Dr. Hess, paging Dr. Hess...

MG_Bryan wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote: Ok, I'll buy that. I must say that there are many people of faith I have met who absolutely refuse to consider any other POV. But how about the folks who insist that the world is 6000 years old and that dinosaur fossils were planted by god to test human faith?

I can't really speak for them. I've honestly never met anyone who believes that. I know there are people who hold those beliefs; I've just never had the chance to pick their brains. I personally think it's crazy talk and they've missed the point to some degree. The Bible contains hyperbole. I'm comfortable with that because the point of the text is the message it conveys.

I have met several and they were very intelligent people.

SVreX wrote: I've read it.

And...?

93EXCivic wrote:

MG_Bryan wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote: Ok, I'll buy that. I must say that there are many people of faith I have met who absolutely refuse to consider any other POV. But how about the folks who insist that the world is 6000 years old and that dinosaur fossils were planted by god to test human faith?

I can't really speak for them. I've honestly never met anyone who believes that. I know there are people who hold those beliefs; I've just never had the chance to pick their brains. I personally think it's crazy talk and they've missed the point to some degree. The Bible contains hyperbole. I'm comfortable with that because the point of the text is the message it conveys.

I have met several and they were very intelligent people.

Never said they weren't. In so many words, I said I don't agree with them and that I've never had the opportunity to problem discuss the concept with someone that supports it.

MG_Bryan wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote: Ok, I'll buy that. I must say that there are many people of faith I have met who absolutely refuse to consider any other POV. But how about the folks who insist that the world is 6000 years old and that dinosaur fossils were planted by god to test human faith?

I can't really speak for them. I've honestly never met anyone who believes that. I know there are people who hold those beliefs; I've just never had the chance to pick their brains. I personally think it's crazy talk and they've missed the point to some degree. The Bible contains hyperbole. I'm comfortable with that because the point of the text is the message it conveys.

I am sharing an office wall with a guy who believes that. Well, his explanation is that god built the world with fossils basically so it would look age appropriate. He further explains it saying that god put adults on the earth to start out, not babies. So, he made the earth "adult" to start out too.

It gets really confusing to try to contort your mind into believing the whole scenario. Pretty much only fundamentalists believe any of that now. Unfortunately, they are among the loudest of Christians.

MG_Bryan wrote:

93EXCivic wrote:

MG_Bryan wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote: Ok, I'll buy that. I must say that there are many people of faith I have met who absolutely refuse to consider any other POV. But how about the folks who insist that the world is 6000 years old and that dinosaur fossils were planted by god to test human faith?

I can't really speak for them. I've honestly never met anyone who believes that. I know there are people who hold those beliefs; I've just never had the chance to pick their brains. I personally think it's crazy talk and they've missed the point to some degree. The Bible contains hyperbole. I'm comfortable with that because the point of the text is the message it conveys.

I have met several and they were very intelligent people.

Never said they weren't. In so many words, I said I don't agree with them and that I've never had the opportunity to problem discuss the concept with someone that supports it.

I don't agree with them either and have argued for hours with them and finally just gave up. People will believe what they believe no matter what is presented.

In reply to 93EXCivic:

Mr. Civic is in Alabama, like me. You can find some pretty high IQ people who believe it. They bypass Occam's Razor by having faith in the bible. Once someone basically admits that a nearly impossible scenario can be rationalized just by believing hard enough, there is no sense arguing the point with them.

I think the multitude of various creation stories withing the Bible is sufficient to say that none are attempting to convey historical/scientific account. The most perplexing part of it to me is why someone would find the idea the the Earth is only 6000 years old or that dinosaurs are test integral to his or her faith. It's a non-issue in my assessment. Even if the commonly held conception about the age of the Earth or fossils or dinosaurs are wrong, I just don't see what that would change. It's just not an issue I could ever get worked up over.

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to 93EXCivic: Mr. Civic is in Alabama, like me. You can find some pretty high IQ people who believe it. They bypass Occam's Razor by having faith in the bible. Once someone basically admits that a nearly impossible scenario can be rationalized just by believing hard enough, there is no sense arguing the point with them.

Actually in my 5 years in Alabama I haven't met anyone who believes it down here but Kentucky was a different story.

93EXCivic wrote: I have met several and they were very intelligent people.

Intelligent, but not educated.

Duke wrote:

SVreX wrote: I've read it.

And...?

I was glad I had the opportunity to read it and other views.

In reply to fifty:

Yeah, educated too. When it has been hammered into your head your entire life that you risk eternal damnation without faith, logic gets ignored pretty quickly.

Duke wrote: If you are serious about learning this, I suggest you read Richard Dawkins' *The Greatest Show On Earth*. He is unswervingly anti-religious and anti-ID, anyone will stipulate.

Dawkins: The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene are required reading for this thread.

I know some people with graduate or higher level diplomas who subscribe to that philosophy. Are we saying they are not educated?

Perhaps not educated in the manner that you want them to be, but certainly educated.

fifty wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: I have met several and they were very intelligent people.

Intelligent, but not educated.

Actually, Huntsville Alabama has the highest amount of PHD's in the country. (per-capita)

Keep in mind Redstone Arsenal, and all the rocket-scientist types.

SVreX wrote: I know some people with graduate or higher level diplomas who subscribe to that philosophy. Are we saying they are not educated? Perhaps not educated in the manner that you want them to be, but certainly educated.

If you are taught to fish with a spoon and have never, ever caught a fish and you see someone fishing with a baited hook it might be natural to doubt it... until you see them catch fish.

Intelligence, education sheepskins on the wall etc have nothing to do with anything.

I knew a well educated fella who was 100% convinced that Jews were at the root of all the world's problems. He just couldn't see around that particular blind spot.

I had a guy who worked for me who again was educated, intelligent and articulate but was the worst racist I have ever known, bar none. In fact I had to fire him because of that.

So making the statement that 'so and so has a PhD and believes in creationism' is not a good way to bolster a viewpoint.

Joe Gearin wrote:

fifty wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: I have met several and they were very intelligent people.

Intelligent, but not educated.

Actually, Huntsville Alabama has the highest amount of PHD's in the country. (per-capita) Keep in mind Redstone Arsenal, and all the rocket-scientist types.

Yup. Huntsville is an interesting town. We have NASA and tons of military and other engineering.

One thing about evolution that people don't understand: virtually all animals on this planet are just as evolved as all others. Humans are no more evolved than... puffins, or wolves. We have just taken a different evolutionary track than other animals. Some simple thing like insects, have been evolving from roots just as long (or longer) than our own. They have just reached a level where they very perfectly fill an ecological niche.

The only argument that some animals are "more" evolved is that some evolutionary lines are capable of sustaining greater adaptation. There is greater potential for certain designs. There isn't a whole lot that can be done to beetles or cockroaches to improve the design. Felines are already pretty well built and don't need a whole lot of work to fill any ecological niche (mostly just size and coloration).

This actually goes back to Dr. Hess' argument about "Why isn't there an intermediary thymus?" (It was thymus, right?) If there were an intermediary thymus, it would have occurred in animals eons ago. There are no animals alive now that are that intermediary stage of evolution that would have produced a proto thymus.

We're more likely at an intermediary stage in our evolution where the appendix or tonsils will become something vital. Or maybe they are organs that were once vital before we had a functional thymus.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

Duke wrote: If you are serious about learning this, I suggest you read Richard Dawkins' *The Greatest Show On Earth*. He is unswervingly anti-religious and anti-ID, anyone will stipulate.

Dawkins: The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene are required reading for this thread.

Dawkins kind of rubs me the wrong way. Anybody who is so militant in their atheism represents the other side of the fundamentalist religious coin. Why not be an agnostic? Is it that hard to say you don't know all the answers?

It is easy to disprove ID and creationism, but that doesn't disprove any kind of deistic existence.

Otto Maddox wrote: Dawkins kind of rubs me the wrong way. Anybody who is so militant in their atheism represents the other side of the fundamentalist religious coin. Why not be an agnostic? Is it that hard to say you don't know all the answers?

Because they genuinely believe there are no deities. Militant Atheism just seems silly to me though. Kind of takes away the capacity for righteous indignation, and you can't make the argument that you're trying to save people from hell or anything.

In reply to Salanis:

It is rare that anyone says that they are 85% Christian and 15% unsure. But I bet that is pretty close to the truth for a lot of people. Same goes for atheists.

The militant atheists always seem like they are very mad with a god that presumably does not exist. Maybe I am just reading into things.

Otto Maddox wrote: The militant atheists always seem like they are very mad with a god that presumably does not exist. Maybe I am just reading into things.

Exactly. It's like being a 40 year-old who gets mad at Santa for not bringing him what he wants for Christmas.

Not really, they are mad at the perceived gullibility of the world that will so whole-heartedly buy into something for which the best that can be said is that "well, there's no actual proof God doesn't exist."

Dawkins can be a dick, indeed. He (and I) are technically agnostics, since of course, it is logically and scientifically impossible to prove something doesn't exist. But calling yourself an agnostic implies that you believe there is some likelihood that a God exists, and neither Dawkins nor I are willing to project that implication for the sake of a minor logical point that is going to be lost on 90% of the population anyway.