Misinterpret, Saltpetre?

>>Pericles, Methinks you misinterpret me. All must believe in something.<<

How is this misinterpreted?

>>A world without religion would have to be colourless and bereft of culture<<

Which part of that is open to a different perception? You state, quite explicitly, that if the world contained only people who had no belief in a supreme being, it would somehow lack... culture? And it would be without colour?

You appear to be suggesting that there would be no art, no music, no literature. Is that the case? Or are you simply exaggerating, for effect.

Because it is pure arrogance to make such an assumption, and is a view that can only be held by someone to whom other possibilities, other avenues of thinking, are completely closed.

That you would respond to virtually every post I write, usually on the same day, is evidence enough that you take me seriously. :)

Pericles,
I wouldn’t describe our thought processes as narrow. When I spoke of presuppositions, that was to presuppose for the sake of argument. If the evidence is against your presuppositions, one is quite at liberty to see it and declare it, and one is free to try another avenue of investigation. You have no right to call me narrow given your insistence to look at the evidence only from certain vantage points; the refusal to come onto our turf to make an investigation, in short, only entails the acceptance of different presuppositions

Saltpetre,
You can talk about “the most reasonable explanation”. You may give some entirely reasonable explanations of things, but that doesn’t mean that they’re now proven. For instance, after many years someone may give a wonderful explanation for the disappearance of Amelia Earhart. Yet establishing a proof is something else again.

After earlier saying that evolution was “proven”, you now openly state the levels of trust and acceptance you’ll give towards the pronouncement of others though admitting you don’t know how they were produced. You justify this by saying the matters are not “significantly in dispute”. The qualities of being “proven” and “not being in dispute” are quite different. In Ptolemy’s day geocentricism was not really in dispute, but it was hardly proven. It turned out to be quite wrong.

You raised before the idea of the conspiracy theory. There is no need for any conspiracy theory to explain why certain ideas are accepted without question when there are so many others who share the attitude of blind or unquestioning acceptance that you’ve just displayed towards evolution.

You deny the creationist account for the emergence of life, saying that the date is wrong by either a factor of 100 000 or 10 000? This means that two of your possible theories differ by a factor of 10? But earlier you said that they were proven. Which of them is proven, or was it both? How could they be proven when either idea might be wrong by a factor of 10?

I’m glad NASA properly verified their knowledge and didn’t try to send people to the moon with estimates that were possibly in error by a factor of 10.

To answer your other question, the creationist explanation for the dispersion of wildlife relates to the migration paths of animals from Ararat after the flood, as well as other factors such as availability of land bridges with changing sea levels and receding ice sheets.

Ok, let me rephrase that, Dan S de Merengue.

>>That you would respond to virtually every post I write, usually on the same day, is evidence enough that you take me seriously. :)<<

I should have said, more accurately, that it is difficult to take your views and theories at all seriously.

And as I have mentioned before, I take our interactions seriously, because they provide me with an insight that I would not normally get into the thought processes of a young-earth creationist.

It is like having a discussion with an exponent of flat-earth theory, and listening to such explanations as William Carpenter's "the Nile is over six thousand kilometers long, and falls only a couple of feet along the way - how could this happen if the earth was not flat?" You know that he holds the view quite seriously, and are fascinated by the lengths he goes to, to promote his idea. But I question the value of attempting to "put myself in his shoes", when his ideas are based upon such fallacious reasoning.

William wrote an entire book about it - "A hundred proofs the Earth is not a Globe" - but remained firmly on the wrong side of the discussion all his life. In the same way that I interact with you, I would have been delighted to have discussed with him his convictions, and in doing so, to take him as an individual quite seriously.

But that would not indicate that I could take his ideas seriously, any more than I can yours.

>>You have no right to call me narrow given your insistence to look at the evidence only from certain vantage points; the refusal to come onto our turf to make an investigation, in short, only entails the acceptance of different presuppositions<<

Your perspective is narrow. By your own admission, "A Christian would never try and deduce God from any type of independent reasoning or first principles", which indicated to me that you glory in the description. Why do you now protest at the label?

Pericles,
I would agree with you that the world is full of interesting and colourful people. We can sometimes meet some that believe the most weird and wacky things.

I have a good friend from high school who believes wholeheartedly in astrology. He believes that your character (and perhaps destiny) is shaped by the movement of the planets, much of which is determined by your birth date and which celestial objects were creating gravitational pull on your body at your time of birth. He believes this is verifiable and scientific.

I’ve lived in Cameroon and known people who would not shake other’s hands in the market for fear they may have a magic potion on their hand which could remove their penis, and send it to Nigeria in exchange for money. One of my neighbours was sent to jail for months over this issue.

In Cameroon in the eighties, there was a sudden gas eruption from beneath a lake in a volcanic area. The gas suddenly escaped and killed hundreds of people in an afternoon in a freak natural disaster. Some highly educated Cameroonians still believe that the real cause was the Americans or the CIA doing weapons testing.

In Cameroon people believe men can change into animals. One man was charged with murder for shooting a man. The defense in court was that the victim was a rampaging elephant at the time the accused fired the gun.

Many westerners, even an Oxford university professor, believe that animals can change and morph into other animals of a completely different type, despite no one ever having seen it happen or being able to adequately describe the process by which it takes place. The belief itself is explainable psychologically as serving a need to establish a cultural history and origin myth from strictly materialistic and atheistic premises. Any difficulties with the claim are hidden in the mists of eons past. Weird, huh?

You oughtn’t try pulling the flat earth card, Pericles. The problems with evolution theory are noted and real, and are not going to disappear by wishing them away.

Pericles,

You and I hold very different views of religion, though our views on its misuse seem aligned. You focus on the negatives, I on the actual and potential positives (whilst I continue to revile the negatives, the misuse).

In many cases there is a fine line between religion and culture (hence my previous comment), many cultural celebrations of life, purpose, community and brotherhood which have a religious base of common belief. It's when there is a focus on wierd beliefs, superstition and unreasoned or unreasonable suspicion that problems arise and may be acted upon aggresively and thoughlessly.

Belief systems promulgating codes of acceptable conduct and for respecting the rights of others have failed to prevent conflict and abuse, but are the underlying principles at fault, or human nature? Religion and culture both carry a lot of historical baggage, and this unfortunately appears so often to override principles and bend human focus to differences, division and conflict.

A new enlightened world without religion and religious differences may be possible - when there is universal equity and equality (or when the world is reduced to a 1 billion elite empire?). Until then, mankind has some 'evolving' to do. (PS. I am not religious.)

Dan,

My acceptance of millenial datelines of Earth history is an acceptance of scientific discovery by minds far greater than mine, but your acceptance of creation is based on?

My postulation of possible dates for the advent of 'creation' was only an attempt to relate this supposed advent to significant 'life' events in Earth history. It was also to draw into question the dateline proposed by young earth creationists. You argue, and glide over the real significance of historical data drawing into real question your interpretation of the 'creation' and the Noah 'Myths'.

Your views on creation and evolution are obviously immoveable, irrespective of data drawing your interpretations of history into dispute. Dinosaurs and Man coexisting? No room for dinosaurs on the Ark? No extinction event - even no 65 million years (or more) of Earth history?

I give up. (Though I enjoyed the journey.)