Freethought & Rationalism Archive

BK · 01-25-2002, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RyanS2:
How do we explain things like eyesight problems, (accounts for 2/3 of our population), blindness at birth, problems such as this? Hardly good handiwork, particularly because the majority of people have eyesight problems. In addition, I remember from neurophysiology that we really only see about 85% of what we think we see. A lot of times our brain supplies in the additional details to what we see, sometimes even playing tricks on us. (Ever thought you saw something that completely didn't exist?)[/QB]

Yes, you are correct on all the accounts but the "hardly good handiwork" reference. There is this little thing in Christianity called "the Fall" that accounts for this.

BK

BK · 01-25-2002, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Anunnaki:


I`m in complete agreement. I just lack the patience and knowledge on the subject to effectively dig through the steaming pile of creationist propaganda that BK will probably be throwing at us.

Creationist propaganda? Oh yeah. I forgot. Any attempt to persuade is propaganda. Oh well, guess I will just have to continue to propagandaize.

BK

GunnerJ · 01-25-2002, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Yes, you are correct on all the accounts but the "hardly good handiwork" reference. There is this little thing in Christianity called "the Fall" that accounts for this.

Oh, this old saw! Yeah, the "Fall" accounts for this... and anything else too! Any problems at all can be solved with those two little words! This makes the creationist position completely unfalsifiable! Hooray! Oh, wait, an unfalsifiable explaination is epistimologically useless. That's a bad thing. Hmmm...

Especially when there's no evidence for its occurence, no explaination of how the Fall messed everything else up, and a ton of evidence that says it didn't happen!

Say, were viruses created during the Fall? They can't "live" without a host to replicate. Damn that apple was potent stuff, creating hundreds of different varieties of disease in one bite!

Please take this over to the E/C forum, but only after you understand how a scientific explaination differs from sloppy apologetics based on mythology.

Jayhawker Soule · 01-25-2002, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BK:
Yes, you are correct on all the accounts but the "hardly good handiwork" reference. There is this little thing in Christianity called "the Fall" that accounts for this.

BK

This is easily the silliest thing I've seen in years. Blaming "the Fall" for ED is a stretch, but myopia?

lpetrich · 01-25-2002, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BK:
But I know and understand the theory of evolution as it relates to eye evolution. Do you? If so, then you had better look it over again because it is not reasonable.

BK

There have been lots of discussions of eye evolution, so I'll summarize here. Basically, an eye will start out as a light-sensitive patch of skin. Pulling it downward will make it act like some crude pinhole camera, and growing a lens in front will make focusing possible. Instead of half an eye, the intermediates will be low-quality eyes, which will outperform no eyes.

<a href="http://www.biol.lu.se/funkmorf/vision/model.html" target="_blank">Computerized Eye Evolution</a>

True camera eyes have been invented more than once, in the ancestor of the vertebrates and the ancestor of the squids and octopuses; this is apparent from how each set of eyes (vertebrate vs. squid/octopus) shares several details that is lacking in the other set. Which is very naturally explained by evolution by natural selection, but not by special creation or "designed" evolution.

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]

-DM- · 01-25-2002, 04:37 PM

Metacrockianity in action ...

Quote:

Originally posted by Metacrock:

I am so tired of amatures trying to make big prnouncements about my profession. I am an historian! I work for the University of Texas Ssytem, I am an academic historian. NO historian thinks like that.

And ...

Quote:

Originally posted by Metacrock:
how did they know he wasn't raising an army? He had huge crowds following him. Besides, depending upon what else was going on they may have thought an example to the people would be good at that time.

My, what a terrible example of the application of the methodology of the historian: ask a question which essentially represents an appeal to ignorance, and then -- based on a book the literal accuracy of which you yourself deny -- speculate as to what might have happened, what might have been thought, etc.

Speaking of "huge crowds following him," I am reminded of what the anonymous author of the Gospel which carries the name "Matthew" says, namely: "And he having entered into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, �Who is this?'"

Yet when it came to his alleged trial(s), we are told that not a single person stood up for Jesus, not even one his own disciples.

How strange.

Regarding the "huge crowds" it seems a bit odd to me that in the case of a man whose--
1.) coming was allegedly foretold in numerous prophecies
2.) upcoming birth was allegedly announced by an angel
3.) arrival was allegedly heralded by an unusual star and the adoration of what have come to be known as "wise men"
4.) birth allegedly resulted in the slaughter of all the children two years old and under in and around Bethlehem
5.) teaching in the Temple at the age of twelve allegedly astonished his listeners
6.) baptism by John the Baptist was allegedly accompanied by a voice from heaven (as well as a the descent of a dove)
7.) so-called ministry was allegedly accompanied by spectacular miracles and unforgettably clever sayings (including the calming of storms, walking on water, turning water to wine, the raising of people who had been dead for several days, etc.)
8.) so-called Triumphal entry stirred all of Jerusalem
--that he would not have been so-well known and so greatly admired that the crowd, someone, would not have come forward to stick up for him, to say, "I believe."

Not a single person would come forward to support him at his alleged trial(s). Even more unbelievable, when Pilate allegedly asked what should be done with him, the crowd clamors for Jesus' execution.

How strange.

IMO, the story can only make sense either to someone who operates on the principle: "God said it, I believe it, that settles it," (in other words, a literalist) or to someone who operates on the principle of "let's see what ad hoc explanation I can find involving the essence" of the story in order to be able to believe it" (in other words, a liberal Christian who wants desperately to salvage it from the realm of fairy tales).

--Don--

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: Don Morgan ]

RyanS2 · 01-25-2002, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Don Morgan:
Metacrockianity in action ...

My, what a terrible example of the application of the methodology of the historian: ask a question which essentially represents an appeal to ignorance, and then -- based on a book the literal accuracy of which you yourself deny -- speculate as to what might have happened, what might have been thought, etc.

Speaking of "huge crowds following him," I am reminded of what the anonymous author of the Gospel which carries the name "Matthew" says, namely: "And he having entered into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, ‘Who is this?'"

Yet when it came to his alleged trial(s), we are told that not a single person stood up for Jesus, not even one his own disciples.

How strange.

Regarding the "huge crowds" it seems a bit odd to me that in the case of a man whose--
1.) coming was allegedly foretold in numerous prophecies
2.) upcoming birth was allegedly announced by an angel
3.) arrival was allegedly heralded by an unusual star and the adoration of what have come to be known as "wise men"
4.) birth allegedly resulted in the slaughter of all the children two years old and under in and around Bethlehem
5.) teaching in the Temple at the age of twelve allegedly astonished his listeners
6.) baptism by John the Baptist was allegedly accompanied by a voice from heaven (as well as a the descent of a dove)
7.) so-called ministry was allegedly accompanied by spectacular miracles and unforgettably clever sayings (including the calming of storms, walking on water, turning water to wine, the raising of people who had been dead for several days, etc.)
8.) so-called Triumphal entry stirred all of Jerusalem
--that he would not have been so-well known and so greatly admired that the crowd, someone, would not have come forward to stick up for him, to say, "I believe."

Not a single person would come forward to support him at his alleged trial(s). Even more unbelievable, when Pilate allegedly asked what should be done with him, the crowd clamors for Jesus' execution.

How strange.

IMO, the story can only make sense either to someone who operates on the principle: "God said it, I believe it, that settles it," (in other words, a literalist) or to someone who operates on the principle of "let's see what ad hoc explanation I can find involving the essence" of the story in order to be able to believe it" (in other words, a liberal Christian who wants desperately to salvage it from the realm of fairy tales).

--Don--

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: Don Morgan ]

Huge crowds following him? I thought Jesus was a marginal Jew teaching in a low population area of Palestine that had a small following, thus is unmentioned in any quantity or detail, (if even, at all, that's debateable), because of his "marginality".

lpetrich · 01-25-2002, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RyanS2:

Huge crowds following him? ...

That's what the Gospels had stated about him, and Don Morgan was only describing how the Gospels picture him.

And that bit about his followers all turning their backs on him fits Lord Raglan's criterion #16 exactly.

It certainly does not fit how many followers of cults behave when their leaders are under siege; they usually cry about what innocent victims their leaders are, whether that assessment is justified or not.

lpetrich · 01-26-2002, 01:12 AM

First, on the virgin-birth question, I find that the usual apologist argument reduces to "The Christian God did not have sexual relations with that woman, Mary" (ex-president Clinton would understand). However, as QoS would point out, Mary and the dove are very much like Leda and the swan. The key feature of the story is a god making a woman pregnant, and quibbling over how the god does that is a bit like quibbling over what the meaning of "is" is.

And RyanS2's attempts to connect a lot of pagan religious mythology to astrological lore seems like something he copied off of Acharya S. In many cases, it looks very forced and unconvincing. I'm not denying that *some* religions had lots of astrological symbolism; Mithraism was clearly full of it. But some is not all.

In fact, there is very little in the Bible on either astronomy or astrology; the biggest astronomical motif I'm familiar with from the Bible is the story of Samson, which is often considered a Sun allegory.

Oolon Colluphid · 01-26-2002, 07:17 AM

By Darwin, this shitheadedness gets everywhere doesn't it?!

Quote:

Originally posted by BK:
Look around. If you can see anything, that is an example of his handiwork since it is against countless odds that sight arose through evolution.

BK

Total and utter gonads, old chap. By mentioning this, you show that you clearly know absolutely buck all about evolution. I strongly advise you to come on over to the <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=58&SUBMIT=Go" target="_blank">Evolution/Creation forum</a> and discuss this matter. I'm sure we can put you right. I'd hate for you to make any more of a tit of yourself than you already have.

TTFN, Oolon

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-26-2002, 01:12 AM	#169
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	First, on the virgin-birth question, I find that the usual apologist argument reduces to "The Christian God did not have sexual relations with that woman, Mary" (ex-president Clinton would understand). However, as QoS would point out, Mary and the dove are very much like Leda and the swan. The key feature of the story is a god making a woman pregnant, and quibbling over how the god does that is a bit like quibbling over what the meaning of "is" is. And RyanS2's attempts to connect a lot of pagan religious mythology to astrological lore seems like something he copied off of Acharya S. In many cases, it looks very forced and unconvincing. I'm not denying that some religions had lots of astrological symbolism; Mithraism was clearly full of it. But some is not all. In fact, there is very little in the Bible on either astronomy or astrology; the biggest astronomical motif I'm familiar with from the Bible is the story of Samson, which is often considered a Sun allegory.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.