From WAT:


From 2long:


From weaver:


From me:


WAT has it right... it is a matter of faith... and faith is something that cannot be quantified, in my opinion. How can we measure that?

And even those who aren't Christian, or have no religion at all, understand the concept of faith. We have faith the sun will rise. We have faith that the tide will come in. We have faith that the world will keep on spinning...

My cat even has faith. She has faith that we will feed her when she is hungry. She has faith that we will return after being gone all day.

Faith. I love that word. And it seems to me that we all have it, in one degree or another.

Just a musing...

FH:

"2long - Thank you. You "prove my point" most eloquently, even though that was not your intent."

Glad I could help out.

"YOUR example would advocate for confusion and "ecumenicalism" to the extreme...i.e., let them all in because they all claim to be some sort of "gospel.""

They all ARE some sort of gospel. The point of the program on Natnl Geo about the Judas gospel, for example, was that the various Christian sects at the time had their own particular foci. I don't mind that the church decided on the 4 gospels selected 2 be incorporated in2 the New Testament, and that groups like the Nostics have faded away in favor of the dominant groups still around in the 2nd and 3rd cen2ries. The fact that there are more gospels out there provides an interesting historic perspective on religion of the time.

"Might one not say the same thing, for example, about teaching creation and a universal worldwide Flood in schools simply because they also are "other gospels" of how things got here and how things like fossils can be accounted for. Therefore they are "all" merely SCIENCE?"

No, because, as WAT said, creationism and the worldwide flood are not scientific hypotheses.

"What say you 2long as long as you are arguing for "INCLUSION" as the best criteria regardless of anything else?"

This is where I bow out, because we're talking about the religious beliefs of others, some of whom are also on this board, and I respect their right 2 their belief systems. I won't debate whether they're "right" or "wrong" or on some errant path, because I am not qualified 2 make that determination for them or for you. Any judgments I make in that area, I'll keep 2 myself as one of those "private" things about me that, if revealed accidentally or purposefully 2 one of my friends, might help them understand me better, but aren't necessary 2 reveal 2 everyone because they might more often than not be misunders2d unless delved in2 in great depth. And none of us have time for that.

"Interesting, I always find it interesting, that it seems as though ONLY Christianity is "fair game" for all sorts of attacks or heretical thoughts that "should" be accepted or included. Even South Park won't "dare" to put up so much as a picture of Mohammed lest the Muslims get offended, yet what is done to Christianity is done with NO regard to it's offensiveness."

I think this indicates, for the most part, that Christians can "take a joke", whereas Muslims (and perhaps scientologists - referring specifically 2 South Park) may not. Ac2ally, even some or many Muslims might be able 2, but there have been enough of them threatening 2 KILL critics 2 scare those critics in2 not joking about them.

"Maybe it's because everyone knows that Christians do not kidnap innocent people and fly airplanes into buildings or cut off their heads SIMPLY because they don't agree with your "Fundamental Religion.""

Yep.

-ol' 2long

NBII - just an aside - I have learned by paying attention to the "culture wars" that using the word "faith" in an other-than-religious context will be seized by the wingnuts for an argument that their faith thusly deserves equal time.

If I say I have "faith" in science, then that "proves" it's actually a religion and thus, Genesis can be taught in science classes.

Desperate bunch.

WAT

ahh...now we are getting somewhere.

Definining terms is always essential to understanding, so...

How do define the term you use: "scientific hypotheses" in order for a "hypothesis" of any kind to be "scientific?"

A scientific hypothesis is something you hunch might be right based on some initial observations or logic or suspicions and you will set out to prove it using the scientific method.

Your turn. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

WAT

WAT~ An Aside to your aside:

I should probably pay more attention, myself. You're right... about how words can be twisted to suit an agenda...

I guess my other favorite word "grace" should be next in line... another concept I love... and another word that is used in the secular world to mean much the same as in the Christian venacular: Unmerited favor.

Interesting stuff.

FH:

"...let's carry this thought outside of religion for a moment.

I, ForeverHers, am an Evolutionist and I demand "equal footing" with all other Evolutionists. I DO NOT believe in Macroevolution, but I do believe in Microevolution, therefore, since "one is as good as another, I AM an Evolutionist. Furthermore, I'm a "nice guy," so that is enough to qualify me to TEACH my brand of Evolution in our schools REGARDLESS of what anyone believes "EVOLUTIONIST" means. I suppose you would "get on board" with my position and with my teaching it in public schools, right?"

The metaphor breaks down before it starts. The best scientists (who are human, after all), welcome criticism, even biting criticism. But the best scientific critics are "attacking" the hypotheses of their peers, not their persons. And those receiving that biting criticism (critical review), when at their best, welcome the criticism because it gives them a different perspective on the problem, and helps them 2 hone or toss their hypotheses.

I work in the forefront of scientific exploration on a daily basis. I have a very narrowly focused hypothesis of the observations we're making. DAILY, I test my ideas, and listen 2 criticism (most of it good, some of it annoying) that helps me adjust the hypothesis 2 better fit the latest observations. Sometimes I've found my predictions 2 be humorously or grievously wrong. Sometimes I've been delighted 2 find my predictions of what we'll see next 2 be accurate. All part of the evolution of the hypothesis, which may at any time need 2 be replaced with a better one.

Organized religion can't accomodate that mode of evolutionary thinking, because it must be absolute truth, it can't be falsifiable. Scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable. Critical review of scientific hypotheses betters or replaces those hypotheses, which are outside the individual scientist. Critical review of a person's religious or spiri2al beliefs, more often than it should, undermines the individual's sense of their very person, because it deals with the "who" of the individual. It's far more personal (though scientists can certainly take criticism of their hypotheses personally as well).

"It is the INTERPRETATION of the data that can "set people apart," but the FACTUAL DATA remains unchanged."

True.

"So we are down to "philosophies and presuppositions," that underlie the "labeling" of someone a Christian or an Evolutionist or a Creationist, etc., wouldn't you agree?"

No, as above.

"CLAIMS to be something that, by general definition one is not, does NOT "entitle" someone to be "included" in that classification, in my humble opinion anyway."

I don't disagree. But, as I alluded 2 above and in my previous post, but restated 2 this particular point: what's the "general definition" of Christianity? What's the "absolute definition", for that matter? Must it be yours? Must it be a JW's or a Mormon's? I'm pretty sure that I'm not qualified 2 make that judgment, so I don't. I'm certainly not qualified 2 tell people that they'll burn forever for claiming 2 be something that I might think they're not.

"Isn't that the crux of the argument secularists make, for example, to keep the teaching of Creation as an answer the question of ORIGINS out of public schools?"

It may be the crux that SCIENTISTS make, and many of them are Christians, even by your narrow definition.

"Or perhaps we should include Muslims into the "Christian brotherhood" and call them "Christians" too, simply because they believe in "a" god but just call him Allah rather than "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.""

It'd be an interesting problem if they were demanding 2 be included, wouldn't it? But they're not.

-ol' 2long

Actually, yes it does. All Democrats don't agree. All Republicans don't agree. That's why there is constant debate within each party, because everyone doesn't agree on everything or BELIEVE the same thing. Being a Democrat or Republican is self-chosen. If someone believes he/she is a Republican or Democrat or Christian, that's enough. If all Christians agreed, why would there be so many churches, even without the Mormons and JW's?

This is much more relevant to the question of who's a Christian than the comparison with science, as WAT already pointed out, because it involves our individual BELIEFS about how to interpret the Constitution. Democrats and Republicans can argue endlessly about how to interpret the Constitution and it's a much shorter document than the Bible, written by fewer men (and I emphasize MEN, no women, which is true of both documents).

We may treat our beliefs as facts in our own lives and our beliefs may become self-fulfilling prophecies, which means they may become facts. But, we can change our beliefs which could change that outcome. This isn't true with proven scientific facts. Religious belief is a choice. I've never found anyone who believes EXACTLY as I do, though some are much closer than others.

My mom was an Episcopal minister, once that church started ordaining women (though it created a schism in the church on, of course, Biblical interpretation). She brought a lot of people into the church who were put off by rigid belief systems. In regards to limited beliefs about who gets into heaven she once said, "I wouldn't even want to go to get into that kind of heaven, it sounds like a bad cocktail party."

Precisely, WAT. Science deals with the FACTS, the OBSERVABLE, of the natual world and then attempts to interpret those facts.



No one is talking about "portraying the Bible in scientific terms." But using ANALOGIES is perfectly sound and nothing is "lost" in doing so. The argument was presented that ANY person or sect wishing to call themself/theirself "Christian" is automatically entitled to the name regardless of their beliefs being "traditional" and conforming with "traditional definitions of Christianity. If such traditions do NOT count, then neither do arguments that "only" "scientific" ideas (scientific being defined by 'someone else') can be promulgated and taught as fact. "Flat Earthers" are equally "scientfic" with "Round Earthers," despite the FACTS, because it's all in their INTERPRETATION of the same facts regardless of the "norm."




Teach Stork theory for all I care. You are dragging a red herring into the discussion. The FACTS are the observable, the fossils, etc. The same holds true for "where babies come from." The INTERPRETATON of those facts(flood, fossils, etc.) is philosophical and based upon (scientifically)UNPROVEN suppositions and assumptions.

One Key thought you might want to consider is, for example, of the two models, Creation and Evolution, which most consistantly fits the OBSERVABLE FACTS of what would be predicted by either model?

If one's Philosophy rejects the notion of God, or a Living Creator, then all interpretation of the FACTS is biased and slanted to "fit" the preconceived notion REGARDLESS of any difficulities encountered in explaining what actually IS seen.

Just one example of a scientific FACT. To date, there have been numerous hypothesis regarding the Origin of Life WITHOUT a living Creator creating living things according to His will and design. NOT ONE provable hypothesis has been presented and tested that shows LIFE coming from NON-living things, let alone SELF-REPLICATING LIFE.

So belief in Evolution is NOT scientific and is merely a philosophical FAITH that things "could not" have come about because of a Creator.

FH:

Remember, evolution describes CHANGE in living things over time. Origins is a separate topic.

-ol' 2long

With all due respect, LetSTry, it does NOT make me a Democrat. I CAN believe ANYTHING and still "call" myself a Democrat or a Republican or a Whig or any other "label" that has been chosen to DEFINE certain "core beliefs." I can call myself an American, but that does not mean I also identify with others who call themselves American but hold to, let's say...Marxist philosophies.

My appropriating the name does not make me one, even if I have the "free speech" right to "call" myself anything I wish. As a Christian, I suppose I could choose to call myself a Wiccan if I wanted to, but I do NOT believe in what defines a Wiccan.

"Differences" between Christians DO NOT center on who Jesus Christ is, what He did for us, etc....the basic fundamentals (core beliefs, if you will) of what a Christian is, by definition. That definition is laid down in the Scripture.

Now, some things that are NOT related to salvation (but may be related to Christian living and submission to God) are "open to debate" as in water baptism by immersion or by sprinkling,;pre, mid, post tribulation rapture; tc. Those issues are accountable for "differences" but are not fundamental in defining a Christian. They may, to use your thoughts about Democrats and Republicans, futher classify a Christian as being "fundamental," "conservative," "evangelical," "liberal," etc.. Certainly some of those differences may be less likely or less desirable to embrace because of other negative effects they might have, but the issue remains that a Christian is "defined" by his belief in Jesus Christ AS the Son of God, the Messiah, and His acceptance as one's Lord and Savior, thereby establishing a relationship with Christ that is personal.

God bless.

2long - I know what evolution CLAIMS, because it has to in order to account for the diversity seen in nature. But it is still founded in a presupposition that is NOT scientifically provable. NO Creationist that has thought about this issue at any length DENIES that "microevolution" within "kinds" can NOT occur. It can, and it has. But those changes were in the genetic code to begin with. But there remains NO evidence or examples of MACROEVOLUTION of new "kinds."

The Mathematical FACT is that the "time" required by evolutionary theory is so large as to be "mathematically impossible." That IS a fact. So we are left with wishful thinking for "hopeful monsters," to say NOTHING about HOW life even began from Non-life. One of the basic tenets of the Science of Biology is that "Life comes from life, not from non-living."

So you are correct that in the realm of theories, ORIGINS and EVOLUTION are two separate areas, but they are intricately interconnected in sort of a "chicken and the egg" sort of thing. "Can't have one without the other" I guess would be another way of looking at it.

In relevant news:

I employed some of SS' suggestions last night as an experiment.

My W was tired, in a "dull" mood, for lack of a better term 2 describe it. I didn't use specific things that my Christian friend, SS, suggested last night, but I did use the gist of his ideas.

I was cheerful, conversational, positive. It had a positive effect, such that my W sought my hand while we were talking. Other little stuff, 2.

But it shows 2 go you that just one's mannerisms and tone in general can have a profound impact on the quality of the time you spend with them.

-ol' 2long

Oh I almost missed this. I like your mom LetsTry.

That is good news indeedy 2long. That SS sure is a smart guy. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Women just love a fun, upbeat, humorous kind of fella.

Cool, 2long!!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

LetSTry,

You know... one of my favoritist women on the planet is Liz, my former Episcopal priest in California. You may remember I used to talk about her **all the time** while I was working to save my first marriage and beyond, until I moved here... she was (and I'm sure still is) a gem! A trail blazer, like your mom! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

When I said that our "sinlessness is guaranteed by God", it is part of the teachings of ACIM, FH. I just read your post where you didn't understand this statement, and not too worry as it takes a lot of "unlearning" to understand this. And I certainly cannot explain it, but it brings me peace to know this.

The Bible wasn't enough for me FH, it stopped making sense to me one day and so I prayed, and prayed, and prayed to God to help me as I was very confused...that is when I found ACIM. Now it's not for everyone, but if it is for you, you know it.

And now I have this bright, shining light lighting my way again.

Aren't you happy for me? I know when I see someone who really finds something that he can believe in, and that puts that bounce back in his step, that renews his faith...I feel almost like it is happening to me. It is such a good thing...don't you agree?

Yea, embrace your inner fish.

Speaking of "kinds" - for the uninformed, this is code for how so many more animals exist now than could have resonably been on the Big Boat. Noah loaded "kinds", not individual species - according to the "flooders". As FH states, creationists are fine with "micro" evolution - descended from their "kind" after the "flood", but not "macro" evolution - more "kinds."

But, creationists have been unable to specify what the originally created kinds are. If kinds were distinct, it should be easy to distinguish between them. Instead, we find a nested hierarchy of similarities, with kinds within kinds within kinds. For example, the twelve-spotted ladybug could be placed in the twelve-spotted ladybug kind, the ladybug kind, the beetle kind, the insect kind, or any of dozens of other kinds of kind, depending on how inclusive the kind is. No matter where one sets the cutoff for how inclusive a kind is, there will be many groups just bordering on that cutoff. This pattern exactly matches the pattern expected of evolution. It does not match what creationism predicts.

Exactly how many creatures were on the boat? I guess the number divided by 2 equals how many "kinds" there were then, right?

Fixity of kinds is based on the philosophy of Plato, not the Bible (Dewey 1910). Nowhere does the Bible say that kinds themselves cannot change and diversify. Reproduction "according to their kind" is entirely consistent with evolution, as long as it is recognized that kinds are not fixed.

Although major changes from one kind to another do not normally happen, except gradually over hundreds of thousands of generations, a sudden origin of a new kind has been observed. A strain of cancerous human cells (called HeLa cells) have evolved to become a wild unicellular life form all its own!(Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).

WAT

Let me get this straight. You're saying that anyone who adheres to the current consensus view of scientists w/r/t the origins of life believes that a creator could not have been involved?

Where on earth did you get that idea?

Science does not work in opposition to religion. It attempts to describe the universe, but it has no ability to address questions of meaning. In this way, it simply does not walk on the philosophical territory where religion resides. It's very limited that way.

However, if a system of religious belief insists on treading over scientific ground, and finds itself in conflict with the present consensus science has made about the universe...

I'll put it bluntly. I think the adherents to that set of beliefs have chosen poorly, or at least have a wrong perspective about the importance of the minutiae that comprise their belief.

As for life and its origins, about which some Christians find themselves in conflict with the scientific consensus... shouldn't those be trivial concerns?

The original story of Genesis was a poem. Here's a bit, translated:

At the beginning of God's creating
of the heavens and earth,
when the earth was wild and waste,
darkness over the face of Ocean,
rushing-spirit of God hovering over the face of the waters—

God said: Let there be light! And there was light.
God saw the light: that it was good.
God separated the light from the darkness.
God called the light: Day! and the darkness he called: Night!
There was setting, there was dawning: one day.

What will we do? At the beginning there were oceans! Amazing. There was water before god even began. Of course I'm being absurd.

Poetry, metaphor, myth, parable. All details in aid of an understanding about the meaning and mystery of life, and how to live. Should one of these details fail to hold up, to me that tells you, "That part of your belief was wrong. Take some time and make it fit." When I find those, I think it's very exciting.

The discoveries made in physics during the 20th century involved many things that leave an incredible amount of room for the metaphysical. Almost more than we might have ever dreamed of!

The idea that science explains everything and there is no place for god and that the existence of the metaphysical has been somehow disproven is very 19th century, you ask me. It's based upon a wrong belief that science can address meaning, which it cannot.

GC

I am a Christian believer. Wholeheartedly. And, IMO, evolution is even more God-like impressive than a literal interpretation of the biblical analogy of creation.

It’s interesting that as we learn more and more about the cosmos it still lines up with genesis. “Let there be light” and “divided the light from the dark” sure do sound like the big bang and when the early universe suddenly became transparent to radiation (at about 300Kyrs). And there are many more such examples.

Science always wins, you know. Galileo was right even though believers said he was a heretic to point out his scientific observations. Fundamentalist Christians even plagued Hubble almost 400 years later when he pointed out that the Milky Way was not the only galaxy and the universe is not in equilibrium. Mendel was about as pious a monk as you could find yet needed to defend himself against charges of heresy. There were/are those who claim Einstein was a non-believer to publish relativity.

Mathematics can describe and predict all these scientific observations, including evolution. And mathematics has been called the language of God.

God made this universe much more interesting than a literal interpretation of parts of scripture allows.

Sometimes, I can barely wait to learn it all. Sometimes I can barely contain the joy of it all.

With prayers,