Go to THRAWN RICKLE
- Add a comment
- Go to Why I Believe — And What
Thanks, TAPS...
I appreciate that. Have you checked out my book? (Se the side bar.)
posted by
arGee
on July 20, 2006 at 5:23 PM
| link to this | reply
arGee, you do a good job of both. I have read several of your posts and they definitely hold the attention unto the end.
posted by
TAPS.
on July 20, 2006 at 4:33 PM
| link to this | reply
Actually, TAPS...
It would be my privilege to "lead someone astray" from his or her misguided beliefs...but that is not my purpose here. I am writing to inform and entertain.
posted by
arGee
on July 20, 2006 at 4:22 PM
| link to this | reply
arGee, very interesting reading. The conclusions that you have come to in your much learning and contemplations, though fascinating to consider, make not much difference in the final outcome of things for you. You will die when your time comes, just as I will. "Of the making of many books, there is no end" but the life of each man who writes has an end. What good will all of your scientific knowlege and logic be then except to perhaps lead someone else astray from the faith of their parents.
posted by
TAPS.
on July 20, 2006 at 12:58 PM
| link to this | reply
Striking, isn't it, Gome...
Just imagine what a really good "Psychic" could make of this!
posted by
arGee
on July 17, 2006 at 8:14 PM
| link to this | reply
arGee - this was a very interesting read
Your upbringing and the stages of your personal growth are so completely different from mine but somehow we arrive at many of the same conclusions. For example: if someone in discussion; is going to insist on the merits of intelligent design, I am going to insist that they modify the term to "intelligent designers"...... because if this universe was in fact consciously designed, it looks to me as if it was done by a committee. ....I touched on some of what you have covered in this post
HERE
posted by
gomedome
on July 17, 2006 at 8:07 PM
| link to this | reply
Incidentally, regarding a belief in God...
In my article, Why I Believe – And What, I never say that I don't believe in God. I simply try to examine what this almighty being might actually be. I do imply that I don't believe He has any interest in what you or I do individually, but I keep clear of denying the existence of a superior (supreme) being(s). I really don't know enough to go there...
posted by
arGee
on July 17, 2006 at 6:27 PM
| link to this | reply
I have no problem with agreeing to disagree on a particular subject, but...
Something I insist upon in any discussion is intellectual honesty, which – in this case – means that when you make an assertion, you need to back it up with facts. Please give me a list of scientists in the field of the life sciences, or at least the names of one or two, who discount biological evolution in favor of intelligent design.
I challenge you to find even one reputable scientist with this point of view. To be sure we are on the same page, I will define reputable: A scientist who (1) regularly publishes in peer reviewed journals within the life sciences discipline (NOT any journal related to intelligent design or creation science); (2) applies the scientific method to his or her research; (3) is a member of one or more active professional societies specifically focused on the life sciences (NOT any society related to intelligent design or creation science).
You will discover that there are no such scientists whatever. The reason is really quite simple. I discuss this in my article, What is a Theory? Basically, Intelligent Design and Creation Science folks start with a framework (i.e., the biblical creation account or some variant), and then find data that seem to support their framework. Legitimate scientists simply don't do this. They start with data, generate an hypothesis from the data, test the hypothesis, and then refine the hypothesis into a full-fledged theory. In other words, real scientists start at the other end of the problem – with the data.
Sorry, Kiddo, but that's just how it is...
posted by
arGee
on July 17, 2006 at 6:22 PM
| link to this | reply
arGee, I've been down this road before, and let me just say, I believe
in God and that God is the Creator. I respect your choices, based on your studies and experience, but there are plenty of other scientists with credentials out the wazoo who take a different point of view. So, we'll have to agree to disagree on this and probably everything dealing with whether or not there's a God.
posted by
Ariala
on July 17, 2006 at 5:21 PM
| link to this | reply
Actually, radio carbon dating is VERY accurate...
If it is done correctly. In a nutshell it works like this. You examine the ratio of the various carbon isotopes in the sample that were deposited at the time the item under examination was growing. You then compare these ratios with the ratio of these same isotopes in the current biosphere. You assume that the atmospheric ratios then were the same as now (a reasonable assumption, but we needn't discuss this now). The various isotopes of carbon decay at a known rate, so the differences in these ratios define with a considerable degree of accuracy the time the item stopped consuming carbon.
When dealing with mollusks, one of your problems is that they are not imbibing atmospheric carbon. If, in fact, the carbon they are taking in is already stamped with an age-dated carbon sample (in other words, they are eating very old stuff), then the ratios that eventually end up in their matrix will reflect the age of what they ate, NOT their own age. There are other potential problems, but – since radio carbon dating really is a very good dating tool – one must assume that any 2 month old mollusk that receives a radio carbon date of 2000 years underwent a flawed dating procedure.
Briefly, regarding "creation science." Please re-read my article, What is a Theory? In this article I lay out what the problem is with "Intelligent Design" or "Creation Science." I, too, don't want to go "there" for a long discussion about evolution vs. all the other stuff. But intellectual honesty demands that the scientific method be applied to every hypothesis, and in this regard, Intelligent Design fails miserably.
posted by
arGee
on July 17, 2006 at 5:15 PM
| link to this | reply
carbon dating is a very unreliable source for telling the age of anything,
according to my brother, the geologist /creation scientist. Just a quick example of this is the fact that live mollusk in Hawaii were dated with the carbon 14 method and their shells were shown to be 2000 years old. Imagine finding out the mollusks were only months or years old. Carbon dating isn't reliable. This is just one example.
Anyway, I'm not here to argue evolution versus creation. The difference between us is that I reason from faith and you reason from doubt. I believe God is powerful enough to create by the power of His Word and creating the world in seven literal days was no big deal for him. 
posted by
Ariala
on July 17, 2006 at 4:04 PM
| link to this | reply
I'm not sure about the " More Intelligent" part...
But I can tell you that my approach works for me. Basically, when a person invokes "faith" as an argument, any true discussion stops, because "faith" is not open to dissection and experiment the way material things are.
I remember having a discussion with a fellow believer back in my ardent youth days. We were discussing the – to me – obvious fact that ancient bones with radio carbon dating in excess of 100,000 years was pretty good evidence that our planet is more than 6,000 years old. Even then, I was willing to adjust my thinking to accommodate obvious fact. My friend simply answered that when God made the world 6,000 years ago, he put those fossils where they were with the radio carbon dating in place.
Fortunately, I was smart enough to realize that the discussion was over. His answer was – within his envelope of faith – perfect and unassailable.
I can supply lots of facts, and I can link them together in convincingly coherent fashion, but I cannot impact "faith" without taking on, myself, some mantle of faith. And so I find myself inside the envelope I described in my post.
Thanks for reading and responding.
posted by
arGee
on July 17, 2006 at 1:36 PM
| link to this | reply
Very interesting. You, of course are much more intelligent than I am, but
I spent two years drenched in Ayn Rand and studied other philosophies but came to a whole different conclusion than you. My conclusion is that there is a God and logic and science are not the only tools for perceiving reality. If you read my past religion posts, I've covered all this. I also came to the conclusion that I would not be led away by the "vain philosophies"of man, of whom Rand, and others are a part. I choose to believe in God by faith and still hold that the Bible is an inspired work.
posted by
Ariala
on July 17, 2006 at 1:18 PM
| link to this | reply