Sunday, December 10, 2006
Green v. AG - Round V [part i]: Halfway Home
From: American Guy
To: Green
Sent: May 28, 2003
Subject: Re: Fw: finally! My response (complete)
Green:
OK, so you reject evolution. But your reasoning for doing so is flawed. You say you "just can't rationalize the idea that the universe and life on earth got to be so diverse and that it runs with such mathematical precisionsimply by chance or random accident." The whole point of evolution is that this didn't all happen by chance and random accident. We evolved because we needed to adapt. The giraffe evolved a long neck to give it an advantage in browsing for food in high trees that other animals couldn't reach. Virues like HIV and Hepatitis evolve so they can better survive against the anti-virals and vaccinations that we have developed to try and wipe them out. And humans have evolved a consciousness and highly sophisticated brain because it gave us a survival advantage. We may not be able to out-run a tiger, but we can out-think it.
You say that scientists "know that evolution can not and will never be definitively proven beyond a shadow of a doubt." Sorry to split hairs but the reality is that evolution can be, and has been definitively proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Again, you can argue if you like that your God has guided this evolution, but no thinking person can argue that evolution itself has not happened.
You claim you "certainly can't physically see, hear, smell, feel or taste gravity." Oh? Do me a favour. Reach in your wallet or drawer right now and grab a coin. Ready? Now let it go. Did you see that? Gravity. Next time you trip and fall to the ground, tell me if you can feel the gravity. If you couldn't feel the gravity, you'd be left floating in place. Unless you've secretly taken up residence on the space station, I'm pretty sure that you can feel gravity. This is what makes the difference between fact and faith. Fact can be proven. Faith must be believed. You 'know' there is a God. That's fine to say, but you must admit that this knowledge is based on faith, not fact.
In regards to the Mississippi decision to teach both evolution and creationism, you say good for them for giving "kids a more rounded viewpoint from which to draw their own conclusions." So your argument then is that they should teach both views and let the kids decide? Why not then also teach them the Native American creation stories (and I mean teach them as science, not folk lore) too and let the kids make up their own mind? If the issue is that we should give them as much information as possible and let them make up their own minds, you surely wouldn't mind them hearing a few other possibilities? Or do you consider Native American creation stories as just that - stories, and therefore not to be discussed as a 'realistic' possibility?
Regarding the eye, I didn’t specifically dispute the example because the authors have not made a credible argument. They are selectively taking data and making it fit their worldview, which is both bad science and bad debate. They argue that some animal would have first had to develop a non-functioning eye that served no evolutionary purpose. This is just plain old wrong. What would have happened (and did happen if you examine the fossil record and several currently living species) is that some species would have developed a rudimentary eye which suited their environment. Lots of currently existing species have rudimentary eyes. Fish that live in the deep ocean, burrowing rodents that live solely underground: many of them have simple eyes that discern only light from dark, or just movement without definition. These rudimentary eyes would have developed more complexity as the animal adapted to fit its environment. It is faulty logic to assume that the eye must have been developed to its current state of complexity in one fell swoop. Thus, the whole anti-evolutionary argument your source makes is founded on a faulty premise.
“Okay, I’m telling you that heaven is real (conversely, hell is also equally as real)”
Are you implying that I will be going to hell because of my lack of belief in your God? The assertion is laughable and is even disputed by many Christian scholars. They can’t decide whether us heathen are doomed to hellfire or if we just end up in some sort of limbo where we are not suffering damnation but are deprived of God’s presence. In fact, several Christians (and I’m not necessarily talking [about] the organized churches, I’m talking the people) believe that non-Christians do end up in heaven, as long as they were true to their faiths. This has been defended by various passages in the Bible, but don’t ask me to quote them.
You say no one from the last 2,000 years who hasn’t believed in your God is there? OK, your argument is that before then people didn’t know any better. What about the people who still today live in a world where they have never been exposed to Christianity? I can’t believe your God is that petty that He’d deny paradise to people who never had a chance. Here’s another one, let’s say for the sake of argument that Christianity as a religion dies out at some point in the future. If for whatever reason, people stop believing in your God and lump him together with Zeus and all the others, is the rest of humanity doomed to damnation, even those that believe in some type of ’new’ monotheistic god, such as the pre-Christian Jews did?
Actually, it just occurred to me - we actually agree on this point. We BOTH feel that there are no Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Animists, etc. etc. in heaven. The only spot we differ on is that I know there are no Christians there either. Sorry, I’m sticking to my guns here, unless you can prove otherwise, I have not heard a persuasive argument that heaven is real.
Getting down to the whole business about there being no body in Jesus’ tomb. Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but after 2,000 years there wouldn’t be anything left of a body to find. Without mummification or some other kind of preservation, the soft tissue of a body decays pretty well immediately after death. Even a few months after a person dies, their non-preserved body would be nothing more than a skeleton. In less than 100 years the likelihood is that there would be nothing left to find. In the desert, the body may have lasted a little longer, but it would be well and truly gone by now. Also, you are going by the Bible’s version that the tomb was empty. Has it ever occurred to you that the people who wrote these events down (bearing in mind much of it was not written till years after the fact) may have had an agenda in what they wrote down? This would not be the first time that history was faked. Nor the last. If His followers really wanted to believe that He has risen from the dead, you don’t think they’d be capable of believing it even if it didn’t happen? I’m not saying this is what happened, but what I am saying is that the possibility is there.
Now to the Jews. OK, they didn’t originate4 in Egypt. History has never been my strong suit. You say they originated in what is now Iraq. Why then don’t they consider this their homeland?
But your next statement is what truly scares me. You are saying that not only was it ok, it was morally right for them to kill the Canaanites. You say that God considered them heathen, so it was okay for the Jews to kill them. This is the same argument Osama and his crew use. We in the West are heathen and it’s necessary to kill the heathen as it’s God’s will. This is the same argument that people who kill doctors who perform abortions use. The doctors are sinning in the eyes of God, so it’s right to kill them. This argument allowed the Spanish Inquisition, The Crusades, and even the widespread extermination of Native Americans by European Christians.
I tell you, if I was God, I’d be pretty pissed off at all these people killing in my name. Especially if I had put it down in stone that killing was a bad thing. I don’t recall the commandment being, “thou shalt not kill, unless it’s someone that you disagree with and think that I do too, in which case, hey it’s fine with me, just clean up your mess afterwards.” Maybe that wouldn’t fit on the tablet, so he just used shorthand. Somehow, I don’t think so.
You spend a lot of time discussing the Bible. Hey - I said before it’s a good book, you and I just disagree on the origins (written by man or God (using man as His instrument)) and its meaning (historical document or set of principles for living a good life). One point you bring up a number of times is the claim that the Bible has never been proven factually wrong. This, to you, is evidence of it’s divine nature and all the proof that you need that Christianity is the true religion. Here’s a hypothetical: What if there is dispute between the churches causing a major schism - some branches of Christianity move in one direction based on ‘new’ information while others move in another? Don’t tell me that this wouldn’t happen - I’m posing it as a hypothetical - just tell me what you would do if it did.
Finally, to your closing question, “the most important question you’ll ever need to answer is this: Who is Jesus?”
Actually, the most important question I’ll ever have to answer in my life is, “Have I made a difference in the world?” Either that or “What do I feel like [having] for dinner?” But I’ll try and answer your question for now.
Jesus was a likely historical figure who lived approximately 2,000 years ago in the Middle East. He was a religious man and considered a leader by many people. He is considered the founder of Christianity. Some believe him to be a god, while others feel that this is mythology. I know this is not the answer you’ll accept, but this is as I see it.
Here’s a couple of questions you need to ask yourself. Why have more people died in the name of God than in any other cause? Why do we continue to allow religion to be a dividing force in the world rather than a uniting one? If the evidence for your God is as persuasive as you claim, how come reasonable and intelligent people can look at the supposed evidence and come to different conclusions?
AG
To: Green
Sent: May 28, 2003
Subject: Re: Fw: finally! My response (complete)
Green:
OK, so you reject evolution. But your reasoning for doing so is flawed. You say you "just can't rationalize the idea that the universe and life on earth got to be so diverse and that it runs with such mathematical precisionsimply by chance or random accident." The whole point of evolution is that this didn't all happen by chance and random accident. We evolved because we needed to adapt. The giraffe evolved a long neck to give it an advantage in browsing for food in high trees that other animals couldn't reach. Virues like HIV and Hepatitis evolve so they can better survive against the anti-virals and vaccinations that we have developed to try and wipe them out. And humans have evolved a consciousness and highly sophisticated brain because it gave us a survival advantage. We may not be able to out-run a tiger, but we can out-think it.
You say that scientists "know that evolution can not and will never be definitively proven beyond a shadow of a doubt." Sorry to split hairs but the reality is that evolution can be, and has been definitively proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Again, you can argue if you like that your God has guided this evolution, but no thinking person can argue that evolution itself has not happened.
You claim you "certainly can't physically see, hear, smell, feel or taste gravity." Oh? Do me a favour. Reach in your wallet or drawer right now and grab a coin. Ready? Now let it go. Did you see that? Gravity. Next time you trip and fall to the ground, tell me if you can feel the gravity. If you couldn't feel the gravity, you'd be left floating in place. Unless you've secretly taken up residence on the space station, I'm pretty sure that you can feel gravity. This is what makes the difference between fact and faith. Fact can be proven. Faith must be believed. You 'know' there is a God. That's fine to say, but you must admit that this knowledge is based on faith, not fact.
In regards to the Mississippi decision to teach both evolution and creationism, you say good for them for giving "kids a more rounded viewpoint from which to draw their own conclusions." So your argument then is that they should teach both views and let the kids decide? Why not then also teach them the Native American creation stories (and I mean teach them as science, not folk lore) too and let the kids make up their own mind? If the issue is that we should give them as much information as possible and let them make up their own minds, you surely wouldn't mind them hearing a few other possibilities? Or do you consider Native American creation stories as just that - stories, and therefore not to be discussed as a 'realistic' possibility?
Regarding the eye, I didn’t specifically dispute the example because the authors have not made a credible argument. They are selectively taking data and making it fit their worldview, which is both bad science and bad debate. They argue that some animal would have first had to develop a non-functioning eye that served no evolutionary purpose. This is just plain old wrong. What would have happened (and did happen if you examine the fossil record and several currently living species) is that some species would have developed a rudimentary eye which suited their environment. Lots of currently existing species have rudimentary eyes. Fish that live in the deep ocean, burrowing rodents that live solely underground: many of them have simple eyes that discern only light from dark, or just movement without definition. These rudimentary eyes would have developed more complexity as the animal adapted to fit its environment. It is faulty logic to assume that the eye must have been developed to its current state of complexity in one fell swoop. Thus, the whole anti-evolutionary argument your source makes is founded on a faulty premise.
“Okay, I’m telling you that heaven is real (conversely, hell is also equally as real)”
Are you implying that I will be going to hell because of my lack of belief in your God? The assertion is laughable and is even disputed by many Christian scholars. They can’t decide whether us heathen are doomed to hellfire or if we just end up in some sort of limbo where we are not suffering damnation but are deprived of God’s presence. In fact, several Christians (and I’m not necessarily talking [about] the organized churches, I’m talking the people) believe that non-Christians do end up in heaven, as long as they were true to their faiths. This has been defended by various passages in the Bible, but don’t ask me to quote them.
You say no one from the last 2,000 years who hasn’t believed in your God is there? OK, your argument is that before then people didn’t know any better. What about the people who still today live in a world where they have never been exposed to Christianity? I can’t believe your God is that petty that He’d deny paradise to people who never had a chance. Here’s another one, let’s say for the sake of argument that Christianity as a religion dies out at some point in the future. If for whatever reason, people stop believing in your God and lump him together with Zeus and all the others, is the rest of humanity doomed to damnation, even those that believe in some type of ’new’ monotheistic god, such as the pre-Christian Jews did?
Actually, it just occurred to me - we actually agree on this point. We BOTH feel that there are no Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Animists, etc. etc. in heaven. The only spot we differ on is that I know there are no Christians there either. Sorry, I’m sticking to my guns here, unless you can prove otherwise, I have not heard a persuasive argument that heaven is real.
Getting down to the whole business about there being no body in Jesus’ tomb. Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but after 2,000 years there wouldn’t be anything left of a body to find. Without mummification or some other kind of preservation, the soft tissue of a body decays pretty well immediately after death. Even a few months after a person dies, their non-preserved body would be nothing more than a skeleton. In less than 100 years the likelihood is that there would be nothing left to find. In the desert, the body may have lasted a little longer, but it would be well and truly gone by now. Also, you are going by the Bible’s version that the tomb was empty. Has it ever occurred to you that the people who wrote these events down (bearing in mind much of it was not written till years after the fact) may have had an agenda in what they wrote down? This would not be the first time that history was faked. Nor the last. If His followers really wanted to believe that He has risen from the dead, you don’t think they’d be capable of believing it even if it didn’t happen? I’m not saying this is what happened, but what I am saying is that the possibility is there.
Now to the Jews. OK, they didn’t originate4 in Egypt. History has never been my strong suit. You say they originated in what is now Iraq. Why then don’t they consider this their homeland?
But your next statement is what truly scares me. You are saying that not only was it ok, it was morally right for them to kill the Canaanites. You say that God considered them heathen, so it was okay for the Jews to kill them. This is the same argument Osama and his crew use. We in the West are heathen and it’s necessary to kill the heathen as it’s God’s will. This is the same argument that people who kill doctors who perform abortions use. The doctors are sinning in the eyes of God, so it’s right to kill them. This argument allowed the Spanish Inquisition, The Crusades, and even the widespread extermination of Native Americans by European Christians.
I tell you, if I was God, I’d be pretty pissed off at all these people killing in my name. Especially if I had put it down in stone that killing was a bad thing. I don’t recall the commandment being, “thou shalt not kill, unless it’s someone that you disagree with and think that I do too, in which case, hey it’s fine with me, just clean up your mess afterwards.” Maybe that wouldn’t fit on the tablet, so he just used shorthand. Somehow, I don’t think so.
You spend a lot of time discussing the Bible. Hey - I said before it’s a good book, you and I just disagree on the origins (written by man or God (using man as His instrument)) and its meaning (historical document or set of principles for living a good life). One point you bring up a number of times is the claim that the Bible has never been proven factually wrong. This, to you, is evidence of it’s divine nature and all the proof that you need that Christianity is the true religion. Here’s a hypothetical: What if there is dispute between the churches causing a major schism - some branches of Christianity move in one direction based on ‘new’ information while others move in another? Don’t tell me that this wouldn’t happen - I’m posing it as a hypothetical - just tell me what you would do if it did.
Finally, to your closing question, “the most important question you’ll ever need to answer is this: Who is Jesus?”
Actually, the most important question I’ll ever have to answer in my life is, “Have I made a difference in the world?” Either that or “What do I feel like [having] for dinner?” But I’ll try and answer your question for now.
Jesus was a likely historical figure who lived approximately 2,000 years ago in the Middle East. He was a religious man and considered a leader by many people. He is considered the founder of Christianity. Some believe him to be a god, while others feel that this is mythology. I know this is not the answer you’ll accept, but this is as I see it.
Here’s a couple of questions you need to ask yourself. Why have more people died in the name of God than in any other cause? Why do we continue to allow religion to be a dividing force in the world rather than a uniting one? If the evidence for your God is as persuasive as you claim, how come reasonable and intelligent people can look at the supposed evidence and come to different conclusions?
AG
Comments:
<< Home
have you edited my bits? I'm almost positive that i wouldn't have capitalised the pronouns. I find that having capital letters in the middle of a sentance disturbs my delicate sesabilities, so i doubt i did so.
Yes, I did capitalize stuff in this post, and perhaps added a word or two [in brackets] for grammatical reasons because this is the thread that I had to re-type.
That's one of the things that editors do, though. Rest assured, the wording and all of the points you made have not been changed and nothing has been deleted for space considerations (obviously).
For the most part though I've just been able to cut and paste the threads and just realign the paragraphs when blogger screws them up.
That's one of the things that editors do, though. Rest assured, the wording and all of the points you made have not been changed and nothing has been deleted for space considerations (obviously).
For the most part though I've just been able to cut and paste the threads and just realign the paragraphs when blogger screws them up.
actually, by changing the capitalisation of words that i deliberately typed in lowercase, you change the meaning of what i have written.
I'm happy for you to slap up my emails on here - but i don't recall asking you to be an 'editor'
Post a Comment
I'm happy for you to slap up my emails on here - but i don't recall asking you to be an 'editor'
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
