Page 2 of 4

Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:33 am
by stahrwe
I do believe that.

Contradictions are a matter of interpretation.

It's makes more sense than attempts to explain how the eye evolved. They are laughable and require a great gull to believe them.

While I am aware of the existence of ICR I am not a user of their site or materials. My conclusion was based on my own thinking, only after I had arrived at it did I discover that it existed as a theory called Mature Creation. So it's my own c#!@.

Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:55 am
by Robert Tulip
I haven't read the Bible cover to cover as lots of it is incomprehensible without some context. I probably have read the whole New Testament, most of the prophets and Psalms and wisdom books. The historic books in the Old Testament I know mainly in summary. A goodish summary I've read of the Bible is The Bible Book By Book by Ray Brown. It has about two pages on each of the 58 books, much easier than slogging through Chronicles etc, although he does intrude with little fundamentalist homilies. Looking for info on Brown, I stumbled upon http://books.energion.com/biblical.shtml a page of Biblical Study Tools.

I worry about the suggestion to read the Bible right through. It is a habit of some businessmen in the Gideons organisation who read nothing else, and it makes them feel worthy while providing them with a very narrow understanding of the modern world. Reading a bible chapter every day is a more soothing and sensitising way to relax and edify than some alternatives, but it does tend to promote self-righteousness. For example, just reading the Bible and ignoring the rest of science and literature can validate belief in false creationist ideas which have been disproved by modern science. It is rather harmful to believe in a God who does not exist. The Bible is not a sufficient source book for modern life, as much of it is misleading when considered in isolation.

Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:07 am
by Robert Tulip
stahrwe wrote:Contradictions are a matter of interpretation. It's makes more sense than attempts to explain how the eye evolved. They are laughable and require a great gull to believe them.
An example of an explanation of how the eye evolved is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye What is laughable here is that you can see an interventionist God as more believable than this simple scientific reasoning based on evidence. The great gulls are the Christians who refuse to examine the evidence for evolution.

Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:20 am
by stahrwe
Ok, scientists know all the parts of a human eye and how it evolved. Make one.

Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:31 am
by Frank 013
Star
Ok, scientists know all the parts of a human eye and how it evolved. Make one.
A camera is a reasonably efficient facsimile of the eye… furthermore scientists have created visual detectors that are superior to any natural eye on the planet.

Later

Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:05 am
by stahrwe
I am not interested in a mechanical, reasonable facsimile of the eye. Make a real eye. And by the way, make the interface with the brain so that there is no stroboscopic effect in in sunlight.

Or, I'll let you get away with the camera provided that you put all of the parts in a bag and shake it until the camera is fully assembled.

Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:02 am
by Chris OConnor
Ok, scientists know all the parts of a human eye and how it evolved. Make one.
This would be funny if it weren't so sad. You actually think you're making a good point. But everyone is reading this and trying to figure out how to "softly" tell you that your logic is flawed.

But instead of attempting to explain why your logic is messed up how about you explain why you're even going down this path. What if scientists cannot create a human eye? What now? What have you proved?

Can humans create volcanoes? Can we create a star or a planet? No? Well then clearly a supernatural superhero did it. If humans cannot do something then nature couldn't possibly do it either and obviously, therefore, it was done by magic. A critical thinking professor would call security and have you physically removed from his or her classroom.

Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:09 am
by Chris OConnor
Or, I'll let you get away with the camera provided that you put all of the parts in a bag and shake it until the camera is fully assembled.
Yeah, I've read this "argument" too on creationist web sites. Haven't you ever read a single book explaining evolutionary theory? There are simple answers to everything you're presenting, but you clearly have opted to only read the pseudo-science. Why is that?

Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:45 am
by CWT36
Chris OConnor wrote:
Ok, scientists know all the parts of a human eye and how it evolved. Make one.
This would be funny if it weren't so sad. You actually think you're making a good point. But everyone is reading this and trying to figure out how to "softly" tell you that your logic is flawed.

But instead of attempting to explain why your logic is messed up how about you explain why you're even going down this path. What if scientists cannot create a human eye? What now? What have you proved?

Can humans create volcanoes? Can we create a star or a planet? No? Well then clearly a supernatural superhero did it. If humans cannot do something then nature couldn't possibly do it either and obviously, therefore, it was done by magic. A critical thinking professor would call security and have you physically removed from his or her classroom.
Chris -

To say his logic is flawed is an understatement. The fact that a scientist can't build an eye is absolute proof of only one thing .... that a scientist can't build an eye. It would be like if I asked him, "well, if you're god is real bring him to me so that I can meet him. Oh, you can't do that? That means that your god doesn't exist."

It's astounding the hoops people will jump through in order to maintain their illusions (delusions?). I have several times noted that my impression is that this guy is intelligent. May be, but the guy also must be a nut.

He is still avoiding my simple straightforward questions and has now turned to designing eyes. It's a wonderful tactic. Don't like the questions that arise from the conversation you've started? Change the topic. Stuck on the logical impossibility of how you define god? Let's talk about geneology. Stuck on that? Change the topic to the ark. Oops, stuck on that one too. Let's talk about the eye in a bag. It's lunacy.

I'm going to stand back on this one for a while and watch how the rest of you work, I'm sure that I will learn something from your responses to him. I can't have a dialogue with the guy myself when he changes the topic any time he is forced to address the problems with his assertions.

side note: Holy crap there are some intelligent people on this site!!

Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:06 pm
by geo
edit note: deleted