short but scientific vid focusing on Creationist cliches

[oldfella1962]

Okay nothing controversial - no cursing, no political slant, no Christian bashing, just a short video from an actual scientist addressing the very common but generally outdated cliches/statements/questions that Creationist/Fundamentalist Christians rely on when arguing for & advocating their beliefs. We have heard these points over & over in this subforum, and to be honest they can open up a very complicated can of worms - that's "the nature of the beast" with science based versus faith-based reasoning. But it's a great refresher for those leaning toward the scientific viewpoint and offers short but sound explanations as to how/why the actual evidence & facts point toward Creationism - as described in the Bible - as being physically & empirically impossible. If you must, fast forward to about the 17:00 point for the best part - or rather my opinion as to what is my favorite part anyway. Bottom line I figured that it's better to get an actual scientist to explain things rather than a barely graduated High School layman like myself. Enjoy! Warning drink some coffee and/or take whatever legally prescribed medications available that increase mental alertness & functioning prior to watching this. This young woman is passionate about her work, and the science comes at us in a fast & furious manner.

 

[ambush80]

1. No good evidence of transitional species.
2. No evidence of one species ever becoming another one. There has never been a "kind" turn into another "kind. Cats don't become dogs.
3. Even if we grant evolution as a a natural process, God got it started.
4. Look at all the stuff science doesn't understand or has gotten wrong.
5. I don't care about evolution. I care about my immortal soul.


Did I miss any?

 

[oldfella1962]

1. No good evidence of transitional species.
2. No evidence of one species ever becoming another one. There has never been a "kind" turn into another "kind. Cats don't become dogs.
3. Even if we grant evolution as a a natural process, God got it started.
4. Look at all the stuff science doesn't understand or has gotten wrong.
5. I don't care about evolution. I care about my immortal soul.


Did I miss any?

There is good evidence of transitional species. I can provide links that explain this, and why every species is "transitional" in a way, since evolution is an ongoing process.
There is no such thing as a "kind" in actual modern taxonomy/classification. That's just a word that the Bible uses to describe biological diversity in general.
Science gets things wrong because science is about figuring out the unknown. This means getting things wrong until they get it right - or as right as it can be with the available data at the time.

That said many Christians do accept evolution as a natural process (just like gravity) so faith and the belief in evolution are not mutually exclusive. In other words, they feel that their "immortal soul" isn't in danger just because they accept scientific realities. Back in the day it was heresy to say that the Earth was not the center of the solar system.

 

[WaltL1]

Okay nothing controversial - no cursing, no political slant, no Christian bashing, just a short video from an actual scientist addressing the very common but generally outdated cliches/statements/questions that Creationist/Fundamentalist Christians rely on when arguing for & advocating their beliefs. We have heard these points over & over in this subforum, and to be honest they can open up a very complicated can of worms - that's "the nature of the beast" with science based versus faith-based reasoning. But it's a great refresher for those leaning toward the scientific viewpoint and offers short but sound explanations as to how/why the actual evidence & facts point toward Creationism - as described in the Bible - as being physically & empirically impossible. If you must, fast forward to about the 17:00 point for the best part - or rather my opinion as to what is my favorite part anyway. Bottom line I figured that it's better to get an actual scientist to explain things rather than a barely graduated High School layman like myself. Enjoy! Warning drink some coffee and/or take whatever legally prescribed medications available that increase mental alertness & functioning prior to watching this. This young woman is passionate about her work, and the science comes at us in a fast & furious manner.

and the science comes at us in a fast & furious manner

Man you werent kidding. That chick is a machine gun of big words

 

[oldfella1962]

Man you werent kidding. That chick is a machine gun of big words

She can't help it. She loves her work, and typically makes hour long+ videos about specific aspects of her field of study. Probably the funniest videos she ever made were going with her mom to the Noah's Ark Encounter & Creation Museum.

Sidenote: this may or may not have come up here on the GON forum, but how many Creationists believe in plate tectonics? In other words, do they accept the fact that entire continents move around at a very slow rate? It can be measured and proven, so I would assume that most accept this as true & demonstrable. My point is this; since the continents move/islands are created/mountain ranges come & go, this eventually changes ocean current/weather patterns, which changes climates/temperatures in any specific location, which changes food sources, etcetera. Ergo if there was no mechanism for life to adapt to constantly changing environments, then complex life as we know it would cease to exist. In other words, unless God does a "poof! - supernaturally creating new species" like in Genesis from time-to-time whenever environments inevitably change in various locations, then life would be in trouble. On a planet that is geologically active like Earth, life has to have a way to adapt. Most Creationists believe that any species - even humans - can "adapt" up to a point over successive generations. They can observe this because of the diversity in human skin color, eye shapes (no eye lids in some Asians) frame sizes for more or less skin surface area and sweat glands to cool the body or preserve body heat, etcetera. But while most Creationists accept adaptation within a species, they reject adaptation to the point where speciation occurs. But it's the same process! It's all genetic change! The only difference is eventually a specie's reproductive genes are changed to the point where they can no longer successfully breed with the members of the group that they originally came from before they were geographically isolated in an area with a different environment. Believing in "adaptation" but not "speciation" is like saying "I believe that Steve can bowl a 275 game - I even watched him do this it several times - but Steve could never bowl a 280 game - it's just not possible." I guess speciation is just a bridge too far for them - too big a conflict with their faith - so they cannot even consider it a possibility.

 

[Madman]

Shorter response:

ex nihilo nihil fit​

 

[oldfella1962]

Shorter response:

ex nihilo nihil fit​

by "shorter response" are you responding to what I posted, or the video?
Regardless, "out of nothing from nothing" as a stand-alone phrase never made sense to me without context. Are you advocating that the universe was indeed made from nothing (except for whatever supernatural creating powers any deity may have used)? Are you advocating that the universe could not have been made from nothing therefore "something" must have always existed? Or is it something completely different? Please explain your position.

 

[ambush80]

by "shorter response" are you responding to what I posted, or the video?
Regardless, "out of nothing from nothing" as a stand-alone phrase never made sense to me without context. Are you advocating that the universe was indeed made from nothing (except for whatever supernatural creating powers any deity may have used)? Are you advocating that the universe could not have been made from nothing therefore "something" must have always existed? Or is it something completely different? Please explain your position.

What is nothing? Do we fully understand what that means? Maybe it's a concept like "Eternal". Do we fully understand what that means?

 

[oldfella1962]

What is nothing? Do we fully understand what that means? Maybe it's a concept like "Eternal". Do we fully understand what that means?

Oh I see! That is an interesting question. I know I've always contemplated "eternity" but never nothingness. I think about Earth - how far away we are to our nearest planets (or our sun) then think about how far solar systems are apart within our galaxy, then how far galaxies are apart, and after a while it freaks me out! And what is the universe expanding into? It is expanding, no doubt about it, but what's on the other side of that? I have been told that is truly "nothingness". Then is there a nothing just waiting to be filled with "something"? If that's the case then the universe - as we know it - is not eternal, but the "nothing" on the other side is eternal - or is it? Will our expanding universe run out of room to expand if the nothingness is not eternal? Will this cause the universe to contract and form another singularity and start another "big bang"? All that energy & mass from an expanding universe might ricochet like a tennis ball bouncing off a brick wall.

 

[ambush80]

Oh I see! That is an interesting question. I know I've always contemplated "eternity" but never nothingness. I think about Earth - how far away we are to our nearest planets (or our sun) then think about how far solar systems are apart within our galaxy, then how far galaxies are apart, and after a while it freaks me out! And what is the universe expanding into? It is expanding, no doubt about it, but what's on the other side of that? I have been told that is truly "nothingness". Then is there a nothing just waiting to be filled with "something"? If that's the case then the universe - as we know it - is not eternal, but the "nothing" on the other side is eternal - or is it? Will our expanding universe run out of room to expand if the nothingness is not eternal? Will this cause the universe to contract and form another singularity and start another "big bang"? All that energy & mass from an expanding universe might ricochet like a tennis ball bouncing off a brick wall.

"The absence of matter or energy". I think most people will agree to that definition of Nothing. Yet, whenever we've encountered conditions that fit that description, we still don't seem to fully understand what's happening there, but we're typically only talking about measurable or calculable things. There could be all kinds of things going on where we observe "nothing", including magical, spiritual realms.

 

[oldfella1962]

"The absence of matter or energy". I think most people will agree to that definition of Nothing. Yet, whenever we've encountered conditions that fit that description, we still don't seem to fully understand what's happening there, but we're typically only talking about measurable or calculable things. There could be all kinds of things going on where we observe "nothing", including magical, spiritual realms.

Interesting idea! Since "nothing" cannot be tested or observed, who knows what could be going on there? If we found anything - no matter how bizarre or unexplainable - it's still "something" so it wouldn't qualify for true nothingness. Now imagine this:

a virus actually borders the edge of being both non-living and living. They are non-living - just chemicals in a unique structure, but so what? Lots of non-living chemicals form structures. Viruses are non-living when outside a cell, but alive once inside a cell. Their function at any particular time determines their non-living or living status. I said that to say this:
religions - let's use Christianity as an example - posit that their God exists outside of measurable space & time. Like in another dimension or something, which could be "nothingness" from the human perspective.
So when God is outside of space & time, He is like that virus - in one of two states of existence. Then when God does interact physically with reality as we know it - such as thinking animals & people into existence, turning water into wine miracles or "smiting" the enemy with hailstones like back in the Old Testament days - He is in His other state of existence. Obviously the "interaction with reality" state of existence is pretty rare - "blink and you'll miss it" rare actually. Something to think about anyway!

 

[ambush80]

Interesting idea! Since "nothing" cannot be tested or observed, who knows what could be going on there? If we found anything - no matter how bizarre or unexplainable - it's still "something" so it wouldn't qualify for true nothingness. Now imagine this:

a virus actually borders the edge of being both non-living and living. They are non-living - just chemicals in a unique structure, but so what? Lots of non-living chemicals form structures. Viruses are non-living when outside a cell, but alive once inside a cell. Their function at any particular time determines their non-living or living status. I said that to say this:
religions - let's use Christianity as an example - posit that their God exists outside of measurable space & time. Like in another dimension or something, which could be "nothingness" from the human perspective.
So when God is outside of space & time, He is like that virus - in one of two states of existence. Then when God does interact physically with reality as we know it - such as thinking animals & people into existence, turning water into wine miracles or "smiting" the enemy with hailstones like back in the Old Testament days - He is in His other state of existence. Obviously the "interaction with reality" state of existence is pretty rare - "blink and you'll miss it" rare actually. Something to think about anyway!

People claim to have the ability to detect God through some kind of sensory perception outside of what can be described by science. I've heard many descriptions of these perceptions and they sound like common thoughts, feelings, or emotions. The extraordinary potency of the experiences is the evidence they give for their belief that they're supernatural in nature; "Like nothing I've ever experienced".

The claim, according to doctrine, is that "Many are called, but few are chosen". Common interpretation of this parable would indicate that not ALL, but MANY have this particular ability to perceive the supernatural evidence and even then, FEW will act upon it.

 

[oldfella1962]

People claim to have the ability to detect God through some kind of sensory perception outside of what can be described by science. I've heard many descriptions of these perceptions and they sound like common thoughts, feelings, or emotions. The extraordinary potency of the experiences is the evidence they give for their belief that they're supernatural in nature; "Like nothing I've ever experienced".

The claim, according to doctrine, is that "Many are called, but few are chosen". Common interpretation of this parable would indicate that not ALL, but MANY have this particular ability to perceive the supernatural evidence and even then, FEW will act upon it.

Interesting! I've never heard about this interpretation. As far as it applies to "many are called but few are chosen" I see some holes in this:
Would this ability to "sense the supernatural/God" apply to any and all religions/gods or just Christianity? Putting aside other religions and focusing on Christianity for argument's sake - since "many are called but few are chosen" is a New Testament verse - should we blame any believer for NOT acting upon their unique ability to perceive these extraordinarily potent feelings? Whomever has these experiences could - for good reason - think that it is "just their imagination" or a trick of the devil or something. In other words, being skeptical and cautious would make sense no matter what the believer's level of faith. Granted, many Christians could say "the Holy Spirit" will help them to discern what is legit and what isn't. But this sounds to me like circular reasoning - using one part of the Trinity (the Holy Spirit) to verify the other parts of the Trinity. To me this is not much different than "the Bible is true because the Bible claims that it's true."

 

[ambush80]

Interesting! I've never heard about this interpretation. As far as it applies to "many are called but few are chosen" I see some holes in this:
Would this ability to "sense the supernatural/God" apply to any and all religions/gods or just Christianity? Putting aside other religions and focusing on Christianity for argument's sake - since "many are called but few are chosen" is a New Testament verse - should we blame any believer for NOT acting upon their unique ability to perceive these extraordinarily potent feelings? Whomever has these experiences could - for good reason - think that it is "just their imagination" or a trick of the devil or something. In other words, being skeptical and cautious would make sense no matter what the believer's level of faith. Granted, many Christians could say "the Holy Spirit" will help them to discern what is legit and what isn't. But this sounds to me like circular reasoning - using one part of the Trinity (the Holy Spirit) to verify the other parts of the Trinity. To me this is not much different than "the Bible is true because the Bible claims that it's true."

Apologetics is practically a useless endeavor. Trying to apply logic to doctrine based on subjective experience will eventually lead to a dead end. Your question about God and space time forced an examination of two very different concepts, it demanded an apologetics type inquiry and as you surmised, the resulting explanation will be circular.

Religions often rely on supernatural mandate to determine who is qualified to interpret scripture.

I can Google "What does Mathew 22:14 mean?" and I will get someone's interpretation of the words that someone 2000 years ago wrote. I can read the parable (having been translated a couple of times from different languages) myself and try to interpret it verbatim, or I can read what a scholar says it means. Either way, the words "many" and "few" are used, if those are indeed the correct interpretations from Hebrew and Greek and Aramaic. Many doesn't mean all and few means a small portion of many. I'd be interested to hear an explanation of why this wouldn't mean that not everybody will be given the ability to "hear" the supernatural calling.

 

[ambush80]

Shorter response:

ex nihilo nihil fit​

Good to see you, Madman. We haven't "Sharpened iron" in quite a while.

 

[Madman]

Good to see you, Madman. We haven't "Sharpened iron" in quite a while.

I know, it has been quite a year. I miss “thinking deeper” on these topics. It is most enjoyable to research the topics you present. And you do “sharpen”.

I pray you have a wonderful holidays, I have began enjoying my family more than could have ever hoped and they seem to consume every minute away from work.

We could go deeper on this if you wish, but I am sure you know my thoughts.

Peace to you and your family.

Madman

 

[oldfella1962]

Apologetics is practically a useless endeavor. Trying to apply logic to doctrine based on subjective experience will eventually lead to a dead end. Your question about God and space time forced an examination of two very different concepts, it demanded an apologetics type inquiry and as you surmised, the resulting explanation will be circular.

Religions often rely on supernatural mandate to determine who is qualified to interpret scripture.

I can Google "What does Mathew 22:14 mean?" and I will get someone's interpretation of the words that someone 2000 years ago wrote. I can read the parable (having been translated a couple of times from different languages) myself and try to interpret it verbatim, or I can read what a scholar says it means. Either way, the words "many" and "few" are used, if those are indeed the correct interpretations from Hebrew and Greek and Aramaic. Many doesn't mean all and few means a small portion of many. I'd be interested to hear an explanation of why this wouldn't mean that not everybody will be given the ability to "hear" the supernatural calling.

Apologetics seems to be all about keeping believers on the reservation more than winning over hearts & minds from the unconverted. They only have so many arguments and ways to spin them. The more "successful" and well-known apologists are kind of like magicians/illusionists in that they have to control their environment to pull off the illusion of confidently demonstrating their mastery. They have to use misdirection to steer the discussion/debate/question & answer/lecture etcetera to their favor. They never actually give a straight answer to the actual questions presented - which are typically softball or often asked questions that the apologists are well prepared for. And if they do get pulled into deep water by somebody with some serious arguing/debating skills and their "facts" and logic fail them, they have aces up their sleeves! That's when they typically pivot and go with "you don't understand the deeper context" or "you are looking at this through a worldly lens and not a spiritual lens" or something similar. So when they control the narrative in a live setting - or in a one-way presentation with no interaction or only interaction from fellow believers - they seem to make sense to some degree. But when their presentations are fact-checked or investigated further they come up short. I'm seeing more & more Islamic apologists lately, and their arguments are not very compelling - but I understand why. Many of them just aren't used to atheists and followers of other faiths (and sometimes fellow Muslims) questioning Islam, so they don't have a lot of experience defending their beliefs - but they are catching on and catching up.

 

[WaltL1]

Apologetics is practically a useless endeavor. Trying to apply logic to doctrine based on subjective experience will eventually lead to a dead end. Your question about God and space time forced an examination of two very different concepts, it demanded an apologetics type inquiry and as you surmised, the resulting explanation will be circular.

Religions often rely on supernatural mandate to determine who is qualified to interpret scripture.

I can Google "What does Mathew 22:14 mean?" and I will get someone's interpretation of the words that someone 2000 years ago wrote. I can read the parable (having been translated a couple of times from different languages) myself and try to interpret it verbatim, or I can read what a scholar says it means. Either way, the words "many" and "few" are used, if those are indeed the correct interpretations from Hebrew and Greek and Aramaic. Many doesn't mean all and few means a small portion of many. I'd be interested to hear an explanation of why this wouldn't mean that not everybody will be given the ability to "hear" the supernatural calling.

I'd be interested to hear an explanation of why this wouldn't mean that not everybody will be given the ability to "hear" the supernatural calling.

It cant mean that ^. That would contradict other widely held beliefs.
Gotta work around it.

 

[ambush80]

It cant mean that ^. That would contradict other widely held beliefs.
Gotta work around it.

Plenty of "work arounds".

 

[ambush80]

I know, it has been quite a year. I miss “thinking deeper” on these topics. It is most enjoyable to research the topics you present. And you do “sharpen”.

I pray you have a wonderful holidays, I have began enjoying my family more than could have ever hoped and they seem to consume every minute away from work.

We could go deeper on this if you wish, but I am sure you know my thoughts.

Peace to you and your family.

Madman

Bets wishes to you and yours during the Holiday Season. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Having a loving family is truly a blessing.