Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
chelle

I guess I was wrong...

Recommended Posts

Stonehead,

 

If you claim that the Biblical account of Creation is a myth, how do you prove it? You say that I cannot prove it IS true, how can you prove it IS NOT?

 

it is difficult to prove a negative. it is also difficult to have a discussion with someone whose "pro" argument reverts to "because the bible says so"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think it is interesting that HRoark has chosen his choicest insults for CBS, who has been the most respectful of those with religious inclinations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One can define something by stating what one is. Alternatively, one can define something by stating what a thing is not. By the evidence (what we currently know given the Genesis account), the creation story would have to fall more correctly under the definition of myth rather than science.

 

I think people get carried away with the ideas of Karl Popper (that things cannot be proven to eliminate all uncertainty but the obverse holds that, something once disproved can thus be eliminated). I'd guess we'd have to say that all hypotheses are equally valid but a much higher standard would have to be taken to elevate a hypothesis to a working theory. Common sense also dictates that the idea of holding all hypotheses (accepting all things as true) is not efficient, you'd spend an eternity trying to figure what's right and what works.

 

Besides, evolution is more of a discipline rather than a single theory to be disproved. So, it's a discipline with subdisciplines such as evolutionary psychology that can generate hypotheses to be tested and validated as theories based on the foundation that life evolves through unconscious goal (evolution as random, not directed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stonehead,

 

If you claim that the Biblical account of Creation is a myth, how do you prove it? You say that I cannot prove it IS true, how can you prove it IS NOT?

 

it is difficult to prove a negative. it is also difficult to have a discussion with someone whose "pro" argument reverts to "because the bible says so"

 

Pipe down, nobody was talking to you. the_finger.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that my complaint regarding the replacement of the word 'evolution' with 'change though time' is that it dilutes the impact of the idea that change progresses naturally without a conscious agent directing it, much as water flows down a canyon under gravity and depending on the vagaries of such things as the strength of the stone to erosion, etc. Given long periods of time (and this is very limited as a metaphor since this deals with inorganic substances rather than organic life) one can see fantastic shapes produced.

 

Do we need to know about evolution in order to function in life, to have life skills? No. Just like I don't need to know physics or chemistry to take advantage of having my car repaired or have my leg fixed. I do believe, however, is that it puts us on a lower level of being, as mere technologists, who leave it to others to dictate why things are as they are. So, basically it puts us back in time to the days when priests told us the important things, effectively relinquishing power back to the elite. Interestingly, it is similiar to what would happen if we gave the interpretation of Christianity back to the priests. The issue revolves around the idea of power, authority, and our standing in the world as (seemingly) free agents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stonehead,

 

If you claim that the Biblical account of Creation is a myth, how do you prove it? You say that I cannot prove it IS true, how can you prove it IS NOT?

 

Jesus, get some frickin' perspective! Those who choose to base their beliefs on a moldy old book that's been translated and transcribed hundreds (or even thousands) of times need to look at the hard evidence of what that process involves. Translation, by its very nature, introduces the biases of those doing the translation. A classic example of this, ironically, deals with the very topic of Christianity and Evolution (as long as one accepts the premise that Catholicism falls under the blanket of Christianity, which, in itself, is a debatable point).

 

From this web page:

Speaking in French, the Pope addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on October 23, 1996 in which he addressed the subject of evolution.

 

English translations of one key sentence include:

 

"Today, more than a half century after this encyclical [Pius XII's 1950 encyclical Humani generis], new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis."

 

and

 

"Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution."

 

My point is this: It's very easy for 2 people to translate a sentence from one language to another and come up with sentences that mean the exact opposite of the other. Imagine how many times this must have happened while the Bible was being translated from Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek to Latin to the vernacular languages by 'scholars' who weren't necessarily native speakers of the languages the 'scriptures' were originally written in. In addition, the oldest versions of the scriptures available are copies that have been transcribed numerous generations from the originals (read numerous opportunities for introduction of error or addition of any particular scribe's personal views into the texts.)

 

On another note, the order of the creation of the species does not match the fossil record. If memory serves me correctly, man came at the end of the creation account, the ultimate earthly creation of God. The fossil record clearly shows man branching off the evolutionary bush before hoofed animals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...as long as one accepts the premise that Catholicism falls under the blanket of Christianity, which, in itself, is a debatable point...

 

Discuss, please.

 

Do you say this because of Christianity's early spread under the (pagan) Roman Empire? Or do you have another basis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm . . .Where to start? In doing science, hypothesis must be testable, usually for wrongness. In the creation stories there is no test for rightness or wrongness, ergo, it is not science. The creation stories were written as an attempt to tell / explain the beginning of the world to uneducated people, and if you think about it, many have a respectable order to how the scientific data shows things happened. To me, what makes this is amazing, is these were written by people who had no scientific training.

Creation is not a theory. A theory is, by definition, a synthesis of a large body of information that encompasses well tested and verified hypothesis about certain aspects of the natural world. Hence, theory of evolution, big bang theory, atomic theory. Evidence to support it. Again, creationism can't be tested and what is the large body of information concerning it?

Evolution on the other hand is not a fact, nor is creation. Fact by definition is agreement by competent observers of the same phenomena. For evolution, no actual observation, but there is supporting evidence.

As I said in an earlier post, belief in a supreme being (being created) and and the scientific data of evolution and our origins are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Edited by Dan_Harris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just think it is interesting that HRoark has chosen his choicest insults for CBS, who has been the most respectful of those with religious inclinations.

 

"I just think it is interesting" that you are referring to yourself in the third person suddenly, like it makes you seem all objective and shit. hahaha.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you claim that the Biblical account of Creation is a myth, how do you prove it? You say that I cannot prove it IS true, how can you prove it IS NOT?

I thought the Dan - thread was dead. Apparently not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...as long as one accepts the premise that Catholicism falls under the blanket of Christianity, which, in itself, is a debatable point...

 

Discuss, please.

 

Do you say this because of Christianity's early spread under the (pagan) Roman Empire? Or do you have another basis?

 

The debate, as I see it, primarily involves pagan elements in many mainstream "Christian" religions, many of which can be traced to the Roman Empire's practice of melding pagan religions with 'Christianity' to make it more palatable to the subjugated peoples.

 

Today we see the remnants of that in such things as the Easter Bunny and other pagan fertility rites, kissing under mistletoe, Christmas being placed at or near the winter solstice (the annual rebirth of the Son and the Sun), and numerous others.

 

The Puritans attempted to remove all pagan trappings from their version of Christianity. Some fundamentalist religions today carry on that tradition and have no qualms about saying that most mainstream organized 'Christian' religions fall far short of the mark of true Christianity.

 

I find the debate....engaging, at times. I look for seeming contradictions in our common story of Christianity (I say 'our' because most of us were raised with at least some Christian indoctrination, whether we realize it or not.)

 

For example...since Minx brought up Hell earlier in this thread....in the story of Christianity, the devil punishes evildoers in a fiery hell for all eternity. But wait, that implies that the devil and God are in alliance, working for a common purpose. Would the God of the bible ally himself with an entity that he once kicked out of heaven and condemed to spend all eternity in the vicinity of the Earth? Would the devil REALLY punish evildoers...or would he reward them? If God wanted the evildoers punished, the devil might just attempt to contradict God's wishes.

 

Of course, this line of reasoning can be debated (and most likely refuted) by knowledgeable scholars, but compare this scenario to what you learned as a child (and was probably reinforced as an adult if you attend most any 'Christian' church.) I think many people believe these things without ever taking the time to question why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People spontaneously combust. How can you prove it ISN'T true? hahaha.gif

 

UFOs land in the Nevada desert to kidnap people. Prove it ISN'T true, and I'll believe you. boxing_smiley.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just wondering if you could mabe have some respect for other cultures. Would that be possible? Just a thought. You left-of-centerds are all concerned about other minority cultures. Why are you not concerned about this one? It is clearly a minority, so how about some respect? Thanks! wave.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dru that photo merely depicts a poorly aimed #2 and unfortunately an old lady was in the way of the ordinance.

 

the walker, however, is rather inexplicable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was just wondering if you could mabe have some respect for other cultures. Would that be possible? Just a thought. You left-of-centerds are all concerned about other minority cultures. Why are you not concerned about this one? It is clearly a minority, so how about some respect? Thanks! wave.gif

 

Scott, could you provide a little context for your comments so we can figure out what you're trying to say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's saying that HRoark is a minority culture, and in the interest of being PC we should say he's right so he won't feel bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
E-Procreate.gif

 

I can see where some might take offense to that.

 

Hey! This isn't halftime at the stuporbowl, this is life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
E-Procreate.gif

 

I can see where some might take offense to that.

 

Hey! This isn't halftime at the stuporbowl, this is life.

 

Well I just thought you, who were purporting the tolerance of other religions on another thread might see that your actions look a bit hypocritical. Perhaps this explains my postition. wave.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Scotty sounding a little hypoxic today? or is it just me?

 

I can't make heads or tails of his posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...as long as one accepts the premise that Catholicism falls under the blanket of Christianity, which, in itself, is a debatable point...

 

Discuss, please.

 

Do you say this because of Christianity's early spread under the (pagan) Roman Empire? Or do you have another basis?

 

The debate, as I see it, primarily involves pagan elements in many mainstream "Christian" religions, many of which can be traced to the Roman Empire's practice of melding pagan religions with 'Christianity' to make it more palatable to the subjugated peoples...

 

As I suspected. We agree, then.

 

Could explain why I quit going to Mass almost 30 years ago, and renounced all major religions as "support mechanisms". Am I an atheist? No. Am I an agnostic? Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check yer attributes, Chief! wave.gif

 

FWIW, I'm all about tolerating religions. In fact, my whole attitude wrt teaching Creationism as Geology is: "Bring it On!"

the_finger.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×