The riverbank story is entertaining enough, but of course is completely biased against the poor old creationist, since it is an observable and experimentally verifiable fact that rivers will and do go wherever they want to, (apparently) randomly, and that plants will survive wherever they are able. Nobody (not even a creationist) denies that processes that obey natural laws can have the appearance of design. The problem with this little parable is that it is loaded such that the creationist is, ipso facto, ignorant, and so it contributes little to the debate about origins other than to make a long-winded ad homini claim that anyone that disagrees with the current consensus is an idiot. Anyone that has read such books as Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer or Michael Behe's The Edge of Evolution will know that this is not the case, at least not for all those contending that the current theories about origins are completely inadequate.
An atheist and a creationist are walking along a riverbank . . . .
by nicolaou 46 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Satanus
DD
'
The evidence for other dimensions doesn't equate to other universes, but rather they are both seperate facets of M-theory.
That's my point. It goes no farther to prove other universes, than it does to prove God.'
Waves in the membrane, the article states, manifest in matter, not spirit. Therefore, they would probably be universes of some kind, although, i suppose, a tooth brush could be manifested, so randam are the possibilities.
S
-
Psychotic Parrot
Anyone who has read anything by Behe has given up the right to talk about bias.
-
villabolo
BarefootServant: "All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again."
Yes, it does show remarkable insight, like the insight of a Greek philosphers who not only figured out that the earth was round like a ball but gave a good approximation of its diameter, hundreds of years before Jesus and at the same time that the Hebrew scriptures were written. Likewise with the author Of Ecclesiastes who could have surmised that the fog from the ocean could have gone one step further and turned to clouds, which in turn would rain on the mountains where creeks started from and finally return to the ocean.
It only takes an observant, intelligent and well traveled man to make these observations and come to this conclusion. No superior godlike intelligence is needed.
As far as solar cycle was concerned the author of Ecclesiastes was mistaken. What Qoheleth said about the sun rising, setting and hurrying back to where it rose is typical of the ancient views of the earth where the earth is flat and sun travels inside the "firmament" (a bowl like cover for the earth, picture a tupperware bowl covering a plate) and would go into a tunnel that started at the edges of the earth and traveled deep underground. Notice how the sun hurries obviously implying that it changes speed when it is out of sight. In reality that cannot happen, in an Earth that's spherical and to claim that it is metaphoric begs the question of what hurries "metaphorically means. The sun simply does not speed nor does the earth rotate faster at night.
Bottom line, Qoheleth, the author of Ecclesiastes may have been observant about the rain cycle but he was describing it within the context of a flat earth
villabolo
-
BarefootServant
Psycho Parrot, from that comment I take it you have never actually read anything by Michael Behe? Meaning you are unencumbered by a first hand knowledge of his scientific argument and have only read what others have written about him? From this wobbly platform you suggest I should limit my freedom of speech? Er, no. When you can come here and demonstrate with your own evidence why Behe is the devil incarnate and his books are an anathema to science and dangerous contaminant to rational thought... well, even then I reserve the right to give an opinion if I think a parable is self-serving and loaded.
-
BarefootServant
Villabolo, personally I reckon the Greeks nicked all their best ideas from the Egyptians (who certainly beat them to the earth being round). But I never claimed the knowledge in Ecclesiastes must have come from God, just that the observation is about cycles, and remarkable for its time. I agree though, as I intimated, I think the writer was speaking in the context of his time.
-
Psychotic Parrot
Behe is an old earth creationist / devout christian with an agenda, i wouldn't want to waste my time reading anything that guy writes. Especially not after some of the shit i've seen him come out with in interviews. My wobbly platform gives me a pretty good view of his lack of integrity.
-
DrJohnStMark
BarefootSevant:The whole context of these verses is about natural cycles - the solar cycle, the cycling winds, and the water cycle; that somehow the water that streams into the sea eventually returns to the streams again. These are scientifically accurate observations, and at the very least demonstrates remarkable insight, for the time.
The writer of Ecclesiastes makes some nice observations. I agree on that, he is clever. I disagree with the WT argument, which is wrong. In those verses there is no indication of divine inspiration.
-
BarefootServant
Behe is an old earth creationist / devout christian with an agenda, i wouldn't want to waste my time reading anything that guy writes. Especially not after some of the shit i've seen him come out with in interviews. My wobbly platform gives me a pretty good view of his lack of integrity.
PsychoP, I'd really like to hate professor Behe as much as you do, if it's not too much trouble is there any chance of you providing just one example of his lack of integrity? Thanks.
-
DrJohnStMark
BarefootServant: PsychoP,... Behe... just one example of his lack of integrity?
Sorry to interrupt you... this was an appropriate point. I think, at the personal level, I did not suffer from lack of integrity when b-s-ing 1000 hours/year at the doors... I was just indoctrinated... and wrong. Even my clock rate was probably higher back then... About Behe: The more intelligent you are the more clever ways you can find to deceive yourself. Even if you do not know you want to.