Religious Discussion [Enter at ye own Peril]

[defurax]

Didn't you introduce the topic?

Nope, introduced before when talking about C14 dating

 

[theblank]

I actually wrote "Do you believe everything Ussher wrote ..." (new underlining). If JohnK accepts Ussher's 6,000 year figure (based on counting the 'begats ...'), then I was wondering if he accepts the other things Ussher wrote. And if not, why the selectivity? Or maybe JohnK hasn't read anything to support his 6,000 year figure either?

Sorry, I am not familiar (or I dont recall) Usshers other works, I didnt go to school. I am sure he was a busy man as all ancient scholars were. Just because someone may be credited with good scholarship on one topic, doesnt mean all that they did was 'good', and that we have to accept everything they authored. Heck, I even agree with Dawkins on a couple of points.

Critics of Ussher's work don't stack up?

a genuine critique of Usshers calculations would have to be done using the same sources. otherwise its not a critique of his calculations.
Even Stephen Jay Gould compliments Usshers work, for what it is.

It doesn't 'stack up' to doubt that counting 'begats' and assuming ages of all the begatters,

He didnt assume ages of beggatters, the source documents stated the ages, in years.

and assuming (more than) a few here and there when not explicitly recorded in the Testaments

its known that Ussher did not only use genealogies for his calculations, and that he also used, greek, roman, and babylonian sources.

and indeed taking the Testaments literally?

are you saying he shouldnt have taken the greek, roman and babylonian history literally also?

there is no requirement to take any ancient scriptures as literal history or fiction (or something in between) to assess whether Ussher calculated correctly or not. Many people study the plot of Game Of Thrones with much endeavour, it doesnt mean they have to believe GoT is work of non-fiction to study it.

Ussher simply makes his calculations according to the texts, (not only old testament) Any attempt to discredit the source is moot, as it doesn't discredit his calculation.

Depends what you mean about "recorded history." .

Quite. the term recorded history could be a bit ambiguous to some. However the generally accepted description is 'written history'. As far as I am aware deduction from archeological or geological findings do not count as 'recorded history'

 

[trippin_the_rift]

Interesting thread.....!

My thoughts have slowly changed over the years. Unfortunately, what I believe to be true now (our origins, why we are here etc) isn't widely accepted - especially not by most in the western world. Except, for maybe a few people who saw a certain event in 1947.

Like many, I've come to my current realization from studying and disproving other belief systems. I think it's important for everyone to have their own journey and experiences so they feel comfortable in their own thoughts. Having an open mind and heart is probably the most important belief we can all have. Ultimately we're all stuck in this body while we're here... may as well get used to it and learn to get along

 

[RooFlyer]

Medicines don't have any side effects do they? We know exactly how they will behave on everyone?

Not quite....

I dunno. What happens in your computer game world? Does it end up the same way every time?

Just thinking. Am I in that computer game? If not, do I exist? Are you debating something in your imagination?

What does the computer game say was there before 6000 years ago? Who created the Creator?

 

[ermen]

These God versus no-God debates have been going on for yonks.

For those who are interested in the formal level of debate (this is of an international standard and not the AFF standard), you should watch (or maybe get a transcript) the debate at Biola University between William Lane Craig and the late Christopher Hitchens

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tYm41hb48o
Summary: https://winteryknight.com/2009/04/04/the-debate-so-far/

Basically the case for an existence of God is argued on:

1. Kalam Cosmological Argument (an actually infinite number of path events is impossible, therefore the number of past events is finite, and therefore there must be a beginning. And given that there is a beginning, there must be a cause. And behind the cause, there must be a non-physical uncaused being who transcends space, matter and time, who brought the universe into existence out of nothing)

2. Tealological arguments - too many "fine tuned" things needed to happen for the universe and life to exist, the odds of everything happening randomly are too improbable for it to be by chance)

3. Moral arguments - if there is no God, there cannot be a source of objective morals that hold regardless of what humans think - e.g. you cannot argue that rape is wrong unless there is a objective moral standard. Given we know certain things that are inherently morally abject (e.g. rape, pedophilia etc), therefore, there must be exist an objective moral law-giver that transcends humans

4. The resurrection of Jesus - resurrection implies a miracle, which implied a God. There are three historical facts (an empty tomb, claimed sightings by people, early belief by people in the resurrection). It was improbable that the jewish people would ever contemplate a dying messiah, and the early church growth is hard to explain if it was caused by an invention of a resurrected person. Early christians were willing to die for their belief - therefore it is improbable that the resurrection was invented

5. Proper belief - an experiential belief in God is proper and basic, just like our belief in the natural senses. a personal experience is basic, proper and valid.

Therefore, to refute the statement that there is a God, you will need to tear down all 5 arguments and rebuild your own premise


At the end of the day, my view is: you cannot prove that there is no God, but only choose to believe that there is no God

 

[JohnK]

Its pointless debating with some-one whose words are readable to all in the posts and lines above, yet are denied in black and white here. I point out again that you have made numerous assertions about what science puts forward and you have asserted things to be 'wrong", without qualification (eg "in my opinion").

And its pointless debating someone who apparently bases their beliefs on a computer game.

Ye Gods.

You are expecting a debate with me at the scientific level? It is not going to happen. Sorry. I am a simple person who has an interest in why we are here. I have always had an interest. Where are we? How did we get here? When did we get here? Why are we here? I have an open mind and an excellent imagination.

 

[ermen]

For some-one not interested in debating evolutionary biology, you are giving it a good nudge.

Oh, good grief. Putting Darwin and modern paleontological studies side-by-side is, I'm sorry, just ridiculous.

The issues of Ediacarian fauna and the Cambrian (and Eocambrian) fossil record are pretty well debated and the reasons for some of the apparent contradictions are well known - not least the paucity of good fossil sites and the ability to date them accurately and then to be able to correlate time horizons across sites. As more fossil sites of that time period are found, more questions will be raised, and others will be answered. Ho hum.

The "Cambrian Period' is a bit archaic these days, if you'll pardon the pun. Its really just an arbitrary time period BP, established in the 19th Century and has little to do with what we currently know about the various periods of the evolution of life.

So you tell me? Someone asked for a peer reviewed paper, and I found one, in Nature too, that can cause apparent problems for explaining one leg of the evolution cycle. This is most evident in that he seems to be receiving severe pushback from the scientific community.

I do not comment on his merits or the demerits of his paper. Only the fact that if he is right, then I think he may cause more problems than people would like to admit.

His words, not mine
"This discovery has implications for the tree of life, because it removes Ediacaran fossils from the ancestry of animals,"

And I mentioned the rebuttal
Dr Jim Gehling of the South Australian Museum says if Ediacaran fossils were not the distant soft-bodied ancestors of animal life, then the Cambrian explosion would have come from "nowhere".
"I'm sorry, I'm not a creationist. I do not believe that the Cambrian animals popped into existence out of the blue at the beginning of the Cambrian," he says.
Again a PHD's words not mine.

You guys go decide and debate that amongst your community who is right and who is wrong.

 

[RooFlyer]

These God versus no-God debates have been going on for yonks.
<snip>
Basically the case for an existence of God is argued on:

<1-5 snipped>

At the end of the day, my view is: you cannot prove that there is no God, but only choose to believe that there is no God

You missed one. Apparently there is a computer game which is pretty hot.

I don't think anyone here has said there is "no God". One side has treated beliefs with due respect. Another side has trashed and denied scientific endeavour and its conclusions and continued to insult scientists and their work, notwithstanding this has been pointed out.

 

[RooFlyer]

You are expecting a debate with me at the scientific level? It is not going to happen. Sorry. I am a simple person who has an interest in why we are here. I have always had an interest. Where are we? How did we get here? When did we get here? Why are we here? I have an open mind and an excellent imagination. <snip>

But it has been happening. Rather than just sticking to and stating your beliefs, you have repeatedly told us scientific facts are wrong; you have misrepresented and misquoted science derived conclusions and generally trashed science and scientists. You have been told how insulting this is to us, but you continued to do trot it out. Its only when asked to back up your 'science' assertions that we get the 'I'm a simple person' line.

But you have your computer game as your font to satisfy your curiosity and interest, so I guess simplicity it is.

 

[straitman]

Sorry, science does not 'disprove itself'. Science is a methodology and a discipline which allows ideas to be put forward, tested, confirmed and very regularly, disproved or not confirmed. That's it's strength and truth lovers embrace it. There is nothing 'stupid' about scientists whose theories and ideas are disproved / not supported and I find your remark unfortunate and many could be offended by it.

We said the same thing in different words so I am not sure how you could be offended.

Read it again:



ALL modern science. As in ALL modern scientists.

But as you say, we're ALL entitled to our opinion




Yup, millions of years, billions even. Thanks for proving my point.

Again, my opinion. Thank you.

Yes, even Einstein, Newton and Darwin have had theories proven wrong, but their contributions will forever be taught as part of understanding our world. So I will disagree with your opinion.

Interesting.

I'll say read it again to you also as I did not at any point offer my opinion and from what I can see you are guessing very wrongly as to what my opinion may be. I have merely commented on the comments that people have made.

 

[RooFlyer]

So you tell me? Someone asked for a peer reviewed paper, and I found one, in Nature too, that can cause apparent problems for explaining one leg of the evolution cycle. This is most evident in that he seems to be receiving severe pushback from the scientific community.

I do not comment on his merits or the demerits of his paper. Only the fact that if he is right, then I think he may cause more problems than people would like to admit.

His words, not mine
"This discovery has implications for the tree of life, because it removes Ediacaran fossils from the ancestry of animals,"

And I mentioned the rebuttal
Dr Jim Gehling of the South Australian Museum says if Ediacaran fossils were not the distant soft-bodied ancestors of animal life, then the Cambrian explosion would have come from "nowhere".
"I'm sorry, I'm not a creationist. I do not believe that the Cambrian animals popped into existence out of the blue at the beginning of the Cambrian," he says.
Again a PHD's words not mine.

You guys go decide and debate that amongst your community who is right and who is wrong.

So you found some stuff on the internet? And are quoting a line or two? AND its from a PhD? Say no more!!

Your last sentence pretty much shows that you don't understand the debate nor the science you are describing.

 

[ermen]

You missed one. Apparently there is a computer game which is pretty hot.

I don't think anyone here has said there is "no God". One side has treated beliefs with due respect. Another side has trashed and denied scientific endeavour and its conclusions and continued to insult scientists and their work, notwithstanding this has been pointed out.

I never said that anyone said that there is no God.

I am just pre-empting where the conversation will ultimately segue to

 

[ermen]

So you found some stuff on the internet? And are quoting a line or two? AND its from a PhD? Say no more!!

Your last sentence pretty much shows that you don't understand the debate nor the science you are describing.

You misconstrue. Do I need to understand the debate or the science behind it? No. I never purported to claim to be trained in the biological sciences, nor wanting to be part of the debate. I do not even need to enter the debate.

If you recall the genesis of this topic, i said the "10 years ago, the cambrian explosion presented difficulties to evolutionists. i do not know what the current thinking is"

Someone asked me to produce a peer reviewed paper to prove that. I did.

Even in this article by Lee http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(13)00916-0

It starts with "The Cambrian explosion (evolution’s “big bang”) is compatible with Darwinian evolution"
The fastest inferred rates are still consistent with evolution by natural selection and with data from living organisms, potentially resolving “Darwin’s dilemma.”

The Yalescientific summarises the above findings (The Cambrian Explosion: Evolution’s Big Bang | Yale Scientific Magazine) "the near-simultaneous appearance of most modern animal groups appeared between 540 and 520 million years ago, during what is termed the Cambrian Explosion. This Big Bang of evolution has been problematic for many scientists, among them Charles Darwin. "

By logical reasoning
(i) Lee: if the Cambrian did not present a problem viz Darwinian evolution, why will Lee open up with that statement?
(ii) why will Lee need to write to "potentially resolve Darwins' dilemma".
(iii) Again, why will Yales Scientific say what they say.

I think I have sufficiently demonstrated, with the evidence cited above, that my statement is true. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[dajop]

Interesting and (as to be expected) quite heated discussion. My basic theory is what is the point in worrying whether there is or isn't a god ... and personally I believe - god or gods- is simply a concept, to explain things that we can't explain and/or can't comprehend, and something to take comfort in when to deal with things we can't deal with. Nearly all societies, whether they be relatively recently contacted societies, or the eastern or western societies that we are more familiar with and have several thousands of years of written history - have a god or many gods to explain the inexplicable.

It's pretty easy to get into some fascinating philosophical, or mirror-looking-into-mirror, discussions about god(s), and easy to throw hand grenades into both scientific and theist camps ...

If we were created by "god" or "the gods", what or how was god/the gods created? Did the big bang create gods who in turn created life? Is the big bang theory consistent with creationism, in that it really depends on your definition of god (could not god simply be a description of what happened at the beginning, i.e the big bang = god).

In any event, I do like these quotes:

I am an agnostic; I do not pretend to know what many ignorant men are sure of.

and from Darwin:

The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic.

 

[RooFlyer]

Well, with computer-game inspired Creation beliefs and Cambrians exploding all over # , I think its time to fold the tent. I see folks more sensible than me have already departed.

There's none so blind as those who will not see. Or, put another way: "Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not." (Jeremiah 5:21)


# I happen to be in Cambria, right now - where exactly should I watch out for explosions? I've been pretty flat out keeping out of the way of those wicked Silures today and tomorrow when I head north the Ordovices will probably give me a hassle. But for now, I'm going to lie on my punctuated equilibria :shock: and go to sleep.

Ooops ... did I say punctuated equilibria? Naughty.

 

[TomVexille]

Interesting.

I'll say read it again to you also as I did not at any point offer my opinion and from what I can see you are guessing very wrongly as to what my opinion may be. I have merely commented on the comments that people have made.

No, you have a tendency to defend someone who has been incredibly rude to other forum members in person.

 

[theblank]

you have repeatedly told us scientific facts are wrong

Scientific facts are neither right or wrong. Its the interpretation of facts that can be right or wrong.

 

[theblank]

If we were created by "god" or "the gods", what or how was god/the gods created?

assuming that a God created the Universe , ie time, space and matter (beginning, heavens, and earth), then it stands to reason that such God could not have a beginning. The concept of a beginning is a construct of time, and the creator of time cannot be limited by his creation (time). This is the Kalam cosmological arguement described on the previous page.

Did the big bang create gods who in turn created life?

well that is one way of overcoming the problem that abiogeneis is impossible

but if it happened that way, then we still have the unsolved problem of what is uncaused cause of the Big Bang.

Is the big bang theory consistent with creationism, in that it really depends on your definition of god (could not god simply be a description of what happened at the beginning, i.e the big bang = god).

if you can find a non-theological description of the uncaused cause of the big bang, it aptly describes the nature of god. There are plenty of articles and videos online that explain this rather well, even by athiests (usually not admitting that it is God though)

 

[Pushka]

assuming that a God created the Universe ,

You lost me with your first sentence.

 

[Vic]

OK let's get back to what JohnK has said here:



From how I read and interpret, JohnK does not believe in radiodating/carbon dating. The next sentence on "the assumption that the rate of decay is wrong", needs to put into context that "There is evidence today that volcanic ash distorts carbon dating readings".

So from what I read above, JohnK believes that the radiodating/carbon dating is wrong, because JohnK thinks the constant rate of delay is incorrect, due to JohnK seeing some evidence that volcanic ash distort carbon dating. Now that is what he believes from what he observes from some source which is not yet known (could be some newspaper articles, or some scientific journals, or even twitter).

Now what he reads from the on about the volcanic ash effect could be completely incorrect but it doesn't mean he cannot have his beliefs be heard in the forum. Sure you can disagree with him, I guess you and JohnK agree to disagree.

This is where he is wrong. the rate of decay cannot be changed by volcanic ash. That is impossible. But volcanic ash might increase the starting level of carbon, which would then make carbon dating under estimate the age. but that higher level of carbon will ALWAYS decay at the same rate. So basically he read something on the internet, or in a game and formed an opinion about science that is completely wrong.

Brian Cox has a dogmatic adherence to materialism, and all that goes with it, billions of years, no supernatural influence, and that defines how he interprets the data he sees. He cant see a creator anywhere because his axiom is that there isnt one.


the idea that scientists follow the evidence to where it leads is delusional.

The axiom is to limit interpretation by an assumption of there being a creator. Brain Cox places no such limit on his interpretation of what is measured. A creator is the axiom. Any natural science doesn't use axioms because there is no limit to how the natural world behaves, not even a creator.

In any case Brain Cox is a great science communicator, the show explains the science of cosmology well. then there is Hawking...