Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-03-2014, 06:41 PM   #76
aiki-jujutsuka
 
aiki-jujutsuka's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 192
Offline
Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word

Quote:
Demetrio Cereijo wrote: View Post

Who is talking about "blind faith"? I was talking about 'motiva credibilitatis' which is different from scientific evidence. So, IMO, the ones for who the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church's growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability are not sufficient signs of divine Revelation and look into science (or what is worse) pseudoscience are not real believers.
So in your opinion science and religion are completely separate spheres that don`t ever...or should never overlap?

How do you separate the two? We filter everything in life through one ideology or another.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2014, 06:47 PM   #77
aiki-jujutsuka
 
aiki-jujutsuka's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 192
Offline
Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word

Quote:
Carsten Möllering wrote: View Post


It is based on the report of the ressurection of Jesus.
No resurrection? Never mind.
No decision to trust in the testimony: No christianity.

I think this crucial role of confidence is not a bug, it's a feature.
Respectfully I disagree. Yes the New Testament contains reports of the resurrection and as people living thousands of years after the events we either choose to trust in the testimony of the apostles or not. However, the apostles - who were eye witnesses - understood that without a literal, bodily resurrection then Jesus was not the messiah and that the faith of Christians would be in vain. Reports of a resurrection also would make no sense without a resurrection to report. To claim a resurrection where non had occurred is easily verifible and refutable. The Romans only needed to open the tomb and reveal the body to disprove the apostles reports.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2014, 08:28 PM   #78
RonRagusa
Location: Massachusetts
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 637
United_States
Offline
Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word

Quote:
Ewen Ebsworth wrote: View Post
As long as the questions are vetted by methodological naturalism?
Well... yes, the application of the scientific method is what moves science forward.

Quote:
Ewen Ebsworth wrote: View Post
I am not convinced science is as open as you think it is. I think there are many scientists who are driven by an anti-religion/God agenda.
The above is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Do you want to drag intolerance of opposing viewpoints into the discussion... really? Suffice it to say that individuals on both sides of the divide harbor bias and leave it at that.

Quote:
Ewen Ebsworth wrote: View Post
This documentary highlights the bias in academia and the censorship within the scientific community of any research or teaching that could be construed as giving credence to ID or Creationism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g

It is over an hour long but well worth making the time to watch.
See above.

Ron

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2014, 03:30 AM   #79
aiki-jujutsuka
 
aiki-jujutsuka's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 192
Offline
Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word

Quote:
Ron Ragusa wrote: View Post
Well... yes, the application of the scientific method is what moves science forward.

The above is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Do you want to drag intolerance of opposing viewpoints into the discussion... really? Suffice it to say that individuals on both sides of the divide harbor bias and leave it at that.

See above.

Ron
I am not dragging intolerance into the discussion - intolerance is a running theme throughout the discussion. Science is increasingly conducted within an atheistic framework. Methodological naturalism rules out supernatural intervention as a causal agent in the creation of the universe and of life on earth. Yet historically this hasn`t been the case. Take Sir Isaac Newton for example, one of the most important figures of the Scientific Revolution whose work in Mathematics and Science were groundbreaking and important in developing our understanding of the world today. And yet Newton also believed in God and in the creation account of Genesis 1. To argue we can`t make any progress under a theistic scientific model is just not born out by history. History demonstrates that modern science has its roots in Christianity and a Biblical framework.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2014, 04:40 AM   #80
Demetrio Cereijo
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,908
Spain
Offline
Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word

Quote:
Ewen Ebsworth wrote: View Post
So in your opinion science and religion are completely separate spheres that don`t ever...or should never overlap?
Well, one is about the physical and the other about the metaphysical. There is no need for them to overlap.

Of course there is, and has been, conflicts between people when they stepped outside their respective fields of expertise, tried to impose their viewpoints on others or/and had a political agenda.

Quote:
How do you separate the two? We filter everything in life through one ideology or another.
Being conscious about science and religion being about different things.

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2014, 06:19 AM   #81
Mary Eastland
 
Mary Eastland's Avatar
Dojo: Berkshire Hills Aikido
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,159
Offline
Re: Old Testament Creationism

A book that is a beautiful mix of science and spirituality is "The View from the Center of the Universe." by
Joel R. Primack and Nancy Ellen Abrams. Their next book proposes a creation story that is very inclusive. "The new Universe and the Human Future."

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2014, 06:27 AM   #82
RonRagusa
Location: Massachusetts
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 637
United_States
Offline
Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word

Quote:
Ewen Ebsworth wrote: View Post
I am not dragging intolerance into the discussion - intolerance is a running theme throughout the discussion. Science is increasingly conducted within an atheistic framework. Methodological naturalism rules out supernatural intervention as a causal agent in the creation of the universe and of life on earth. Yet historically this hasn`t been the case. Take Sir Isaac Newton for example, one of the most important figures of the Scientific Revolution whose work in Mathematics and Science were groundbreaking and important in developing our understanding of the world today. And yet Newton also believed in God and in the creation account of Genesis 1. To argue we can`t make any progress under a theistic scientific model is just not born out by history. History demonstrates that modern science has its roots in Christianity and a Biblical framework.
Institutional intolerance and persecution of individuals who deviate from accepted doctrine is a hallmark of organized religion. And since I'm not interested in playing the "who displays the most intolerance towards the other side" game I'll take this opportunity to say thanks for the back and forth and bow out.

Ron

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2014, 07:32 AM   #83
Tore Eriksson
Location: Saitama
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 16
Japan
Offline
Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word

Quote:
Ewen Ebsworth wrote: View Post
Thanks! Only secondary evidence, but still interesting. But, as I said before and as the authors also writes in the paper, the presence of DNA in the bone would primarily suggest that the current model of DNA decay in fossilized bones is incorrect. The reason for this is that there are geological and radiological data that corroborates that the bones are 26 million years old (apparently four different decay series, none of which is C14). I hope you can agree that using the model of DNA decay as an argument for the bones being more recent than this is quite a stretch.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2014, 09:49 AM   #84
hughrbeyer
Dojo: Shobu Aikido of Boston
Location: Peterborough, NH
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 653
United_States
Offline
Re: Old Testament Creationism

FWIW, saying "It's only a theory" is a great big red flag indicating you don't know what you're talking about and don't have the background to take part in the conversation. It shows that you don't understand how science proceeds or how the words are even used.

A theory, in science, explains why something works the way it does. No theory can ever be proved. Saying evolution is a theory says something about what role "evolution" plays in science, but nothing about how valid or trustworthy it is. The best you can do with a theory is make predictions based on it and see if the predictions hold up. If they do, so far so good--but there's no guarantee that tomorrow someone won't find a prediction that doesn't hold up, showing that the theory is wrong or incomplete. That's how science progresses.

Often, what people say is, "It's a theory, not a law"--as though laws were more accurate than theories. They're not. They're a different kind of animal. Laws tell how to make predictions. Newton's laws of motion give rules for how bodies move in space. The law of natural selection gives rules for which individuals are most likely to survive and reproduce in a given context. Laws can be inaccurate and still be useful--Newton's laws being a case in point.

Theories are useful when they are shown to have predictive power. E.g., based on evolutionary theory, scientists predicted there should be intermediate forms showing how species evolved one to another. Enough intermediate forms have been found at this point that the prediction has been supported. You'll likely say, because Creationists do, that they aren't in the direct line of descent, but that's irrelevant to the argument. Unless you found the one exact individual that was the ancestor to a new species, you'll never have the direct line of descent. The point is to show that viable intermediate forms exist, which is the prediction of evolution. At this point, enough of evolution's predictions have been confirmed that no scientist seriously doubts it.

What you really want to say is that any theory is as good as any other in science, and therefore your theory of a Prime Mover is just as good as physicists' theories of multiple universes with different natural laws. But a theory that says "let's just stop doing science"--let's stop trying to understand the world around us--is not as good as any other. And that's what Creationism does. Whenever there's an anomaly, instead of reacting like a scientist ("Look! A flaw! Cool! Let's figure out how to explain it and maybe get a Nobel Prize!") they react like theologians--"Look! A mystery! Let's all venerate God!". That's not science, and all the wishing in the world won't make it so.

Evolution doesn't prove God doesn't exist, any more than hammers prove carpenters don't exist.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2014, 12:28 AM   #85
aiki-jujutsuka
 
aiki-jujutsuka's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 192
Offline
Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word

Quote:
Ron Ragusa wrote: View Post
Institutional intolerance and persecution of individuals who deviate from accepted doctrine is a hallmark of organized religion. And since I'm not interested in playing the "who displays the most intolerance towards the other side" game I'll take this opportunity to say thanks for the back and forth and bow out.

Ron
Thank you for your time Ron, I have appreciated our exchanges.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2014, 12:31 AM   #86
aiki-jujutsuka
 
aiki-jujutsuka's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 192
Offline
Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word

Quote:
Demetrio Cereijo wrote: View Post
Well, one is about the physical and the other about the metaphysical. There is no need for them to overlap.

Of course there is, and has been, conflicts between people when they stepped outside their respective fields of expertise, tried to impose their viewpoints on others or/and had a political agenda.

Being conscious about science and religion being about different things.
But what happens when a religion, such as Christianity, makes statements of a physical nature? What then? What about the miracles of Jesus? What about Israel's exile? The Bible purports to be real history. It is not just a philosophical book.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2014, 12:45 AM   #87
aiki-jujutsuka
 
aiki-jujutsuka's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 192
Offline
Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word

Quote:
Tore Eriksson wrote: View Post
Thanks! Only secondary evidence, but still interesting. But, as I said before and as the authors also writes in the paper, the presence of DNA in the bone would primarily suggest that the current model of DNA decay in fossilized bones is incorrect. The reason for this is that there are geological and radiological data that corroborates that the bones are 26 million years old (apparently four different decay series, none of which is C14). I hope you can agree that using the model of DNA decay as an argument for the bones being more recent than this is quite a stretch.
The geological and radiological data is debatable - Flood By Design by Mike Oard explains how the landscapes we see today and the geological strata are a result of the global Flood recorded in Genesis. Even secular geology accepts that fossilisation requires catastrophic, rapid processes and concedes that local floods could have caused this. Oard's flood paradigm is a powerful hypothesis, well worth reading.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2014, 01:01 AM   #88
aiki-jujutsuka
 
aiki-jujutsuka's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 192
Offline
Re: Old Testament Creationism

Quote:
Hugh Beyer wrote: View Post
FWIW, saying "It's only a theory" is a great big red flag indicating you don't know what you're talking about and don't have the background to take part in the conversation. It shows that you don't understand how science proceeds or how the words are even used.

A theory, in science, explains why something works the way it does. No theory can ever be proved. Saying evolution is a theory says something about what role "evolution" plays in science, but nothing about how valid or trustworthy it is. The best you can do with a theory is make predictions based on it and see if the predictions hold up. If they do, so far so good--but there's no guarantee that tomorrow someone won't find a prediction that doesn't hold up, showing that the theory is wrong or incomplete. That's how science progresses.

Often, what people say is, "It's a theory, not a law"--as though laws were more accurate than theories. They're not. They're a different kind of animal. Laws tell how to make predictions. Newton's laws of motion give rules for how bodies move in space. The law of natural selection gives rules for which individuals are most likely to survive and reproduce in a given context. Laws can be inaccurate and still be useful--Newton's laws being a case in point.

Theories are useful when they are shown to have predictive power. E.g., based on evolutionary theory, scientists predicted there should be intermediate forms showing how species evolved one to another. Enough intermediate forms have been found at this point that the prediction has been supported. You'll likely say, because Creationists do, that they aren't in the direct line of descent, but that's irrelevant to the argument. Unless you found the one exact individual that was the ancestor to a new species, you'll never have the direct line of descent. The point is to show that viable intermediate forms exist, which is the prediction of evolution. At this point, enough of evolution's predictions have been confirmed that no scientist seriously doubts it.

.
Yes there are scientists who doubt it, Michael Behe for example who wrote Darwin's Black Box, as a microbiologist has serious concerns about evolution at the genetic level, in what he calls 'irreducible complexity'. Evolution is dependent on those intermediate stages but some things such as the ATP processor, the body's smallest motor, are irreducibly complex - remove any part of it and it will not work. Darwin had no knowledge of microbiology, so how does the theory of evolution respond to these discoveries?
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2014, 04:59 AM   #89
Carsten Möllering
 
Carsten Möllering's Avatar
Dojo: Hildesheimer Aikido Verein
Location: Hildesheim
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 780
Germany
Offline
Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word

Quote:
Ewen Ebsworth wrote: View Post
Respectfully I disagree. ...
That would not hinder a discussion as far as I am concerned. But I will not continue this discussion because of the kind of hermeneutics you apply.

To me it is important to give historical texts and historical facts there own right. To try to understand their actual meaning - for me - has to be the first step. And only after this I compare to my own understanding what I have come to find in the texts. So there is a chance that the texts may affect and maybe even change me and my understanding.

As long as one's own worldview, understanding and personal interests are the base of exegesis instead of the texts itself, I don't see how a discussion could be productive. Before we could compare our results we would have to discuss our approach. But I'm not interested in such discussions. If your methodology works for you and your life that's fine!
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2014, 05:30 AM   #90
Demetrio Cereijo
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,908
Spain
Offline
Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word

Quote:
Ewen Ebsworth wrote: View Post
But what happens when a religion, such as Christianity, makes statements of a physical nature? What then? What about the miracles of Jesus? What about Israel's exile? The Bible purports to be real history. It is not just a philosophical book.
Religion does not make statements. People does.

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2014, 05:40 AM   #91
aiki-jujutsuka
 
aiki-jujutsuka's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 192
Offline
Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word

Quote:
Demetrio Cereijo wrote: View Post
Religion does not make statements. People does.
I`m sorry can you please explain this comment, it doesn`t make much sense to me.

Quote:
That would not hinder a discussion as far as I am concerned. But I will not continue this discussion because of the kind of hermeneutics you apply.

To me it is important to give historical texts and historical facts there own right. To try to understand their actual meaning - for me - has to be the first step. And only after this I compare to my own understanding what I have come to find in the texts. So there is a chance that the texts may affect and maybe even change me and my understanding.

As long as one's own worldview, understanding and personal interests are the base of exegesis instead of the texts itself, I don't see how a discussion could be productive. Before we could compare our results we would have to discuss our approach. But I'm not interested in such discussions. If your methodology works for you and your life that's fine!
Carsten, I too agree that it is important to understand historical texts in context, so I don`t see any disagreement there. I also strive to avoid eisegesis: reading into the text your own interpretation; the opposite of exegesis, so again there`s no disagreement there. Please then can you clarify how we differ in our understanding of Scripture?
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2014, 07:02 AM   #92
sorokod
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 582
United Kingdom
Offline
Re: Old Testament Creationism

Quote:
Hugh Beyer wrote: View Post
FWIW, saying "It's only a theory" is a great big red flag indicating you don't know what you're talking about and don't have the background to take part in the conversation. It shows that you don't understand how science proceeds or how the words are even used.

A theory, in science, explains why something works the way it does. No theory can ever be proved. Saying evolution is a theory says something about what role "evolution" plays in science, but nothing about how valid or trustworthy it is. The best you can do with a theory is make predictions based on it and see if the predictions hold up. If they do, so far so good--but there's no guarantee that tomorrow someone won't find a prediction that doesn't hold up, showing that the theory is wrong or incomplete. That's how science progresses.

Often, what people say is, "It's a theory, not a law"--as though laws were more accurate than theories. They're not. They're a different kind of animal. Laws tell how to make predictions. Newton's laws of motion give rules for how bodies move in space. The law of natural selection gives rules for which individuals are most likely to survive and reproduce in a given context. Laws can be inaccurate and still be useful--Newton's laws being a case in point.

Theories are useful when they are shown to have predictive power. E.g., based on evolutionary theory, scientists predicted there should be intermediate forms showing how species evolved one to another. Enough intermediate forms have been found at this point that the prediction has been supported. You'll likely say, because Creationists do, that they aren't in the direct line of descent, but that's irrelevant to the argument. Unless you found the one exact individual that was the ancestor to a new species, you'll never have the direct line of descent. The point is to show that viable intermediate forms exist, which is the prediction of evolution. At this point, enough of evolution's predictions have been confirmed that no scientist seriously doubts it.

What you really want to say is that any theory is as good as any other in science, and therefore your theory of a Prime Mover is just as good as physicists' theories of multiple universes with different natural laws. But a theory that says "let's just stop doing science"--let's stop trying to understand the world around us--is not as good as any other. And that's what Creationism does. Whenever there's an anomaly, instead of reacting like a scientist ("Look! A flaw! Cool! Let's figure out how to explain it and maybe get a Nobel Prize!") they react like theologians--"Look! A mystery! Let's all venerate God!". That's not science, and all the wishing in the world won't make it so.
I mathematics "theory" has a special meaning as described here, one can not get more logically watertight then this. Here is a list of some mathematical theories.

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2014, 08:08 AM   #93
Dave de Vos
 
Dave de Vos's Avatar
Dojo: Shoryukai, Breda (aikikai) & Aiki-Budocentrum Breda (yoseikan)
Location: Baarle-Nassau
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 335
Netherlands
Offline
Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word

Quote:
Ewen Ebsworth wrote: View Post
So in your opinion science and religion are completely separate spheres that don`t ever...or should never overlap?

How do you separate the two? We filter everything in life through one ideology or another.
I think there is overlap in the sense that they both offer answers to fundamental questions about the origin, the history and causation of everything.

In this case one ideology (creationism) believes that the ultimate truth can be found by investigating the bible, while the other ideology (science) believes that the ultimate truth can be found by investigating the world and trying to make sense of what is found.

There is much overlap in the subject of these ideologies, but the basic beliefs are too far apart. Neither can be convinced by their opponent's arguments, because they don't fit into their basic belief. There is no overlap in arguments that both ideologies accept as valid and decisive arguments.

So I think a duscussion between people adhering to either ideology is mostly pointless.

Last edited by Dave de Vos : 01-05-2014 at 08:12 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2014, 10:36 AM   #94
sorokod
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 582
United Kingdom
Offline
Re: Old Testament Creationism

By the principle of falsification, for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory.

Consequently, a belief system that allows deities to play fast and loose with the laws of nature (e.g. stopping the sun) , can't have scientific credence. It could be an ideology I suppose.

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2014, 10:43 AM   #95
hughrbeyer
Dojo: Shobu Aikido of Boston
Location: Peterborough, NH
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 653
United_States
Offline
Re: Old Testament Creationism

David, that kind of formal math theory is a different animal again.

ATP and irreducible complexity: So many examples of "irreducible" complexity have been shown to be quite reducible that any such claim is suspect. And look how you respond: "Irreducible complexity! Divine intervention! No need to look further!" That's not a scientific response. If you want to do theology then do theology--though frankly I find this sort of "god of the gaps" to be poor theology too.

As for the bible as history--I agree with you, though many experts would not, that much of the OT, the Gospels, and Acts are written as history. But what other first-century historical text gets the same kind of uncritical acceptance you're giving the Bible? They're full of miracles, monsters, and divine intervention, but that doesn't mean every word is accepted as fact. If the bible is history, we would expect a certain amount of misinformation and fable in it. But with the bible, that's not allowed. So your problem is really that you're not reading it enough like history.

Evolution doesn't prove God doesn't exist, any more than hammers prove carpenters don't exist.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2014, 11:02 AM   #96
Janet Rosen
  AikiWeb Forums Contributing Member
 
Janet Rosen's Avatar
Location: Left Coast
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 3,916
Online
Re: Old Testament Creationism

Quote:
Mary Eastland wrote: View Post
... Their next book proposes a creation story that is very inclusive. "The new Universe and the Human Future."
I have to admit my funny bone was tickled, in line with the old joke about Unitarians beginning prayers "to whom it may concern," and my nomination for an inclusive creation story is:
"Out of what was probably a void, He/She/It, who was there all along, created everything, but maybe not all at once."

Janet Rosen
http://www.zanshinart.com
"peace will enter when hate is gone"--percy mayfield
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2014, 11:04 AM   #97
sorokod
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 582
United Kingdom
Offline
Re: Old Testament Creationism

Quote:
Hugh Beyer wrote: View Post
David, that kind of formal math theory is a different animal again.
Sure it is. Creationists like to hang on to logic similar to the following

1. "Theory is something that remains to be proven"
2 ."Evolution and whatever-its-is-we-are-selling-today are theories"
3. "It follows that both have the same validity"

My point is that the word theory has different meaning in the english language so that you can have "Set theory" on one end of spectrum, followed by "Quantum theory" and finally the "Spaghetti Monster" theory.

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2014, 02:09 PM   #98
Janet Rosen
  AikiWeb Forums Contributing Member
 
Janet Rosen's Avatar
Location: Left Coast
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 3,916
Online
Re: Old Testament Creationism

Dang! My creation theory didn't include kimchi. Whatever was I thinking?!

Janet Rosen
http://www.zanshinart.com
"peace will enter when hate is gone"--percy mayfield
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2014, 02:44 PM   #99
sorokod
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 582
United Kingdom
Offline
Re: Old Testament Creationism

Quote:
Ewen Ebsworth wrote: View Post
Please could you provide evidence that Old Testament Creationism is an utterly and verifiably false myth. If it`s as verifiably false as you claim then this should not be a problem.
People tend to pussyfoot around the talking snake:
Quote:
"And the serpent said unto the woman, ye shall not surely die for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."
I am not sure what attack vector will be convincing to the OP, lack of speech producing machinery, small neural apparatus, etc...

One could argue that this is not to be taken literally - but

1. A deity that created the world in seven days surly is capable of producing a talking reptile
2. On the other hand, if this part is not to be taken literally, why take literally the other parts?

Finally, the expulsion from the garden of eden is the starting point for the humanity as we know it (according to the bible), so I choose to see it as creationist as anything else

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2014, 04:03 PM   #100
aiki-jujutsuka
 
aiki-jujutsuka's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 192
Offline
Re: Old Testament Creationism

Quote:
Hugh Beyer wrote: View Post
David, that kind of formal math theory is a different animal again.

ATP and irreducible complexity: So many examples of "irreducible" complexity have been shown to be quite reducible that any such claim is suspect. And look how you respond: "Irreducible complexity! Divine intervention! No need to look further!" That's not a scientific response. If you want to do theology then do theology--though frankly I find this sort of "god of the gaps" to be poor theology too.

As for the bible as history--I agree with you, though many experts would not, that much of the OT, the Gospels, and Acts are written as history. But what other first-century historical text gets the same kind of uncritical acceptance you're giving the Bible? They're full of miracles, monsters, and divine intervention, but that doesn't mean every word is accepted as fact. If the bible is history, we would expect a certain amount of misinformation and fable in it. But with the bible, that's not allowed. So your problem is really that you're not reading it enough like history.
Can you give me an example of an irreducibly complex system that has been proven to be reducible without loss of function?

Creation Science is not a god-of-the-gaps science or theology. It deals with real data.

There has been much scholarly work done into the Bible - there are sceptical scholars and conservative scholars. Some accept the historicity of the Bible more than others. Some scholars point to so-called contradictions in Scripture. There are responses to those objections too. So yes the Bible is open to scrutiny.
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:19 PM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2014 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate