Posts: 682
Threads: 37
Joined: January 7, 2013
Reputation:
5
RE: Conflicting statements in the bible
May 10, 2013 at 5:26 pm
(This post was last modified: May 10, 2013 at 5:30 pm by A_Nony_Mouse.)
(May 10, 2013 at 2:38 pm)Praetorian Wrote: (May 10, 2013 at 8:09 am)John V Wrote: Is this proven beyond a reasonable doubt? If not, why call it a theory? Creationists get crap for saying evolution is only a theory, yet evolutionists use it in the same sense all the time. Go figure.
I used "theory" in the non-scientific sense. A scientific theory is essentially fact that can't be definitely verified. Scientists accept evolution as fact, but it can't be definitely verified because we don't have a time machine. It is therefore a theory.
The RNA world idea is a hypothesis; an idea that came about through observation. Laymen like myself use "theory" and "hypothesis" interchangeably because we don't really care to point out the difference.
Perhaps we shouldn't :/.
In all technical usage, mainly science and law, a theory is an explanation for facts. It has nothing to do with verification in either sense. It is a matter of establishing facts which are not explained by the theory in order to replace one theory with another or to establish that two different sets of facts are involved.
The Darwinian theory of evolution is one explanation for the thousands of observed facts of what is also called evolution. It is also the best explanation and there are no serious competing theories around the explain the same facts.
Theory and hypothesis can never be used interchangeably even though Sherlock Holmes appears to have done it when he meant hypothesis.
(May 10, 2013 at 4:31 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: (May 10, 2013 at 2:18 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: I'm also saying that The Tooth Fairy, Unicorns and all other like-theories of equal possibility, haven't warranted any credit either. Just to be fair. I doubt you'll be praying to the Tooth Fairy on your deathbed.
Why would you assume there would be any prayer at all? Been in that "bed" three times. I was too occupied with other things to even think about it.
Posts: 1985
Threads: 12
Joined: October 12, 2010
Reputation:
24
RE: Conflicting statements in the bible
May 10, 2013 at 6:12 pm
(May 9, 2013 at 9:00 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Cool, I guess that's another example of the Bible being full of shit. Thanks!
Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
God is not a natural process, please try to pay attention.
(May 9, 2013 at 9:55 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: To repeat. There is nothing in living matter that is in nonliving matter. Where else could living matter come from other than non-living matter?
That in no way proves that living matter can naturally arise from non-living matter, there’s nothing in the works of Shakespeare that cannot be found in Nature (ink and paper), but those works didn’t spontaneously generate.
Quote:Why is there nothing in life that indicates a creative mind?
DNA indicates a creative mind; it’s the most sophisticated message encoding system we’ve ever observed; it blows the doors off of binary.
Quote: Before Pasteur people were seeing life come from non-life all the time. Maggots spontaneously arose from shit for example. You folks were completely satisfied with abiogenesis from observation until Pasteur showed otherwise. Why the sudden change of heart?
I am not that old. You’re the one who is still arguing for spontaneous generation even though it was disproven hundreds of years ago (more so by Redi than Pasteur), not me. Christians have always been opposed to the notion of spontaneous generation (which was a Greek teaching) because Genesis teaches that after creation week life comes from life, all animals reproducing after their kind.
(May 10, 2013 at 2:13 am)Praetorian Wrote: While this statement is true for DNA, it's also not what scientists are claiming. The most common hypothesis is that RNA was the structure that originally became self-replicating within ocean vents. Another common hypothesis is that the Krebs cycle came first...although this is in dispute since the process of replication and generation of ATP are so intertwined that it's hard to imagine one without the other. Spend 20 minutes on wikipedia and read up on the RNA world theory, I'm sure you'll find it quite enlightening.
I am well aware of the RNA World Hypothesis, but thanks for the post. It’s actually losing favor among many Darwinist’s though because it requires the existence of prebiotic pools of beta-D-ribonucleotides, which is nearly impossible in an Oceanic environment. Even if you could find a way to explain how these pools could exist in such an environment you’re then faced with the problem of these Beta-D ribonucleotides spontaneously forming polymer links. There is no known way to achieve the necessary activation of the nucleoside phosphate groups without requiring ATP. Of course there’s no ATP prior to the existence of functioning proteins, but no proteins without ATP and now we’ve got a mess.
Quote: The point is, this is science, and eventually this will all be understood.
I think it’s more story telling that actual science.
(May 10, 2013 at 9:17 am)Texas Sailor Wrote: Of course you don't. Its magic, right?
No, you’re just engaging in mere conjecture and storytelling; it’s not science at all.
Quote:
Oh I see. Simulating the conditions of a nature that no longer is, is cheating?
You have no clue what the environmental conditions would have been like back then, nobody does; so yes in a way it’s cheating.
Quote: Abiotic sysnthesis is plausible.
If that’s your faith position then fine, but it’s not a position supported by the sciences.
Quote: The basics of life can form naturally from non-life.
Proof?
Quote: That makes it plausible that more complex life could eventually arrise from it.
No, it doesn’t even make it possible, much less plausible.
Quote: You moving the goal post and adding more complex qualifiers is a moot point.
Pointing out that you created the wrong amino acids is a moot point? That’s cute, so much faith, so little evidence.
Quote: Its a spontanious formation, this formation is a long process. Simple organic molecules are possibly formed through this process and there's any number of hypotheses of how it could occur. Showing that its possible for the foundation to form itself, opens the doors to many other possibilities. Nobody is suggesting that things went from Amino Acids to Human Baby! That's absurd. Kinda like the suggestion that things went from a planet with no people to- Intelligent full grown man! Really dude? Really?
Asserting it was a slow process doesn’t solve anything, you keep trying to sneak a forward looking memory into a system that cannot have one.
Quote:
Oh I never said he was either of those things. That merely proves that your idea of God could not be in that jar. But, through Jar-God...all things are possible.
No, God’s omnipresence proves that He is in both jars, not that He is in neither jar. How is the claim, “God is not in this jar” falsifiable?
Quote:
Comparing the existence of an immaterial God to the existence of material coins is quite the category error, for someone who displays such hubris you sure are rather naïve.
Quote:Only because you say so, and that you REALLY want it to be true. There's been nothing from you to suggest it's true for any other reasons than those, and those aren't valid ones.
You’ve never asked me for anything else, you’ve been so preoccupied with trying to defend your own absurd claims. We’ll get there.
Quote:
According to whom is anything you claimed above true? Your opinion won’t get you far in these parts.
Quote:
:-P So you cannot trust your own ability to reason? Yet, you just tried to give a reason as to why it is that you cannot trust your ability to reason? Well, which is it?
Quote:
CAN BE FALSIFIED! First, you may need to nail down "generally" this is never really a word involved in any claim worth investigating, that's a pretty weak hypothesis. But, if it turns out that Texas Sailor (Who exists!) is color blind or partially def (as I am from working around F-18s for so long) this can be proven false with simple hearing and vision tests.
How do you know you ever took a hearing or vision test without appealing to your senses? However, you cannot use your senses since the reliability of your senses is what is in question. Looks like you goofed up again!
Quote: You clearly don't have a clue what this conversation is about...
Texas Sailor (who exists!)...I like how you couch these claims with "generally" which isn't a claim at all. It's merely an opinon that begs the question.
All inductive claims are based upon the concept of "general"; please learn what you’re talking about.
Quote: Flash cards, and memory tests are available to either confirm or falsify this claim, they are in fact necessary for people that think they have Alzheimer's. You knew how stupid that one was right?
Not nearly as stupid as your answer was; how do you know you were ever given a memory test? Do you remember taking the test and what the results were? You cannot appeal to the reliability of your memory in order to prove your memory is reliable. There’s no begging the question allowed here. Oops! You goofed up yet again!
Quote:
Why are you trying to use a logical argument to try and prove that logical arguments in fact discern truth? Begging the question yet again! You’re not nearly as good at this as I thought you would be.
Quote: Newton's Physics and theory of Absolute time sent men to the moon, and was the best theory available at the time. It was never "fact".
My question was about deduction, not inductive reasoning so this is irrelevant.
Quote:
However,“Future trials will yield identical results as past trials under identical conditions.'' Is true until proven false so long as it does in fact render results.
You screwed this one up too. You cannot use “it’s always worked in the past that way” to justify the belief that future trials will resemble past trials under identical conditions because you are appealing to a past trial (it’s always yielded results for us in the past). This appeal would only be valid if future trials would somehow resemble past trials, but that’s the very thing we are questioning. So again, you begged the question because you used inductive reasoning to try and justify the validity of inductive reasoning. This has been rather entertaining.
Quote: Another falsifiable claim!
Unless he dies or something awful! Again, if tomorrow comes and Texas Sailor remains, this can be confirmed.
You did not confirm the claim ‘Texas Sailor will continue to be Texas Sailor tomorrow.” You confirmed the claim “Texas Sailor was still Texas Sailor X moments ago.” Those are two very different claims.
Quote:
This is a broad and relative statement that begs the question and would need to get clarified. Again...
It’s a rather clear principle that all of inductive reasoning is based upon; we can make general claims about particular experiences. Whenever I drop a ball it falls to the Earth, therefore every time a ball is dropped it falls to the Earth. There is no way to verify or falsify that this form of reasoning is in fact justified and yet all science is predicated upon it being valid.
Quote:
Hmm...That's a different debate all together, and I would be inclined to agree that some of the things listed are required to falsify things, but, you haven't quite presented reason to believe any of these things are UNfalsifiable.
If the act of falsifying presupposes a particular claim is true, then the truth value of that claim is un-falsifiable.
Quote: Unicorns are real
That claim is falsifiable.
Santa Clause is real
Quote: Unicorns are invisible and are real
This one too.
Quote: The flying spaghetti monster is real and is responsible for all the things we don't have answers for.
This one is falsifiable too.
Quote: God is real, he talks to me, and he created everything.
Well He doesn’t talk to me, but He is real and He did create everything.
(May 10, 2013 at 11:42 am)Texas Sailor Wrote:
You do not seem to understand that you have created a false dichotomy between these two different claims. There are far more than merely two different types of truth claims.
(May 10, 2013 at 1:31 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: On ancient earth tens to hundreds of quintillions of amino acid molecules or even more than that interacting many times per second for a hundred million years or more and it only has to produce a self-replicating grouping once for life to start.
How do you know how many amino acids were on the ancient Earth?
(May 10, 2013 at 2:18 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: its really a moot point. A carbon atom is just an atom. Scientists have shown that a simple carbon atom can, under the right conditions, given the right circumstances, and on its own...form into a compound that is the crux of all things that are living. If that can happen, there's good reason to believe that this compound can develop into more complex compounds (which are fortuitously made-up of the same matter), and from there-more complex compounds comprised of more intricate assemblies of the same matter...etc. With millions of years to play with, the right circumstances available, and an unthinkable amount of opportunities, its absolutely naive to suggest that such a thing isn't plausible or at the very least quite possible, and a DAMN SIGHT more possible than any unfalsifiable hypothesis. I don't want it to seem like I'm just picking on God theories as the only ones with no evidence, I'm also saying that The Tooth Fairy, Unicorns and all other like-theories of equal possibility, haven't warranted any credit either. Just to be fair. This isn’t science, this is just story telling! What conditions are you referring to and how do you know they were present on the ancient Earth? How did the molecules become more complex? Merely asserting they did doesn’t demonstrate anything. What did they form? DNA? Proteins? RNA? Was there oxygen present? What was the catalyst? What was the Earth’s average temperature at that time? You just tossed out complete unsubstantiated garbage and expected someone to fall for it.
(May 10, 2013 at 2:45 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: Evolution is backed by mountains of evidence,
After seeing what you consider to be “evidence” I am not the least bit surprised you think this is the case.
Posts: 5598
Threads: 112
Joined: July 16, 2012
Reputation:
74
RE: Conflicting statements in the bible
May 10, 2013 at 6:22 pm
(May 10, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: God is not a natural process, please try to pay attention.
Fictional characters aren't natural processes, I agree.
So, tell me, have you ever witnessed God breathing life into dust and making humans? For that matter, has anyone? There were no eyewitnesses to Genesis until Adam came along. Yet, you accept the Biblical account apparently without question.
Posts: 91
Threads: 6
Joined: May 8, 2013
Reputation:
1
RE: Conflicting statements in the bible
May 10, 2013 at 6:27 pm
I'd say it's less "storytelling" and more fact finding. We won't ever be able to put all the pieces of history together.
But getting back on topic, as this thread has been severely derailed, how does any of this conceivably point to creation as in Genesis? If you think science is valid, and I'm glad you do, how do you deal with the cognitive dissonance?
Posts: 682
Threads: 37
Joined: January 7, 2013
Reputation:
5
RE: Conflicting statements in the bible
May 10, 2013 at 8:21 pm
(This post was last modified: May 10, 2013 at 8:24 pm by A_Nony_Mouse.)
(May 10, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: (May 9, 2013 at 9:55 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: To repeat. There is nothing in living matter that is in nonliving matter. Where else could living matter come from other than non-living matter?
That in no way proves that living matter can naturally arise from non-living matter, there’s nothing in the works of Shakespeare that cannot be found in Nature (ink and paper), but those works didn’t spontaneously generate.
But there was and is NOTHING ELSE but inanimate matter. Again WHAT ELSE could it have come from?
Quote:Quote:Why is there nothing in life that indicates a creative mind?
DNA indicates a creative mind; it’s the most sophisticated message encoding system we’ve ever observed; it blows the doors off of binary.
I was hoping you would not only say that but describe how to quantify, i.e. measure, this creative component. Please do that. Although it is amusing to call it sophisticated it is by definition imperfect and does not produce perfect copies while computer systems do. It is a noisy method for error prone information transmission. What is creative about creating a sloppy system that cannot faithfully transmit data?
Quote:Quote: Before Pasteur people were seeing life come from non-life all the time. Maggots spontaneously arose from shit for example. You folks were completely satisfied with abiogenesis from observation until Pasteur showed otherwise. Why the sudden change of heart?
I am not that old. You’re the one who is still arguing for spontaneous generation even though it was disproven hundreds of years ago (more so by Redi than Pasteur), not me. Christians have always been opposed to the notion of spontaneous generation (which was a Greek teaching) because Genesis teaches that after creation week life comes from life, all animals reproducing after their kind.
How could Christians have been against what they saw with their own eyes, maggots appearing from shit?
Francesco is credited with being the first to challenge the common christian belief in the origin of maggots but he got no respect in his own lifetime. And of course he published without contradicting the Christian idea for fear of the stake. The idea was never adopted by Christians. Thus it WAS the Christian belief until Pasteur.
...
(May 10, 2013 at 1:31 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: On ancient earth tens to hundreds of quintillions of amino acid molecules or even more than that interacting many times per second for a hundred million years or more and it only has to produce a self-replicating grouping once for life to start.
How do you know how many amino acids were on the ancient Earth?
[/quote]
They produce so easily and commonly whenever the needed atoms are around that they are found in clouds in deep space and in meteorites. Besides that would only be a couple whales worth by mass. Hardly none at all spread throughout the oceans.
(May 10, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: (May 9, 2013 at 9:00 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Cool, I guess that's another example of the Bible being full of shit. Thanks!
Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
God is not a natural process, please try to pay attention.
But mouth to mouth breathing does not create life. Not that your god has lungs to breath with these days but he did way back when. When did it lose its lungs?
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Conflicting statements in the bible
May 10, 2013 at 8:54 pm
Quote:God is not a natural process, please try to pay attention.
I don't know about that. Idiots seem to create gods quite naturally.
Posts: 2082
Threads: 72
Joined: March 12, 2013
Reputation:
44
RE: Conflicting statements in the bible
May 10, 2013 at 10:36 pm
(This post was last modified: May 10, 2013 at 10:37 pm by The Reality Salesman01.)
You have not made a single intelligent rebuttal to anything I've written. You have demonstrated a complete inability to understand the difference between shit pulled from one's anus, and a claim worth ANALyzing. I'll await an intelligible thought, until then, I'll just sit back and enjoy defeating you in this debate Waldorf. Cheers to that!
Posts: 8709
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Conflicting statements in the bible
May 10, 2013 at 11:51 pm
(May 10, 2013 at 4:36 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: You need to remember that we deem your version of whatever god it is you submit yourself to on equal footing to the tooth fairy or unicorns. So you have no idea what god I believe in but feel qualified to weigh in with an opinion about it. No class, my friend, no class.
Posts: 31468
Threads: 1393
Joined: March 15, 2013
Reputation:
152
RE: Conflicting statements in the bible
May 10, 2013 at 11:56 pm
(May 10, 2013 at 11:51 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: So you have no idea what god I believe in but feel qualified to weigh in with an opinion about it. No class, my friend, no class.
If it remains hidden from empiricism, then obviously it can very well be attributed to exist alongside the same paradigm as leprechauns.
"Never trust a fox. Looks like a dog, behaves like a cat."
~ Erin Hunter
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Conflicting statements in the bible
May 11, 2013 at 12:15 am
(May 10, 2013 at 11:51 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: (May 10, 2013 at 4:36 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: You need to remember that we deem your version of whatever god it is you submit yourself to on equal footing to the tooth fairy or unicorns. So you have no idea what god I believe in but feel qualified to weigh in with an opinion about it. No class, my friend, no class.
I checked you out ages ago. Not exactly difficult.
http://www.swedenborg.org/Beliefs.aspx
Quote:Key elements of Swedenborgian belief include:
God is infinitely loving and at the center of every life.
Truth is love in action. Actions performed out of love are genuine expressions in a physical form of what love means.
There is one God whose essence is Divine Love and Wisdom. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all aspects of God just as body, mind, and soul are all aspects of one person.
The Bible is the inspired Word of God that provides inspiration and help to lead better and more fulfilling lives. The literal sense of Scripture tells the story of the people of God, and contains a deeper meaning that illumines the journey of the human soul.
People are essentially spirits clothed with material bodies. At death, the material body is laid aside and the person continues to live on in the world of spirit choosing a heavenly life or a hellish one, based on the quality of life choices made here.
God gives everyone the freedom to choose their beliefs and live their lives accordingly. Salvation is available for people of all religions.
The Second Coming has taken place—and in fact still is taking place. It is not an actual physical appearance of the Lord, but rather his return in spirit and truth that is being effected as a present reality.
God is infinitely loving and at the center of every life.
Frankly, its just as silly as the shit that G-C spews out.
|
