i've just recently declared my agnosticism to myself and to one other person in my life.
i don't necessarily consider myself an atheist because i believe there very well may be some higher power or non carbon based entities in existence with 'godlike' abilities.
my question is, do you still find yourself secretly believing in god?
The more I thought about it though, and the more I read and searched, the more I came to realize that I simply couldn't reconcile what I knew to be true and ANY kind of belief in a deity. Things like the impossibility of Adam and Eve being the ancestor of every single human being; due to the science of genetics.
What in the science of genetics makes Adam and Eve being the ancestors of every single human being an impossibility?
i've just recently declared my agnosticism to myself and to one other person in my life.
i don't necessarily consider myself an atheist because i believe there very well may be some higher power or non carbon based entities in existence with 'godlike' abilities.
my question is, do you still find yourself secretly believing in god?
and of course this is completely natural.
It may be a "natural" viewpoint, but its not a neutral viewpoint. For example - interpreting the pyramids (based on geologic naturalism) as natural geologic formations is "natural" as well, however it is certainly not a neutral viewpoint.
i've just recently declared my agnosticism to myself and to one other person in my life.
i don't necessarily consider myself an atheist because i believe there very well may be some higher power or non carbon based entities in existence with 'godlike' abilities.
my question is, do you still find yourself secretly believing in god?
i think agnosticism is an honest position. some would say that it is basically just a PC version of weak atheism, but whatever, it's a neutral position. and it's a good place to start looking at the world from again, after long years of not being neutral and honest (as a dub). and your in good company: i always like to point out that, when cornered, carl sagan said he was an agnostic.which leads me to my point. self education (i'm not implying that your not!), is the best way, IMO, to get over the emotional god-belief side of your life. you don't have to go to school for it, but just read read read. anthropology, biology, cosmology, philosophy, logic, secular history, paleontology, secular archaeology. learning about us as a species, from a secular view point, will help you put into perspective where you fit on the continuum, and it's a small spot for us all! but, it also helps you put traditional deities in their place on the continuum too, which may do a lot to help you with this emotional aspect. to see them as creations of ancient desert tribe people, might help you to say: "wait a second. i'm a modern human. i am not going to be held emotionally hostage by some ancient tribe any more."
not a neutral viewpoint, but is also (as non secular viewpoints can be) a philosophically based viewpoint. The secular viewpoint is an interpretation of biological, and archaeological facts, according to philosophical premises such as the "philosophical tenet" of methodological naturalism, uniformitarian timescales, and the a priori denial of consideration of divine intervention in Earths history.
.
i know, i know, the evolution vs creation thing has been flogged to death lately, but i thought this was a great article, with the standard level of dawkins sarcasm, which used to irritate the hell out of me when i was a dub, and now i just love it.. on a side note, i've given up and resorted to ie when going to this site.
i miss my beloved firefox already, sniff, sniff.. .
The following may help those who wish to know what the Kansas situation is about:
.
i know, i know, the evolution vs creation thing has been flogged to death lately, but i thought this was a great article, with the standard level of dawkins sarcasm, which used to irritate the hell out of me when i was a dub, and now i just love it.. on a side note, i've given up and resorted to ie when going to this site.
i miss my beloved firefox already, sniff, sniff.. .
As the Religious Right tries to ban the teaching of evolution in Kansas, Richard Dawkins speaks up for scientific logic
I think that even the first sentence gives a misleading impression.
it's been awhile since i wrote, but i've been crazy busy with school work!.
my fundamental christian neighbors gave my kids this video to watch.
- "the creation adventure team".
Back to the dinosaur issue:
They are saying that dinosaurs are not millions of years old because thousands of pounds of bones are found to be unfossilized and that red blood cells were found in the bones and this wouldn't be if they lived millions of years ago. And they are telling these kids that it is not a fact that they are millions of years old. They are trying to prove that dinosaurs and man lived together and that the bible's creation story is correct. They are even saying that ALL dinosaurs were vegetarians, even the T-rex! Oh, and the dragons mentioned in the bible were really dinosaurs! Now they are showing caveman drawings that supposedly have dinosaurs on the rock wall. Could you give me some advice about what to say to these people, if anything? Better yet some scientific EVIDENCE that this is untrue. Thanks for your help!
Calling ...Seattle nice guy and other evolution buff's!!!
It should be acknowledged that there are many unfossilized dinosaur bones, as well as mounting evidence of preserved dinosaur biological tissues (whether or not one accepts this as evidence against old ages for such creatures depends to a large part on ones world view as it related to the dinosaurs, and origins).
it's been awhile since i wrote, but i've been crazy busy with school work!.
my fundamental christian neighbors gave my kids this video to watch.
- "the creation adventure team".
hooberusSo, rather than deal with the valid accusations of bad science or deception on the part of Carl Wieland and Answers in Genesis relating to the find in the 1990's, you just repeat the errors with a more recent discovery?
My main reson for posting the msnbc arcticle here was to present dinosaur soft tissue evidence, not to spend time on accusations against creationists by TalkOrigins and others.
For example, one of the main faults Carl is criticised for is using a popular science article as a basis of his claims, rather than the actual science papers. And what do you do? Link to MSNBC and interviews targetted at a non-scientific audience!!
Popular science arcticles (such as from msmbc) can still be valid sources for new infomation, also the linked to interview was of the main scientist involved. Persons should also be aware that AiG also publishes a reviewed Technical Journal which often goes into more detail than their comments on regular news related arcticles.
My link to TalkOrigins was to provide their response to the msnbc arcticle that was posted. I read the above as well (and it was one of the reaons for my link for those who wanted more info).To be fair you link to talkorigins, but you missed out the best bits;
"For example, the main article has left many people with the false impression that the recovered tissues were in a soft pliable state when first exposed. This is not true. All of the fossil material was rehydrated during the same process that removed the mineral components of the bone. They were then buffered, and also some were fixed. The related press reports have created the impression that there are large features with the characteristics of fresh tissue. This is not true. The structures examined are a few millimeters across at most. The last, and rather irritating aspect of this research is not from the Science article, or the supporting material, but from the press interviews given by Schweitzer which repeatedly hint at the recovery of DNA, and even of cloning."
And you also ignore the evidence being discussed is not claimed by any one involved in the discovery with YECism. Your use of it to do this without making it clear the people who made the discovery make no such claims is deceptive;I simply pasted directly from an msnbc arcticle about the discovery of dinosaur soft tissue. Since my comments do not imply that those making the discovery personally support a Young Earth interpretation of this evidence I do not therefore believe my actions to be "deceptive."
One small, and hopeful change from Schweitzer's similar 1990s "discovery" is that this time both she and Horner have made direct statements that this find is neither a contradiction of the sciences, nor of an ancient Earth.She certiainly is entitled to her opinion on these things (just as YECs are entitled to a different opinion on these same things).
You also let yourself down by saying;I had read the above portion of the TalkOrigins arcticle. However my comments were specifically about the re-evaluation of extant dinosaur bones. Here is my comment again: "The second interview with Leesem also points out the fact that other extant Dinosaur remains on display (ie: "Sue") may also have soft tissue remains within their bones. Perhaps this will now cause a more thorough evaluation of these specimens."The second interview with Leesem also points out the fact that other extant Dinosaur remains on display (ie: "Sue") may also have soft tissue remains within their bones. Perhaps this will now cause a more thorough evaluation of these specimens.If you had read the talkorigins article you linked to thoroughly, or had a more comprehensive knowledge of evolutionary biology, you would have known the find is nothing that new;
"Hendrik Poinar of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, cautions that looks can deceive: Nucleated protozoan cells have been found in 225-million-year-old amber, but geochemical tests revealed that the nuclei had been replaced with resin compounds. Even the resilience of the vessels may be deceptive. Flexible fossils of colonial marine organisms called graptolites have been recovered from 440-million-year-old rocks, but the original material--likely collagen--had not survived."
And also, you can't resist the temptation to poison the well;I don't think that my statement was an example of poisioning the well: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html... possibly in part due to the worldview that such creatures were probably too supposedly "old" for such items to be found within bones - so thus why split them intentionally?
... when you regularly quote from a website that has been shown on this occasion and at least one other occasion I've highlighted to you to be a treasury of bad science, selective use of data, and downright deceptive practice. You conceeded this point as far as you could bring yourself to; I can find the post if you don't remember.
I don't believe that my previous comments amount to anything approaching any sort of concession that AiG has engaged in such as the above. Here are some links to some previous discussions that we have had over your accusations against AiG:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/72354/4.ashx http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/74371/1200785/post.ashx#1200785 Futhermore, it is not my intention here to (once again) enter into a lengthy response to various accusations that you make against creationist organizations (or myself for that matter). I believe that the dialogue contained thus far here (and on previous linked to posts) is sufficient enough.
it's been awhile since i wrote, but i've been crazy busy with school work!.
my fundamental christian neighbors gave my kids this video to watch.
- "the creation adventure team".
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/
The audio interview with Schweitzer is well worth the time.
The second interview with Leesem also points out the fact that other extant Dinosaur remains on display (ie: "Sue") may also have soft tissue remains within their bones. Perhaps this will now cause a more thorough evaluation of these specimens.
I think that this is a case where an accidental discovery (the bone was split in the field) has revealed facts that may never have surfaced otherwise (possibly in part due to the worldview that such creatures were probably too supposedly "old" for such items to be found within bones -so thus why split them intentionally?).
it's been awhile since i wrote, but i've been crazy busy with school work!.
my fundamental christian neighbors gave my kids this video to watch.
- "the creation adventure team".
Here is the response of the evolutionary site "TalkOrigins" to a video from the above msnbc link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.html
A significantly better video was presented on MSNBC, and is linked from Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue 70-million-year-old fossil yields preserved blood vessels. No "Jurassic Park" footage, but here again, Schweitzer made easily misinterpreted statements contradicted by her published work. Just one example was her statement that the contents of vessels could be readily "squeezed out." Since she offered no laboratory procedure as a context, this left the impression that these remains just popped out of the bone as fresh as if the dinosaur died yesterday.
it's been awhile since i wrote, but i've been crazy busy with school work!.
my fundamental christian neighbors gave my kids this video to watch.
- "the creation adventure team".
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683 Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue 70-million-year-old fossil yields preserved blood vessels
Science via AP
Tissue fragments from a Tyrannosaurus rex femur are shown at left, when it is flexible and resilient and when stretched (arrow) returns to its original shape. The middle photo shows the bone after it is air dried. The photo at right shows regions of bone showing fibrous character, not normally seen in fossil bone. |
