Dinosaurs On Noahs Arc...

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I'm prone to assist Steven since he seems to be the lone defender of the faith here in a den of heathens.

The reason i tend not to what to get into a "point by point" breakdown is that most everyone holds and entrenched position. Its not the case that we are starting out at "ok i'm going to grant that i could be totally wrong about everything i know about the origin of the universe and the bible"

Then, having researched it out, and looking at the information i have, draw a conclusion.

Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.

– James Harvey Robinson

Too often things just boil down to blurb-exchanging and no real attempt to find "truth". Its more about winning an argument than it is for revealing truths. Me, i want to know what is what. I don't care how dead wrong i am, or how stupid i end up looking, if i can get even just a little piece of the "real universal truth" let me at it.

Having said that i prefer to make friends over enemies. This question will still be around for me any time i care to pick it up. No sense in losing potential allies in the process of trying to prove myself right and make someone else look stupid.

So anyhow. Anyone that has been reading my posts over the months and years knows this is one of my pet subjects that im well researched on, in both the tradtional christian and evolutionist/atheist sides.

Some Good Stuff I'd Suggest:

Pro-Creation:

The Genesis Flood by John C. Whitcomb (this is THE original Creationist book of the modern era, but is a bit dated now.)

Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution - Michael Behe

Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong by Jonathan Wells

Just as an aside, i've read two Ken Ham books and he just sucks his arguments AND his writing suck.

C.S. Lewis, while a good writer, makes weak arguments outside of what i consider to be the iron clad argument "its a matter of faith" His book Mere Christianity is pretty good.

Pro-Evolution:

The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design - Richard Dawkins

The Demon-Haunted World - Carl Sagan (best writer of the bunch by far)

Atheist Universe: A thinking persons answer to Christian Fundamentalism (easyist read by far)

Aside: Steven Jay Hawking may be a genius but hes a shitty writer. Read Brian Greene or just about anyone else that comes up as related searches to Hawkings books. \

All of that crap seem like too much reading? Ok , Rent two DVDs :

Unlocking the Mystery of Life

The God Who Wasn't There.

Watch them both, and all the extras at least twice. Make copies, force you friends to watch them.

[Steven]

Anyway so Steven are saying that it's good that the creationist museum is opening?

No. although i admit that i know very little about it.

while I can have some appreciation to a degree for zealousness in one's faith, I hate the Christianeze machine with a passion.

I intentionally avoid engaging in attempting to provide "proof" for my faith and walk with Christ, as ultimately it is a personal choice born in intimacy - or should be at least.

Therefore any schticky mechanism that attempts to force or create validity in something that never required man man proof turns my stomach.

All my life I have seen church sects and leaders attempt to box in mysteries to which they dont have an answer instead of simply saying "I dont know". All my life I have seen both secular humanists and devout christians draw their lines in the sand instead of welcoming and listening to one another, and all my life I have been wrongly lumped into specific categories by both sides of the argument.

I am me, with my own thoughts and feelings and the ability to make up my own mind, I am neither a Calvanist or a Lutheran or a Protestant or a Catholic or any man made euphamistic category. I follow after a man who I beleive was God named Yeshuah or the Christ, and everything that comes along with that comes as it will, to be developed and implimented as it does on its own, my life being my sole source of evidence and my faith being irrepressible and renewable. I dont need or want anything else to help me on my chosen path.

[Steven]

I'm prone to assist Steven since he seems to be the lone defender of the faith here in a den of heathens.

The reason i tend not to what to get into a "point by point" breakdown is that most everyone holds and entrenched position. Its not the case that we are starting out at "ok i'm going to grant that i could be totally wrong about everything i know about the origin of the universe and the bible"

Then, having researched it out, and looking at the information i have, draw a conclusion.

Too often things just boil down to blurb-exchanging and no real attempt to find "truth". Its more about winning an argument than it is for revealing truths. Me, i want to know what is what. I don't care how dead wrong i am, or how stupid i end up looking, if i can get even just a little piece of the "real universal truth" let me at it.

Having said that i prefer to make friends over enemies. This question will still be around for me any time i care to pick it up. No sense in losing potential allies in the process of trying to prove myself right and make someone else look stupid.

So anyhow. Anyone that has been reading my posts over the months and years knows this is one of my pet subjects that im well researched on, in both the tradtional christian and evolutionist/atheist sides.

Some Good Stuff I'd Suggest:

Pro-Creation:

The Genesis Flood by John C. Whitcomb (this is THE original Creationist book of the modern era, but is a bit dated now.)

Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution - Michael Behe

Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong by Jonathan Wells

Just as an aside, i've read two Ken Ham books and he just sucks his arguments AND his writing suck.

C.S. Lewis, while a good writer, makes horribly bad arguments.

Pro-Evolution:

The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design - Richard Dawkins

The Demon-Haunted World - Carl Sagan (best writer of the bunch by far)

Atheist Universe: A thinking persons answer to Christian Fundamentalism (easyist read by far)

Aside: Steven Jay Hawking may be a genius but hes a shitty writer. Read Brian Greene or just about anyone else that comes up as related searches to Hawkings books. \

All of that crap seem like too much reading? Ok , Rent two DVDs :

Unlocking the Mystery of Life

The God Who Wasn't There.

Watch them both, and all the extras at least twice. Make copies, force you friends to watch them.

that was pretty cool Troy.

thanks.

I beleive I'll do some research from the list you provided....

[Troy Spiral (13)]

One thing i would like to point out, that in a "casual" debate you do need to allow one person or the other to set the terms of the debate. Rather than end-running them and saying that their whole debate is invalid.

Which basically means if center around faith you win if the other persons argument isnt faith based. A (true oldschool faith) argument is by its very nature "not scientific" but emotional, therefore its immune to scietific/critical rigor as we know it. Its a matter of faith? Boom , you win.

There is a reason "its my faith" is an age old "overused" argument, because it works and has validity now just as it did when it was first posited.

Uncomfortable as hell for the science minded? Sure is.

At the same time if the discussion centers around "reason" and "logic" (aka science) then science has to be the yardstick in that specific discussion. Its not fair to just pull out the faith card once the logic and science yardstick become uncomfortable.

Theres a reason that "the same old overused" scientific arguments are "overused" because many of them have just as much validity as when they were first posited.

Uncomfortable as hell for the faith minded? Sure is.

Also , too much flowery jargon is a wasted effort. Just make the point. If its shitty, its shitty. If its good, its good. Trying to cover up our points or make them "seem" one way or another by plastering them with cool sounding words is , well just dishonest i think.

[Steven]

One thing i would like to point out, that in a "casual" debate you do need to allow one person or the other to set the terms of the debate. Rather than end-running them and saying that their whole debate is invalid.

Which basically means if center around faith you win if the other persons argument isnt faith based. A (true oldschool faith) argument is by its very nature "not scientific" but emotional, therefore its immune to scietific/critical rigor as we know it. Its a matter of faith? Boom , you win.

There is a reason "its my faith" is an age old "overused" argument, because it works and has validity now just as it did when it was first posited.

Uncomfortable as hell for the science minded? Sure is.

At the same time if the discussion centers around "reason" and "logic" (aka science) then science has to be the yardstick in that specific discussion. Its not fair to just pull out the faith card once the logic and science yardstick become uncomfortable.

Theres a reason that "the same old overused" scientific arguments are "overused" because many of them have just as much validity as when they were first posited.

Uncomfortable as hell for the faith minded? Sure is.

Also , too much flowery jargon is a wasted effort. Just make the point. If its shitty, its shitty. If its good, its good. Trying to cover up our points or make them "seem" one way or another by plastering them with cool sounding words is , well just dishonest i think.

so true....and this is why we end up asking questions and or exemplifying angles that never even enter into the worldview of the opposing party - we're quite literally speakign two different languages.

[BrassFusion]

There is a reason "its my faith" is an age old "overused" argument, because it works and has validity now just as it did when it was first posited.

Uncomfortable as hell for the science minded? Sure is.

[...]

Theres a reason that "the same old overused" scientific arguments are "overused" because many of them have just as much validity as when they were first posited.

Uncomfortable as hell for the faith minded? Sure is.

NOT EVEN!

Science, by its nature is ever changing, and Christian theogony is, well, the Bible. And that doesn't change unless they start clipping out parts or canonizing new books. I'd respect Christianity a lot more if they actually did that, but they DON'T, because it's a religion based on never being wrong about anything ever. Was anyone paying attention when they made a crappy little movie called The Da Vinci Code (granted it was a book first, but there was no backlash at first cuz people don't actually read anymore), and the fundies went fucko-bazoo because OMG Jesus was PURE and even fictionalized accounts of him getting laid are too DANGEROUS to the "faith?"

[Steven]

NOT EVEN!

Science, by its nature is ever changing, and Christian theogony is, well, the Bible. And that doesn't change unless they start clipping out parts or canonizing new books. I'd respect Christianity a lot more if they actually did that, but they DON'T, because it's a religion based on never being wrong about anything ever. Was anyone paying attention when they made a crappy little movie called The Da Vinci Code (granted it was a book first, but there was no backlash at first cuz people don't actually read anymore), and the fundies went fucko-bazoo because OMG Jesus was PURE and even fictionalized accounts of him getting laid are too DANGEROUS to the "faith?"

actually they went beserk because that book was full of Nicean fallacies that were presented as fact.

and Christianity is based on the beleif that man in general has an inherint built in fatal flaw that requires mediation from one particular source in order to restore the original intention of his being.

But you make good cornbread and one day I shall ahve another slice.

[BrassFusion]

actually they went beserk because that book was full of Nicean fallacies that were presented as fact.

and Christianity is based on the beleif that man in general has an inherint built in fatal flaw that requires mediation from one particular source in order to restore the original intention of his being.

But you make good cornbread and one day I shall ahve another slice.

I bet most of the people who got pissed off about The Da Vinci Code don't know what the words "Nicean" or "Fallacy" mean.

As for mediation from a particular source... would that source be a relationship with Christ, or one's personal take on the bible?

I dig your cornbread metaphor

[Steven]

I bet most of the people who got pissed off about The Da Vinci Code don't know what the words "Nicean" or "Fallacy" mean.

As for mediation from a particular source... would that source be a relationship with Christ, or one's personal take on the bible?

I dig your cornbread metaphor

it was a cornbread promise, Love.

Great question by the way. That source would be a relationship with Christ (which stems from my personal take on the Bible, which aligns very much but not always with other's personal takes on the Bible, which in turn places my focus back on Christ, which causes me to look at and into me, and so on and so on and so on...)

[phee]

I think the question when it comes to the museum is how do you feel about the whole "dinosaurs on Noahs arc" idea being presented not as belief... but in a museum that it is presenting these concepts as fact? Would you be comfortable seeing your kids going to this museum on a school field trip? Isn't this an example of abuse of religion?

[Steven]

I think the question when it comes to the museum is how do you feel about the whole "dinosaurs on Noahs arc" idea being presented not as belief... but in a museum that it is presenting these concepts as fact? Would you be comfortable seeing your kids going to this museum on a school field trip? Isn't this an example of abuse of religion?

No I would not be comfortable, I think its bullshit and yes its an abuse not only of religion but of common sense.

[Scary Guy]

I think everyone is missing the point that religion is BS because it is based on faith. The term faith its self implies it's BS because no one really knows anything. Even the big bang theory is just a theory after all, and presenting anything you don't know for sure as "fact" is just retarded.

[Steven]

"Faith" is measured differently by different people.

Personally, it has carried me an awful long way and has allowed me to recreate myself and to walk with strength and dignity.

I know that sounds ridiculous.

But I also know it to be true in my life at least.

I am also faithful to my wife, my friends, my ideals, my goals etc. All of this I learned thru my Christian walk over many years. I would not trade it for anything.

[Scary Guy]

Even if it's measured differently it still doesn't change its base definition. That's why it's called faith and not certainty. Believing in something so much that you want it to be true doesn't necessarily make it true.

Like I said I believe I'm going somewhere good for being a good person, even if I don't believe in the correct/any god or deity. This doesn't mean I'm on a rocket train to hell necessarily but I like to think that's the way things are going to play out.

[Steven]

Even if it's measured differently it still doesn't change its base definition. That's why it's called faith and not certainty. Believing in something so much that you want it to be true doesn't necessarily make it true.

Like I said I believe I'm going somewhere good for being a good person, even if I don't believe in the correct/any god or deity. This doesn't mean I'm on a rocket train to hell necessarily but I like to think that's the way things are going to play out.

I understand this.

The reason that I beleive I have a degree fo certainty in my spiritual lifestyle is because I've seen results for many years. It would be awful hard to keep it up if there were no consistency or fruit born. even I dont have that much will power.

[Scary Guy]

I can agree with that, but how can you be sure of the source of what you witnessed. As humans we can't be sure of anything except that one day we will die.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Generally when thinking about "supernatural" subjects, i've come to use an idea that i've read a few different places and it different terms but basicly:

"Extraordinary Claims Require Overwhelming Evidence"

If somone says they just saw JFK rise from the dead yesterday, is that likely? No i dont think any reasonable person would say it is. So, it would require some "extraordinary" evidence. Its not impossible , but its not likely. It is generaly smart not to belive things that are unlikely just because we "like" the idea of it.

Almost any other naturalistic explanation is more likely. Its more likely that hes hallucinating. Its more likely that hes lying. Its more likely that a special effects shop is playing a practical joke on him. Its more likely that hes confusing a dream he had with real life. For me to believe such an extraordinary claim we need a lot more than "i saw it". What you see / feel is very subject to misinterpretation. Just because you THINK you saw something does not make it so.

And if what you think you saw is "extraordinary" then it needs some fairly serious , hardcore backup to be something you should believe in. Not just some mild gut feeling or a few questionable accounts. Seeing/feeling something so out of the ordinary first hand should be suspect given the ideas i presented above. Especially if its something your going to base your life around.

Now does that mean such things are impossible? No , but i think its reasonable to expect that one would want to exaust all possible naturalistic explanations before accepting something as defying the laws of physics, which are very well tested and backed up.

[BrassFusion]

that post was so wise i've nothing to add at this point so i'm just going to use an appropriate emoticon

[Scary Guy]

It's being added to my very long list of quotes for sure.

[sass_in_the_pants]

I think the question when it comes to the museum is how do you feel about the whole "dinosaurs on Noahs arc" idea being presented not as belief... but in a museum that it is presenting these concepts as fact? Would you be comfortable seeing your kids going to this museum on a school field trip? Isn't this an example of abuse of religion?

Doesn't ANYONE ELSE find this museum uncannily similar to the Simpsons episode when Ned Flanders opens his Bible theme-park, Praiseland? Maybe predestiny isn't real, but I do think every human experience that can and ever will happen has been chronicled on that show. Bet.

So here we have fundmanetalists who have figured out what slick packaging can do to spread a message. McDonald's does it. Absolut vodka does do it. Fundamentalist groups just want to step up their game, too. It was only a matter of time.

In my mind, once you put an animatronic dinosaur on some foam fiber arc, any semblance to the Truth of that story is now lost and muddled in moving whatzits and whirring and buzzing whosits. I mean, it LOOKS like the story of Noah's arc, and it SOUNDS like the story of Noah's arc, but once you take away the context of the story of Noah's arc, once you take the story OUT of the mouths of people and put it in something that looks like Disney on 'shrooms, well, then it's nothing more than white noise.

[Steven]

I can agree with that, but how can you be sure of the source of what you witnessed. As humans we can't be sure of anything except that one day we will die.

Well I can't prove it can I?

If I could prove it, it would become a quantifyable occurrence easily explained away and shelved, thus negating faith, thus negating any potential sense of wonderment at the possible finger of God.

But I'm not trying to prove it to myself, and i'm not trying to be sure. I'm not looking for rationality in my relationship with God, I'm looking for empowerment. I dont know hwo to be any clearer than that, other than to say its not a form of methodology.

Troy made a good post about supernatural events requiring a very strong degree of evidence to be acknowledged.

Thats a fine argument, which I understand. But I havent even been talking about supernatural events, although yes I have seen them, most of which I have seen before I was a Christian. And anything I would (or have) attempt to illustrate by what I've experienced will readily be explained away or simply dismissed because it does not fit into its appropriate niche in your world of acceptable experiences. So for me to validate them thru your (or Troys (although I admire Troy very much) filter doesent make any sense.

Moving on toward proof....

Prove love to me. especially in the Agape form as opposed to the Eros form. "Prove it" is the key here.

Prove Hope to me.

Or faith.

Honor.

Courage.

Charactor

You cant. You can only recognize certain aspects of these things as they manifest in the behaviour of others, and you decide to recognize those things and file them away as having some form of worth or not.

But do you really even need to (prove it)? For example do I need "PROOF" that Laura is loyal and honest and devoted to me and that I can trust her judgement in all things? For me that would be ridiculous, I've been with her too long, have expereinced too many thigns with her and through her eyes to not simply embrace what I beleive is "factual" in that she loves me beyond measure. It is a relational form of truth, something i have learned a great deal thru. Now anybody can address that with statistics and whatnot - but I'm still going to look at you with the eyse of a man who has 20 years being married to one woman and who's relationship is still thriving and growing...because I beleive that I "know" something that others do not. I know that sounds cocky. cheesy. silly. But I work it every day, I live it every day. Its very intentional. Anybody can counter me with statystical "proof" that marriage doesent work. But I'm not a satistic.

My faith in God, and the reality of a relationship with Christ is exactly like that, exactlly like my relationship with my wife. I beleive I "know" somethign, and I live it every day, and it continues to thrive and grow. So I continue to beleive. And like my relationship with Laura....I've been doing this for a very long time now. At some point YES I need to trust my gut, especially because I am by nature a very instinctual person, that is my hardwiring, that is my connection tool. I understand Troy's suggestion. Its perfect for Troy. Its not perfect for Steven.

[sass_in_the_pants]

Moving on toward proof....

Prove love to me. especially in the Agape form as opposed to the Eros form. "Prove it" is the key here.

Prove Hope to me.

Or faith.

Honor.

Courage.

Charactor

You cant. You can only recognize certain aspects of these things as they manifest in the behaviour of others, and you decide to recognize those things and file them away as having some form of worth or not.

Proof, proof, proof. Everyone wants their damn smoking gun. Like somehow if you can't see it on a chart or under a microscope, it doesn't count. Bah.

Your point about love is spot on, Steven. To this day, I have no proof that Guy loves me. But I'm as certain of it as I am of my own breath. And I will live my life assuming that as a foregone conclusion and I don't think that's a silly or risky way to live.

Viruses were discovered in 1892. So, does that mean that there weren't any in 1891? There was, after all, no proof. And someone, in this case, Dmitri Iwanowsk, went out on a limb, and hypothesized that there was some organism smaller than a bacteria. He didn't have the proof. He had to find that himself. But, he wouldn't have even thought to LOOK for viruses without some level of faith that they would be there. And so maybe that's the lesson of faith. You have to believe something is there before you can see it.

[Scary Guy]

But are you seeing it or are you seeing what you want to see?

Also love can be proven, quite easily actually. Hell even if they do cheat on you it doesn't mean they stop loving you completely. But proving that someone's love exists for you and that someone exists are two entirely different things. Granted both do require faith but there is some degree of fact mixed in with that. If they didn't love you I think you'd know if they were just paying lip service when they said it.

"There is no disguise which can hide love for long where it exists, or simulate it where it does not." - La Rochefoucauld

I guess I can relate though since I love science and believe in it. There is no love returned because it's just a set of known rules and facts that the universe abides by. I have faith that these facts are accurate (as science has been proven wrong before) and search for deeper meanings behind everything. Even random chaos has a logic to it.

[Steven]

And so maybe that's the lesson of faith. You have to believe something is there before you can see it.

Exactly. Hope in what is unseen.

[Scary Guy]

I hope I get a million dollars. The chances of this though, are not very good.