Who's seen "The Passion"?

Re: Re: Question

Did you see Jesus rise from the dead? If not, what if someone similarly wrote a book that said DK rose from the dead? Would there be a reason not to believe them?

BTW, people I did not wait 2000 years to believe he was the son of God.

 

Re: Re: Re: Question

Yes.

I'd read it.

Sure, about as many as there would be to believe them.

Which, Jesus or Koresh?

 

Oops, typo: the sentence was supposed to read Btw, people did not wait.... Damn voice-recognition software: it did it again this time but I caught it!

PC, I did not realize you were that old! Unless I don't understand at all what you mean when you claim to have seen Jesus rise from the dead.

 

Sorry, I should have specified. I was talking about scientific knowledge. I agree that kids these days don't have the common sense or general knowledge (at least in most school subjects) as people a generation ago. Believe me, I tutor math at a college and if you take their calculators away, they don't have a clue. And I really don't even want to discuss spelling and grammar...they're pretty much non-existent.

 

Too much to cover!

Michael and Papa- the intolerance I refered to was not directed at your (MTK's) not believing like I do, but rather in the current cultural meaning, per your vigorous rejection of any who believe what you don't. From a purely selfish perpesctive, it doesn't matter to me what you believe. I simply asked if you would accept anything as evidence. If one rejects history, one rejects all who come before: How then could the next generation be smarter than the last if they reject what was learned by the last. As for arrogance, I use that term very carefully - anyone who rejects an idea without evidence that it false does so out of his own arrogance. That's not my opinion. I'm not critcizing you or your belief's, I'm questioning the way you came about it.

Chameleon - No person I know has ever not let me down. nor you I expect. The reason I have faith in God is just what you said: He's never given me reason to think otherwise. And you are exactly right about the experience thing. You and I disagree much less than it may seem. This forum is (for me) a very difficult way to express myself. I apparantly come across as intolerant but I'm really not. I think if you look closely you will see that what I do is question thinking, not the person. I take seriously your rebukes and will work at my presentation. I can't be a follower of Jesus and reject people. That is the pinacle of arrogance and worse.

I don't care to be 'right'. I'm just trying to share what I've learned, and I get pretty zelous I know. Please don't hear it as a personal attack (anyone). I don't even know you guys, but I'd like to. I WILL challenge you , just as you challenge me. It may not seem it but I appreciate it but I do, just like I appreciate racing a faster rider cause it makes me stretch and grow. Get this though: The difference is that I'm not trying to win.

There are things worth standing up for and faith is the best I think. But please don't see my stand as a critcism of yours.

 

There's more than enough evidence for me to say that Genesis is a work of fiction. Since that's the "How it All Started" chapter according to Christianity, that's not much of a foundation.

More importantly, the Scientific Method is that you start from a Hypothesis and prove it true, not assume that some collection of BS is true until proven otherwise.

 

I guess we're down to what constitues evidence. I have more than enough for me to believe it's true, historical, archaelogical and astrophysical.

But you are totally right Michael, Genesis is neccesary or it's all nonsense. Many Christians I've met claim to believe everything except Genesis, therefore (to me and to you) they don't believe at all. Many people for that matter believe all kinds of stuff not only without examing evidence, but without even knowing if there is any.

To your credit, I'll say this: I really don't expect you or anyone to believe in anyone they don't know. Would you expect me not to believe in someone I do know?

 

Genesis

When you say it is 'necessary' you don't mean that one must accept 24-hour creation days and a young earth (<10,000 years) do you? IIRC, you lean toward Hugh Ross's old earth theory, right?

 

Re: Genesis

Yes. That theory does no violense to the need for a redemer. Have you ever read Fingerprint of God? I'll send it to you if you want. Really fascinating. I met Dr. Ross a couple years ago. He had good sound explanations for anything asked. Great website too. I can't remeber the name - I'll find it though.

 

Re: Re: Genesis

My problem with Ross is that he provides 'sound explanations' ONLY if you are trying to retrofit the scientific evidence to a belief that evolution violates biblical teaching (which it doesn't to many Christians, btw). I give him credit for not subscribing to young earth, global flood pseudo-science but that is about as far as I go, because at the end of the day, he is still a marginal figure in the scientific community. Doesn't mean I don't think he is a smart guy and would no doubt be impressed if I ever met him but if I'm going to spend any time reading about geology, biology or cosmology, I'll stick to the mainstream (and in my mind, much more credible) scientific books and journals.

 

His book was written as a result of his discoveries, not as away to explain them. It really challenged me. It's not circular in it's resoning at all. He challenges Hawking on several points, and strictly from a scientific standpoint.

 

Where did Brad Wilson go? I got busy and missed the send off?

 

Maybe in his mind, he did.

The best one I ever saw on this topic was a program with Creationists and Evoutionists, each presenting their sides. On the side of Evolution was Stephen J. Gould, one of, if not THE foremost scientist on evolution at that time (he's since died). His exact quote on Creationism, "This stuff isn't worth the breath it takes to refute it." Absolutely nothing these jokers have ever come up with could withstand scientific scrutiny and that's why no serious scientist gave any of them the time of day.

But that doesn't stop these charlatans from taking money from suckers.

 

I saw that. I also saw Gould seeling a self help book the next year. No mention of Ross was made that I remember.

BTW, Ross doesn't dispute evolution (adaptation). He just produced theoretical models of what it requires, and measured it against empirical data. The theory was validated. The biggest constraint, both predicted and observed was the number of type organisms required, about 1 x 10^13 (a quadrillion). This quantity only occurs in ants and a few termites. No other species has a sufficient population.

Ross is not alone in his views. There are many others globally. You have to remember what it takes to air a contradictory view in this age. The intolerant (yes, intolerant) left owns not only the media, but academia as well. No one disputes this.

 

Ross may not be alone but very few scientists who do any real research in the related fields involvinmg evolution take creationism seriously. And it is not because they are 'intolerant liberals' . Many are politically conservative and many are also religious. It is simply bad science. Scientists also love to find testable evidence that prevailing theories are wrong (for reasons of professional pride and sometimes for recognition and advancement). If there were any evidence that evolution fails as a theory to explain biological development on this planet you would see a rush of scientists trying to be the first to do it. Don't fall prey to conspiracy theories just because the scientific community dismisses your beliefs.

 

Whatever.

I've seen lots of those quacks and Ross is one of 'em. Their theories don't get airtime because they're bad science and are flawed from the outset. They start out with flawed assumptions and then claim that they've "proven" that evolution can't work.

It's also pretty damn funny that you point out that Stephen J. Gould was selling a self-help book (something I have no knowledge of) but don't bother to mention that Ross is whoring his "creation science" crapola to any idiots that will buy it.

And best of all, it's all a vast, left-wing conspiracy trying to cover up "creation science" and all it's developments. Yeah, right. Sorry, there's no conspiracy. Creation Science is considered a joke in scientific circles because it IS a joke. They don't give it the time of day for the same reason they don't use the Weekly World News as a source of information: it's fiction.

 

A quick review of the works of Stephen J. Gould finds no self-help books that I can find. However, he's a quite prolific author so maybe he wrote one. One of his last works was also about Baseball, so he didn't restrict himself to just evolutionary biology in his writings.

But here's an excellent quote by Mr. Gould that shows the fundamental difference between folks like him and quacks like Ross:

"Objectivity cannot be equated with mental blankness; rather, objectivity resides in recognizing your preferences and then subjecting them to especially harsh scrutiny — and also in a willingness to revise or abandon your theories when the tests fail (as they usually do)." — Stephen Jay Gould

Ross takes is idea, "creation science," and then goes beating the bushes looking for data to back it up. That's 100% opposite to what real scientists do.

 

Excuse Mr. K, but have you ever read anything Ross wrote personally? Quack?

It's very difficult to have an intelligent discousre with all your personal slander. It's very tedious. I wonder if you can analyse critically or just regurgitate and name call? Really.

Ease up on the personal stuff. No one is calling you or your guys names.

 

I can't recall if I've read Ross or not, but I'll fully stand by my statement that he's a quack. Sorry if you don't like it. Actually, strike that, I'm not sorry. He's a quack, as are all "Creation Scientists." 100% certifiable bullshit artists not worth the time to read.

For Mr. Gould's take on them, see this:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

 

It's got nothing to do with if I like it or not.

Like I said before Michael, a stand without knowledge can only be fueled by either foolishness, or arrogance. I'm not judging you, just your words.

Personal slander, name calling, refusal to address the issue without attacking the person. I'm not interested.

I will read Gould's stuff.

You need to grow up.