Richard Leakey says debate over evolution will end soon

[phank]

Personally I don't even think that all CHRISTIANS have an "full" understanding of Scripture, but they know enough to have accepted Christ.

But alas, if this has not happened by the time they learn to read, no amount of reading is going to penetrate. Belief comes FIRST, and THEN knowlege, understanding, textual analysis, etc. If you don't know the answer before you solve the problem, how will you ever know if you're right?

[Cerebrum123]

But alas, if this has not happened by the time they learn to read, no amount of reading is going to penetrate. Belief comes FIRST, and THEN knowlege, understanding, textual analysis, etc. If you don't know the answer before you solve the problem, how will you ever know if you're right?

Back in the day faith would come through hearing, and not reading.

Romans 10:17
Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.

[Em7add11]

Here's one link showing the Cadd11 chord. This is the major chord, consisting of 1,3,5, and 11. These guitar examples show various ways to play the chord, but there is no 7th.

From Wikipedia, we see In other words, if you have the 7th, then sticking in the 9th makes it a 9th chord, sticking in the 11th makes it an 11th chord, etc. But when the 7th is omitted, then it becomes an add9 or an add11.

However, there does seem to be some variation on the terminology here. The pattern I'm finding is:
IF the chord has 1,3,5 but no 7, then the next interval up is an add9, add11, or add6
IF the chord has 1,3,5,7, then the next intervals would make it a 9th, 11th, or 13th chord
IF the chord is lacking the root, it doesn't generally matter.

Interesting stuff.

Way off topic, but I love the subject so I have one more thing to add!

I think the important difference here is that on a guitar it's impossible sometimes to play chords that get beyond 4 distinct notes. When you play Em11 on a guitar, you probably would omit the 9th since it wouldn't be the most important color in the chord. Whereas on a piano, when you're building chords like Em9 or Em11 it can include all the odd-numbered notes that come below the 9th or 11th without requiring insane finger gymnastics.

So an Em11 could include F# but Em7add11 would exclude it. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleventh_chord

[lao tzu]

I think if you're going to write a 400+ page book on a subject it behooves you to have more than a passing idea about what you're writing about. You wanted to excuse Dawkins by comparing him to the average person (albeit Christian person), but I think a far more suitable comparison is with others who have written books on the topic as he has.

*sigh*

Like Lee Strobel, Mark Mittelberg, LaHaye and Jenkins, Joel Osteen, and Rick Warren? Or did you want to restrict it further, to just the unpopular apologists, the ones you personally prefer?

I wasn't comparing Dawkins to the average Christian, merely remarking that arcane arguments are irrelevant when writing for them.

On the contrary, one writes for a target audience, and, if writing for the popular press, one writes for the largest possible target audience. That means the majority of Christianity, which just so happens to have little to do with the Christianity expressed by apologists, who wonder why one would have to "apologize" for Christianity to begin with, have no idea what exegesis means, wouldn't know a cosmological argument if it bit them on the patoot, and by and large, identify their faith with their feelings. Folks whose opening line is "Are you saved?" but can't quite express what exactly that question is supposed to mean.

[phank]

Way off topic, but I love the subject so I have one more thing to add!

I think the important difference here is that on a guitar it's impossible sometimes to play chords that get beyond 4 distinct notes. When you play Em11 on a guitar, you probably would omit the 9th since it wouldn't be the most important color in the chord. Whereas on a piano, when you're building chords like Em9 or Em11 it can include all the odd-numbered notes that come below the 9th or 11th without requiring insane finger gymnastics.

Yes, this is how I see it as well. To be an 11th chord, you must have the 7th but you can omit the 9th. But notice that doing so does NOT make it an add11 chord, just an 11th because the 7th is there to make it an 11.

So an Em11 could include F# but Em7add11 would exclude it. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleventh_chord

I looked at that source, and it distinguishes between a sus4 chord (1,4,5) and an add11 chord (basically 1,3,4,5) due to the presence of the 3rd. So we're back to our list of conventions:
1) If the chord lacks a 3rd, then adding the 4th produces a suspended 4 chord.
2) If the chord lacks a 7th but has a 3rd and 4th (11th by convention), then this is an add11 chord.
3) If the chord has a 7th and a 3rd, adding the 4th(11th) produces an 11th chord (not an add11)

So we're back with the original problem. To be an Em7, you must have the 7th in there or it can't be a 7th chord. And you must have the 3rd in there or it can't be a minor chord. And if you have BOTH the 3rd and the 7th, then it can't be an add-type chord of any kind! There is no such thing as an Em7add11 chord.

[rogue06]

Like Lee Strobel, Mark Mittelberg, LaHaye and Jenkins, Joel Osteen, and Rick Warren? Or did you want to restrict it further, to just the unpopular apologists, the ones you personally prefer?

There are a few who's opinions I agree with that present poorly thought out arguments so that has nothing to do with it. But if you want to lump Dawkins in with those who have a poor handle on the topic I whole-heartedly agree.

I wasn't comparing Dawkins to the average Christian, merely remarking that arcane arguments are irrelevant when writing for them.

And I think your comment "So after eliminating the vast majority of Christianity in favor of a couple of dozen adherents," supports my contention that you were indeed referring to the average Christian, you know, "the vast majority of Christianity."

On the contrary, one writes for a target audience, and, if writing for the popular press, one writes for the largest possible target audience. That means the majority of Christianity, which just so happens to have little to do with the Christianity expressed by apologists, who wonder why one would have to "apologize" for Christianity to begin with, have no idea what exegesis means, wouldn't know a cosmological argument if it bit them on the patoot, and by and large, identify their faith with their feelings. Folks whose opening line is "Are you saved?" but can't quite express what exactly that question is supposed to mean.

I guess this is an explanation of why so much of Dawkins' "The God Delusion" contains so many PRATTs and ill conceived arguments.

Probably why one of Dawkins' colleagues and fellow atheists Daniel Came castigated him for not only evading debatting William Lane Craig but dismissed "The God Delusion" saying that "Ironically, there is nothing substantively new about the New Atheists either. Despite its self-congratulatory tone, The God Delusion contains no original arguments for atheism" he unfavorably compares the New Atheists to the arguments made by earlier atheists.

"What is new is the belittling posture toward religious believers and the fury of the polemics. The New Atheism is certainly a far cry from the model of civilised interlocution between "old atheist" Bertrand Russell and Father Copleston that took place and was broadcast on BBC Radio in 1948. The New Atheists could learn a lot from the likes of Russell, whose altogether more powerful approach was at once respectful and a model of philosophical precision."


Source

If Dawkins was writing for his target audience perhaps he shouldn't arrogantly asume ignorance in them.

[lao tzu]

There are a few who's opinions I agree with that present poorly thought out arguments so that has nothing to do with it. But if you want to lump Dawkins in with those who have a poor handle on the topic I whole-heartedly agree.

Allow me to suggest that it is those apologists who lack a popular following who are most guilty of having a poor handle on the topic.

And I think your comment "So after eliminating the vast majority of Christianity in favor of a couple of dozen adherents," supports my contention that you were indeed referring to the average Christian, you know, "the vast majority of Christianity."

Quote mine.

I guess this is an explanation of why so much of Dawkins' "The God Delusion" contains so many PRATTs and ill conceived arguments.

Probably why one of Dawkins' colleagues and fellow atheists Daniel Came castigated him for not only evading debatting William Lane Craig but dismissed "The God Delusion" saying that "Ironically, there is nothing substantively new about the New Atheists either. Despite its self-congratulatory tone, The God Delusion contains no original arguments for atheism" he unfavorably compares the New Atheists to the arguments made by earlier atheists.

"What is new is the belittling posture toward religious believers and the fury of the polemics. The New Atheism is certainly a far cry from the model of civilised interlocution between "old atheist" Bertrand Russell and Father Copleston that took place and was broadcast on BBC Radio in 1948. The New Atheists could learn a lot from the likes of Russell, whose altogether more powerful approach was at once respectful and a model of philosophical precision."


Source

If Dawkins was writing for his target audience perhaps he shouldn't arrogantly asume ignorance in them.

Daniel who?

Dawkins is entirely correct to refuse Craig, an apologist for genocide. He's publicly stated that he feels sorry for the poor Israeli soldiers forced to slaughter those defenseless women and children. You don't share a stage with such people any more than you do so for creationists. Even if, and especially if, their actions betray a self-seeking quest for fame and acceptance by means of public appearances with their betters. The guy actually put an empty chair on stage when he was refused! I guess that gave him some extra, much needed space for his expansive ego.

Really, I have no idea why evangelicals appreciate his debates anyway. It's not as if he's ever argued for the existence of the God of the bible. He pointedly excludes that deity in all of his canned existence debates. His greatest claim to philosophical fame was in dusting off an argument for Allah and rebranding it for Christianity.

[phank]

I hadn't heard of Daniel Came, so I looked it up. So far, it's a bit frustrating. Came indeed castigates Dawkins for refusing to debate Craig. Why doesn't Came do it instead? Uh, silence. I did find an very very typical evaluation, the sense of which is pretty well summed up here:

And as you can watch in that video, Dawkins' replies to Craig were ignorant, stupid and intellectually inept (which is typical of most atheists, according to my experience).

What this attitude demonstrates is that both sides regard the other as out of bounds - if you believe (or don't), you are intellectually inept, dishonest, cowardly, superstitious, stupid, closed-minded, deluded, and generally beneath contempt. Your position (whichever one it may be) is obviously, in-your-face indisputably WRONG, so what's to debate? The believer regards his opponent as willfully blind, and the atheist regards his opponent as flat insane.

And I have a copy of The God Delusion right here. Not one single PRATT in it, not one ill-conceived argument, nothing but clear-headed, well-organized and thought out, and analytical thinking - which of course is guaranteed to send any Believer into conniptions. And sure enough, out come the epithets.

[rogue06]

Came indeed castigates Dawkins for refusing to debate Craig. Why doesn't Came do it instead? Uh, silence.

That's a very good question. Has anyone asked him that or do you know if he has made the offer?

[phank]

For what it's worth, I did find this.

[Jorge]

Dawkins is entirely correct to refuse Craig, an apologist for genocide. He's publicly stated that he feels sorry for the poor Israeli soldiers forced to slaughter those defenseless women and children. You don't share a stage with such people any more than you do so for creationists. Even if, and especially if, their actions betray a self-seeking quest for fame and acceptance by means of public appearances with their betters. The guy actually put an empty chair on stage when he was refused! I guess that gave him some extra, much needed space for his expansive ego.

Really, I have no idea why evangelicals appreciate his debates anyway. It's not as if he's ever argued for the existence of the God of the bible. He pointedly excludes that deity in all of his canned existence debates. His greatest claim to philosophical fame was in dusting off an argument for Allah and rebranding it for Christianity.

*****************************************************************

Blah ... blah ... blah ... what a load of garbage !!! Oh, wait ..................

"There is no lao tzu."
"There is no lao tzu."
"There is no lao tzu."
"There is no lao tzu."

................... fade lao tzu into oblivion .........................

Jorge

[Jorge]

And I have a copy of The God Delusion right here. Not one single PRATT in it, not one ill-conceived argument, nothing but clear-headed, well-organized and thought out, and analytical thinking - which of course is guaranteed to send any Believer into conniptions. And sure enough, out come the epithets.

************************************************************************************************






So begins my week of June 4, 2012 ... THANK YOU SO MUCH, phank ....
it is so nice to start off a week with a heavy dose of laughter.


A conclusion one gets from The God Delusion is that the author is heavily deluded!

BTW, I once wrote to a friend that The God Delusion is an interesting title
- a Freudian slip, methinks - since most Atheists are deluded into believing
that they are their own 'god'. Get it, or do you need for me to sound out
each individual syllable?

Jorge

[wattsr1]

... since most Atheists are deluded into believing
that they are their own 'god'.

Well that's the cozy little myth Jorge.

I've been giving Mags a few Bible lessons on the bearing of false witness. Would you like one as well? The Bible speaks clearly against doing such. You should start reading it sometime. You will soon find that out when you do so.

[magellan004]

Well that's the cozy little myth Jorge.

I've been giving Mags a few Bible lessons on the bearing of false witness. Would you like one as well? The Bible speaks clearly against doing such. You should start reading it sometime. You will soon find that out when you do so.

Watts, my good friend: you can't even string two thoughts together. You think someone can bear false witness against an idea! heh heh .
There are some excellent threads for you here in Natural Science. Places where you don't have to tax yourself by trying to think. There is your own Dino-fantasy land thread where you can endlessly post quotes about old bones without having to bother with the cumbersome task of thinking or engaging in debate. Or there is Rogue's Fossil thread where you can wave flags and clap and cheer at the excellent job Rogue is doing.

And yes, I will allow you to read the Bible to yourself as long as you don't bother the rest of us with your 'You are all sinners!' stuff.


Magellan

[Jorge]

Watts, my good friend: you can't even string two thoughts together. You think someone can bear false witness against an idea! heh heh .
There are some excellent threads for you here in Natural Science. Places where you don't have to tax yourself by trying to think. There is your own Dino-fantasy land thread where you can endlessly post quotes about old bones without having to bother with the cumbersome task of thinking or engaging in debate. Or there is Rogue's Fossil thread where you can wave flags and clap and cheer at the excellent job Rogue is doing.

And yes, I will allow you to read the Bible to yourself as long as you don't bother the rest of us with your 'You are all sinners!' stuff.


Magellan

*********************************************************************************

As bad as Roland is, I believe that he is essentially 'harmless' in his ignorance.
In any event, he represents pretty much the standard when dealing with Atheists.

The truly sad part is that so many Theistic Evolutionists (TE) sound
exactly like one of those people -- I often times cannot tell them
apart without the foreknowledge that the person is a TE.

One good example was Sylas -- he used to post here a lot but not much any more.
If you concealed his name, it was often times hard to tell if the post was written by
a TE or an Atheist. Not surprisingly, he eventually renounced God altogether and
converted into the religion known as Atheism. Charles Templeton, anyone?

Hey, on that note, have you ever met ANY person that began as a Theist and
later rejected God (i.e., became an Atheist) that did not first traverse through
the empty wasteland of Evolution? I've never met such a person. Accepting evolution
appears to be a prerequisite ... a right of passage into the darkness of Atheism.


Lastly, we have this little gem :

Jorge : "... since most Atheists are deluded into believing that they are their own 'god'."

Roland : "Well that's the cozy little myth Jorge."


Hehe ... ... "cozy little myth" ......... hahaha

Jorge