(March 6, 2019 at 10:45 am)possibletarian Wrote:

(March 5, 2019 at 9:39 pm)MilesAbbott81 Wrote: What makes you think I care what Schweitzer claims or thinks? She has no definitive explanation, either.

I'm getting my descriptions from the Bible, not dictionary.com.

Not necessarily. Besides, I never said these were definitely referring to dinosaurs, just that they could be. Perhaps you should read the descriptions in the Bible.

Again, you're just speaking ignorantly here. The Scripture referenced here has nothing to do with some silly mythical sea-battle. It's once again a metaphorical reference, this time to the destruction of Pharoah in the Red Sea in the book of Exodus.

1) no explanation does not mean a default faith position is therefore true.
2) How do you determine what is metaphorical and what is not, I'm happy with the claim that metaphor is used in the bible, but where is your personal cut-off ?

Quote:Is this supposed to be an argument? Complaining about something you have absolutely no understanding of? (actually miles it was a question I asked, hence the ?

Actually miles it was a question not an argument, so no it's not meant to be an argument at all, but i would love an answer. People who ask questions learn more, wouldn't you agree ?

Quote:You say idiotic things like "look at the consensus of all of these smart people." It's really a consensus of people with the same agenda, who are not only fully invested intellectually in their theories and thus ensnared by their pride (which won't allow them to admit they're wrong), but often they are also financially invested in their theories because they receive funding for research based upon them.

Well actually i say accredited and peer reviewed, smart people can believe stupid things which is why we have peer review. If I should come up with a theory there are many more scientists looking at it trying to look through it, find a flaw in it.

Quote:Why should I trust "accredited scientific institutions" when I have evidence (I cited Climategate as just one example) that men from such institutions are untrustworthy?

You don't have to trust the institutions themselves, but trust the system of peer review, it's the best we have. Wether or not someone works at, or is accredited by a trusted university or body just means that more people will try and pull it apart, which is great for discovery

As regards climategate..

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/so...egate.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_R...ontroversy
https://www.newsweek.com/factcheck-clima...ming-75749
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/sc...mary-cause
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/10-myths-...ate-change
https://www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-kn...ate-change

Quote:Again, who are you to determine that they're not leaders or at the very least credible? Who's to say those claiming to be leaders are? You take these people at their word, on faith? Not very wise, at least if you're going to out of hand dismiss everything from men who have the same kinds of degrees from the same institutions.

Having a degree from an institution is not the same as producing good peer-reviewed work, even if it's exactly the same degree.
Let's just say for instance we went and got exactly the same mathematics degree, later I join a religion that believes that 2+2 make 6, and that 4 is simply a lie. Do you think people would take me as seriously as the consensus of mathematicians ?

The same is happening with people who say that any science that does not match my religious beliefs, is wrong because i believe god told me different. Put simply to have a standard outside of science that your findings must fit within is simply not science.

Quote:No. In fact, it makes me wonder why men with doctorates from prestigious institutions are so readily dismissed while others are listened to unquestioningly.

Because of peer review, and 'science' that has to fit some claim outside of the remit, having a doctorate does not mean of itself your science is good if you abandon all you have learnt to make it fit with religious beliefs, it's simply not science if I am defining my findings in a religious context.

Quote:And this from people who the vast majority of the time know next to nothing of the discipline in question, such as yourself. This is why I ask you and basically everyone else here why you think you're qualified to judge the veracity of your side's claims while dismissing out of hand the other side. It's actually totally ridiculous that you do so.

Quote:Very true, and exactly my point. If you haven't done so yet, then how are you currently qualified to judge anything at all? How are any of you?

No i'm not qualified to judge most scientific findings, as indeed you are not but what i do is open myself up to discovery, to go where the evidence suggests rather than dismiss clearly demonstrated things on the basis of a religion.

How do you judge the truth of the websites you favour for instance, If it agree's with the bible and what you pre-believe ?

Quote:Sounds to me like we've well established that you have no business calling anything about YEC nonsense until you're qualified to judge the science for yourself, which by your own admission you're not.

You might say the same thing of me. How am I qualified? I'm not qualified, either, at least to judge the science itself. I believe the Word of God. The difference between us is that you put your faith in men, who are corrupt. I put my faith in the righteous and perfect Almighty God.

By the same measure you are not qualified to attest to it's truth, the only reason you do is not because you are read on the matter, but because it agree's with your religious beliefs, that simply is not scientific enquiry or discovery  at all.

Quote:And really, many of the scientific arguments I cite as proof, such as the astronomical implausibility of evolution, aren't even contradicted by your side.

Honestly I've not seen that argument from you, I've heard assertions. If you believe you have a valid case then that is very important to the whole of humanity, why not start a thread an d present it ?

Quote:But if there IS a contradiction, it virtually always boils down to who you're going to believe.

Oh I'll go with the science everyday, but let's see what your argument is first perhaps.. maybe take me up on my suggestion and start a new thread.

Quote:Of course, that's for the scientific arguments. Logical arguments are a different story altogether.

Bring either a good argument is a good argument  

Quote:I never said "hanging flesh." I said "attached." So I was a bit incorrect, who cares? You're splitting hairs and ignoring the point I was making, which is that no one knows how the tissues have survived. The ages not being revised merely means they're choosing to ignore the problem, from what I can tell. Can you prove otherwise?

What problem do you believe it presents, and why ?

Quote:You still changed your argument, regardless of what I said. You made an assertion, then claimed you were saying assertions shouldn't be made concerning the thing you originally asserted.

Naw, i simply presented it badly in the first place, like I have already said 'my bad'

Quote:I'm not doing the work for you on this one. Find it yourself.

You could simply say 'yes' or 'no' or perhaps clarify, if you are not willing to stand by your claim, that's fine. Instead you wrote a whole sentence when a 'yes' would suffice and say you are not doing my work for me.

Quote:1. According to natural laws, existence is impossible.
2. We exist.
3. Therefore, the source of existence is supernatural (God).

Someone else is already dealing with this nonsense.


Mike seriously dude believing the bible takes precedence above good scientific discovery simply is not science. You claim not to trust men or their findings, yet benefit every day from what science has discovered. Science is not something to fear.

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()))))))))9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) 

Mate, this Abbot peanut is a wilfully ignorant fool. He only opens his mouth to change feet.

Man caused climate change is established science; not something I will even argue any more. YES, there are dissenters, just as there remain dissenters about evolution. Climate change deniers have about the same level of credibility, IE none.

Not quite as sure  with this bit; 

Second Law of thermodynamics;  My understanding is that the law applies only to a closed system. Pretty sure the Big Bang*  was THE mother of all open systems. Apologists seem very fond of quoting it in such a way that it seems obvious that they have not bothered to read it, same goes for Evolution and Climate Change.

The First Law states energy cannot be created or destroyed.

*"The Big Bang" is actually a bit misleading, used as a short hand by scientists. It was actually a continuous expansion of everything, including the universe itself, rather than a sudden explosion.


I didn't know the bible( the Torah?) mentions unicorns. I know it mentions giants. Unfortunately , the bible is neither a history nor a science book. Apologist have us at a disadvantage.  They are immune to reason or  facts, and generally anti science , unless science confirms dogma. Or can be {deliberately?} misunderstood ; EG  The Big Bang Theory, Evolution, Climate Change and the Second Law of thermodynamics. They have a  powerful third option of simply declaring that science is wrong because the bible says otherwise. The fourth option is the great convenience of a continuous bun fight over interpretation of scripture  between Christian sects. Even arguing about which translation. The differences  are not trivial, especially between the Catholics and the rest.

The above is based on my understanding. I think I'm right. However, I may be wrong. I will happily accept correction from a members or member whose opinion I respect. This automatically excludes all of the Christian apologist here, who I consider merely comic relief, not to be taken seriously



 (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

 " The Big Bang is science's best explanation for how the universe began. According to the theory, the universe started out much hotter and much denser than it is today, and expanded and cooled over time.
Though the term may sound like the universe began with a giant explosion, many scientists say that's not part of the theory. An explosion implies that something exploded, or expanded, from one center point outward into space. In fact, the Big Bang theory suggests that space itself expanded.
"If it were an explosion it would have a center," said physicist Paul Steinhardt, director of the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton University in Princeton, N.J. "We actually observe that everything is moving away from everything else. It's really about an expansion of the universe  The Big Bang is science's best explanation for how the universe began. According to the theory, the universe started out much hotter and much denser than it is today, and expanded and cooled over time.

Though the term may sound like the universe began with a giant explosion, many scientists say that's not part of the theory. An explosion implies that something exploded, or expanded, from one center point outward into space. In fact, the Big Bang theory suggests that space itself expanded.
"If it were an explosion it would have a center," said physicist Paul Steinhardt, director of the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton University in Princeton, N.J. "We actually observe that everything is moving away from everything else. It's really about an "


https://www.livescience.com/32278-was-th...osion.html

(March 6, 2019 at 6:01 pm)fredd bear Wrote: Not quite as sure  with this bit; 

Second Law of thermodynamics;  My understanding is that the law applies only to a closed system. Pretty sure the Big Bang*  was THE mother of all open systems. Apologists seem very fond of quoting it in such a way that it seems obvious that they have not bothered to read it, same goes for Evolution and Climate Change.

Relies on the assumption that everything started in an uncorrelated state. That is not necessarily true. That might turn out to be true or false, but as sure as small apples, I am not going to give up and hang my hat on some capricious crank of a god until the evidence rolls in.

I'm going to confess that I've made a mistake here, and that is that I never should've mentioned thermodynamics.

However, the criticisms against my very simple claims can all be very adequately rebutted. Some of you are completely off the mark, and are putting words in my mouth, but that kind of behavior is par for the course here and I'm tired of combing through mountains of text to correct your mistakes. EDIT: Upon further investigation, there may not have been any mistakes. In any case I should not be making scientific arguments given my poor understanding of these things. My apologies.

The rest is debatable science, which merely brings us back to the same argument I originally posed. Apparently none of us here are experts on the subject matter, and it ultimately comes down to "who do you believe?" Sounds like you believe men; I believe God. What more is there to say?

(March 6, 2019 at 7:02 pm)MilesAbbott81 Wrote: I'm going to confess that I've made a mistake here, and that is that I never should've mentioned thermodynamics.

However, the criticisms against my very simple claims can all be very adequately rebutted. Some of you are completely off the mark, and are putting words in my mouth, but that kind of behavior is par for the course here and I'm tired of combing through mountains of text to correct your mistakes.

The rest is debatable science, which merely brings us back to the same argument I originally posed. Apparently none of us here are experts on the subject matter, and it ultimately comes down to "who do you believe?" Sounds like you believe men; I believe God. What more is there to say?

You are correct that is exactly what it boils down to.

I'm confident that I can show that men and let's not forget our women folk exist.

Can you show that god exists ? You see now how important this question is ?

(March 6, 2019 at 6:12 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(March 6, 2019 at 6:01 pm)fredd bear Wrote: Not quite as sure  with this bit; 

Second Law of thermodynamics;  My understanding is that the law applies only to a closed system. Pretty sure the Big Bang*  was THE mother of all open systems. Apologists seem very fond of quoting it in such a way that it seems obvious that they have not bothered to read it, same goes for Evolution and Climate Change.

Relies on the assumption that everything started in an uncorrelated state. That is not necessarily true. That might turn out to be true or false, but as sure as small apples, I am not going to give up and hang my hat on some capricious crank of a god until the evidence rolls in.

Ah. Have only ever seen the Second Law applied to earth, incorrectly it seems. My understanding is that the earth is an open system, as we get our energy from the sun.

As for the Big Bang;  you're saying we don't really know? Good enough for me.. I'll happily  accept 'we don't know, with 'yet' being implicit  rather than "god /aliens did it "

Does that mean I believe men over god?  Certainly not!  I'll believe whatever, let's just say a  Christian God, has to say about anything and everything---the instant some one proves to me he/she/it exists.

It's not god I doubt, [ once his existence has been established] but the standard of believers he seems to attract.

A problem is that apologist argue as if 'god ' is a given. Well, ain't for me, and I suspect for anyone calling themselves an atheist, by definition.  There  always seem to be exceptions; I once ran across a man on a forum who claimed to be both Hindu and atheist.
Wonderful religion Hinduism, so inclusive. 

 ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

On topic joke;

Catholic School, grade one; Nun asks "hands up all those who want to go to heaven"

Nun notices Billy has not raid his hand; "Why Billy, don't you want to go to heaven?"

Billy " Not if that bunch is going"

And" Heaven for the climate, hell for the company" (Mark Twain)

(March 6, 2019 at 7:15 pm)possibletarian Wrote: You are correct that is exactly what it boils down to.

I'm confident that I can show that men and let's not forget our women folk exist.

Can you show that god exists ? You see now how important this question is ?

Well, I still believe that there is ample evidence of design all throughout the earth and beyond, and it's there for your consideration. I also know that it can be difficult to accept reality as it is because of all the horrible suffering and how meaningless our lives seem to be.

There is meaning, though. There is a purpose to it all. And thankfully, every single one of you will realize that someday.

---

I have one more thing to say, and that is that I would like to apologize for my behavior here. I'm not sure of the degree of my wrongness in this debate; I know I've said some things that are justified and some that are not. But we are either fully justified or we're completely unjustified; there is no in between, not in God's eyes.

I don't believe it would be right for me to continue arguing anything specifically, so I do believe it's time for me to bow out of the thread for good. Lord-willing, this will be my final post. Any other matters I think can be addressed via private mail if anyone wishes.

(March 6, 2019 at 7:02 pm)MilesAbbott81 Wrote: I'm going to confess that I've made a mistake here, and that is that I never should've mentioned thermodynamics.

Hey, that's massively big of you.  I've been here for years and this seemingly simple redaction is just flat out beyond the ability of many of your peers in the faith.

Quote:However, the criticisms against my very simple claims can all be very adequately rebutted. Some of you are completely off the mark, and are putting words in my mouth, but that kind of behavior is par for the course here and I'm tired of combing through mountains of text to correct your mistakes. EDIT: Upon further investigation, there may not have been any mistakes. In any case I should not be making scientific arguments given my poor understanding of these things. My apologies.

Stahp, lol.  You said something dumb, and owning that was massively big.  Stick with that.  

Quote:The rest is debatable science, which merely brings us back to the same argument I originally posed. Apparently none of us here are experts on the subject matter, and it ultimately comes down to "who do you believe?" Sounds like you believe men; I believe God. What more is there to say?

The expertise of our membership may surprise you.

Aint nobody gonna pm your silly ass.  Keep being you.  It is, after all..all that you can do.  We have a thread for the "evidence of design".  

https://atheistforums.org/thread-54759-page-1233.html

(March 6, 2019 at 10:59 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:

(March 6, 2019 at 7:02 pm)MilesAbbott81 Wrote: I'm going to confess that I've made a mistake here, and that is that I never should've mentioned thermodynamics.

Hey, that's massively big of you.  I've been here for years and this seemingly simple redaction is just flat out beyond the ability of many of your peers in the faith.

Quote:However, the criticisms against my very simple claims can all be very adequately rebutted. Some of you are completely off the mark, and are putting words in my mouth, but that kind of behavior is par for the course here and I'm tired of combing through mountains of text to correct your mistakes. EDIT: Upon further investigation, there may not have been any mistakes. In any case I should not be making scientific arguments given my poor understanding of these things. My apologies.

Stahp, lol.  You said something dumb, and owning that was massively big.  Stick with that.  

Quote:The rest is debatable science, which merely brings us back to the same argument I originally posed. Apparently none of us here are experts on the subject matter, and it ultimately comes down to "who do you believe?" Sounds like you believe men; I believe God. What more is there to say?

The expertise of our membership may surprise you.

Aint nobody gonna pm your silly ass.  Keep being you.  It is, after all..all that you can do.  We have a thread for the "evidence of design".  

https://atheistforums.org/thread-54759-page-1233.html

"Well, I still believe that there is ample evidence of design all throughout the earth and beyond, and it's there for your consideration"


(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))




Looks like you just changed feet again:

Belief and faith are not proof.

The most common argument used by those arguing intelligent design/ irreducible complexity is the discredited 'watch maker analogy'. Perhaps something else is meant? if so, what?

"The watchmaker analogy or watchmaker argument is a teleological argument which states, by way of an analogy, that a design implies a designer. The analogy has played a prominent role in natural theology and the "argument from design," where it was used to support arguments for the existence of God and for the intelligent design of the universe, in both Christianity and Deism. "

"In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. ... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use. ... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.
— William Paley, Natural Theology (1802) "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

(March 6, 2019 at 7:02 pm)MilesAbbott81 Wrote: I'm going to confess that I've made a mistake here, and that is that I never should've mentioned thermodynamics.

However, the criticisms against my very simple claims can all be very adequately rebutted. Some of you are completely off the mark, and are putting words in my mouth, but that kind of behavior is par for the course here and I'm tired of combing through mountains of text to correct your mistakes. EDIT: Upon further investigation, there may not have been any mistakes. In any case I should not be making scientific arguments given my poor understanding of these things. My apologies.

The rest is debatable science, which merely brings us back to the same argument I originally posed. Apparently none of us here are experts on the subject matter, and it ultimately comes down to "who do you believe?" Sounds like you believe men; I believe God. What more is there to say?

You believe men as well, just men who believed or at least wrote that they were in touch with God. Thus your distinction is moot, but well worth remarking upon. Many people claim to believe God or to know the truth of the bible and its morals, when what they are really doing is choosing to believe the bible, theologians, or Christian morality for their own personal reasons. Many times those personal reasons reduce to believing the bible, or "God" (as expressed by the writers of the bible) because it is what they have already chosen to believe for whatever reason. Those reasons are ultimately impeachable even if God himself is not. Many times, if not all times, these are simply examples of what psychologists term "motivated reasoning." Reasoning to a conclusion you already hold because you hold it. You claim to believe God, but the simple fact is that you do not know any God directly, and have simply adopted conclusions to fit your prejudices. That's not believing "men" at all, but simply believing one person, yourself, and whatever reasons or lack thereof which led you to those conclusions. You were previously asked, "How can you show what you believe (and I believe that you believe) is anything more than a belief ?" and rather than answer that question, you chose to deflect and reassert a prior assertion instead. I'd like an answer to that question, or a link to where you've answered it in the past. How can you show that what you believe is true? Why do you believe the bible? And how do you "know" anything about God and what God has to say on anything in order to claim that you believe Him?

(March 9, 2019 at 11:38 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(March 6, 2019 at 7:02 pm)MilesAbbott81 Wrote: I'm going to confess that I've made a mistake here, and that is that I never should've mentioned thermodynamics.

However, the criticisms against my very simple claims can all be very adequately rebutted. Some of you are completely off the mark, and are putting words in my mouth, but that kind of behavior is par for the course here and I'm tired of combing through mountains of text to correct your mistakes. EDIT: Upon further investigation, there may not have been any mistakes. In any case I should not be making scientific arguments given my poor understanding of these things. My apologies.

The rest is debatable science, which merely brings us back to the same argument I originally posed. Apparently none of us here are experts on the subject matter, and it ultimately comes down to "who do you believe?" Sounds like you believe men; I believe God. What more is there to say?

You believe men as well, just men who believed or at least wrote that they were in touch with God.  Thus your distinction is moot, but well worth remarking upon.  Many people claim to believe God or to know the truth of the bible and its morals, when what they are really doing is choosing to believe the bible, theologians, or Christian morality for their own personal reasons.  Many times those personal reasons reduce to believing the bible, or "God" (as expressed by the writers of the bible) because it is what they have already chosen to believe for whatever reason.  Those reasons are ultimately impeachable even if God himself is not.  Many times, if not all times, these are simply examples of what psychologists term "motivated reasoning."  Reasoning to a conclusion you already hold because you hold it.  You claim to believe God, but the simple fact is that you do not know any God directly, and have simply adopted conclusions to fit your prejudices.  That's not believing "men" at all, but simply believing one person, yourself, and whatever reasons or lack thereof which led you to those conclusions.  You were previously asked, "How can you show what you believe (and I believe that you believe) is anything more than a belief ?" and rather than answer that question, you chose to deflect and reassert a prior assertion instead.  I'd like an answer to that question, or a link to where you've answered it in the past.  How can you show that what you believe is true?  Why do you believe the bible?  And how do you "know" anything about God and what God has to say on anything in order to claim that you believe Him?

 Excellent post.

The words 'brick" and 'wall' have just popped into my head, I don't know why.   

Pretty confronting stuff. Miles simply cannot afford to accept your reasoning; it challenges his entire world view. Same with the rest of them.
Personal beliefs, and attitudes are inculcated well before the age of reason . The child simply accepts anything it is told by an adult. In my opinion , very few people ever question their world view. Atheists are atypical.

Not sure about adult  conversions. I can only surmise such people tend to be lost, perhaps having been deeply wounded by abuse or rejection. Certainly has nothing to do with reason.

In coming here to arrogantly confront heathen atheists, and 'tell them the news" [about Jesus and the gospel] such people run the risk of being deconverted by relentless reason. Of course with perhaps one exception, I think that's unlikely. Our christians are too thick skinned ,too wilfully ignorant , and too unaware to be in any danger of accepting reason and science as valid..