* I am also on record as opposing capital punishment which is well known on this board. 

Sigh.

Now please, go harass someone else for a change.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Oh man,

Another Christian bashing thread from the self described beacons of tolerance, enlightenment and cultural acceptance. Everybody get your bats out, swing early and often. LOL!!:yawn:

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

guytoronto said:


> I'm amended my initial post to say the the diehard Christians believe it's 6000yo.


<--- Diehard Christian. Don't believe in 6000 year old earth.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

There is enough twaddle in this world that I don’t think that ridicule is unjustifiable. 
What may scare some is that all human knowledge is provisional and ever growing. 

Bertrand Russell wrote: “Science is at no moment quite right but it is seldom quite wrong, and has, as a rule, a better chance of being right than the theories of the unscientific. It is, therefore, rational to accept it hypothetically.”

Beliefs such as the world is only 6000 years old is an assault on reason – no matter what claptrap is cloaked around it. 
*Spoiler here don't read if under 10 years old* – Many of us encourage or children to believe in Santa Claus at a young age seeing no harm in it but if your child of 20 still believed in Santa Claus, we’d see something wrong. Max speaks of “tolerance” – I’d prefer relativism. 

ID, just like the notion that the world is 6000years old is buffoonery and is enfeebling on modern society. Some find science too difficult to comprehend but this is not an excuse to smear the lines between reasonable hypotheses and unmitigated bunk. That distinction is lost upon many and is seen as a mark of disrespect. 

If some prefer to strenuous avoid reality, no one denying them that right, they can be happy in their blissful ignorance. Nothing evolutionary there anyways….


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Relativism has its own pitfalls. It's flexible and adaptable but at certain crucial points its own elasticity fails to stand up to the test. Sometimes life or death moments call for a kind of absolute commitment for which relativism is woefully unprepared.

I prefer my greys to the hideous clash of black and white. But sometimes the chasm between those two divides must be spanned, and you can't do it by equivocating about relativism.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Truthfully in a large Christian community I have met perhaps two people who believed the world was only 6,000 years old, but admitted that all of the universe had the properties of something that was 4 billion years old. I have met perhaps one person who thought that humans walked with dinosaurs--they were not sure.

I have met many non-Christians who belive that vaccinations are the major cause of autism. I have met many non-Christians who believe the Apollo Moon landing was a hoax. I have met many non-Christians who have peculiar views about the way in which the World Trade Centre collapsed. As long as these views are not directly harmful to me or others, I see no reason to either harrass or insult them.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> I have met many non-Christians who belive that vaccinations are the major cause of autism. I have met many non-Christians who believe the Apollo Moon landing was a hoax. I have met many non-Christians who have peculiar views about the way in which the World Trade Centre collapsed. As long as these views are not directly harmful to me or others, I see no reason to either harrass or insult them.


Yeah, let's talk about the WTC towers and the inexplicable faith that some have in their 'engineered' collapse. Let's talk about people who spend a little too much time researching on the net and speak of "Area 51" in hushed, almost reverential tones. Reminds me of a colleague down the hall from my studio who believes fervently in aliens (he's been visited by them in his youth, you see) and paints them with an awe-inspiring exactitude and loyalty. I think he's a swell guy but I don't put stock in everything he believes either.

Why do we operate with the assumption that we must all believe in the same sets of principles or the Earth will spin off of its axis? Talk about irrational.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> Why did I just know that would be next?
> 
> Oh, things like . . .
> 
> ...


These are not facts, such as "the earth is 6000 years old". These are words of wisdom. These are lifestyle choices.

All four things you listed there are tied to no one religion, and are actually followed by many atheists.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Max said:


> Relativism has its own pitfalls. It's flexible and adaptable but at certain crucial points its own elasticity fails to stand up to the test.


Yes it does have limits.
I know you prefer your greys but just like the flat earth believers, sometimes you have to move on. 

MF, Christian are not the only who suffer delusions and irrationality - we only have to look at the % of people who believe in UFOs. Public opinion is often wrong but is it ignorance or stupidity?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

I personally don't know any Christians that believe the earth is 6000 years old but to approach the Bible like a science text book is to miss the point of the message. If I did know someone that did I could care less. I know people that think cows are sacred but don't feel the need or have the desire to bash them for it. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Max said:


> Why do we operate with the assumption that we must all believe in the same sets of principles or the Earth will spin off of its axis? Talk about irrational.


Hardly irrational. Logic and the conclusions are often the same even if achieved from different angles. English and French schools teach math with different methods but the results are the same (2+2 will always = 4, unless you are travelling at high speeds - but that's another debate).

Lets not confuse myth with fact.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> These are not facts, such as "the earth is 6000 years old". These are words of wisdom. These are lifestyle choices.
> 
> All four things you listed there are tied to no one religion, and are actually followed by many atheists.


While tied to no one religion, they are indeed the very foundations of most religions. I guess the next obvious question is why do atheists willingly follow choices conceived by those who believe in a "sky-daddy" as they so fondly refer to it as. That is the part of religion that I said is right.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MannyP Design said:


> Can we not be both scientific and spiritual equally?


This is a very deep epistemological question. I certainly can't. I can't believe in magical transcendent forces and still do controlled experiments. How could I be sure that some super natural force didn't move the band on my gel if I believed such forces exist? Despite the obvious example of fine scientists who describe themselves as religious, the scientific method makes the assumption that the supernatural either doesn't exist or doesn't have effects in our universe (which, I have successfully argued in the past are equivalent positions). All the Abrahamic religions include some concept like 'miracles' which explicitly break that assumption, making the scientific method invalid. So it seems to me that you can be a Christian or you can be a scientist, but not both (at least, not both at the same time).

My Christian colleagues argue that they "just don't think about it."

Interestingly, in a society where between 90 and 95% of people identify themselves as having some religious belief, religious adherence within the scientific community within that same society is well below 50% and closer to 25% among biologists. If there really is no conflict between 'spirituality' and science, why would that be?

I'm not saying I know, but it does strike me as curious.

Cheers


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> While tied to no one religion, they are indeed the very foundations of most religions. I guess the next obvious question is why do atheists follow choices conceived by those who believe in a "sky-daddy" as they so fondly refer to it as.


Or you could ask why to most religions institutionalized choices that atheists follow - don't assume that these moral guidelines originated from religion.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Lets not confuse myth with fact.


Well, that's a nice, glib one-liner. Kind of long in the tooth, to tell you the truth, but it's still a serviceable line after all these centuries of argument.

If religion did not exist, humanity would be forced to invent it (of course, some say that this is true of the concept of god).

If the proponents of science heartily wish to eradicate religion, I submit they would merely be replacing one kind of religion for another - although I would also predict that the attempt will fail miserably. In any case, placing science on a pedestal, wherein it is worshipped as an all-encompassing solution to the problems of life on this planet, is itself a wish reflective of a fervently religious mind. Ascribing superstitious, distrustful motives to those who would denigrate or criticize various aspects of science is an act steeped in suspicion, fear and superstition.

Both science and religions busy themselves with conjuring visions. I think they make fascinating playmates, these two. Like bastard children of the human condition. Pity the bad blood between them continues to take up so much of our time... I wonder what they could do together if they ever decided to play nice.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

This is the opinion of the scientist responsible for one of the most profound scientific acheivements of our times.



> For Collins, unravelling the human genome did not create a conflict in his mind. Instead, it allowed him to “glimpse at the workings of God”.
> 
> “When you make a breakthrough it is a moment of scientific exhilaration because you have been on this search and seem to have found it,” he said. “But it is also a moment where I at least feel closeness to the creator in the sense of having now perceived something that no human knew before but God knew all along.
> 
> “When you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1 billion-letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind, you can’t survey that going through page after page without a sense of awe. I can’t help but look at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God’s mind.”


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2220484,00.html

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Max said:


> Well, that's a nice, glib one-liner. Kind of long in the tooth, to tell you the truth, but it's still a serviceable line after all these centuries of argument.


Thanks.



Max said:


> If the proponents of science heartily wish to eradicate religion, I submit they would merely be replacing one kind of religion for another -
> .


I have yet to see where science wants to do away with religion - the power of myth is ingrained in man and I see no reason why they cannot co-exist within some people (if they so choose).


----------



## rondini (Dec 6, 2001)

I believe the Earth is one day old. Every night, while a sleep, wizards from the planet Vorlon, build a fresh new one for me to use. It's exactly the same as the one from the day before, except everything that happened that day is added to it for the next day. Kind of like an auto-save feature


----------



## Heart (Jan 16, 2001)

The flat earth or the round earth?
And do we count when the universe rotated around us or when we rotate around the sun.



> only fools believe that all science is right all the time


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL. You're welcome, AS.

Look, some people in here, MacDoc in particular, sometimes acts as if he were personally trying to eradicate religion and replace it with... science, I guess. I'm not sure and I'd rather let him speak to it, but the vitriol and impatience which he reserves for religion is something I've noticed on more than one occasion. As have you, I'm sure.

I'm guessing most people , without giving it too much agonized consideration, make accommodations for both religion and science. For some however, that's less than ideal; one or the other must rule, and in so doing the victor must absorb the other. That's an interesting notion but I don't necessarily buy into it myself.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> * Goodwill toward your fellow man.
> 
> * Love thy neighbour.
> 
> ...


So you can't think of any exceptions to these rules? One of the fundamental differences between deontological ethical systems based on religious precepts and consequetialist ethical systems based on rational consideration of how societies function is that the religious ethical systems tend to be brittle: this is always right, that is always wrong. In contrast, ethical systems based on a rational analysis of the consequences of certain kinds of actions in a social context give us more shades of grey. Killing is usually a bad thing, but there are exceptions where it can be the lesser of two evils.

As it turns out, consequentialist ethical systems, like Millsian Utilitariansm, generally come to the same conclusions as deontological systems derived from religious precepts, but the circumstances where they differ are the important ones where debates rage, and where I almost always find the religious systems lacking.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> While tied to no one religion, they are indeed the very foundations of most religions. I guess the next obvious question is why do atheists willingly follow choices conceived by those who believe in a "sky-daddy" as they so fondly refer to it as. That is the part of religion that I said is right.


It's perfectly possible, and even common, to be right for the wrong reasons.

If I predict that it will snow tomorrow because all trout live in trees, I might be right about the snow, despite the obvious fallacy of my reasoning.

Similarly, it's possible to be wrong for the right reasons. If you logic is sound, but you're operating on flawed assumptions, you'll get the wrong answer even though your logic may be completely valid.

Religions have long provided uneducated and irrational people with rules they can memorize and follow, which will be right often enough that their completely invalid underpinnings are irrelevant. Getting people who are frightened of you to memorize things is a lot easier than getting them to understand subtle social contracts. So it's been an effective tool for controlling the masses throughout human history.

Cheers


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Max said:


> Look, some people in here, MacDoc in particular, sometimes acts as if he were personally trying to eradicate religion and replace it with... science, I guess.


Science is the new religion for some and it's wrong IMO. 

I'm guilty of mocking religion but not spirituality.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Max said:


> In any case, placing science on a pedestal, wherein it is worshipped as an all-encompassing solution to the problems of life on this planet, is itself a wish reflective of a fervently religious mind.


Indeed. Science is a method, not a belief. And it is appropriate to only certain kinds of questions, and the answers it provides are of no spiritual value whatsoever. Science will only tell us what is not true. Never what _is_ true or what _ought_ to be done about it.



> Pity the bad blood between [science and Religion] continues to take up so much of our time... I wonder what they could do together if they ever decided to play nice.


I do think this largely arises from the inappropriate application of these 'ways of knowing'. Science is a way of finding out about the natural universe, and has no business being applied to questions like 'the meaning of life'. Religion has often crossed the line and made proclamations about the natural world, about which it has no means of establishing credibility, and it has been repeatedly shown to be wrong when it does so. Personally, I have no use for religion at all, and have never found any topic on which religions provides any insight whatsoever, but I have no complaint with others who want to waste their time with these ancient superstitions, as long as they don't try to apply their strictures to others, or try to make claims about the natural world based upon them.

Gould called science and Religion 'non-overlapping magesteria.' I largely agree, although I am highly skeptical that Religion has anything of value to teach anyone. But I have to admit that I'm largely uninterested in the questions that Religion is able to address.

Cheers


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Toleration of ignorance disguised as "sacred belief" is a slippery slope.


The words "I beleive" are the cheapest in the language because they brook no discussion. They veritably stand for ignorance. In the fullness of time notions of god/religion will become a mere and somewhat embarassing footnote in history - we will all be the better for it when that time comes and there will be no more bloodshed and violence in the name of my "special friend" is better than your "special friend".


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Good posts AS and bryanC. Maybe we're getting somewhere. I really like that term "non-overlapping magisteria."

As for me, I don't know what I am all that interested in the answers religion purports to address - but _the questions_ blow my mind. As with the method behind science, I am for some reason interested more in the quest than in the end goal... perhaps because I am mortal...?


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

I don't know very many Christians who think the world is in the range of 6000 years old. I would say somewhere close to a majority of Christians I know have some kind of issue with evolution, of course, that means somewhere in the neighborhood of half of them don't.

Maybe those numbers are different south of the border.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Max said:


> Good posts AS and bryanC. Maybe we're getting somewhere. I really like that term "non-overlapping magisteria."


Yeah, too bad I can't spell it.  



> As for me, I don't know what I am all that interested in the answers religion purports to address - but _the questions_ blow my mind.


I shouldn't have said I'm not interested in the questions... I'm just so jaded because of the lame-ass answers religions and most philosophies have provided over the millennia that I don't really have much interest in hearing more from those perspectives.



> As with the method behind science, I am for some reason interested more in the quest than in the end goal... perhaps because I am mortal...?


It's a given that science will never achieve it's goal, but the learning is the fun part, and there's nothing quite like learning something that has never before been understood in the history of the universe.

cheers


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

zoziw said:


> I don't know very many Christians who think the world is in the range of 6000 years old. I would say somewhere close to a majority of Christians I know have some kind of issue with evolution, of course, that means somewhere in the neighborhood of half of them don't.


Makes you wonder why most don't believe the Earth is 6000yo, but are willing to accept creationism.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

zoziw said:


> I would say somewhere close to a majority of Christians I know have some kind of issue with evolution, of course


This is a topic that I really can't resist using for fundamentalist-bashing. I certainly know a lot of Christians, and none of them dispute evolution (indeed, one of them is an evolutionary biologist). But why is it that so many Christians have a problem with accepting the obvious?

Can you shed any light on this?

Cheers


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

bryanc said:


> But why is it that so many Christians have a problem with accepting the obvious?
> 
> Can you shed any light on this?


No problem.... -> It is all too easy to hide behind the words "I believe"..... No thinking required, discouraged even.. - might see through the veil.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bryanc said:


> This is a topic that I really can't resist using for fundamentalist-bashing. I certainly know a lot of Christians, and none of them dispute evolution (indeed, one of them is an evolutionary biologist). But why is it that so many Christians have a problem with accepting the obvious?
> 
> Can you shed any light on this?
> 
> Cheers


I think this statement sums it up for me.



> When you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1 billion-letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind, you can’t survey that going through page after page without a sense of awe. I can’t help but look at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God’s mind.”


Either I believe an intelligent designer made this so or I believe it was purely chance, accident, mutation that created the 3.1 billion-letter instruction book from space dust. I would require stronger faith to believe the latter.
As for the 7 day creation story, again to read it literally is to miss its message.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Staring in the face of god?

Scientists *always* use metaphor when speaking to the multitude of morons for whom the scientific explanation is beyond their grasp.





MacGuiver said:


> This is the opinion of the scientist responsible for one of the most profound scientific acheivements of our times.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Either I believe an intelligent designer made this so or I believe it was purely chance, accident, mutation that created the 3.1 billion-letter instruction book from space dust. I would need stronger faith to believe the latter.


Were I would disagree is when/if you'd call I.D. a theory and would want to instruct this in schools as fact. The only textbook that creationist seem to base their beliefs on is the Old Testament. 

Even calling it "intelligent design" or "abrupt appearance theory" is misleading - it's just a more scientific sounding name for "creationism". 
As such, it's a religious belief and should not enter biology or any other science class.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Ahh, yes, thank you for the charitable clarification. Anyone whose scientific understanding is less than that of the esteemed high priests of Science are, by definition, morons.

LOL

Thus the illuminating debate continues.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

However

Are you saying the guy that unravelled the Human Genome is a moron? LOL!!

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Max said:


> Anyone whose scientific understanding is less than that of the esteemed high priests of Science are, by definition, morons.


Yes. Because an understanding of what science means is really very simple.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

So what goes Genesis mean? What is the message--that God didn't create the world in seven days, or is it to remind us to chill out after long week of work? Why would the almighty God need rest?


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

MannyP Design said:


> So what goes Genesis mean? What is the message--that God didn't create the world in seven days, or is it to remind us to chill out after long week of work? Why would the almighty God need rest?


What "message"? It is folklore...


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

No. The opposite.

Wow.




MacGuiver said:


> However
> 
> Are you saying the guy that unravelled the Human Genome is a moron? LOL!!
> 
> ...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

rgray said:


> Yes. Because an understanding of what science means is really very simple.


Care to illuminate for the lesser ones among us?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

rgray said:


> What "message"? It is folklore...


But it's in the Bible... it's the gospel, right?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

rgray said:


> ...there will be no more bloodshed and violence in the name of my "special friend" is better than your "special friend".


We can just kill each other for better and more scientific reasons.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

MannyP Design said:


> But it's in the Bible... it's the gospel, right?


Yeah, uh, right :yawn:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> This is a topic that I really can't resist using for fundamentalist-bashing. I certainly know a lot of Christians, and none of them dispute evolution (indeed, one of them is an evolutionary biologist). But why is it that so many Christians have a problem with accepting the obvious?
> 
> Can you shed any light on this?


One of the main problems Christians have with it, is Genesis describing the creation of "Man" in God's own image. Protozoans or monkeys don't really ennoble this part of the Creation story. That's the crux of it. 

It isn't so much that people can't imagine God guiding evolution, it's the elimination of a large part of the ingrained idea that Man has been created in God's image.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

HowEver said:


> No. The opposite.
> 
> Wow.


Read the story. He wasn't dumbing it down for the great unwashed as you suggest.
He shares the believes as they do. He must be a moron like me. So was Einstein.

Cheers


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Macfury said:


> It isn't so much that people can't imagine God guiding evolution, it's the elimination of a large part of the ingrained idea that Man has been created in God's image.


I would think (I'm neither creationist nor religious, so just guessing) that if evolutionary theory is correct, this also implies that humans are not the end of the line, so we may be -- indeed surely will be -- superceded by more successful species (singular or plural), possibly more intelligent than us (completely destroying the idea of man being made in God's image) or simply more successful in brute biological terms (calling into question the meaningfulness of life as taught by most religions). 

Is that in line with what most believers believe?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

iMatt said:


> Is that in line with what most believers believe?


I would say not. Humans are considered in religious terms to be the supreme creation (though not perfect).


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I would agree in principle if you're taking the Christian strain of thought into consideration. But I don't see all of the other dominant religions falling into step with this. Buddhism, for one, would balk at establishing primacy of humans... rather, they are simply one component of a holistic whole... they would eschew such ranking as being wrong-headed.

Don't know enough about Hinduism or Islamic strains of thought to comment.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I would say not. Humans are considered in religious terms to be the supreme creation (though not perfect).


I think I need to re-phrase my question (not very elegantly, I'm afraid): is my description of the implications of evolutionary theory for the future of humanity part of what makes believers reluctant to put stock in evolutionary theory?

Your answer that we're the supreme creation makes me think it's probably a "yes." After all, a supreme creation would have to be the end of the line, wouldn't it?


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

iMatt said:


> I think I need to re-phrase my question (not very elegantly, I'm afraid): is my description of the implications of evolutionary theory for the future of humanity part of what makes believers reluctant to put stock in evolutionary theory?
> 
> Your answer that we're the supreme creation makes me think it's probably a "yes." After all, a supreme creation would have to be the end of the line, wouldn't it?


Since "supreme creation" is a complete fallacy, no problem. The "future of humanity" is quite uncertain. Today is just the latest iteration of evolution which continues to operate 'as we speak'.... As Maggy Muggins used to say, "I wonder what will happen tomorrow".


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Classical Indian thought acknowledges man creating the gods and that they are aspects of man's "nature".
The division between a person and the universe is illusionary. Tricky for western dualist including me ( a monist ) to put in words



> Here's the equation: Brahman=Atman=atman. Brahman is the totality of the universe as it is present outside of you;, Atman is the totality of the universe as it is present within you; Brahman is the totality of the world known objectively, Atman is the totality of the world known subjectively


There are lots of variations on this in sacred writings and it swings in and out of concepts such as universal order without a godhead to very specific pantheon.

The writings reflect the age and about 4,000 years of thought on the nature of man within the universe...has moments of brilliant insights with moments of silly speculation.

••

Since the genome leader is being held up to such esteem does that mean our very close kinship with the rest of the great ape family is being acknowledged here?
Perhaps that when you look in the eyes of a self conscious animal you see a variation of the same intelligence we have peering back??
I'd sure accept that as some progress.

I mean we did interbreed with chimps a few times....... 
Too bad it wasn't the bonobo's, the world would be much more fun.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

6000 years roughly coincides with current understanding of the emergence of "civilisation" (read: beer), which isn't surprising considering that it emerged in the area from which the related religions (the 6000 club?) emerged. 

To extend this to the Earth is ridiculous. I'm not up on geology understanding but 2 billion, 4 billion, 8 billion...who knows. It is worth researching but it would need a definition: the original "rock"; when it reached a similar mass to current; developed an atmosphere etc.

Any notion of roughly 6000 has no rational basis. One can argue that it's 6000 years old to precisely the same level of proof that one car argue their own Godhood. 

Is there some general group or ranking of topics where helpful education gives way to ridicule gives way to personal attack? I know I have my lines, and that they are at different places than other ehmacers. Here's just a sample of the sorts of topics I'm thinking of for this continuum of response:

6000 year-old world

No evolution (the strict sense; not a prime-mover followed by evolution)

Little green men molesting livestock

Classic 20th and 21st century conspiracy theory subset

Little green men visting us, but leaving our livestock alone...perhaps landing in fields leaving neat patterns

SSM

Human-induced climate change

Mac vs PC

Beejism beejacon

Note: this post was created 4.62390478 billion years ago. Prove me wrong. Time headers aren't enough.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

rgray said:


> Since "supreme creation" is a complete fallacy, no problem. The "future of humanity" is quite uncertain. Today is just the latest iteration of evolution which continues to operate 'as we speak'....


I agree completely; I'm just trying to get a better handle on the thinking of those who reject the overwhelming evidence for evolution.

Now, *if* I were a believer, I'd look at the mountains of scientific evidence for common ancestry, an old earth, an even older universe, an immense yet apparently finite universe, etc., and stand in even greater awe of the creator's work than anything in any holy book could ask me to believe. The sheer vastness and complexity of it all would see to that. My awe would include a sense of wonderment about what the future holds, whether I believed there was a grand plan or whether I believed that the creator set the universe in motion and sat back to watch what happened. 

That does not seem to be a very common response among believers, though. Instead, most seem to prefer whatever comfort comes from taking holy books as the literal Word of God, and I truly do not understand why. I suspect, but am not sure, that it really comes down to having to reconsider the idea that humans are the best and last thing God created.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Beej you DO know how that number was adduced?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

iMatt said:


> the idea that humans are the best and last thing God created.


I don't think it is nice to argue that God is disturbingly incompetent at this whole creation thing.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Beej said:


> Little green men molesting livestock


Livestock, hell... What is it with these 'little green men'.... How come they are only interested in livestock and drunken ******** at some cross road outside "West Buttf*ck, USA"...... It is like they have the "science" to get here across the galaxies, but yet don't know anything about 'sampling'....???? Don't buy it!!! For my money, 'little green men' and 'god' and 'santa claus' are in the same catagory - fiction!!!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Beej you DO know how that number was adduced?


Not sure what adduced means, but if you mean deduced from the Bible, then yes. I'm just putting in perspective without scripture -- it is the approximate age of known civilisation. Sidenote: ties directly back to the notion of God's ultimate creation and defining the universe in those terms. 

The Bible contains records/stories based upon stories from around the time that they were finally being written down and passed forward in more accurate form, I think.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

iMatt\ said:


> I'm just trying to get a better handle on the thinking of those who reject the overwhelming evidence for evolution.


I think the relevant term is "thinking" as in NOT... thinking, that is.....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

rgray said:


> but yet don't know anything about 'sampling'....????


Maybe our minimal knowledge of statistics leads us to the wrong concept on 'sampling'. Trust the LGMs.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

In a remarkalbe display of occidental hubris



> The Ussher chronology is a 17th-century chronology of the history of the world formulated from an interpretative reading of the Bible by James Ussher, the Anglican Archbishop of Armagh (in what is now Northern Ireland). The chronology is sometimes, and often mockingly, associated with Young Earth Creationism, that holds that the universe was created only a few millenia ago.
> 
> *Ussher's history of the Earth*
> 
> ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology 

Pin dance counting anyone.....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

rgray said:


> I think the relevant term is "thinking" as in NOT... thinking, that is.....


This predisposition to dismiss is quite common. All sorts of arguments get dismissed based on one real and/or perceived flaw. It happens all the time in a variety of discussions, so why not basic science? It doesn't make it a good thing, or an effective argument, but it is broadly consistent with general behaviour. 

It isn't surprising that people more immersed in the science (biologists) would not dismiss the totality based on a couple issues due to their deeper foundation of knowledge, but that basic argument (expert versus layman versus axe grinder) applies to so many things.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

iMatt said:


> ...is my description of the implications of evolutionary theory for the future of humanity part of what makes believers reluctant to put stock in evolutionary theory?


This is only a generalized answer in "extreme religious" terms (not my own). I would say that the idea that humans might evolve into something greater would not be on the table. The idea would be that God created humans to the degree of perfection necessary for living on Earth. To expect them to develop beyond that would be to diss the Creator's handiwork. Humans will attain perfection only in the afterlife.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Oh great...now MacDoc's crushed the Ushher Chronolgy. Look out Einstein!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Playing doppleganger as an RR now MF...with the usual irrelevance.

Strutting and fretting....hence your nick

••••



> passed forward in more accurate form, I think.


I would think not.....rare was the "interpreter" not given to self indulgence and fantasy in keeping with the times.

Just google Revelations now to get the current spin.

and for those that might think 'tis a harmless eccentricity



> The Jesus Landing Pad
> Bush White House checked with rapture Christians before latest Israel move
> by Rick Perlstein
> May 18th, 2004 10:00 AM
> ...


http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0420,perlstein,53582,1.html

What nex??t....astrology....one yeah ..that was Reagan's schtick......pity the planet


----------



## Fisto (Nov 27, 2003)

IMO Science and Religion can coincide. When we acknowledge God as the creator I don't think it has to throw out all other theories.

First of all let's take the creation. True if you look at the timeline of the bible we'd be looking at about 6 or 7 thousand years. Let's put another theory out there. Say Earth was a mass of material uninhabitable or even unformed. God creates from that material a world where life could thrive. It most likely would've taken more than 6 days. Perhaps His concept of time is much different than ours. This would help describe why the matter here on earth would appear to be billions of years old. It is. The earth itself, however, would not be. I believe God created the earth but he didn't just make it appear out of thin air.




> (Dictionary.com





> Create: to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Fisto said:


> I believe God created the earth but he didn't just make it appear out of thin air.


Oh??? Explain....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> I would think not.....rare was the "interpreter" not given to self indulgence and fantasy in keeping with the times.


More accurate is relative (to unwritten and/or nomadic and/or less centralised). That is one of the aspects of civilisation. Not perfect accuracy in forwarding mythology. You seem to be arguing against a more absolute standard of accuracy.

Also, in the realm of dismissal by anecdote, be careful. That is a weak standard to set and unscientific. Anecdotes can be a fruitful beginning of research. Atheism by anecdote, used by axe-grinders, does not fare well. Of course, the claim of disassociation gets used, and that is not unique.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I was born in the end of July 1968 so the Earth must be approx 7.5 months older than that (I was a premature baby). So the Earth was created middle of December 1967 with my parents already full grown and my mother pregnant, with two older brothers also pre-created just for my convenience.

Edit: GF says the Earth is at least 2 years older than that as she is a year and a half older than I. I put it to her that she too was pre-created for my convenience.


----------



## simon (Nov 2, 2002)

I would rather be the fool that believes that God exists and to die and find out he doesn't than to be the fool that believes there is no God and to die and find out he does.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

simon said:


> I would rather be the fool that believes that God exists and to die and find out he doesn't than to be the fool that believes there is no God and to die and find out he does.


Unless God rewards logic over faith. Considering His ultimate gift to humans, relative to all other current Earthly life, take your chances and look God's gift horse in the mouth.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

simon said:


> I would rather be the fool that believes that God exists and to die and find out he doesn't than to be the fool that believes there is no God and to die and find out he does.


So which of the thousands of gods are you going to choose. Unfortunately for me, even if i wanted to, I can't choose to believe something, I am compelled to believe by reason and evidence.

I could no more choose to believe in god than I could choose to believe I'm being followed by invisible pink space pixies. Neither idea has any merit so I can't just 'choose' to believe them.

cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Either I believe an intelligent designer made this so or I believe it was purely chance, accident, mutation that created the 3.1 billion-letter instruction book from space dust. I would require stronger faith to believe the latter.


Given that you don't understand the processes that give rise to complexity in evolution, it would take a lot of faith to accept that. I, on the other hand understand and have observed many of these processes, so it requires no faith at all for me to accept that random variation coupled with non-random selection has given rise not only to our own genome, but those of all other species.

All I ask of those of you who don't understand evolution, and therefore find it hard to believe, is that you don't let your ignorance motivate you to prevent the education system from teaching our current scientific understanding of natural processes.

Cheers


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

bryanc said:


> I'm being followed by invisible pink space pixies.


You too? Those Pink Space Pixies (PSP) are everywhere.... :clap:


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

"_Given that you don't understand the processes that give rise to complexity in evolution, it would take a lot of faith to accept that. I, on the other hand understand and have observed many of these processes, so it requires no faith at all for me to accept that random variation coupled with non-random selection has given rise not only to our own genome, but those of all other species.

All I ask of those of you who don't understand evolution, and therefore find it hard to believe, is that you don't let your ignorance motivate you to prevent the education system from teaching our current scientific understanding of natural processes."_

Interesting situation. For he speaks of one god as if it were inviolate, absolute and indivisible. Whereas you refer to a multiplicity of gods - a smorgasbord arrayed on a table. Pick your delicacy and pop it into your mouth. It would be fascinating were one able to quantify the strength of the brain signals which grant Simon his conviction that his 'choice' is the right one, vs. the strength of your own conviction that you simply cannot choose that which you cannot believe.

I think that we should now start talking about angels dancing on the head of a pin... just so MacDoc will be satisfied that the whole conversation is hopeless.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Max said:


> I think that we should now start talking about angels dancing on the head of a pin


There are four of them. Four!


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Given that you don't understand the processes that give rise to complexity in evolution, it would take a lot of faith to accept that. I, on the other hand understand and have observed many of these processes, so it requires no faith at all for me to accept that random variation coupled with non-random selection has given rise not only to our own genome, but those of all other species.
> 
> All I ask of those of you who don't understand evolution, and therefore find it hard to believe, is that you don't let your ignorance motivate you to prevent the education system from teaching our current scientific understanding of natural processes.
> 
> Cheers


Exactly! Right on! The sheer beauty and elegance of the serial accident of evolution overwhelms.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> He must be a moron like me. So was Einstein.


Einstein did not believe in a personal god. He was a deist. He also got very angry when people attributed religious faith to him.

Three relevant quotes from my files:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie
which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I
have never denied this but have expressed it clearly." 
- Albert Einstein

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a
will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who
should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls."
-Albert Einstein

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid
consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment
and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a
law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." 
- Albert Einstein


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Max said:


> grant Simon his conviction that his 'choice' is the right one,


Just so long as we don't confuse 'conviction' with truth.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Max said:


> It would be fascinating were one able to quantify the strength of the brain signals which grant Simon his conviction that his 'choice' is the right one, vs. the strength of your own conviction that you simply cannot choose that which you cannot believe.


There is a whole field of research called neurotheology, which endeavours to understand the neurophysiological basis for the religious experiences of the devout. You might find it interesting to read about some of the progress that has been made in this area in recent years.

Cheers


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

"_Just so long as we don't confuse 'conviction' with thruth."_

Naturally not. No one has a handle on that beast. Although the history of our species is rife with tales of the egotistical folly and grand declarations of 'truth.'


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Observing that "interpreters" over time put their own time framed spin on their interpretation is an observation, not an argument.
It also has zero to do with atheism.

Fish and bicycles. 

How about applying your "anecdotal accusation" to the realm it belongs....religion ...naught else is required or nor indeed tangible.

Occam's blade shaves close.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Bryan: I might indeed be interested in neurotheology. Maybe in the off-season, when I have a little more time on my hands. But probably not... I generally like earthier stuff like playing my guitars and sipping scotch. Whereas I get my regular doses of brain food in places like this... as spotty and sporadic as that may be.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MD: You are not addressing the points I was making (more as relative; anecdotal accusation as beyond the realm you choose to limit it to). You are Right. End of story. Let's not waste time on this dance.
.........................

I would like to know how someone can believe in a strictly scripture-type God that is clearly petty, vindictive and insecure (just like Greek gods...surprise!). If that is God then I would refuse to worship even given absolute proof (ie. Towing Jehovah sans dead body) and choose hell over its vision. Besides, God made me this way and has only itself to blame (Calvinism?).


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Occam's blade shaves close.


For those of you who may not understand MacDoc's intent here, allow me to enlighten you:

"Around 1300 something, a medieval philosopher, Occam, stated that “plurality should not be assumed without necessity”. In plain English this means, “one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything”. [ Al's Editor’s Note: That’s Not Plain English] [ TM's Editor's Note: Is Too, Nyah] This philosophy has been extended to science saying that one should employ the simplest model, of the theoretically infinitely many, necessary for explaining phenomena.
So how does this apply to Blades of Exile?
In developing or conveying a plotline, an author can tell the needed story in principal an infinite number of ways. Of course some are better than others and it is up to the scenario designer to choose the best one. The author must decide how to tell a story with the necessary details and knowing what extraneous details to omit and what must be included. The best way to illustrate the consequences are through two fictional stories (although based on true stories) of two designers Will and Anne."

You're welcome and I am so glad you all understand his comments so much better now.


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

According to quantum physics, the earth deed not exist until the first human was consciuss(sp) of it...:lmao:


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

And with that, we now veer off into that scintillating territory featuring such enduring questions as:

_if a tree falls in a forest..._


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bryanc said:


> Given that you don't understand the processes that give rise to complexity in evolution, it would take a lot of faith to accept that. I, on the other hand understand and have observed many of these processes, so it requires no faith at all for me to accept that random variation coupled with non-random selection has given rise not only to our own genome, but those of all other species.
> 
> All I ask of those of you who don't understand evolution, and therefore find it hard to believe, is that you don't let your ignorance motivate you to prevent the education system from teaching our current scientific understanding of natural processes.
> 
> Cheers


Personally I don't get all hot and bothered about evolution theory being taught. Some may feel threatened by it but I don't. I'm about as concerned about what happened on earth a few billion years ago as I am about the number of grains of sand on the moon. Could really care less.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> And with that, we now veer off into that scintillating territory featuring such enduring questions as:
> 
> _if a tree falls in a forest..._


Yeah Max, the *man* is still wrong.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Yeah Max, the *man* is still wrong.


Logical proof that God is a jerk:

God created Man and Woman, as flawed but beautiful beings.

God bestowed upon Man the nature to do what seems like a good idea at the time.
[Sidenote: logical justification for exotic dancers and beer]

God bestowed upon Woman the nature to tell Man when he was wrong, even when he was not.

God did not create anything to tell Woman when she was wrong.

God is a jerk.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Logical proof that beejacon is a jerk:

Man and Woman, are flawed but beautiful beings.

Man has the nature to do what seems like a good idea at the time.

Woman's nature is to tell Man when he is wrong, even when he is not.

No one dares tell a Woman when she is wrong.

beejacon is a jerk.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

much easier sinc

beej thinks himself an economist
all economists are jerks
beej is a jerk

end of proof


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Sinc: That's just proof that beejacon is a perpetual bachelor.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> much easier sinc
> 
> beej thinks himself an economist
> all economists are jerks
> ...


Someone couldn't handle basic logic questions on the tests. I think no less of you.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> Sinc: That's just proof that beejacon is a perpetual bachelor.


wanna bet that's not by beej's choice, but by the good sense of others
notice i didn't assume women were beej's choice of partner


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> Someone couldn't handle basic logic questions on the tests. I think no less of you.



my logic is flawless
vulcan-esque


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Wow, you're in quite the mood tonight, 'Spec. Still, you've been through a lot recently so continue.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> Wow, you're in quite the mood tonight, 'Spec. Still, you've been through a lot recently so continue.



arguing with a$$hole insurance company employees all day long hones my verbal skewering skills


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> arguing with a$$hole insurance company employees all day long hones my verbal skewering skills


OMG, you have skills?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> OMG, you have skills?


He's cleverly hiding them.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> OMG, you have skills?


just ask the insurance company who is now sending out their "fixer" to my house all the way from durham

it'll be high noon when i meet him on my street
sun blazing, animals will run
he on one end of the street, me on the other

both with video cameras at the ready,, spurs on our heels
each step we take makes a "ching" (or ching, ching) sound in my case
who will be "the last survivor"
lawyer in my pocket as a last resort WMD
if i gotta use him, we all go up in smoke and a pile of money
and my house doesn't get re-built unilt 2010 in the middle of a Dion gov't and con leadership review


who's gonna blink first before the lawyers are called....
oh, and i got the number to the insurance company's ombudsman and local newspapers, just in case.....

[cue music from "good, bad, ugly]
no, not a usual friday night looking at women a the local watering hole...


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bryanc said:


> Einstein did not believe in a personal god. He was a deist. He also got very angry when people attributed religious faith to him.
> 
> Three relevant quotes from my files:
> 
> ...


Yes Einstein was a deist but he did accept the notion of a creator as I do. So that would make him a moron too. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MacGuiver said:


> Yes Einstein was a deist but he did accept the notion of a creator as I do. So that would make him a moron too.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


:clap: :clap: :clap: 


not to mention that einstein didn't believe in quantum physics and the need for "chance" 

god, if anything, is the oldest and grandest casino owner in the history of the universe


----------



## simon (Nov 2, 2002)

bryanc said:


> So which of the thousands of gods are you going to choose. Unfortunately for me, even if i wanted to, I can't choose to believe something, I am compelled to believe by reason and evidence.
> 
> I could no more choose to believe in god than I could choose to believe I'm being followed by invisible pink space pixies. Neither idea has any merit so I can't just 'choose' to believe them.
> 
> cheers


I believe in the one true God - notice the spelling - capital G, o, d ... 

I'm not preaching to you to believe in what I do, but you should have the decency to respect that I have a choice to believe in what I do without ridiculing my belief by comparing it to something else you can't see or touch.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

simon said:


> I believe in the one true God - notice the spelling - capital G, o, d ...
> 
> I'm not preaching to you to believe in what I do, but you should have the decency to respect that I have a choice to believe in what I do without ridiculing my belief by comparing it to something else you can't see or touch.


That is precisely what I have been saying all along simon.

Science has nothing to offer people like you but ridicule and disrespect.

I on the other hand, understand that all people are entitled to follow what they wish.

Know that not all others are against you. Other than the scientists, that is.


----------



## simon (Nov 2, 2002)

Can you catch the wind? Can you see God, have you ever seen Him?
I've never seen the wind, I seen the effects of the wind, but I've never seen the wind
Can you see the breeze? There's a mystery to it

(mind's eye) DC Talk

faith is the basis of my belief ...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

simon said:


> faith is the basis of my belief ...


You absolutely have every right to believe what you want. And I have every right to believe you're irrational. What we both have to do is agree to treat each other with civility, regardless of our disagreement. And, as I've said, many of my best friends are religious, and I do think they're crazy, but I love them anyway.

The point I was trying to get across is that science, by its nature, is the antithesis of faith. As a scientist, I can't have faith, and I can't choose to ignore my data.

Bias certainly occurs, but the scientific method serves to protect interpretations of data somewhat.

To be honest, I envy you to a degree... there are some things I wish I didn't have to believe, and many things I wish I could believe, but I don't have that luxury. My beliefs are forced upon me by logic and evidence.

cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc: faith can also represent the belief of what you don't quite have proof of but have a strong feeling about. In many cases, this includes the faith of scientists who, on scant evidence and frequent disappointment, continued to press on to some great discovery. Faith isn't necessarily about acting against the facts, it's acting on personal evidence that is not easily proveable to others.

Beej was onto something talking about people who choose to act on the information/feelings they have because it seems the best choice in a world where our ability to know things fully is limited. Sort of like Spock blowing the fuel tanks in the Galileo because panic was his only option.


----------



## kwmike (Oct 25, 2006)

Who cares how old the planet is? We will all be done here in less than 100 years, we have totally f*cked up this planet, and are just awaiting eviction. The human race is like cancer to everything it has come in contact with. The facts are in people!


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

simon said:


> Can you catch the wind?


Yes you can. Since wind is the movement of air, you are really only catching the air. Or you are harnessing the power of the wind to turn something like a windmill.



simon said:


> Can you see God, have you ever seen Him?


No.



simon said:


> I've never seen the wind, I seen the effects of the wind, but I've never seen the wind


You have to define what wind is to you. If wind to you is invisible air, then of course you've never seen it. Using infrared technology, you can see the air currents, as they radiate different temperatures. Solar winds are easily visible with proper instrumentation.



simon said:


> Can you see the breeze? There's a mystery to it.


What mystery? Breezes and winds are easily explained. They are meteorological occurrences. No mystery at all. They can be somewhat predicted. They can easily be measured.



simon said:


> faith is the basis of my belief ...


There is no need for faith in "wind". Wind, air, breezes all exist. You can step outside, and say "This is wind". You can't point to something and say "This is God". You can't measure something and say "This is God." If you could, then it wouldn't be faith.

There is a reason it's called faith. Because there is no evidence of it's existence. There is no proof. There is no fact.

Saying a tree exists because of God is not fact or evidence. It is faith. Saying a tree exists because a seed was planted is fact. That's science.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

kwmike said:


> We...are just awaiting eviction.


I still need to know how long we've lived here so I can get references for the next planet.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

kwmike said:


> Who cares how old the planet is? We will all be done here in less than 100 years, we have totally f*cked up this planet, and are just awaiting eviction. The human race is like cancer to everything it has come in contact with. The facts are in people!


What's your point? It has nothing to do with this thread. The question is how old do you believe the Earth is. If you don't care, don't participate in the thread.


----------



## kwmike (Oct 25, 2006)

guytoronto said:


> What's your point? It has nothing to do with this thread. The question is how old do you believe the Earth is. If you don't care, don't participate in the thread.



What are you? A thread cop?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Saying a tree exists because of God is not fact or evidence. It is faith. Saying a tree exists because a seed was planted is fact. That's science.


So then, what does science say about who created that seed? Someone or something had to create it before it was planted, non?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> So then, what does science say about who created that seed? Someone or something had to create it before it was planted, non?


Correct. Evolution.










Saying "Then a miracle occurs" is not an answer. It's a cop out.

Just in the same way people for thousands of years have used "the unseen power of a god" as an answer, until science showed them the actual answer.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> So then, what does science say about who created that seed? Someone or something had to create it before it was planted, non?


I'm afraid not. Your question is malformed. You assume that for something to exist, 'someone' must've created it. This is certainly not a demonstrable assumption. Even with respect to the universe, it's not clear that non-existence is an option. Certainly, with respect to a seed, we know with significant precision, how the self-organizing biochemistry of life generates a seed, and how, from the embryo within that seed, a tree emerges.

If, however, we accepted the dominant paradigm of human history regarding the seed, we'd just say 'Goddidit' and have no understanding at all. Fortunately, in recent centuries, individuals have dared to question this paradigm and heretically looked for natural explanations for things. After millennia of making essentially no progress at understanding our universe or our place in it, we've suddenly discovered a way to learn about things in a meaningful way. We're just getting started, but we've already learned a lot, and the rate at which we're learning is accelerating.

The question is, is it too late? Can we learn enough to recognize what actions might save our species before some natural catastrophe or the damage we've done during our clumsy application of naive understanding makes our world uninhabitable? I'm optimistic, but it will clearly require that we don't loose too many bright young people to the 'Goddidit' way of thinking.

cheers


----------



## avra (Aug 3, 2005)

I believe that the Earth is as old as guytoronto.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

'Goddidit' doesn't preclude investigation. Many people--including the religiously inclined--wish to know how 'Goddidit' and investaigate thoroughly.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

http://www.micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/powersof10/

How small the Earth really is in the grand scheme of things. I can't fathom how anyone could think we are alone in this universe, or that everything was created for us.


----------



## webwiz23 (Dec 10, 2005)

I did a project on this for a class, the theory I came up with will allow both the 6000 years and the 4 billion plan to work. If you follow up with the story of creation, where God created the world in 6 Days and rested on the 7th, there is a commentary that says that 10000 years for us in like 1 day for God. So if we apply this theory and follow up that the story of creation's order is the same as the evolutionary order therefore leading us to the conclusion that the earth has existed for somthing like 4 billion years, including the evolunitary cycle that started it all, and the 6000 years is the time the level of sentient man has existed.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Occam weeps


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Occam weeps


Occam, and MacDoc do not weep alone...........  



webwiz23 said:


> I did a project on this for a class, the theory I came up with will allow both the 6000 years and the 4 billion plan to work. If you follow up with the story of creation, where God created the world in 6 Days and rested on the 7th, there is a commentary that says that 10000 years for us in like 1 day for God. So if we apply this theory and follow up that the story of creation's order is the same as the evolutionary order therefore leading us to the conclusion that the earth has existed for somthing like 4 billion years, including the evolunitary cycle that started it all, and the 6000 years is the time the level of sentient man has existed.


What the hell kind of school let you get away with that pile of crap?? I notice you don't tell us what grade you got for it, or even what grade level. 

Even if I was drunk and/or stoned enough to accept the '1 day = 10000 years' routine (which I first heard in Sunday school at about age 5) I would wonder how you got from 7 days to 4 billion years..??  Where I learned math 7*10000 = 70,000. 

As for the 6000 years of sentient man, _**** sapiens_ appeared about 250,000 years ago, give or take.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Good information in the rebuttal but why the hostility?


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Beej said:


> Good information in the rebuttal but why the hostility?


The hostility is for the school system that allows that sort of rhetoric, and for a world where a person who believes essentially that can get elected to run the most powerful nation on earth. Apart from the fallacious concepts, the simple math doesn't even add up! Frankly it is more fear than hostility......


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

rgray said:


> The hostility is for the school system that allows that sort of rhetoric, and for a world where a person who believes essentially that can get elected to run the most powerful nation on earth. Apart from the fallacious concepts, the simple math doesn't even add up! Frankly it is more fear than hostility......


So there's more behind it than just the post. Fair enough and thanks for the explanation.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

II Peter 3:8-9



> 8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.


Not 10,000 years.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

zoziw said:


> ...Not 10,000 years.


Which only make the above mentioned "project" worse.........

I teach Intro Psych and Intro Stats for Psych at Carleton University and at the University of New Brunswick at Saint John. I see so many students who have been allowed to get away with thinking such as demonstrated by that "project". These are not dumb kids! They are perfectly capable, but the elementary and secondary school systems are failing to challenge them to be critical in their thinking, rigorous in their rhetoric, not to mention precise in their facts (as zoziw points out tangentially), so in the end these kids will end up, as the expression goes, "paying the freight". IMHO, the school system is limiting the potential of these kids. At the university level, we have to teach them techniques that they should have learned in high school, taking away valuable time from more appropriate pursuits for higher education.

To put this in a context that might resonate: if someone can't tell 1,000 from 10,000, thinks that 7 times ten thousand works out to 4 billion, and accepts 6000 years when all research points to 250,000 years how well are they likely to do diagnosing issues on your Mac, balancing a day's return at a store or, well, anything.... ????


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> not to mention precise in their facts (as zoziw points out tangentially)


Which is nice for a change as I am usually pretty good at messing them up.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

rgray said:


> I teach Intro Psych and Intro Stats for Psych at Carleton University and at the University of New Brunswick at Saint John.


Hey, we're academic neighbors!. I teach biochemistry, developmental biology and (soon) bioethics at UNB Fredericton.



> I see so many students who have been allowed to get away with thinking such as demonstrated by that "project". These are not dumb kids! They are perfectly capable, but the elementary and secondary school systems are failing to challenge them to be critical in their thinking, rigorous in their rhetoric, not to mention precise in their facts


I know that, coming from Alberta, where we were constantly bemoaning the deteriorating basic knowledge and thinking capacity of the first year students, I've been absolutely appalled at what I'm seeing coming into my classes... it's much worse here.

Obviously it's not the student's fault, as it's very wide spread, but they really have no clue about science, logic, basic arithmetic, grammar, history, literature, or anything else, as far as I can tell. And they certainly have not developed any capacity for critical reasoning.

This has convinced my wife and I that we'll have to home-school our son after the 'socialization' grades (i.e. starting around grade 7).

I'd certainly be interested to hear of any more general solutions people might have thought of.

cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Besides, I just saw how old the world is in the folio of the newspaper today. 

2006 years old. It's easy if you know where to look.


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

I had a LONG thread of an e-mail discussion a couple of years back with a former employee regarding his fervent belief in creationism and the literal interpretation of the Bible. For the record, he and his circle of friends believe the earth is 6,000 years old without the mental gymnastics of 1 year being equal to 1,000 or 10,000 God-years. He and they believed that man walked with dinosaurs. He and they believed that dinosaurs were on the ark. He was completely dismissive of the natural sciences while working in the technology sector with all the science and technology that this industry involves and he couldn't see the hypocrisy of his actions. Anyway, here's a sample of some questions I posed to him that were consistently ignored although I asked them repeatedly.

*What differentiates us from other animals on this planet (and make no mistake about it, we are animals) is our inherent curiosity, our desire to push back the frontiers of ignorance, to learn, to develop, to acquire knowledge for it's own sake, to ask questions, to seek answers, facts and, hopefully, truths. This is a differentiating feature of humanity that can easily be considered a God-given talent/skill/characteristic while still engaging in the essentially human qualities described above. The fear on the part of many of your colleagues, as expressed explicitly and implicitly to me in the past, is that to accept that we have evolved is to suggest that we're not created in God's own image. Why? Why must it be a literal interpretation? Why are these mutually exclusive terms? They need not be. It's not an either/or situation. We can accept our human qualities while still maintaining and belief and wonder in the divine if we so choose.

• Why is it necessary for Genesis to be an historically accurate document?
• Why can faith in God or a spiritual being not coexist with an understanding of nature, earth sciences and evolution?
• Why must the Bible be the source of all knowledge, or more specifically, a certain interpretation of the Bible?
• What about the Torah and Talmud?
• What about the Qur'an, the Bhagavad-Gita, Taoist, Buddhist or other religious or secular texts through time?
• What about the books of the Bible that were negotiated out of the final edition of the Bible during the conference at Nicea? Why do they not have currency?
• Why is an understanding and acceptance of the empirical evidence gathered throughout the last 200 years or more substantiating the geological age of the earth, the age of the universe and evolution tantamount to suggesting that there is no God? Remember, much of this scientific research was and is performed by good upstanding, God-fearing, Bible-toting individuals who were simply choosing to research and understand the world around them. Yet the Creationists would want us to believe that these same people were and are out to disprove the existence of God.
• Where in the Bible does it say that the earth is 6,000 years old? Isn't the essential part of the Bible for Christians the word of God, as spoken by Jesus Christ and recorded by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the New Testament? If so, where does Jesus say that the world is only 6,000 years old and one must accept the metaphorical message of "man is created in God's own image" as literal? Didn't Christ speak about the God within us rather than our physical manifestation?
• Why is the fundamentalist Christian view of creation valid while all other cosmological stories are dismissed out of hand as humourous, fanciful, pagan or just plain wrong?
• Shouldn't the message be the source of inspiration? Specifically, do unto others as you would have done unto you. When all is stripped away, we're left with a message of respect for the inherent rights and liberties of our fellow humans that spans time, places, cultures, religions, politics, commerce and, I dare say, science.
• Why does it matter to you so much that the Biblical interpretation is scientifically or historically correct?*

In the spirit of disclosure, it should be noted that I was raised Catholic; sent my children to Catholic schools; do not attend church; am not a blind believer; do not blame any or all religions for the ills of this world but also accept that many wars and deaths were done in the ridiculous belief that one God was supposedly better than another: understand that religions have contributed to the collective scientific understanding of our world (for example, 8th century Irish monks commissioned by the church discovered that the earth revolved around the sun — there are more examples from many religions); understand that in their zeal to build monuments to God, religions contributed greatly to our understanding of art, architecture and engineering; believe that the biggest problem with religions is the man-made rules surrounding the fundamental guides to ethical behaviours that are at the root of the belief systems; can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God or any spiritual being; appreciate and marvel at the beauty and wonder of our world and our universe whether or not those phenomena are rationally or scientifically explainable with our current collective knowledge and understand that the more we know the less we know and that maxim drives us as a species to learn and explain more and more of everything we see, feel, touch, hear and experience.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

daBoss said:


> appreciate and marvel at the beauty and wonder of our world and our universe whether or not those phenomena are rationally or scientifically explainable with our current collective knowledge


This is a big one for me. Dawkins explains this well in 'Unweaving the Rainbow', but it still remains difficult for me to understand how some people can find it _less_ enjoyable to understand a wonderful natural phenomena than to remain ignorant.

But I, like every other human being I know, enjoy the beauty of the natural world regardless of how well I understand any given process.

Cheers


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

Touché


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

One wonders what the poll percentages would be in the Bible Belt


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

Which bible and which belt? There's multiple "Bible Belts" that will yield different results.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I suspect they all will tip in a certain direction. Pick any you like.


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

Check out the opinion of the former head of the Human Genome project, who happens to be a devout Christian:

Interview with Stephen Colbert

and his book

Merry Christmas everyone! 

WIshing you joy and peace,

Miguel


----------

