The ID movement is not based on “dishonesty”, y’know. People really believe the theories work. Many intelligent scientists throughout history have said things that are pro-ID.
I was actually delighted to recently have a civilized debate on ID with an actual biologist the other day. He started out very aggressive, but really it’s not so offensive when you look into it. Btw I’m lapsed-IDist so I wouldn’t come on here saying “teach the controversy!” or any of that stuff. I really don’t know what to think with regard the origins of biology.
Not possible. Saying it was “possible” makes you look stubborn.
I do hope your “bad” is synonymous with “mistake”. Otherwise there had to be a good reason why they believed. You do understand how far their belief took them, don’t you?
Paul was interrogated to deny christ, he was tortured and since he refused he was beheaded by Nero.
Peter was crucified upside down in Rome
Matthew was nailed by spears to the ground and then beheaded in Ethiopia
James was thrown off a 100 feet down after refusing to deny Jesus. He survived the fall, and then was beaten to death
Nathanael was flayed to death
Andrew was crucified on an X shape cross in greece
You see how far their belief took them that even at the start they refused to deny anything that they believed in. And you are telling it was possible that there wasn’t a “good” reason for their beliefs? It’s like you are not taking in consideration just how strong they seriously believed. And these where Jews, Jews would not just buy any divinity claim because they strictly believe in the God in torah. Get over the fact that they where not convinced by just “i am the Son of God, and i made that blind guy see”. There was a reason much more than that.
“IT” didnt actually happen, is plausible yet baseless. Something did happen to them, and i gave a small list to show the seriousness of their belief. It is absurd to suggest that they were willing regardless of not being as sure. In their minds, what they believed in was seriously the truth and their feelings reflect on their willingness. You are making up excuses and you really need to review some of them.
Cisco, you’re not making sense. “IT” didnt happen is referring to the supernatural event of the ressurection or whatever.
Jeez, so what if people got tortured and kept their faith, that could happen to any of the other cultists that have been mentioned.
re: ID and evolution, I think believing in both is a cop-out. To me, ID = a Designing intelligence of some kind was involved with some stage of the foundation and/or development of biology, while Evolution = natural mechanisms can explain the origin and subsequent development of biology.
I guess believing in ID and Evo means you believe God set up the universe, and that biology naturally follows from physics? If biology follows from physics then another of my ‘gaps’ has dissapeared, giving me all the less reason to believe in God.
Well, dishonest or ignorant, take your pick. I was specifically referencing asinine arguments like, “But how is new information introduced into the genome?” or “But look at these [un]irreducibly complex systems!” when all creationist/ID-proponents had to do was learn some molecular biology.
Maybe ID proponents really are right… but where’s their evidence?
Well, sure they might be completely ignorant. But the IDists I used to read, such as Dr Michael Behe, do have qualifications and in his case tenure. I’ve read his stuff, and although he’s reigned it in for the layman, he clearly does know a lot about molecular biology. I’ve tried to follow his arguments with fellow scientists and they get very technical.
Irreducible complexity is a very misunderstood thing. First of all, can I just ask you if you think it is applicable to human-made products of design (I think it very much is). If we establish that, then we can at least see that it is a coherent idea.
With biology, although people argue the intricacies of the theory and its application to particular biological structures, I think it is sufficiently complex an argument to see that one basic point is clear: functionality in biology is not an illusion. Irreducible complexity is one way of trying to pin that functionality down in a thorough theoretical framework.
Anyway… I still have something of a cognitive dissonance over this issue. I’ve dropped ID, but only because other areas of philosophy meant I had to drop God. I still don’t see how functionality can arise from physics.
Well… it’s there in irreducible complexity (and also Dembski’s ‘Complex Specified Information’ theory, but we’ll save that one…). A human body… knock out the heart and it will stop functioning. I think that’s all there is to it. You can’t do the equivalent with non-living natural structures as the parts and function are not easily identifiable.
To be honest, I do accept evolution and natural explanations at the moment, but only because I acknowledge my own shortcomings as one human of many, and am open to the idea that functionality and design possible are illusions created by ridiculously complex natural processes. But I would definitely not choose these beliefs, and enjoyed my time being convinced of ID’s truth. Enjoyed it, until the abuse at the hands of Youtube commenters forced me to take down the vids that is!
EDIT: well, I’m really starting to think harder about that idea that “it is in God’s interest to have people not believe in him”. I’ve said I’m an absurdist, so why not work on an absurd theology? Rar, need to leave this thread and go do something CONSTRUCTIVE!
Ah ya. Obviously that is what “IT” is because that is what caused the transformation of his followers.
And we go back to the analyzing of what those cults believed in. The cult did something, whether it was poisoning the minds with twisting doctrines or showing magic tricks. Jesus’ followers pillar of their belief was that he rose from the dead. That is what they strongly believed was true. There is no recorded cult that has followers getting martyred for their belief that their leader was God and proved it by rising from the dead, so no, that can’t just happen to any cult.
You probably think that Christians are supposed to believe in ID only and can’t believe in Evolution. And i bet you think that it is wrong for a Christian to agree with evolution because you think Evolution isn’t coherent with Genesis.
Even the father of ID didn’t fully reject evolution.
No, we believe that God created the universe and evolution is just the way he did the creation of life. We don’t believe that God created everything by just poofing up stars, animals, and all of that out of will. Please research more.
Just to add Lebowski. What do you think is “the power of God” or “Miracles”?
For example, do you think God works in the way of lets say the Moses movies? You know, the ten plagues, or blood crying statues, apparitions being scene on top of churches and a bunch of people levitating while in prayer? You think those are what miracles are supposed to be?
It doesn’t matter how strongly they believed something and how brutal their deaths were and how unique their belief was.
A belief doesn’t justify itself by being serious and unique. So stop repeating the same illogic over and over.
Neither the story nor the followers are infallible. Both are subject to mistakes and errors.
You can’t form a reasonable argument to support the resurrection by appealing to the strong/unique beliefs of the followers. Either be quiet, or say something new.
scenario 1:
IT may have happened, and people may have believed it happened
Result: these are the true believers, congrats to them!
scenario 2:
IT may have happened, and people may not have believed it happened
Result: these are the incorrect non-belivers. Boo to them!
scenario 3:
IT may not have happened, and people may have believed it happened
Result: these are the poor, deluded folks.
scenario 4:
IT may not have happened, and people may not have believed it happened
Result: these are the correct non-believers.
So, you’ve admitted these scenarios can play out in other cults and religions. Yet you seem to be claiming that the follower or/and the event of Christianity is in some way infallible.
This is because you are a Christian.
A muslim would say the same about Islam, a Scientologist the same about scientology etc etc etc etc etc…
You are very quick to launch personal attacks, and I do not know why.
In the USA this whole “Evolution vs Intelligent Design” has been labelled the “Culture war”. I think if you look past the “both can be true!” wishy-washy stuff, and look into the core of what evolution and intelligent design stand for, then you can see that they are very opposed. People who seek the mid-ground are basically looking for a way for everyone to get along nicely. But really:
a) what role is evolution going to give to a designer? The point of evolution is that you can explain each and every biological process with natural mechanisms
b) what role is intelligent design going to give to evolution? in fact, to be precise, they will conceed much to evolution, but they will say it is “micro” evolution, and then deny “macro” evolution (and abiogenesis).
Or if they accept that natural abiogenesis is possible, then they are very weak IDists indeed as they have been forced to retreat entirely from biology, and instead claim that physics is ‘intelligently designed’ (and then just have to argue with the naturalistic physicists)
Yeah, the important word here being “fully”. The concept of evolution will be broken down, and then they will discard the parts which are central to true evolution.
Stars, no: they are non-living entities, outside of biology.
Animals, well… no he wouldn’t have “poofed” them up.
But what about abiogenesis, the problem of first life? When I was hardline ID that’s what I focussed on. Because the teleological force could have been implanted there, and life could have evolved (not neccesarily entirely via mutations, but evolved) from there, but without that first life it is impossible.
Just to add Lebowski. What do you think is “the power of God” or “Miracles”?
For example, do you think God works in the way of lets say the Moses movies? You know, the ten plagues, or blood crying statues, apparitions being scene on top of churches and a bunch of people levitating while in prayer? You think those are what miracles are supposed to be?
Michael Behe has to be one of the worst offenders who really is being intellectually dishonest in his support of ID. From his cross-examination during the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, it’s clear that he has allowed his religious beliefs to compromise his scientific objectivity.
In the interest of saving time (yours and mine,) I’ll concede whatever point it was you were trying to make about knocking out the human heart resulting in the death of a human being as a sign of irreducible complexity. (It isn’t, but I’m tired of arguing.)
An interesting question. Ok, so God would have done the following:
1 Be the foundation of existence itself
2 Have created matter, and the laws of physics, within existence
3 Have shaped matter, through the laws of biology, into living beings
4 Be the foundation of those living beings, by providing them with souls
The kinds of miracles I’m thinking would inspire faith would be where the mastery of the laws in 2 and 3 are shown to be transcended. So yes, similar to what you described.
“Ten plagues”? Uh, not especially. Plagues are naturally occuring phenomena, ten in a row would be statistically unlikely but explainable. Besides, would just show God is a jerk.
“Blood-crying statues”? I would have those goddamn statues taken into a lab and examined thoroughly because it has the whiff of snake-oil about it. And again: what is the point of such a titchy and meaningless ‘miracle’?
“Apparitions scene [sic] on top of churches”? How many people saw them? How long were they they for?
“Bunch of people levitating while in prayer”? How many people saw them? How long were they levitating for?
I would apply very high standards of skepticism to such claims. But if an incident of the laws of physics/biology being over-ruled occured then damn right I would take it seriously.
I mean, isnt that is supposed to have been what happened in your book, with the parting of the seas and the resurrection you’ve been so keen to defend here? Only difference between us is I expect to see it, you’re content just to read about it.
Well, I’d love for you to cite from that because I followed that very closely when it was going down.
One of the classic mis-quotations of him is the following:
Q. "Under your definition, would astrology be considered a science?"
A. “Yes. But bad science.”
And then everyone goes “ooooh, Behe said Astrology is a science!”
But these are the first posts we’ve exchanged directly? Unless you mean you’re tired of arguing full-stop, or in this thread generally?
It was a quickly dashed out example. The problem with it is probably that the heart is not physically interlocking with the other ‘parts’ of the irreducibly complex system (human vital organs).
But I can tell from your attitude that you really, really, REALLY hate ID, so I won’t mention the FLAGELLUM huh! (cue: posting of several talk.origins articles on the debunking of the flagellum as IC candidate)
Hey, as i said before, if you want to believe that “IT” - the resurrection happened or just like Neut - disbelieve it and say he pulled a Houdini/Chris Angel or what ever magician stunt. That is your business at the end of the day, there was something very BIG that these apostles believed to be 100% face to face true. And that is the reason they dedicated their lives to the point of going through horrible fatalities because they claimed to have seen Jesus rise from the dead. Making a conclusion that they where greatly tricked is your decision.
No, i’m not saying they are infallible i’m just saying they are distinguishable (motive based). Because the time of information Jesus gave them is that damn hard for convincing. There was no corruption of doctrine, these men where not just god-less men, they where Hebrew (and Judaism is equivalent to their culture). You can’t just dismiss it as a hoax that owned them, not just like that. A case is seriously needed to show that Jesus pulled a Magician Stunt out of the roman execution to be able to debunk the testimonies of the Apostles. I said, i’ve giving the chance of a possibility of them dieing in vain, but i need to see a real good basis. You telling me that there are other cults that have followers getting killed is not a good basis, that does not satisfy me argument, because it does not compare to the testimonials of the disciples. There is no cult leader that claimed to be God and to have Rose after being executted, and this is what makes
Yes, it is common for an Evolution vs ID/Creationists. But the thing is, it is not impossible nor absurd to harmonize both, as i said again research more.
“FULLY”? Science it self does not fully agree with evolution. That doesn’t mean we say it isn’t true or it’s just half true. There are still some proposals and cases with in the Evolution theory that isn’t fully accepted with scientists. The Fossil records for example.
You see, most Creationist believe that God used evolution after the creation. That’s the simplest sentence. His creation evolved, having the ability to some how adapt to changes in nature, etc. Evolution is about how species are differentiated through Natural Selection, not exactly the origin of life.
If being skeptical of the judgement of some guys in a book who lived 2000 years ago consigns me to Hell then fine I’ll start packing now.
Where doesnt it agree. Because I’ll tell you now where IDists dont agree:
They don’t agree that it is possible for evolution to take an organism from one distinct morphological form to another. Minor variations in the gene pool obviously happen, and mutations can effect already-existing features, but they do not believe evolution can go from a fish to a reptile, or a reptile to a bird, for instance.
Now, the limits will depend on the individuals as there are not clearly defined. They are based around the limitations of irreducible complexity theory: that mutations, if random, will harm an organism or produce no effect that will be preserved in the gene pool.
Evolutionists of the neo-Darwinian stripe believe all biological systems can be produced by a combination of natural selection acting on mutations. Lamarckian evolutionists were probably more in line with ID theory, but that has fallen out of favour.
So I don’t see the two co-existing particularly well. Evolution makes absolutely NO concessions to intelligent design, and while ID has to make concessions to evo, it has to limit it, or back out of biology entirely (as you have done).
And I have read a LOT on this subject, so I’d appreciate you stop patronising me. Anyway I’m gonna do something fucking constructive NOWWWW
You see, you and allot of people have “God’s power” all wrong. Blood crying statues, people levitating out of prayer, apparitions being seen in church roofs, stigmata, whatever… Those are not miracles, those are hoax’s.
I don’t understand why God has to be seen to work like that anyway. My opinion of miracles are, a guy that managed to survive cancer, or a horrible plane crash, or just like Morgan Freeman put it “a kid who says no to drugs and yes to an education”… those are real miracles. Nothing has to be supernatural to be considered a miracle. Even if the Miracle can be dismissed as a coincidence or scientifically explained, i still doesn’t matter. Miracles can be just things out of the ordinary; possible yet unlikely things. Are these things questionable for divine intervention, can it be excused for just coincidence or luck? yeah sure, that’s cool. These are real miracles in comparison with Blood crying statues.
Next, the 10 plagues. This is also shows me that your idea of Theism and Christianity in general is from what you’ve seen on tv.
The 10 plagues themselves, and the crossing of the red sea is not exactly the way it is shown in the movies. There was nothing supernatural/comic book like about it.
For example, the killing of the 1st born. In the movies, some angel in the form of gas floats around town and just kills out random 1st born people. That’s not exactly the way it went. It’s just cooler and more entertaining to think it did.
You see, the 1st Born is also a title given to the Egyptian council or court; the high leaders below the Pharoah. So the killing of the first born was probably because of an assassination (some random jew slips in and kills the elect during their sleep) or they got sick from the things the 10 plagues (the frogs, the locosts, etc).
The crossing of the red sea is also not the way in the movies, because “red sea” is mistranslated. in the original Hebrew translationtion, it isn’t the red sea, but “the sea of reads”: Which was originally a marsh. So “the parting of the red sea” is metaphorical for an ambush. Now saying all this, am i discrediting the divine intervention or miracles? No.
I can say that the event in the “sea of reads” was divine intervention, because the Jews managed to be victorious over an Egyptian army (and the Egyptian army was known to be powerful during that time). I mean, wouldn’t it be outrageously unthinkable off for the Philippines to go at war with America and actually win? It’s a fuckin miracle for the Philippines to win a war against America.
My point is that Miracles, and God’s power does not have to be supernatural. Blood crying statues, or Apparitions in churches are not miracles because that’s really not the way God works. God’s way of working is actually realistically, it can be questioned yet not out rageously comic book like.
If there was a solid case that solves how the apostles believed Jesus literately rose from the dead, that’s when things get interesting. If it was a magician stunt by Jesus, i would really like to see the back up for that. The reason why the resurrection is seen to me to be actual is because the apostles never told it as a metaphor, they believed it to be literate. Why would they lie about that?
Regardless of how you define them, they are more suitable for being miracles than blood crying statues or levitating saints.