Statler Waldorf Wrote:P.S. Gliding mammals are not flying mammals.

Did you just refer to a bat as a 'gliding mammal'?

(October 22, 2010 at 2:45 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Man's reluctance to obey a command does not make the command itself wrong. Simple.

I didn't say the command was wrong. I was trying to point out the disparity between what is commanded of men and what is commanded of women. But I see that's lost on you.

Quote: Let's see... men are commanded to love their wives. The wives are told that the husband "rules over" them. And you think this is equal? The husband can beat the snot out of his wife for not obeying and still claim to "love" her. Which side of this fence would you rather be on?

Quote:Where in scripture does it say men can beat the "snot" out of their wives? I thought you said you understood scripture, where is this verse?

Considering that Genesis 3:16 tells women that their husbands "shall rule over you", that pretty much gives the husband carte blanche to enforce his will as he sees fit, doesn't it? If the wife doesn't obey and do as the husband says, the husband can beat her as necessary. All the while professing to love her, of course.

And I notice that you didn't answer my question. Men are commanded to love their wives. The women are told that the husband rules over them. You think this is equal?

Quote: And what "role" do they have? Other than "shut up and don't ask questions"?

Quote:I think that being a mom is the toughest and most important job on Earth. If you do not think so then maybe you are the one who thinks women are inferior to men.

Non sequitor.

And how the hell is being a mom a "role" in the church? How does this in any way relate to being told to sit down shut up, and don't ask questions? It doesn't!

Quote: And this is not the context of the passage. It says, "Let your women keep silent in the church". It does NOT say, "Women are to keep silent in the church". See the difference? In this context, "your" implies ownership. As in "your goats" or "your pigs". And this is exactly what we would expect people of that time period to write. These were people who considered wives to be the property of their husbands. And it is exactly the OPPOSITE of what I would expect to be written by a loving and just deity.

Quote:Oh so using your same bad logic, if I asked you, "hey is YOUR girlfriend coming with you on Saturday?", this would mean you owned your girlfriend?

Did you even read what I wrote? Let me try a different tack. Why is this passage written the way it is? Why is it directed at the men? Because the women were considered to be property. If not, the passage would have been directed at THE WOMEN. Deny it all you want. At that time in history (and even today in some cultures) women are considered to be the property of the men (father, brother, husband, etc.). This verse reflects that attitude.

Quote:When scripture is addressing women it refers to their husbands as "your husbands", do they own the men in that case?

Not the same context at all.

Quote:Learn basic grammar.

Try learning something about the context of words.

Quote:So when a verse makes all races and both genders equal under Christ it does not count?

Apparently not. Believers used (and still use) much of the crap in the Bible to justify repressing women. I've encountered believers who tell me the Bible makes them the boss of the house. I guess they missed that stuff where "Jesus" makes everyone equal.

Quote:I thought someone understood scripture? Then why are you trying to apply a law under the Mosaic Convenent under the New Convenent Christ fulfilled?

Ah, yes. The "Mosaic Law" bullshit. Please show me somewhere in the Bible that says the "Mosaic Laws" no longer apply. And if they don't apply, why are they still in the book? I must also point out that many believers like to use "Mosaic Law" when they rail against homosexuals.

Quote: What kind of dumbass question is this? It's wrong to view women as inferior for the same reason it's wrong to view black people as inferior. What does being an atheist have to do with it?

Quote:Wow, you guys are really having issues answering this question. I am glad I asked it.

I have no issues about answering it. It's just an incredibly stupid question.

Quote:Tell me, as an Atheist, why you think viewing women as inferior is morally "wrong"? I have my reasons for why it is wrong, I want to hear you give your's.

It's morally wrong because I wouldn't want anyone I care about to be discriminated against based upon an irrelevant factor such as their sex, skin color, ethnicity, etc. Now, what are YOUR reasons?

(October 21, 2010 at 7:08 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: It's actually still fair because man is responsible for his sin. Adam was man's represenative, so when Adam fell all of man fell.

So we're not responsibl for our sin, because we inherited it from Adam.

Quote:Rather than punishing all of man (which would be completely just)- God chose to punish some and give others saving grace (even though all man gets some grace because God let's them live longer than they deserve to). Both actions bring glory to God. This is why God does not even let Job ask why everything that happened to him happened. Despite everything that happened to Job, it was still better than he truly deserved. So to second guess God in giving you something better than you deserve would be wrong.

You have a strange definition of justice.

Quote:I actually think being glorified by exercising perfect judgement and grace is a pretty cool way of doing things.

But a pretty ambiguous way of demonstrating his glory.

Quote:I would not argue that God is responsible for Man's sin, or fallen nature. Rather than blaming God for something that Adam did, we should be thanking God for not punishing us to the fullest extent possible.

Why is God just in punishing us for something that Adam did?

Quote:Not using the Bible's definition of evil no. Evil is defined as something contrary to God's purpose or nature. Now if you wanted to make up some new definition for evil, like "causing babies pain" then it would be under that definition. However that would not really prove anything because we just changed the meaning of the word. I like the first definition of evil because it makes it so evil is not dependent on era or race, or anything arbitrary like that.

So, you admit that if God told you to torture babies, you'd do it? If so, I admire the intellectual honesty, if not the sentiment. But basing morality on God's purpose, and specifically the Christian god's purpose, seems pretty arbitrary to me.

Quote:How do you define evil?

That which causes suffering to sentient beings.

(October 22, 2010 at 10:54 am)Tiberius Wrote: I have to agree with rjh4 here. Whilst the Bible clearly gets things wrong by our standard of classification, this standard wasn't adopted until after the Bible was written. You might be able to use this fact to justify a claim that God didn't write the Bible, or that God isn't omniscient (else why didn't he write it so it wasn't so ambiguous to later generations?) but it would be a very weak position to hold and defend.

To be honest, there are far greater examples of the Bible getting things wrong that would lead to a much better debate than quibbling over methods of classifying animals. With a basic method of classification, I can totally see why bats and birds would be put together.

The point is that SaW etc keep on about the bible being the infallible word of god and scientifically reliable, yet their god doesn't even know the difference between birds and mammals.

And yes that classification method makes sense if written by men who didn't know better.

P.s my original question to SaW being "where the bible and science differ which do you consider to be right?"

---

(October 22, 2010 at 9:52 am)rjh4 Wrote: I already did that, Zen, and you didn't like my answer...and you failed to provide any reasons why my system is not "sensible".

No you didn't, you have not provided a classification that lists bats AS birds, you provided one that lists them with birds(as opposed to plants).

By that system you can class them with fish.

Quote:Please tell me, using your Atheistic Worldview why it would be wrong for a person to view women as inferior. This ought to be good.

Because secular humanism is a vastly superior moral base than the mysoganistic, genocidal, sadistic and otherwise just plain weird bible and although you do not have be a secular humanist to be an athiest most seem to have leanings in that direction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

Quote:I didn't ask for why the person who wrote that Wiki article thought it was wrong, I want to know why you think it is wrong. So tell me in your own words and be specific.

Why the fuck would I want to do that?

The link was to a perfectly good article that explained the concept better than I could.

So I'm not going to play your little game.

I have neither the time or inclination.

(October 22, 2010 at 8:26 pm)Zen Badger Wrote: No you didn't, you have not provided a classification that lists bats AS birds, you provided one that lists them with birds(as opposed to plants).

Sorry, Zen, that was not your challenge to me. This was your challenge:

"And @ Rjh4, If you can come up with a classification system that can put a furbearing, lactating, tooth equipped creature in with feathered egg laying avians that don't lactate I would love to hear it. " (emphasis added)

Note, you are the one that used the word "with" instead of "as". I provided such a classification system.

(October 22, 2010 at 8:26 pm)Zen Badger Wrote: By that system you can class them with fish.

Only if fish "fly" in the same sense as birds and bats. Nonetheless, my system was simple to rebut your assertion that birds and bats can't be classified together. It would be easy enough to modify it for sea creatures to be classified separately from flying creatures and land creatures. Think about it, Zen. The living things we see do not come with a tag that says "I am a bird" or "I am a fish". Men/women classify creatures by their differences and similarities but it is also men/women that decided which differences and similarities are used for the classification system. So, in that sense, our current classificatin system is somewhat arbritrary. Other classification systems can be just as valid.

Quote:Sorry, Zen, that was not your challenge to me. This was your challenge:

"And @ Rjh4, If you can come up with a classification system that can put a furbearing, lactating, tooth equipped creature in with feathered egg laying avians that don't lactate I would love to hear it. " (emphasis added)

Note, you are the one that used the word "with" instead of "as". I provided such a classification system.

@rjh4

So just where is the reference in the bible/ koran/torah that states that bats are NOT birds but mamals???

(October 25, 2010 at 8:09 am)rjh4 Wrote:

(October 22, 2010 at 8:26 pm)Zen Badger Wrote: No you didn't, you have not provided a classification that lists bats AS birds, you provided one that lists them with birds(as opposed to plants).

Sorry, Zen, that was not your challenge to me. This was your challenge:

"And @ Rjh4, If you can come up with a classification system that can put a furbearing, lactating, tooth equipped creature in with feathered egg laying avians that don't lactate I would love to hear it. " (emphasis added)

Note, you are the one that used the word "with" instead of "as". I provided such a classification system.

(October 22, 2010 at 8:26 pm)Zen Badger Wrote: By that system you can class them with fish.

Only if fish "fly" in the same sense as birds and bats. Nonetheless, my system was simple to rebut your assertion that birds and bats can't be classified together. It would be easy enough to modify it for sea creatures to be classified separately from flying creatures and land creatures. Think about it, Zen. The living things we see do not come with a tag that says "I am a bird" or "I am a fish". Men/women classify creatures by their differences and similarities but it is also men/women that decided which differences and similarities are used for the classification system. So, in that sense, our current classificatin system is somewhat arbritrary. Other classification systems can be just as valid.

And you think that deals with gods inability to distinguish mammals from birds do you?

And what other classification systems are just as valid as the one currently in use? you've yet to actually provide one.

(October 25, 2010 at 8:35 am)Zen Badger Wrote: And you think that deals with gods inability to distinguish mammals from birds do you?

I think I explained this to you earlier. The Hebrew word translated as "bird" in the translation you are using can mean several different things, one of which is the generic "flying creature". Why would you insist that the word should be properly translated as "bird" where "bird" means the same as in our current biological classification system? There is absolutely no indication that the Bible meant here that bats are birds in accordance with our current classification system. Furthermore, even if some translations, even current ones, do translate the word as "bird", I do not think your position is a reasonable one since it is unlikely that the translators were consulting our current biological classification system when they used the word "bird". Using your reasoning and the fact that a current definition for the word "bird" is "Informal . an aircraft, spacecraft, or guided missile" (courtesy of dictionary.com), the Bible could be interpreted as saying that eagles and bats are aircraft, spacecraft, or guided missiles. I hope you agree that doing so would be silly. I think you are grasping at straws here, Zen.

(October 25, 2010 at 8:35 am)Zen Badger Wrote: And what other classification systems are just as valid as the one currently in use? you've yet to actually provide one.

I think the one I provided is valid and you have failed to provide reasons why the classification system I provided would not be "valid".

Maybe you need to provide some guidance here as to the definition you are using for "valid classification system". So my challenge to you, Zen, is to provide such a definition to work from so we can both look at this issue using the same definitions.

---

(October 25, 2010 at 8:14 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: @rjh4

So just where is the reference in the bible/ koran/torah that states that bats are NOT birds but mamals???

I don't think there is anywhere in the Bible where animals are classified in accordance with our current biological classification system. So as a direct answer to your question: As far as I know, the Bible never says that bats are not birds but mammals. (I do not know about the Koran.) Do you think it should, given that our current biological classification system was developed long after the Bible was written? I wonder when the definition of "mammal" was first decided upon. Do you know? I would guess that it was long after the Bible was written.

(October 21, 2010 at 7:18 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Hey Sam

Thanks for reading the article. I think you will find that Lisle does not actually like the "Beams created already in place" argument. I believe he is just explaining different Creation Models at this point in time.

I admit on further reading he does go on to online a different primary viewpoint on the 'Distant Starlight Problem'. It is worth noting however that at no point does he admit any of the many logical flaws present in the argument or put up any case against it. The fact he is willing to accept it as a theory without evidence and a huge implausibility at its root is of concern.

(October 21, 2010 at 7:18 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well I think you are have actually gotten to the very heart of the issue. That evidence itself does not favor one side or the other. If I use anti-biblical assumptions or purely naturalistic assumptions I can certainly interpret the evidence to fit an old universe/world. However, this interpretation cannot then be used to argue against someone who uses biblical assumptions because I assumed the Bible was not true from the very beginning. So I would be assuming the proof or begging the question. Where if I assume the Bible is true and then interpret the evidence from there I can argue for a young Earth rather easily. Even though both sides are looking at the same evidence. Dr. Lisle is well aware of this, he goes into this is very great detail in his DVD, "The Ultimate Proof for Creatioin". Where he takes teh argument down to really a debate between Worldviews where it should be occuring. Have you read the entire article yet? I think it gets pretty interesting.

We can argue from varying viewpoints untill the proverbial cows show up Statler but the argument you & Mr Lisle are proposing misrepresents a key issue. There is no sound reason for believing that secular scientists allow theie worldview to effect their science. Throughout my education I have always been taught to address my own bias and mistakes openly and as such repress them from my findings, this is a practice common to all student of science.

What Mr Lisle continously asserts is that at university he became aware of how scientists worldviews affect their studies; note that not once have I seen any corobatory evidence, no surveys and no figures. I have noticed your 'stories' about friends and a few refuted claims of bias however, they are far from conclusive with regards a large scale issue in the academic community.

(October 21, 2010 at 7:18 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I will give you an example of how pre-suppositions can effect the interpretation of the evidence on both sides.

When red blood cells were found in T-rex bones in the late 90's and ealry 2000's both sides interpreted this same evidence completely different based upon their pre-suppositions.

The evolutionary side first said that they could not have been red blood cells. Why? Well they know that red blood cells could not have lasted 65 million years. One of their pre-suppositions was that T-rex lived that long ago. So these fossils had to be that old

When the structures were in fact shown to be red-blood cells then the Evolutionary side just said, "well I guess red blood cells CAN last 65 million years".

The Creation side said, "well we are not surprised you found red blood cells because T-rex only lived 4500 years ago."

See how that works? Same evidnece, two very different interpreations based completely on pre-suppositions.

But this is the entire story is it Statler? The 'Evoloutionists' 'pre-suppositions' were based on the accumulated evidence of their, radiometric dating, archeaolgy etc ... Using this pre-existing information they made a judgement on red blood cells based on the fact they had not been seen before. When this was proved to be an exception to the current model, it was adapted. This is how science works.

What the creationists did was interpret the evidence within their pre-suppositions of a young-earth despite the fact that all the evidence accumulated by science points the other way and therfore summarily claim that they must be right. If you feel my interpretation is wrong here please let me know. You're more guilty of these logical fallacies you keep pointing out than anyone.

(October 21, 2010 at 7:18 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Another example of this was given by one of the Geologists at CMI. He said that he and his friend (an old Earth Evolutionist) were talking one day. The creationist asked the evolutionist what it would take for him to believe that Dinosaurs and Man co-existed. The evolutionist said he thought probably finding a fossilized dinosaur print with a fossilized human print inside of it.

Well in the mid 90's there were a set of prints being looked at in Texas that looked like human prints with dinosaur prints (later found out to not be human prints). While this research was going on the creationist asked his firned if he was going to believe humans and dinosaurs co-existed if these tracks proved to be valid. The friend told him that he had been thinking about their conversation and said that he had decided that if human tracks were ever found with dinosaur tracks then that would actually be evidence for time travel. Both sides can sit there and make up these rescue mechanisms to preserve their preconceived ideas of how the world works.

But this is just a story Statler. A CMI Geologist (Biased?) is attempting to prove that evolutionist has the same neccesity for pre-suppositions as him and so relates this story. I can't really speak as to the validity of the story so I'm not going to push the point any further.

(October 21, 2010 at 7:18 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well they are actually very concerned with methodology. It's not like you could just write up some paper that said the Earth was young and they would accept it. It's a creation journal so it comes to me as no surprise that they would want creation articles published in it. Just like a psychology journal would want articles concerning psychology published in it and the journal Evolution probably wants articles that support the theory of Evolution. As long as they are very strict about methodology (which they are) then I do not see a problem with that statement. I could write up the World's best research paper, have flawless methodology, but if my outcome pointed to a Creator or a Young Earth I can bet it would not get published in Evolution or Science. Both sdies want a specific kind of article, wich I guess is ok as long as we are allowed to read both sides' journals. Your thoughts?

Unfortunately Statler I disagree. You keep saying that creationists always follow the scientific method, true?

Well tell me how it scientific to make sure that evry paper published agress with your viewpoint even down to the 'historical/grammatical details' of your beliefs (paraphrased from the Answers Research Journal Sumission Guidelines). It just isn't, they are simply saying that they will not entertain anything outside of their theory, not even subject ... just their theory.

Your claim that it is a 'Creation' journal and so would naturally only accept creation articles is void because the journal claims to be a technical journal for biology, geology, astrophysics etc ... So what they are doing is simply censoring the infromation they diseminate. In comparison the only guidelines for secular journals are in methodology and scientific practice. Please provide evidence if you want to argue this point.

As to your 'Worlds Best Research Paper' - Your might be right, it could have an excellent methodology but if you have not interpreted it within the context of the majority of the published literature or provide demostarble proof of why you are correct over them you would not be publsihed. Obviously Bible quotes would have no place in this literature (as they do in Answers) because the Bible is heavily disputed source of non-scientific nature. So using it as a point of evidence or interpretation is soley based on your worldview and would simply be begging the question.

Also, I can't believe you resorted to mocking the peer review system based on sporadic reports of possible bias. If it such a joke Statler, why do your people make such an effort to copy it?

Cheers

Sam