Debunking Dangerously Deceitful Dogma

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oglethorpe

The world isn't flat, carbon dating is reliable, there was no adam and there was no eve, no garden of eden, no flood. We know this because we can prove it.



OGIE

---

I would be interested in some of these proofs, not that I disagree with some of your statements, but the proofs are somewhat difficult in many cases.

In addition:

There probably were both and adam and an eve, though not in the strict biblical sense. DNA analysis does, however, indicate that all of us alive today did have a single common female and a male ancestor, though they did not live at the same point in time, and were probably not the only women and men alive at their times.

There was also a flood, maybe several, but certainly one. But, it was not world spanning, so again it does not conform strictly to the biblical event.

Garden of Eden, probably not since "Adam" and "Eve" were separated by about 40,000 years and while both probably lived in Africa, they may have lived in different locations. Mitocondiral Eve, by the way, probably dates from about the time that homo sapiens arose from earlier hominids. Y chromosonal Adam on the other hand lived much later.

And while the world may not be flat in three dimensional space, can you say for certain that it is not in some n-dimensional space?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fccexpert

I would be interested in some of these proofs, not that I disagree with some of your statements, but the proofs are somewhat difficult in many cases.

In addition:

There probably were both and adam and an eve, though not in the strict biblical sense. DNA analysis does, however, indicate that all of us alive today did have a single common female and a male ancestor, though they did not live at the same point in time, and were probably not the only women and men alive at their times.

There was also a flood, maybe several, but certainly one. But, it was not world spanning, so again it does not conform strictly to the biblical event.

Garden of Eden, probably not since "Adam" and "Eve" were separated by about 40,000 years and while both probably lived in Africa, they may have lived in different locations. Mitocondiral Eve, by the way, probably dates from about the time that homo sapiens arose from earlier hominids. Y chromosonal Adam on the other hand lived much later.

And while the world may not be flat in three dimensional space, can you say for certain that it is not in some n-dimensional space?

---

Well... thanks to your response, now I don't need to prove it.

Your sources are precisely the kind that I would look toward for drawing these conclusions. Precisely, meaning those that whose conclusions can be arrived at based on research in the areas of evolution, geology, genealogy, etc.

And yes, I am speaking in terms of Biblical references to the events, and specifically in contradiction to creationist "theories". In other words, a pair of all animals were not saved by a giant boat.

As far as an n-dimensional space, there is always room for a new theory and there is always more than one way to describe something in various contexts. For example, the shape/status of the world in "space/time" may be different than that in just space, that's fine and also proves my point. Or, time progression at the top of Mt. Everest vs. at sea level may be slightly different. Different observations are present in different contexts. So, in n-dimension, anything is possible, provided n-dimension can be observed/theorized/predicted via scientific method.

EDIT: Let me further clarify what I mean by "proofs". In this thread we are talking about "theories" which are actually the most correct conclusion at the present time; "theory" in the scientific meaning of the word, not the colloquial. The problem (as stated before) is that the colloquial meaning seems to errantly discount the fact that a scientific theory is the closest thing we have to the truth.

Thanks,

G

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Well, this won't be popular but I think every handgun in the country should be banned period. The stats are very clear if you have a handgun and think it will save your life someday its more likely it will be stolen, used against you,used by a child or family member against another family member. handguns are good for one thing and that's killing other people. I have no problem with hunting rifles or single shot hunting pistols but just think how many people die so guys can go shoot their handguns at paper targets.

I realize this will never happen because the gun lobby owns congress and people will continue to die. I'm sure guys will disagree with me wholeheartedly and I know we have a large contingent of gun enthusiasts and I'm not going to get into an argument with them but that's just how I see it. I've seen too many aftermaths of gun useage.

---

I challenge you to find one person that has died because of my handgun. You are of course entitled to your opinion that handguns are bad, and to your preference not to own one, but you do not have the right to make the same decisions for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oglethorpe

EDIT: Let me further clarify what I mean by "proofs". In this thread we are talking about "theories" which are actually the most correct conclusion at the present time; "theory" in the scientific meaning of the word, not the colloquial. The problem (as stated before) is that the colloquial meaning seems to errantly discount the fact that a scientific theory is the closest thing we have to the truth.

---

Very good point. The colloquial term 'theory' would be closest to the scientific hypothesis, an idea of why things are the way they are. Laws are used in science to describe exactly how things will be observed. There are various laws which are never broken like Boyle's Law of Pressures or Newton's Law of Motion. Through experimentation and observation scientific theories are formed about why things are as they are. When a Theory is supported by mountains of evidence and never contradicted we can begin to accept it as factual. This diagram exposes the methodology.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Flowchart.png

Another important point is falsifiability. If a theory cannot be disproven for whatever reason or it can be, but refuses to subject itself to the scientific review process then it is not science. This is why ID fails.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

Very good point. The colloquial term 'theory' would be closest to the scientific hypothesis, an idea of why things are the way they are. Laws are used in science to describe exactly how things will be observed. There are various laws which are never broken like Boyle's Law of Pressures or Newton's Law of Motion. Through experimentation and observation scientific theories are formed about why things are as they are. When a Theory is supported by mountains of evidence and never contradicted we can begin to accept it as factual. This diagram exposes the methodology.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Flowchart.png

Another important point is falsifiability. If a theory cannot be disproven for whatever reason or it can be, but refuses to subject itself to the scientific review process then it is not science. This is why ID fails.

---

Generally well said, but you should be aware that Newton's "Laws of Motion" actually only work on the macroscopic scale and break down on the subatomic level. They are not truelly laws, but generalized approximations.

Also, while the diagram is a good illustration of the scientific method, your use of the word "experiment" in the examination step may lead to some of the same confusion as the use of the word "theory". This is because many people equate and experiment to a specific activity (e.g. a chemistry experiment). They do not realize that an experiment, in the scientific sense, can consist of nothing more than a controlled observation. A better descriptor would be "gather and analyze data.

Newton's laws also break down at the very large scales of super massive objects and close proximity as well as great velocities. That's where Einsteinian Relativity comes in.

PS Not my diagram actually, I ripped it, but thanks for the clarification.

I usually don't tread on these grounds, but here it is.......

It is impossible to seperate creationism and religion, or, more specifically in this case, Christianity. All religions, or cultures for that matter, have their own creation myths, and the Christian faith is no different. The problem comes when those myths are debunked.

I'm positive a rational person, as we here at SRP all are, can agree that the world ISN'T 6000 years old, there were NO talking snakes, women WEREN'T created by a spare rib (from Adam, of course), and people NEVER lived for 800 years and so forth. When these facts are admitted, either publicly or privately, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. How is it possible that the bible, heralded as god's (spelling correct) ultimate truth could be so wrong? You either believe all of it or none of it; there can be no middle ground.

This is were the con artists and charlatans come in, trying to convince you that, while the first part of the "good book" might be a bit sketchy, the rest of it is gospel truth. Ever heard a religious apologetic try to explain dinosaurs? It's absolutely pathetic.

I've always believed that the underlying themes of religion, that of tolerance and love, are admirable, so don't get me wrong. But you can also hear these themes just as easily in a Beatles or John Lennon song.

Many Christians simply accept the Bible stories as metaphor and that's good enough for them.

So how is it possible then to say that this part is made up (or a metaphor) but that part is the literal and unquestionable truth? You can't be a believer but not believe at the same time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryan82

So how is it possible then to say that this part is made up (or a metaphor) but that part is the literal and unquestionable truth? You can't be a believer but not believe at the same time

---

Yeah, you can, even William Jennings Bryant admitted that he believed parts of the bible were metaphor under the questioning of Clarence Darrow during the Scopes monkey trial.