There's an excellent selection of current books on Creationism and on
Intelligent design at
http://www.torontochristianbooks.com/CREATION.HTM
I found it very useful!
rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in message news:<6e14bcdc.0403051358.13b89c81@posting.google.com>...
> "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message news:<c2a46v$og9$0@pita.alt.net>...
> > > JERRY
> > > I will be happy not to forget it when you can prove it. You see,
> > > Davey, my position is that the bible is nothing more than a 2000 year
> > > old book of goatherder mythology. It fails to be consistent,
> > > containing contradictions within the text that cannot be resolved
> > > within the text, but must be rationalized by the reader. It fails to
> > > be historically accurate and it fails miserably on prophecy. You
> > > would think that if this god you believe in really did inspire/write
> > > the bible, he would do a better job of articulating himself. From
> > > this book, he looks like a damned inarticulate dork.
>
> >DAVEY
> > I think you can't have read too much of it.
>
> JERRY
> I'd wager I've read much more of it than you. I would also wager I
> know it much better than you. You can always ask your buddy Jason,
> who I severely spanked on the issue of the prophecy of the destruction
> of Tyre in alt.talk.creationism. The debate is in the Google
> archives. You can watch him squirm, change his story again and again
> and finally start sending URL's he hasn't read from apologist sites
> that all say the same sad story that had already been refuted. He
> even sent me two URL's that were identical, because he never even
> bothered to read them before he sent them. In the end, he accused me
> of lying because my research and posts didn't prove he was correct.
> Then he ran away, crying for his momma.
>
> My position is that the bible can't be a holy book because it fails
> three critical tests that it needs to be considered inerrant. It
> fails to be historically accurate. Two quick examples: archaeology
> has shown that the biblical story of Joshua at Jericho could not have
> happened. The walls weren't even up when Joshua and the Israelites
> came through.
>
> The bible cannot be considered inerrant and a holy book because it
> fails miserably on Prophecy. This is where your buddy Jason got
> spanked on the failed prophecy of Tyre as claimed in Ezekiel ch 26.
> We could also discuss the failed prophecy in the NT where Jesus told
> the disciples that he would return with the second coming during their
> lifetimes.
>
> Finally, the bible is contradictory. A good example of this would be
> the different accounts of the Resurrection morning as claimed by the
> four gospels or we could even talk about the discrepancies between the
> synoptic gospels and the book of John.
>
> Pick your poison. We can then find out how well I know the bible. ;-)
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > So, when you can prove that your god exists and wrote the bible you
> > > use to justify your bigotry about gays, I will be happy to "not forget
> > > that." ;-)
>
> >DAVEY
> > We don't give empirical proofs.
>
> JERRY
> That's because you have nothing but opinion to offer. That's the
> reason your particular cult has over 2000 separate sects all claiming
> to be based only on the bible. It's all just opinion, Davey, nothing
> that can be backed up, but there is plenty of evidence against your
> book, if you would just read it with a critical eye. I don't expect
> you to, though. And that makes things more amusing for me. ;-)
>
> > > >DAVEY
> > > > Yeah, don't patronise me, perhaps you need a writing one.
> > >
> > > JERRY
> > > I appear to be doing a better job expressing myself and making my
> > > points than you so far, Davey. You seem to be reading into my text to
> > > see there what you expect or want to see. I don't mind correcting
> > > you, mind you. Makes you look not quite so quick on the draw. ;-)
>
> >DAVEY
> > You obviously don't have an unbiassed opinion here, if you feel you are
> > qualified to make me look stupid.
>
> JERRY
> it doesn't take much qualification. I've read your postings.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > I'm
> > > > > saying that YOU are making religious arguments by invoking "the eyes
> > > > > of god" as some sort of rational.
>
> > > >DAVEY
> > > > Some sort of rational what?
> > >
> > > JERRY
> > > Jeez, did I really type "rational" rather than rationale? My bad.
>
> >DAVEY
> > No wonder you think I need a reading comprehension course.
>
> JERRY
> Nope, I've demonstrated that already. What I need to do is proofread
> my own work a bit more carefully.
>
> > > >DAVEY
> > > > Hardly. Marriage is a Creation ordinance. It was started with Adam and
> Eve.
> > >
> > > JERRY
> > > Hardly. There is no evidence to support the bible as being true about
> > > pretty much anything. There was no Adam and Eve. One of the reasons
> > > I keep pointing out in alt.talk.creationism why theists fight so hard
> > > against evolution in spite of the evidence against them is the
> > > following:
> >
> > If there was no Adam and Eve, then was the first person to evolve from a
> > monkey male or female? And without a partner, how did he/she carry on the
> > line?
>
> JERRY
> Straw man argument. I think a good college biology course is in order
> for you, Davey. A good community college near you could help clear up
> those misconceptions of evolution for you.
> >
> > > If evolution is true, there was no Garden of Eden.
> > > If there was no Garden of Eden, there was no Adam and Eve.
> > > If there was no Adam and Eve, there was no Fall from Grace.
> > > If there was no Fall from Grace, there was no original sin.
> > > If there was no original sin, then Jesus' sacrifice, if it existed at
> > > all, is worthless
>
> >DAVEY
> > You'd think he would have not bothered with it then.
>
> JERRY
> Who, God? You are assuming that the bible is true and that this deity
> exists. Why not assume instead that all gods are constructs of man's
> search for truths that he couldn't comprehend?
>
> > DAVEY
> > That's precisely why, by the way, I find it hard to understand people who
> > say they are Christians believing in evolution.
>
> JERRY
> I'm sure. But they don't necessarily accept the bible to be literally
> true. They accept the simple truths that are couched in the mythology
> without having to believe in a literal interpretation.
>
> >
> > > Therefore, if evolution is true (and it is) then there is no reason to
> > > believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, Davey.
>
> >DAVEY
> > Go on, show me a case where new information has observably entered a genome
> > under observable conditions but without physically being put there.
>
> JERRY
> Sure. It's called polyploidy. (I'm not gonna get technical with you
> here as I don't think you will be up on the jargon). What happens in
> polyploidy is that the "child" cell gets a duplicate copy of the
> mother's "information." If the mother's information could be
> expressed for the sake of simplicity as ABCDE, then the child cell
> gets ABCDEABCDE. The second duplicate set of information then begins
> to change and mutate as all information mutates.
>
> This is just one example of how additional information gets into the
> cell. It's duplicate, but it's also ADDITIONAL.
>
> Now, if you really, really want to talk science, we can talk about how
> the travesty called "Intelligent Design" actually confuses it's
> disciples by using the word "information" indiscriminately. There are
> two kinds of information. One is called Shannon information and the
> other is called complexity. They both have different rules. I see
> creationists, though, attempting to use the phrase "complexity" with
> the same rules that apply to Shannon information.
>
> But in the end, all ID really is is just the same old tired argument
> from incredulity that creationists all use. It's not proof for
> intelligent design, it's an attack on evolution.
>
> You see, according to the scientific method
>
> People start by examining ALL of the information available.
> They then try to come up with an hypothesis that matches the evidence
> they have.
> Once they have an hypothesis, they test the hypothesis against the
> evidence. If the hypothesis fails, it goes back to be re-looked
> again. This process goes on over and over. As new evidence is
> discovered, the hypothesis is tested again against the new evidence.
> Once an hypothesis survives all testing and can be used predictively
> to help predict what will be found in the future, that hypothesis is
> upgraded to a theory.
>
> That is what evolution is. It's an hypothesis that has been tested
> against all the evidence. A theory is as high as you can go in
> science.
>
> Now, here is how Creationism works:
>
> It starts by accepting an ancient book of goatherder mythology as
> being literally true.
> Evidence it checked against the hypothesis that the book is true.
> Evidence that is found to contradict the book is thrown out, since the
> conclusion is already forgone.
> Then adherents to this hypothesis throw rocks at the accepted theory,
> since they believe if they can prove evolution wrong (which they
> can't) then their hypothesis would be accepted as fact.
>
> But science doesn't work that way, Davey. In order to prove
> Creationism true, you have to do the following:
>
> 1. Produce the Creator. Not just any creator but the Creator
> specified in the bible.
> 2. Produce evidence that the earth was created in just six days.
>
> Of course, since Creationism is based upon a literal belief in the
> bible, if you could prove the bible to be inerrant, you would have
> more of a case. But since I can demonstrate those three areas of
> fallibility in the bible above, I wouldn't expect anyone to be able to
> do that.
>
> >DAVEY
> > Evolution only looks true when the people who believe it set the terms of
> > debate to suit themselves so that they cannot lose, expecting us to show
> > them evidence of God when they cannot show us evidence of the lack of God.
>
> JERRY
> Not at all. The evidence for evolution is widespread and not doubted
> by anyone except those whose science knowledge is very weak and who
> choose to believe that it can't be true.
>
> As for evidence for lack of god, you have that backward. It's the
> theist who is making the supernatural claim when claiming the
> existence of god. The skeptic doesn't have to prove that god doesn't
> exist, since the burden of proof in claiming the supernatural is on
> the theist.
>
> In other words, I only have to support evolution. I don't have to
> prove your god doesn't exist. You have to prove he does.
>
> And, if your belief is based on a literal interpretation of the bible
> and the belief that the bible is inerrant, all I have to do is show
> ONE error to show that the bible is not inerrant and therefore
> infallible. Then the entire thing is a house of cards. It all can
> come tumbling down pretty easily.
>
> >DAVEY
> > That's what talk.origins is all about. Most of what they do is jump on
> > people for debating in a way that does not suit them, and their view of what
> > science should be.
>
> JERRY
> LOL. No, they are trying to teach you that there are certain rules to
> debate and you can't just try to debate the way you want.
>
> For example, I can go in and try to use my opinion in the bible as
> evidence, but that starts from an assumption (that the bible is true)
> that they aren't willing to grant me. I have to start back before
> that and demonstrate the infallibility of the bible. If I can't
> demonstrate the infallibility of the bible, then the bible cannot be
> used as evidence for my claims.
>
> It's simply, it works. Of course, since your belief system is based
> entirely on faith and you can't prove what you believe, it works
> against you.
>
>
> > > JERRY
> > > nope. You see, Davey, here is the problem with your claim:
> > >
> > > You are attempting to use a religious argument in a legal situation.
> > > The US is not a christian nation, nor are all it's citizens
> > > christians. The separation of church and state gives non-christians
> > > the same legal standing in the eyes of the law as christians, or at
> > > least it's suppposed to. In the case of same sex marriage though, it
> > > doesn't. Here, the cultural prejudices, mostly justified by literal
> > > interpretation of your goatherder myth, causes those who are attracted
> > > to their own sex to be considered second class citizens under the law.
> > > That is why I brought up, civil and religous rites. If marriage is a
> > > civil rite in any manner; if it gives a tax benefit, inheritance
> > > benefits, etc, then by the constitution, it should be available to all
> > > citizens, not just those that the so-called christian right deems
> > > worthy of it.
> > >
> > DAVEY
> > There are no such benefits in the UK.
>
> JERRY
> Aren't there? What about inheritance laws? Anything that specifies
> that if someone dies, their spouse is the legal inheritor without
> going to court to prove each object's ownership? I think you are
> wrong. I suggest you check on that.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm as you can tell religious, but I did not have a wedding service in a
> > > > church for the simple reason that I don't see wedding services in
> churches
> > > > mentioned in the Bible, but I do see that the civil magistrate is
> ordained
> > > > of God.
> > >
> > > JERRY
> > > But your argument is irrelevent in the context of the discussion. You
> > > have the option of getting married. Britney Spears can get married
> > > for 55 hours, a new celebrity record. But she has more legal standing
> > > under the law to get married than someone who has been in a fifty year
> > > relationship because the relationship and attraction is to a person of
> > > the same sex.
> > >
>
> >DAVEY
> > I thought Polish wedding celebrations went on for a long time, but I think
> > 55 hours is just excessive. People complain at evangelical christians for
> > having two or three hour services, but 55 hours is just gruelling. Surely
> > people went to sleep in between the hymns?
>
> JERRY
> LOL. Not wedding celebration, the entire length of the marriage.
> >
> > > That's not fair. It's not just. And it's unconstitutional if we
> > > agree that all are created equal and are entitled to the same life,
> > > liberty and pursuit of happiness. And gay marriage doesn't hurt
> > > anyone at all, Davey. It's simply tightass christians trying to be
> > > exclusionary as they can't stand that people they don't like have the
> > > same rights they have.
> > >
> > DAVEY
> > Nonsense. Let them have the tax and inheritance bits, I don't care, only
> > don't call it marriage.
>
> JERRY
> Why not? How does it hurt you if they are legally married?
>
>
> > > but in the US, there are tax breaks to be
> > > had if you are married. There are shortcuts for inheritance purposes
> > > that married couples get that same sex couples can't have. If your
> > > partner is sick and in the hospital, since you can't get married to
> > > your same sex partner, that partner has no rights to sit with the
> > > patient and talk to the doctor if the blood relation family members
> > > don't want that partner there.
>
> >DAVEY
> > Good thing too.
> >
> > The last thing parents need in such time is the fact that their kid turned
> > out queer rubbed under their noses. Have you no sympathy with them?
>
> JERRY
> If they can't accept their kids for who they are, fuck 'em. The kid
> is better off not having parents than to have someone who is so
> bigoted as to deny them the ability to see the people they love.
>
> > > > DAVEY
> > > > If you have no 'superstitions' as you call them, then why get married at
> > > > all?
> > >
> > > JERRY
> > > for the tax break. So that my wife can have the same benefits that I
> > > described above. So she can have medical insurance coverage through
> > > my work. Otherwise, as you say, there is no reason to get married at
> > > all.
> > DAVEY
> > Well, in the Uk that's how it is.
>
> JERRY
> Ibid above.
> > > > > > DAVEY
> > > > > > Take my relations, for example. They aren't religious, but they
> > don't
> > like
> > > > > > the downgrading of the family in society any more than any typical
> person
> > > > > > does. They can't understand why more churches don't take a tough
> > line on
> > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > JERRY
> > > > > And how, pray tell, does homosexual marriage "downgrade" the
> > > > > relationship between two people who aren't the same sex?
>
> > > >DAVEY
> > > > When I didn't even say that.
> > > >
> > > > I said, oh thou that wouldst send Davey of all people on a reading
> > > > comprehension course, that they don't like the downgrading of _the
> family_
> > > > in society.
> > >
> > > JERRY
> > > that's what I thought you said, and why I asked how same sex marriage
> > > downgrades a family that is not same sex? See, I didn't screw up, you
> > > did. Again. (that means Once more, Davey) ;-)
> > >
> > DAVEY
> > You didn't say a family, you said 'two people'.
> > Two people aren't a family.
>
> JERRY
> It was implied by the context of the subject matter. I think I see
> your reading comprehension problem. You don't seem to be able to
> handle abstract subject matter very well. Probably the reason you
> accept the bible to be literally true, you can't read it any other
> way. ;-)
>
> So, you are saying that man and wife aren't a family without kids?
> Kids are absolutely required for someone to be in a family?
>
> >
> > > >DAVEY
> > > > Allowing marriages that do not result in families the same status as
> those
> > > > who do seems to me to downgrade the family in society.
> > >
> > > JERRY
> > > So, you are in favor of not allowing matrimony for older couples who
> > > don't have children? How about couples that can't have children? If
> > > they are already married and then find out they will have to be
> > > childless, they should be split up and not allowed to be married?
> > >
> > > is that what you mean?
>
> >DAVEY
> > No, it means they have to keep trying. Abraham didn't get a child off of
> > sara until she was very old. She even laughed when God said she would have
> > one and got a mild rebuke for laughing, and she shoulda known better, having
> > been the wife of a patriarch, which is every girl's dream.
> >
> > That or Oligarch.
>
> JERRY
> But if, say, the woman has had a hysterectomy and can't ever have
> children, you don't believe she should be able to get married?
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 |
|