(9/16/07)
Saul,
since my last e-mail referenced my understanding that evolution is established
fact, I wanted to pass along some more information on why that is so.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html
Pay particular attention to the endogenous retrovirus section. This is proof positive that evolution is how we all got here. I know it's hard to wrap one's head around how we went from single celled organisms to the complex thinking beings we are today over a period of billions of years, but the evidence does not lie. One has to go where the evidence leads, and not be hindered by preconceived notions once evidence shows them to be wrong.
Do you still believe that the world is flat and supported by two giant tortoises? No? Why not? Because science told you (because the bible certainly didn't). It's time you acknowledged the same with evolution.
-Infidel
(9/16/07)
Maybe I am not understanding this, but I don't see where it supports the mechanism of natural selection that evolutionary theory calls for. Full evolutionary theory seems to call for common descent and the mechanism of natural selection.
Best regards,
Mike
(9/16/07)
OK- Now that I have read the conclusion, I understand the focus of the article:
"As explained in the introduction, none of the predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred; nevertheless, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether Darwinism, Lamarckism (i.e. inheritance of acquired characaters), or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change."
This is because there is no universal consensus on the mechanism. It seems that there is a lively ongoing debate within evolutionary circles about the nature of whatever mechanism is really at work.
If you found this article interesting, you might find this book by Stephen Barr a well-reasoned discussion from the Christian perspective on matters covered in the article.
http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Physics-Ancient-Faith-Stephen/dp/0268034710
Some articles by Barr:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=111
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=87
Barr is respected by a many members of the scientific community - deist, theist, agnostic and atheist.
Mike
(9/17/07)
Looks like an interesting book, I may have to check it out at some point. Right now, I have so many others I need to read. I just ordered Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation" and Christopher Hitchens' "God is Not Great: How religion poisons everything". After that, I plan to read Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene", "God: The Failed Hypothesis", "The End of Faith", and others. So many books, not enough time.
Anyway, on evolution, my point on mentioning it is not to talk about the mechanism. While hopefully we'll learn more about the mechanism as time goes on, the important thing right now in this country is to establish evolution with common descent as a fact in the minds of the
people. People continue to be misled by their pastors, and politicians, and our science classrooms are falling further behind on the world stage. I try to show people that evolution is fact, because in doing so I show that the bible is wrong in Genesis. If evolution is true, than there is no Adam and Eve. If there is no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no
original sin, the bible starts to unravel. If the Earth is more than 10,000 years old, than the geneologies of Jesus are wrong. If that is wrong than what else is wrong?
Mechanism is unimportant when considering these points, which we must do.
-Infidel
(9/17/07)
Infidel,
see my responses below
I: I try to show people that evolution is fact, because in doing so I show that the bible is wrong in Genesis.
M: I find this to be a curious statement: if E then !G. I think you are begging the question here.
M: What does is mean to say that evolution is fact? If you do not have a mechanism, then you do not have evolution by any definition that I am aware of. Common descent + mechanism.
M: I am not sure what it means then that this would demonstrate that Genesis is wrong? Perhaps what you mean is that this would be evidence against certain literalist young earth creationist positions. There are many who would still state that Genesis is true in that it shows God as creator and sustainer - which I think is the primary teaching in Genesis 1-11.
I: If the Earth is more than 10,000 years old, than the geneologies of Jesus are wrong.
M: I do not think that any reputable scholar - Christian or not - would ever make that claim. The geneologies are quite like other ancient geneologies. The geneologies in Matthew and Luke are two different kinds - and were written for two different purposes. Neither purports to be a timeline, calendar or any such thing.
M: If you want to say that this challenges certain young earth creationist positions, that is true.
M: Dawkins, Harris et al are quite adept at painting a caricature of Christian faith and practice. What I find in their writings is equivalent to me describing all atheists in terms of Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Pol Pot and a few selected atheist mass murderers. I cannot do that - it would be dishonest by my standards of what is right and wrong. However, they do not seem to be bound by any need to be fair, even-handed and reasonable when engaging Christian faith and practice. Perhaps that is because of a differing value system.
Mike
(9/18/07)
Mike- See my comments in blue.
I: I try to show people that evolution is fact, because in doing so I show that the bible is wrong in Genesis.
M: I find this to be a curious statement: if E then !G. I think you are begging the question here
Hmm, I'm not sure about this. I'm not sure how evolution can coincide with a literal reading of Genesis. If we're taking about a non-literal meaning, then you may be right. More on that later.
M: What does it mean to say that evolution is fact? If you do not have a mechanism, then you do not have evolution by any definition that I am aware of. Common descent + mechanism.
http://www.notjustatheory.com/. "There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)3 happens, just like gravity does. ... But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution."
M: I am not sure what it means then that this would demonstrate that Genesis is wrong? Perhaps what you mean is that this would be evidence against certain literalist young earth creationist positions. There are many who would still state that Genesis is true in that it shows God as creator and sustainer - which I think is the primary teaching in Genesis 1-11.
I think this is dodging the truth. I can respect literalist interpreters (even though I think they're wrong) because at least they maintain that the bible means what it says. Once one starts down the road of "well, that's not supposed to be taken literally," then we have a situation where a person can take the bible and make it say whatever they want it to say, and it becomes worthless as a source of knowledge or morality. When the bible says that God formed Adam out of dirt, and Eve from his rib, and the earth was created in 6 days- It means what it says.
J: If the Earth is more than 10,000 years old, than the geneologies of Jesus are wrong.
M: I do not think that any reputable scholar - Christian or not - would ever make that claim. The geneologies are quite like other ancient geneologies. The geneologies in Matthew and Luke are two different kinds - and were written for two different purposes. Neither purports to be a timeline, calendar or any such thing.
I don't understand this reasoning. Then what is the point of their inclusion if not to show that Jesus had king blood through Saul, and to show his lineage all the way to Adam and Eve? What is the purpose of a geneology if not to show who your ancestors are? And if either is incorrect (which one would have to be), than how can anyone claim the bible is inerrant?
Is this not the method that Young Earthers use to determine the age of the Earth to be 6-10,000 years old? If not, where are they getting this?
M: If you want to say that this challenges certain young earth creationist positions, that is true.
M: Dawkins, Harris et al are quite adept at painting a caricature of Christian faith and practice. What I find in their writings is equivalent to me describing all atheists in terms of Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Pol Pot and a few selected atheist mass murderers. I cannot do that - it would be dishonest by my standards of what is right and wrong. However, they do not seem to be bound by any need to be fair, even-handed and reasonable when engaging Christian faith and practice. Perhaps that is because of a differing value system.
What is the caricature? I don't see one. In "Letter to a Christian Nation," Harris shows statistics that he's not attacking a minority belief. He's attacking beliefs that close to half of
the nation holds. Christians believe that Jesus will return within their lifetimes hastening the apocalypse, that creationism is fact, that evolution is fiction, that dinosaurs were on Noah's
-Infidel
(9/18/07)
Infidel my friend,
Evolution will be fact only when it can demonstrate that from slimy algae we can actually produce a human being. Your belief in evolution is just as much faith as my believe in creationism. You just have more faith.
Since science seems to be your god, tell me how much can science help you with personal struggles and purpose in life? Can science help you with sin? Can science help you when you die? I’ll take what I have in Jesus over what you have any day of the week.
The bible never teaches that the world is flat, just the opposite: the bible teaches that the world is round, even though for years many believers thought the world to be flat. Check out this verse:
Isa 40:22
22- He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
I am really saddened by your insistence that evolution is your all in all answer for these things. You truly cannot look at the human body and at least be in awe that the heart keeps pumping, the brain functions as it does, fingerprints are all unique, etc. etc.? I mean even if evolution is the reason we came about, you don’t see how amazing the human body is? I just don’t get your inability to see the awe of the human body.
What do you mean Josephus’ statement is a forgery. What evidence do you have for this? I have “The Works of Josephus” from a non Christian publisher and the quote is there, so what’s up with your claim????
And regarding Jesus: all that is in the
common. You have to be kidding me that you just discount all this stuff and more? How can you rationally say that you do not even believe Jesus existed? Read “Evidence That Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell and “Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel.
By saying “Open your heart” I do not mean your literal blood pumping heart but the inner part of who you are. The part within you that cries out for love and meaning and purpose and eternity. If you will sincerely from this part of you seek God, I know He will show Himself to you (Jeremiah 29:11-13), unless you are so unwilling to yield if He does show Himself to you, and if that is so, then it is your pride and self-reliance that is keeping you from God, and if that doesn’t change, then you will
never know God. We must humble ourselves. I sincerely hope you do not have such pride that you will forever miss your Creator.
Sincerely,
Saul
(9/18/07)
Saul, see my comments in blue.
Infidel my friend,
Evolution will be fact only when it can demonstrate that from slimy algae we can actually produce a human being.
Wow. I think this video was made for you personally- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RojR-50_5Y. If that is the level of evidence you require to believe a scientific claim, then I want you on the jury if I ever get accused of a crime. Nothing short of
videotape + confession + DNA + 'caught weapon in hand over the body' would be sufficient to convince you. The truth is that evolution is a fact (you can look it up), whether you personally want to admit it or not. Watch this short video to see a computer demonstration of how
minor changes (influenced by the environment) over time can modify a gene pool-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZwUV-auY4w.
Here's how evolution explains an increase in information- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I14KTshLUkg.
Here's another short video in explanation- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPuKoEYCs2o.
And finally, here's how it was proven that organic molecules can be formed by
inert chemicals- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4Y9w6fo_zY
There are many others, but I know you're a busy guy, so feel free to check out the
rest on my site (under Evolution/science)- http://midwestatheist.blogspot.com/2007/08/favorite-atheist-videos-links.html.
Your belief in evolution is just as much faith as my believe in creationism. You just have more faith.
I thought I explained this in the past.
Faith- 1. a : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
2 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs ;"the Protestant faith"
Usually when the word faith is used, it is used to explain how people believe something without proof or evidence. That's when you take it on faith. I suppose one could argue that my beliefs fall under definition 2, because I do believe strongly in evolution under the sheer weight of the proof and evidence. However, if evidence were to surface that were to show that evolution did not happen, I would readily change my beliefs to be in step with the evidence. So hopefully you now understand that my belief in this matter has nothing to do with faith, and everything to do with evidence. I've heard faith described as the permission slip we give ourselves to believe things for which there is no good evidence.
Since science seems to be your god,
Whoa.... Since this gets trotted out a lot, I'll address it first. Science is not my God. I know theists have a hard time understanding that because God is such a big part of their lives, that they think everyone must have 'version' of it. Let me assure you that I acknowledge no God. Not science, not $, not Satan.
tell me how much can science help you with personal struggles and purpose in life?
That's not science's job. What helps me with personal struggles and purpose in life? Myself, my family, my parents and co-workers. And if I were to get bad off, I would turn to a therapist. But in all actuality, believe it or not, I'm one of the happiest guys you'd meet. I
love life and have a passion for it and my family.
Can science help you with sin?
I don't believe in sin, it is a wound that religion invented so they could sell you a band-aid. That's not to say that I don't believe that some things are good (volunteering time to help those in need) and that some things are bad (rape, murder, theft), of course I do. But the word sin, to me, implies the categorizing of the bad things by a deity. So I don't believe in the
concept of sin.
Can science help you when you die?
Nothing can help me when I die. When I die, I'll be dead. The End. Is it comforting? Not particularly. But often the truth is uncomfortable; but its veracity is none the less. For instance, there are some people who would say, "I don't want to know if I have cancer. The knowledge would ruin my remaining time alive." Not knowing that one has cancer does not change the reality of it. It may be more comfortable to not know, but its existence is a fact nonetheless. I forget now who said it or what the quote was exactly, but it was something
like- 'I did not exist for millions of years before I was born, and I don't recall the slightest inconvenience from it.'
I’ll take what I have in Jesus over what you have any day of the week.
If Jesus is what it takes for you to be happy, then by all means, continue to believe. For me, I don't define what is real by what is comfortable. "It makes me happy" is about as poor of a measure of reality as one can conceive.
The bible never teaches that the world is flat, just the opposite: the bible teaches that the world is round, even though for years many believers thought the world to be flat. Check out this verse: Isa 40:22
22- He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
Interesting verse. However it seems to make the case for geocentrism, and it also describes the Earth as a circle, when it's not, it's a sphere (there was a hebrew word for ball which would have been more accurate if the authors knew that the earth was actually spherical). It talks about the heavens 'like a canopy' over the earth, hardly an accurate description of the universe. It is an accurate of what ancient people thought though, a flat earth with the stars being mere pinpricks of light suspended on a dome high above the earth.
In fact, there are Christians that still believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth. This is why the refusal to accept evolution on biblical grounds is disturbing to us skeptics. Go here to see why the bible contradicts reality on the the Earth's shape and movement- http://www.goatstar.org/the-bibles-flat-earthsolid-sky-dome-universe/ Many verses talk about the corners of the earth, the ends of the earth, etc.
Also, one can make a strong case that the bible supports geocentrism. Josh 10:12-13- Implies that the sun is in movement, and that god commanded that it stop. Also Psalms 93:1 is used by some to say that the earth does not move so indeed the sun must move around it.
This is the problem when you use an ancient text to stand up against the scientific method. People will believe all kinds of weird things just because it is written in the text, and ignore good science simply because it contradicts scripture.
I am really saddened by your insistence that evolution is your all in all answer for these things. You truly cannot look at the human body and at least be in awe that the heart keeps pumping, the brain functions as it does, fingerprints are all unique, etc. etc.? I mean even if evolution is the reason we came about, you don’t see how amazing the human body is? I just don’t get your inability to see the awe of the human body.
Of course I am in awe. Awe does not equal supernatural origin. I am in awe of classical music performed by talented musicians. I am in awe of beautiful poetry, art and movies. Things that are big usually leave people in Awe- The Grand Canyon, Hubble telescope pictures, the amount of money Bill Gates has, etc. When our rational mind cannot explain something, often the sensation that fills the void is awe. Certainly I am in awe of the human body, as well as all of these other things, but that does not mean that I am willing to dismiss proven natural mechanisms for their origin in favor of supernatural ones. If I stay in a house that is reportedly haunted and I hear strange noises in the middle of the night, is that evidence for undead spirits or is ancient plumbing more likely?
"Feelings" and "Awe" do not replace the requirement of scientific evidence to come to rational decisions. Bush "felt" that God told him there were WMDs in
god wasn't very helpful with the details of their location. Again, feelings, awe, and faith, are poor methods at arriving at the truth. The scientific method is the best way we have found to date to arrive at valid conclusions.
What do you mean Josephus’ statement is a forgery. What evidence do you have for this? I have “The Works of Josephus” from a non Christian publisher and the quote is there, so what’s up with your claim????
http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm. Here is one of many sites.
And regarding Jesus: all that is in the
I'm not sure what is meant by this. To say that the bible is historically accurate because it takes place in historically real places is like saying that Spiderman is real because the comic book takes place in
What about the 500 eyewitness accounts, many of which were martyred for faith in Jesus:
all made up?
As I have said before, Martyrdom is not proof of anything. Just because Muslims are blowing themselves up on a daily basis does not mean that they are going to receive 72 regenerating virgins in the afterlife.
The first hand accounts of his life and ministry: fabrications? The book of Peter written by Peter saying he saw it all with his eyes. John saying in 1 John that his hands handled the evidence. Luke a physician giving a precise account. So what if written 40 years later. That has common in that period. Oral tradition was common. You have to be kidding me that you just discount all this stuff and more?
A lot of what I have read says that the gospels attributed to Matthew, Mike, Luke, and John were not written by the actual disciples they are attributed to. Mike was the earliest one written, with the others coming much later, and even Mike was at least 40 years after Jesus' death, which means that they were all third-hand accounts at best.
How can you rationally say that you do not even believe Jesus existed?
I'm not sure I'd say definitively that Jesus did not exist, but historically, so many of his traits were common to many other previous pagan gods (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=8A7DD3268ECA2F83, http://www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/godmen, htp://www.thegodmovie.com/index.php). This makes a compelling case that Jesus was quite possibly a reinvention of previous Gods, which was not an uncommon practice of the time. Do I think that there was a real philosopher named Jesus who lived around that time? There very well may have been. But what I don't believe is that he was born of a virgin, performed miracles, rose from the dead, and flew into the sky. I don't believe these things for the same reasons that we both disbelieve in the claims that Muhammad was visited by the archangel Gabriel, and that the angel
Read “Evidence That Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell and “Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel.
I'll try to read them when I get a chance. I just started reading "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris. I recommend that both of you read this. At only 90 pages, it's hardly more than a pamphlet, but it does a great job of eloquently laying out the position that most of us atheists ake.
By saying “Open your heart” I do not mean your literal blood pumping heart but the inner part of who you are. The part within you that cries out for love and meaning and purpose and eternity. If you will sincerely from this part of you seek God, I know He will show Himself to you (Jeremiah 29:11-13), unless you are so unwilling to yield if He does show Himself to you, and if that is so, then it is your pride and self-reliance that is keeping you from God, and if that doesn't change, then you will never know God. We must humble ourselves. I sincerely hope you do not have such pride that you will forever miss your Creator.
For the record- I sincerely do seek to know God's presence, as I've said. I'll also go on record as saying I'd bet that almost all atheists (>90%) also want to know if God really exists. I was willing to let Him show himself quite dramatically on your show this past spring, as you'll recall. I also know that in his omniscience, he knows how to show himself to me in a way that will compel me to believe. So I will continue to humbly await that sign. Until then, I will disbelieve.
-Infidel
PS- please forward me those verses you mentioned that condemn homosexuality. Thanks.
(9/18/07)
M: I am not sure what it means then that this would demonstrate that Genesis is wrong? Perhaps what you mean is that this would be evidence against certain literalist young earth creationist positions. There are many who would still state that Genesis is true in that it shows God as creator and sustainer - which I think is the primary teaching in Genesis 1-11.
I think this is dodging the truth. I can respect literalist interpreters (even though I think they're wrong) because at least they maintain that the bible means what it says. Once one starts down the road of "well, that's not supposed to be taken literally," then we have a situation where a person can take the bible and make it say whatever they want it to say, and it becomes worthless as a source of knowledge or morality. When the bible says that God formed Adam out of dirt, and Eve from his rib, and the earth was created in 6 days- It means what it says.
This smacks of the tactic that says: "Hey Christian, unless you interpret the entire Bible literally, you are playing fast and loose." That is simply a way to back someone into a position that no one would take - that all of the Bible should be taken literally - because no one believes it to be true. This seems like you are advocating a position that says genre, culture, theme - all the analytical tools we bring to bear on any ancient manuscript - do not apply here because
you say that they do not.
You can go back to the earliest Christian writers and before that Hebrew scholars and you will find a lively and thorough discussion about whether the creation accounts in Genesis are entirely literal, partially literal or figurative. One would also find that virtually all believe that the central theme being communicated is that God is both creator and sustainer. Or you can chose to ignore that and simply demand that I defend one position. ;-)
Why is mining this rich tradition of thought not worthy of respect? If you are not familiar with it, it may seem like I am just pulling things out of thin air. I assure you I am not.
Best regards,
Mike
No comments:
Post a Comment