Bill Nye and Ken Ham to debate evolution vs. creationism 2/4/14 - Page 5 - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Current Events, News, Politics Keep the politics here.

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-16-2014, 11:41 PM   #81
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 2,659
Total Cats: 76
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau View Post
Why is "Free Will vs. God's Sovereignty" any more of a problem for the theist than "Free Will vs. Determinism" is for the atheist? It's essentially the same paradox, no?
I'm confused by your question.

Determinism vs Free will isn't a problem for the atheist, because they don't believe there is a pre-determined plan that they have no effect on.

Whereas many theists purpose that not only does God have a plan, yet they have their own free will to act as they see fit.

The idea that I have free will to do as I see fit, yet God has already mapped out our existence........those to ideals are fundamentally opposed to each other. They are at complete odds with each other.

It's entirely possible I've missed what you are asking though.
z31maniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2014, 11:52 PM   #82
Elite Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Ryan_G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 2,579
Total Cats: 155
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by z31maniac View Post
Whereas many theists purpose that not only does God have a plan, yet they have their own free will to act as they see fit.

The idea that I have free will to do as I see fit, yet God has already mapped out our existence........those to ideals are fundamentally opposed to each other. They are at complete odds with each other.

It's entirely possible I've missed what you are asking though.
The fact that God is all knowing and has a plan for you does not contradict free will. He is all knowing and would know your free will reaction to any set of circumstances. He is therefore the master manipulator. He can, in effect, control your life (all life, in fact) without actually taking away free will by manipulating circumstances around you or others to change the circumstances or environment. Think of it like the butterfly effect. He knocks a rock down a hill at the right moment and creates a completely different scenario. Multiply that one incident by a million or trillion events orchestrated by an omnipotent being and you have in effect manipulated everything with out "controlling" any being's actions per se.
Ryan_G is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2014, 11:46 AM   #83
Crumple Zone Tester
iTrader: (7)
 
mgeoffriau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 7,656
Total Cats: 447
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by z31maniac View Post
I'm confused by your question.

Determinism vs Free will isn't a problem for the atheist, because they don't believe there is a pre-determined plan that they have no effect on.
Oh, I think you're mistaken there. Atheists don't believe in a predetermined plan in the sense of a sovereign deity, but many of them do profess to believe that the world operates by entirely natural and logical processes, a series of causal relationships.

The wiki on determinism would be helpful to read, but here's an extremely quick summary of one way of looking at the free will vs determinism debate.

So, what you believe are your internal thoughts and choices are really a product of brain chemistry. Your brain chemistry is a product of biological processes. Those biological processes are, in turn, products of the physical attributes of your component molecules. Those component molecules are, of course, products of the physical attributes of their component atoms, which are in turn products of the very structure and nature of the universe.

It could then be argued that you've never actually made a "choice" -- any appearance of free will is merely a post hoc explanation for what was really just a natural product of the movement and interaction of the multitude of atoms in the universe. Thinking of yourself as an individual who makes choices is simply a convenient story to avoid the reality that you have no choices at all; you are simply playing out the predetermined results of natural forces.



Alternatively, we could affirm free will, but this has consequences for causality and the uniformity of nature. If we accept that you are the product of nothing more than natural causes, but we also affirm that you actually have free will, that is, you are free to choose different actions in response to the exact same situation or stimuli, then we have likewise affirm that effects do not necessarily follow from causes. You can hit a billiard ball the exact same way, but it might go right or it might go left. This obviously would have severely detrimental consequences for our ability to understand or gain reliable knowledge about the universe.



That is the crux of the philosophical debate over free will and determinism.
mgeoffriau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2014, 12:18 PM   #84
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 2,659
Total Cats: 76
Default

I've read articles before like what Sam Harris mentions later down in that page. It's an interesting idea, but I have trouble with it.

Unrelated to your point, I just ran across this earlier. This kind of thinking is frightening.

z31maniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2014, 01:20 PM   #85
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Delicious and Moist.
Posts: 26,328
Total Cats: 1,926
Default

Returning to the conversation, after a weekend spent violating the Third and Sixth commandments (as well as some of the dietary laws set down in Leviticus), the conversation continues...


Quote:
Originally Posted by DNMakinson View Post
For the 1st group: the primary issue is often Young Earth vs Old Universe, evolution being an issue in that it requires the Old Universe. A literal interpretation of Gen 1-6 requires for them a Young Earth. This is based on the concept that Christ and Paul both quote and refer to Gen 1-6, and further requires that it be literally interpreted, wholly true, or else one must reject the Christian faith outright.
This is a good point, and one which I sometimes forget on account of its complete absurdity, despite the fact that my mother is a biblical literalist. I'm going to diverge a bit into analysis of scripture itself (even though I said I wouldn't) because it's important to have some background.



What I find quite interesting about this argument is that the book of Genesis actually contains two entirely separate accounts of creation. The first is the one which most people are familiar with, starting out "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..." and going on to describe various acts of subsequent creation taking place over a six day timeframe. (Gen 1:1-31)

Turning the page, however, there is a second telling of the creation story in Gen 2:4-23. This account differs greatly from the first not only in the tone and style of writing, but in the "facts" presented, specifically the order of events.

The first account breaks out creation such that one significant event happens on each consecutive day, as follows:
  1. Big Bang.
  2. Earth cools, atmosphere forms.
  3. Continents appear, plant life forms.
  4. Dust and fallout settle, atmosphere becomes clear enough to see the night sky through.
  5. Marine and avian life form.
  6. Mammals appear, culminating in homo sapiens.

The second account, by comparison, reads not so much like an instruction manual as a fireside fable. It breaks down creation not by day, but rather meanders through the process in a sort of poetic tone, pointing out major milestones along the way. What's really important, however, is that it lays out specific events in a different order than the first account. Man before animals, for instance. Man before woman, vs both at the same time. Man before plant life (?!) vs. after. And so on...


Now, scholars have debated these points to death for centuries, and there's little incentive for me to continue that analysis. While I'd love to have been a fly on the wall to hear this debate at the First Council of Nicaea which, in 325 AD under the commission of Roman Emperor Constantine, pieced together all the little scraps of ancient manuscript into a "coherent" text which we today recognize as the modern Christian bible, that's clearly a moot point.

The best explanation which I have heard for this is also the simplest. That what we have here are simply two different transcriptions of a story whose origin comes from a pre-literate society, passed down over thousands of years through oral tradition until fixed in stone (literally) by two very different cultures in two very different languages.


Now, that having been said, it becomes impossible to state that every single word in the entire bible is literally true. It simply cannot be the case, nor would we EXPECT it to be, given that no autographic sources for any of the Old Testament exist. If we presuppose an extant, underlying faith in the fundamental concepts of Christianity, then we must view the Bible as being ALLEGORICAL in nature.




Where did the six-day model come from? Who knows- no person was standing there watching the universe being created and writing it all down in real-time. Perhaps whoever wrote down what we know as Genesis 1 heard the story told over the course of six nights sitting around a campfire in his ancient village. Perhaps whoever originated the story in pre-historic times received it in the form of Divine Revelation from God (eg: while hallucinating a burning bush on top of a mountain) over a period of six days. These are all just guesses (which I hesitate to even write, for fear that z31maniac will latch on and start critiquing them rather than the larger argument) and in the end, it doesn't matter at all.

What matters is that since Gen 1 and Gen 2 contain material which is even trivially and superficially inconsistent, it becomes not mere unnecessary but unreasonable to require a strict, literal interpretation of either.




As such, I cannot accept the argument that a "Young Earth" is necessary to a Creationist model of the origin of life, nor that the notion of an "Old Universe" (as is generally held to be necessary by ALL branches of modern science, from Astronomy to Zoology) is in any was incompatible with Creationist doctrine.




And THAT, in case it was unclear earlier, is why Darwinian Evolution and Biblical Creationism are not inherently incompatible ideas.


Attached Thumbnails
Bill Nye and Ken Ham to debate evolution vs. creationism 2/4/14-evolution.gif  

Last edited by Joe Perez; 02-17-2014 at 01:43 PM.
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2014, 03:48 PM   #86
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 2,659
Total Cats: 76
Default

That is a very interesting take on the subject.
z31maniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2014, 04:08 PM   #87
Elite Member
 
DNMakinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Seneca, SC
Posts: 2,709
Total Cats: 269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post

1: For those people who are already strongly convinced of the existence of God the Creator, why must they fear the notion of evolution as threatening to their beliefs?
Joe, I was speaking specifically to Young Earth Creationists, of whom Ken Ham is a major leader. Yes, there are other creation and ID branches that do not adhere to a young earth, but Ken does not like them, and I was not discussing them.
DNMakinson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2014, 04:30 PM   #88
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Delicious and Moist.
Posts: 26,328
Total Cats: 1,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DNMakinson View Post
Joe, I was speaking specifically to Young Earth Creationists, of whom Ken Ham is a major leader. Yes, there are other creation and ID branches that do not adhere to a young earth, but Ken does not like them, and I was not discussing them.
Indeed.

Having now watched that whole video, I must say that I am unimpressed both by Mr. Ham's message and the manner in which he presents it.

To be fair, I am also unimpressed by the manner in which Mr. Nye automatically makes the leap from "Evolution is obviously factual" to "therefore, God must not exist," without covering much ground in between. In legalese, he seems to be assuming facts not in evidence. It would have been fairer for Nye to conclude "... therefore the Young Earth theory is obviously wrong," and with this I would have agreed intuitively.

But speaking directly to the Young Earth notion in particular... going back to z31maniac's query in re: "Perhaps, explaining to me why you think they don't create a paradox will help me understand your viewpoint," your mention of Young Earth made me think that perhaps this was an assumption which was causing the disconnect between what I was saying and what he was hearing, and decided that devoting some time to dissecting that specific point (and demonstrating why I believe it to be laughably false and unnecessary) might bring some clarity to the discussion.
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re-Spring Tein FLEX or replace? Mazdaspeeder Suspension, Brakes, Drivetrain 21 10-03-2015 07:45 PM
FM Sale Mymiataflys General Miata Chat 3 10-31-2007 05:47 PM
Intro and my Greddy install underdog Prefabbed Turbo Kits 57 08-13-2007 06:16 PM
2005 Mitsubishi Evolution RS Cheesefries Cars for sale/trade 12 02-04-2007 09:31 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:01 PM.