Why I care about religion

[indy007]

Originally posted by Seagoon
Hello indy,

Well said Seagoon. I appreciate your insight on alot of things. However, you're arguing internal and external politics regarding studies and not the actual science.

Do you have articles that can thoroughly debunk all that is known and documented about modern evolutionary synthesis? I would like to know why a whale has a hip-bone, why virtually all marsupials are in Australia, and the fossils of translational species. I'd like a counter to Endosymbiotic theory. Currently it offers an explanation for evolutionary leaps, and the origin of mitochondria & plastids.

[Vulcan]

I think its amusing the way christians like to attack the word and definition of atheism itself. Like if they beat it into a pulp it will go away.

Even more amusing is that atheism does not preclude belief in a religion nor does religion preclude atheist beliefs. Take a look at buddhism for an example.

Whats more amusing is that many christians believe atheism precludes moral behaviour, such irony. When you point them at one of the largest organized groups of atheists (buddhists) known for excellent moral behaviour it really throws them for a spin.

I get a kick out of explaining christianity to some of my buddhists friends who have not had much exposure to it. They laugh at the stories in the bible, much in the same way some christians would laugh at an african witch doctor.

For the christians in this thread, go have a look at buddha's 'creation' comments to get a different perspective on things.

[wrag]

Originally posted by Shuffler
I believe in God..... but I have a question that I have not been able to resolve.

If we all stem from Adam and Eve, does that mean we are all inbred?

I can't even play a banjo

Have you tried? (the banjo that is)

[Seagoon]

Hello 68,

Originally posted by 68Hawk
Seagoon,

Funny how the article you linked does not actually comment on the merits of that guys scientific argument.  It does quote one other scientist as saying it was rubbish, or something like that, and mostly focuses on a supposed witch hunt against him.  Whether or not that happened, if his scientific conclusions were supported by scientific fact and analysis I do believe (trusting in the scientific community) that other biologists would have been able to comment directly on its scientific merits and shortcomings.

The heresy hunt is undeniable, and that despite the fact that Sternberg is an editor not the author of the article as well as an agnostic. He is not even a recognized ID advocate. His sin was to publish the article by Stephen C. Meyer.

The Wash Post Article Notes:

An independent agency has come to the same conclusion, accusing top scientists at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History of retaliating against Sternberg by investigating his religion and smearing him as a "creationist."

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which was established to protect federal employees from reprisals, examined e-mail traffic from these scientists and noted that "retaliation came in many forms . . . misinformation was disseminated through the Smithsonian Institution and to outside sources. The allegations against you were later determined to be false."

"The rumor mill became so infected," James McVay, the principal legal adviser in the Office of Special Counsel, wrote to Sternberg, "that one of your colleagues had to circulate [your résumé] simply to dispel the rumor that you were not a scientist."

NROnline goes into further detail regarding the tactics used against him - none of which were aimed at the actual arguments in the essay he had the temerity to publish:

However strong you think the argument is for Intelligent Design — and I'm no scientist — most reasonable people would agree that an ID theoretician should, without fear of retaliation, be allowed to state his case for the consideration of fellow scientists. This was the view held by Sternberg, who isn't himself an advocate of ID. However, according to the OSC's investigation, when the Meyer article was published, Sternberg's managers were outraged and a number of them sought a strategy that would make him pay.

Writes the OSC's McVay: "Within two weeks of receiving the Meyer article in the Proceedings, four managers at the SI and NMNH [National Museum of Natural History] expressed their desire to have your access to the SI denied." A typical internal e-mail on the subject fumed, "I hope we are not even considering extending his access to space." (All quotations from e-mails given here are taken from the OSC's letter to Sternberg.) Another expresses frustration that a good pretext for dismissing him had so far not been identified: "As he hasn't (yet) been discovered to have done anything wrong,... the sole reason to terminate his appt seems to be that the host unit has suddenly changed its mind. If that's OK w/NMNH, let me know and I'll send him a letter stating so." One manager huffed, "Well, if you ask me, a face-to-face meeting or at least a 'you are welcome to leave or resign' call with this individual is in order." The same e-mail indicated that a manager had been compiling trivial offenses by Sternberg that could be cited in telling him to get out. Among other things, the Smithsonian staffer had gone over Sternberg's library records. He "has currently 50 books checked out from the SI library (I checked this with the library)."

One bright idea was to tear apart the traditional veil of secrecy concerning the identities of the scientists ("peers") who had reviewed and approved Meyer's article before publication. The "serious effort" to do this, as the OSC document relates, would represent an unprecedented and unethical act within your [Sternberg's] field. They also assumed that you [Sternberg] violated editorial regulations of the Proceedings because you were the primary editor of the article. These comments were made to and by SI and NMNH managers and were published to several outside organizations. It was later revealed that you complied with all editorial requirements of the Proceedings and that the Meyer article was properly peer reviewed by renowned scientists. As an aside, the information received by OSC does not indicate that any effort was made to recall or correct these comments once the truth was made known.

One disturbing element in the affair concerns Sternberg's allegations that his supervisor, Zoology Department chairman Jonathan Coddington, called around the museum to check out Sternberg's religious and political affiliations. After I wrote about this in Wall Street Journal, Coddington, who had repeatedly ignored my telephone calls asking for his side of the story, responded on a favorite website of Darwinists.

Coddington wrote: "As for prejudice on the basis of beliefs or opinions, I repeated and consistently emphasized to staff...that private beliefs and/or controversial editorial decisions were irrelevant in the workplace...that [Sternberg] was an established and respected scientist, and that he would at all times be treated as such."

The OSC investigation directly contradicts this: "...at the same time many other actions were taken during the uproar over the Meyer article, your [Sternberg's] supervisor was questioning your friends about your personal political and religious background."

The investigation also contradicts Coddington's assertion that no actions were ever taken against Sternberg: "At no time did anyone deny him [research] space, keys, or access." According to the OSC, "they denied your access by taking your master key." The museum "prevented you from having the same access to the research specimens," access "given to others [who] do not have the same hindrances."

I would invite you to actually read the Stephen Meyer article he published, and point out the "rubbish" in it:

The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories

You also state, "Genetics and other scientific disciplines besides biology have shown that Darwin's tested theories on the evolution of species are correct. " Actually, Biochemistry and the new field of Genetics are proving exactly the opposite, as Dean Kenyon, one of the premier biochemists attempting to prove "Biochemical Predestination" eventually conceded. I write that as a former believer in and advocate of Darwinianism, who is married to a former Geochemist myself.

Simply put, the "Deus Ex Machina" that powers Neo-Darwinian theory, natural selection, cannot account for the formation of life from non-life or the formation of actual information.

Darwinianism absolutely breaks down at the very cellular level that Darwin had no knowledge of. Let me try to begin to explain why using a minimum of jargon.

Proteins are made up of long complex chains of organic chemicals call "amino acids", various proteins are brought together to form structures within cells each of which has a highly complex role to play - they are in essence the "engines" of the cell, the composition of these amino acid chains is determined by the information contained in DNA. It is the DNA code that instructs the cellular machines that put together the Amino acid chains in what order they are to go. Nothing in Darwins theory can account for the creation of the information in DNA, or most importantly how amino acids were assembled in the correct order to form proteins prior to the creation of DNA. Proteins cannot precede the DNA necessary to construct them and inorganic chemicals cannot create information.

Also, natural selection cannot occur without the driving force of life and death and thus "genetic favoritism" and gradual change. Natural selection actually presumes the existance of at least cellular life-forms before it can operate. It cannot explain the combination of organic chemicals or even their creation.

EDIT: mixed my cans with my cannots

[Seagoon]

Hello Vulcan,

Originally posted by Vulcan
Whats more amusing is that many christians believe atheism precludes moral behaviour, such irony. When you point them at one of the largest organized groups of atheists (buddhists) known for excellent moral behaviour it really throws them for a spin.

I get a kick out of explaining christianity to some of my buddhists friends who have not had much exposure to it. They laugh at the stories in the bible, much in the same way some christians would laugh at an african witch doctor.

For the christians in this thread, go have a look at buddha's 'creation' comments to get a different perspective on things.

Yeah, I spent many an evening myself sitting around with buddies getting drunk and/or stoned and making fun of God, Christianity, Christians, and the Bible and how ridiculous they are. We all agreed how much smarter and more moral we were than those evil ignoramuses. Of course my morals and intelligence have declined significantly since the days when I still knew everything.

As for how Buddhism universally produces "excellent moral behavior" you may not be familiar with flavors of Buddhism such as Nichiren Shoshu, which was briefly discussed in this thread a little while ago:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=189176&highlight=shoshu

Also, while I would agree that persecuting or eliminating other religions is not necessarily part of Buddhism,  Buddhists in several nations are not above doing it:

Sri Lanka - May 12 (Compass Direct) – Unruly mobs have attacked three churches over the past fortnight, in one incident setting car tires on fire in front of a Methodist church to prevent people from entering for Sunday worship. On Saturday (May 6), a Buddhist monk in Poddala led a mob to a site where members of the United Christian Fellowship had begun building a community hall and threatened the pastor and a construction worker; one man grabbed the construction worker by the collar and assaulted him. Construction is on hold due to fears of another attack. In Piliyandala, southeast of Colombo, Buddhist monks on April 30 led a mob to a Methodist church and prevented members from entering, as police declined to help. Also in Piliyandala, an Assembly of God church is facing a poster campaign and threats of massive protests if it does not close down. Violent mobs have carried out at least 160 attacks on churches or Christian institutions since 2002, when Buddhist monks first launched their campaign to introduce anti-conversion legislation.

Finally, in application its interesting to see how the differences between Buddhist ethical teachings and Christian ethical teachings produce profoundly different effects in the world. I have an example illustrating this from the recollections of Ernest Gordon who was one of the wretched prisoners who worked on the "Railway of Death" made famous in "Bridge Over the River Kwai", but that will have to wait for tomorrow as I don't have his book at home.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by Seagoon
Hello Vulcan,

Yeah, I spent many an evening myself sitting around with buddies getting drunk and/or stoned and making fun of God, Christianity, Christians, and the Bible and how ridiculous they are. We all agreed how much smarter and more moral we were than those evil ignoramuses. Of course my morals and intelligence have declined significantly since the days when I still knew everything.

As for how Buddhism universally produces "excellent moral behavior" you may not be familiar with flavors of Buddhism such as Nichiren Shoshu, which was briefly discussed in this thread a little while ago:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=189176&highlight=shoshu

Also, while I would agree that persecuting or eliminating other religions is not necessarily part of Buddhism,  Buddhists in several nations are not above doing it:

Finally, in application its interesting to see how the differences between Buddhist ethical teachings and Christian ethical teachings produce profoundly different effects in the world. I have an example illustrating this from the recollections of Ernest Gordon who was one of the wretched prisoners who worked on the "Railway of Death" made famous in "Bridge Over the River Kwai", but that will have to wait for tomorrow as I don't have his book at home.

Perhaps you misunderstand. My buddhist friends find the bible funny because of the outrageous fantasy stories it tells, such as walking on water, converting water to wine etc. They didn't need to be drunk, the reaction was more of that akin to what you might think if you encountered 50 year old man who still believed in the the tooth fairy.

I'm well aware of the Sri Lankan 'buddhists', as I understand it they are more of a hindu political movement than actual buddhists, actively using buddhism as a cover as opposed to being a real extremist sect.

As for the railway of death, there was no religious motivation there at all. The japanese persecution of prisoners was both cultural and rascist. A much different kettle of fish altogether.

What you may not be able to fathom is the self judgement involved in buddhism. They doctrine is more of a be good to the extent you know you can be, and the only judge of your deeds is yourself. IE more of a 'its not good to kill if you can avoid it' as opposed to a 'thou shalt not kill'.

[wrag]

Originally posted by Vulcan
Perhaps you misunderstand. My buddhist friends find the bible funny because of the outrageous fantasy stories it tells, such as walking on water, converting water to wine etc. They didn't need to be drunk, the reaction was more of that akin to what you might think if you encountered 50 year old man who still believed in the the tooth fairy.

I'm well aware of the Sri Lankan 'buddhists', as I understand it they are more of a hindu political movement than actual buddhists, actively using buddhism as a cover as opposed to being a real extremist sect.

As for the railway of death, there was no religious motivation there at all. The japanese persecution of prisoners was both cultural and rascist. A much different kettle of fish altogether.

What you may not be able to fathom is the self judgement involved in buddhism. They doctrine is more of a be good to the extent you know you can be, and the only judge of your deeds is yourself. IE more of a 'its not good to kill if you can avoid it' as opposed to a 'thou shalt not kill'.

Actually, in the original language it doesn't say "kill" it says "murder".

The meaning of some words change over time.  Such as the word kill.  At one time, (around the time the KJV was being created), the word kill was associated with the word murder, as in the taking of an innocent life, whereas slay was used to express the taking of life while in battle against others trying to end your existance while you trying to survive.

With each issue of the newer and newer dictionaries meanings have been changes a little here a little there.  Perhaps to reflect the more moderen usage?

Got a couple of old ones that don't quite match the new ones re deffinitions of words.

[68Hawk]

Hello back, pastor Seagoon,

I am not denying that a witch hunt may have ocurred, but I still think it is suspicious as to motive that the lead investigator and main contact to the 'abused' parties was a bush political apointee.  Given the bush group's politicizing of this issue of late, it would be nice if you'd bring other evidence from a more reliable source.  A source link for the second quote would be nice too.  

Even if there was undue pressure or discrimination, I can understand where these scientists come from, as their very professional identity has been under assault from many sides of late, mostly bringing what is truly not science and posing it as such.  

As a historian, I would be completely offended if a colleague tried to argue, for instance, that the holocaust did not occur.  I have been to some of the camps myself, and humanity can beyond a shadow of a doubt declare that it did happen.  If someone were to masquerade an argument refuting this with scholarship I would not only lose confidence in them as a scholar, but I would not want them to have anything to do with me and my scholarly reputation.  I would certainly look deeper into that person's background and see as to what their motivations might be.  This is called historiography, understanding what someone's motivations, assumptions and analytical framework are for their scholarship in history.  This is as important to look at as their actual argument is.  

As for Darwin's The Origin of Species, it does not to my knowlege attempt to posit an origin of life itself, but the origin of the species populating the planet today.  Please correct me if I missed something in there, as I read it several years ago.  That the intelligent design crowd has claimed that it does is telling about their perspective and analytical achievements.  It should also be noted that Darwin was himself a christian.  It is not my sphere of scholarship to try to comment on what indy posed to you regarding actual scientific theory and it's current conclusions regarding the origin of life itself, or the other compex issues that you raise, but I'd like to see your response to him.

As for the study itself that you linked, thank you and I will read it when I get the chance, but as it is not my scholarly discipline I will refrain from scholarly analysis.  I only refered, loosley paraphrazing, to what the article you previously linked said as to the content of its argument as the only substantive thing that was discussed about it in the article itself.  If the conclusion itself is any hint as to the actual content of the article, as well it should be, then it basically says that there is no other scientific conclusion to draw but that life is too complex to explain with science, and an intelligent being must have done it.  I find this hightly problematic, and the usage of "causally adequate" seems to be problematic as well.  

You can feel free to quote me in your sermon on sunday, just don't take me out of context.

[68Hawk]

Quote Seagoon,
"As for how Buddhism universally produces "excellent moral behavior" you may not be familiar with....."

This is not what Vulcan said.

Quote Vulcan,
"When you point them at one of the largest organized groups of atheists (buddhists) known for excellent moral behaviour it really throws them for a spin."

This is what he said.  I don't see universal anywhere in there.  He might have put 'largely' in front of 'known' for clarification.  Is that what you meant Vulcan?

[Westy]

"If we all stem from Adam and Eve, does that mean we are all inbred?"


lol.  Good one.


BTW, why do men have nipples?

[Debonair]

Originally posted by Westy
BTW, why do men have nipples?

so we can make fun of fat guys

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Westy
BTW, why do men have nipples?

Because they develop early in pregnancy, when all fetusus (feti?) are female.  The gender change of 50% of us happens after they develop.

[Hawco]

And the lord spoke unto the AH flyer:
"Why does thy secular moral flyer ignore me?"
AH flyer says "you command us to do what is good.But is it good because you command it,or do you command it because it is good?"
The lord thinks and then says "It's good because I command it?"
"The wrong answer your mightiness!, if the good is only good because you say it is so,then you could, if you wish, make it so that torturing infants was good. But that would be absurd wouldn't it?"
"of course says the lord, what was the other choice again?"

"You choose what is good because it IS good.But that shows quite clearly that goodness does not depend on you at all. So  I don't need to study God to study the good"
"Ok, but you must admit I've written some good books on the subject"

[JB88]

Originally posted by Debonair
so we can make fun of fat guys

THE SIDEBOOB SHOW!!!

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by wrag
Actually, in the original language it doesn't say "kill" it says "murder".

The meaning of some words change over time.  Such as the word kill.  At one time, (around the time the KJV was being created), the word kill was associated with the word murder, as in the taking of an innocent life, whereas slay was used to express the taking of life while in battle against others trying to end your existance while you trying to survive.

With each issue of the newer and newer dictionaries meanings have been changes a little here a little there.  Perhaps to reflect the more moderen usage?

Got a couple of old ones that don't quite match the new ones re deffinitions of words.

I assume you're talking about the bible correct?

Herein lies one of the fundamental differences. Christians argue about semantics, buddhists just say "you know what I mean't".

From my humble point of view christianity is stuck worshiping words and fixed absolute values. It will never survive in the long run because of this.