(September 24, 2013 at 12:41 pm)Psykhronic Wrote: I don't think Zazzy has done anything to warrant your prickness, is all.

Maybe maybe not. again some days I just feel like being a prick.

I'm like anyone else here more or less. crap from other conversations carry over.

IF I over stepped I do appologize.

---

(September 24, 2013 at 12:59 pm)Zazzy Wrote:

(September 24, 2013 at 12:46 pm)Drich Wrote: Good!

You have an understanding of my core belief here so let proceed. any other questions?

Excellent.

If you are willing to look at this scientifically, I'll ask again: are we in agreement that the Bible is outside of science and that we will do this using available scientific evidence? Or do we disagree? This is not a trap, and not an attempt to get you to abandon your faith. It's what religious scientists do all the time when they are in the lab, looking at evidence. They aren't abandoning faith; they're just not using it to argue why they got a result they got.

And speaking of traps, I'm also not interested in the ad hoc argument. In a scientific discourse, modifying one's position is necessary and expected when confronted with evidence that doesn't square. Since I'm a scientist and you're not, I expect I will point out things you didn't know, and if you need to modify your position based on those things, I'm not going to claim that it's dead. This is the way such discussions proceed if they are to be useful.

How about, if i start down an Ad hoc road you simply identify it proclaim a victory and move on, otherwise let us proceed without the verbal contract that youre requiring that I make, that subjects my faith to your interpertations of what is or is not a scientific discussion.

This is as close to a confirmation as your going to get so either poop or get off the pot.

---

(September 24, 2013 at 2:25 pm)max-greece Wrote: "Which should get you to think about who really knows more about what you believe."

Oh obviously you do - I mean it stands to reason doesn't it. You have God to help you on your side and I only have a lack of delusions.

As it happens I wouldn't have gone for slime - I'd have gone for a variety of chain molecules including proteins, starches and some nucleic acids all in a primarily water based fluid - but obviously I don't know.

I could have gone on to describe the structures of those singled celled creatures (maybe because I studied Biotechnology at university) but then I would have had to ask you some questions about the cell types under discussion and you would have thought I was showing off (like prokaryotic or eukaryotic cells).

Still slime is OK I suppose - but it wouldn't get you though higher education.

lets be honest here. very little on this web site would get anyone through a 'higher education.'

---

(September 24, 2013 at 3:29 pm)tokutter Wrote:

(September 24, 2013 at 12:41 pm)Psykhronic Wrote: I don't think Zazzy has done anything to warrant your prickness, is all.

Zazzy's questions are starting to box Drick in......what happens when you start cornering an animal(not saying Drick is an animal).....out comes the teeth and claws


.

Actually the teeth and claws came out because zazzy wanted to be apart of the discussion but did not want to take the time to read what i had written. He/she insisted that i pay them special attention when everyone else in the conversation simply read what was written.

where the plot thickened is that zazzy wishes to speak on how evolution some how disproves creationism, but wishes to incorperate a panic stop button on the conversation by having me to agree to the terms and limitations of the nature of the conversation zazzy wishes to have. If I go all ad hoc on zazzy then zazzy has the right to end the conversation at any point the plot gets too deep.

I agreed to the panic stop button, just not the denial of faith zazzy wanted me to agree to that gave zazzy this option.[/quote]

---

(September 24, 2013 at 3:42 pm)Zazzy Wrote: It's not my intention to box him in, only to get him to examine this idea fully.

What makes you think i haven't?

Quote:He already believes evolution occurred (yet oddly, he still manages to be a creationist), so he's not the enemy.

I dont NOT believe evolution occoured. I just don't think it happened like we think it did.. And I am kinda still the enemy as my theory still provides a possiablity of God which is the reason evolution is use so definativly as a means to dismiss God/Christianity.

No one really cares about evolution unless they are trying to seperate themselves away from God, or bring people back to him. Evolution is just the battle ground.

Quote: It's a pretty novel idea, and I'd like to see what he comes up with to support it. Usually creationists are way less creative than this.

The 'idea' is an extremely simple one. There is no time line given to creation in the bible. Which means evolution is possiable. that's it, that's all. That is the underlining truth of it all. How the rest of it works is only speculation. If evolution were true, I provide just one of many possiable ways it all can come together.

When we all get to heaven, and we find out it all happened a different way, nothing changes nor do my feelings get hurt. If we all get there and this is what happened +/- a few plot point then I hope i did what I was supposed to to help spread this message around. Otherwise nothing changes.

(September 24, 2013 at 4:05 pm)Drich Wrote: How about, if i start down an Ad hoc road you simply identify it proclaim a victory and move on,

Why would I do that? If someone thinks about their original position and refines it due to a good criticism, that's a good thing. In science, you get to backtrack without getting bashed (at least, if you do the backtracking before you publish). But we are batting around an idea here, so there's no need for the kind of behavior you are describing.

Quote: otherwise let us proceed without the verbal contract that youre requiring that I make, that subjects my faith to your interpertations of what is or is not a scientific discussion.

I'm simply asking you if you're going to pull out the Bible down the road, or if we can stick to scientific observation. I don't know why you don't want to answer that question.
There's no debate as to what constitutes a scientific discussion: a proposal about the natural world understood by all parties, followed by evidence (experimental or observational) to back that proposal, and then a discussion of the merits of that evidence, and how well it supports the proposal. Get far enough to where your proposal is testable, and it's a hypothesis.

Quote:This is as close to a confirmation as your going to get so either poop or get off the pot.

You made a proposal. I understand it. Now you provide some scientific evidence to back it up. Again, if you don't want to have this conversation, all you have to do is say so. You don't have to keep up this hostility.

---

Ah! I get it on rereading that last few posts. You thought I was saying I wasn't interested in YOU making ad hoc arguments. I was saying the opposite- I'm not interested in accusing you of making ad hoc arguments, because holding someone to an initial position does not lead to fruitful discussion in science. I was unclear in my wording.

"I dont NOT believe evolution occoured. I just don't think it happened like we think it did.. And I am kinda still the enemy as my theory still provides a possiablity of God which is the reason evolution is use so definativly as a means to dismiss God/Christianity.

No one really cares about evolution unless they are trying to seperate themselves away from God, or bring people back to him. Evolution is just the battle ground."

Actually that is simply not true. Abiogenesis is the battleground for God or not. Evolution is, through the process of natural selection, the explanation for the variety of life on this planet. Its not a God thing (except that it contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis). Any believer who is prepared to take Genesis as a story for simpler times doesn't have any problem with evolution.

Catholics, in the main, for example, don't appear to have a problem with evolution.

Your version, incorporating Genesis into the story line is clever in terms of evolution but still leaves a host of problems. You still appear to be stuck with creation in 7 days - one of which was to create, amongst other things, all the stars in the heavens. That's 10^23 stars give or take in the known universe - a far more complex task than the creation of the earth which took several days on its own.

(September 24, 2013 at 4:26 pm)Zazzy Wrote: Why would I do that? If someone thinks about their original position and refines it due to a good criticism, that's a good thing. In science, you get to backtrack without getting bashed (at least, if you do the backtracking before you publish). But we are batting around an idea here, so there's no need for the kind of behavior you are describing.

fair enough

Quote:I'm simply asking you if you're going to pull out the Bible down the road, or if we can stick to scientific observation.

I'm not a bible thumper. Most of the guys here initally thought I never read one. Know that I do carfully word what I have said to accuratly reflect what the bible says, and not a given denominational belief. That said know that I can pile on the verses any time you like.

Quote: I don't know why you don't want to answer that question.

Because I have been subject to all manor of tricks and double talk over the last few years from both sides.

Quote:There's no debate as to what constitutes a scientific discussion: a proposal about the natural world understood by all parties, followed by evidence (experimental or observational) to back that proposal, and then a discussion of the merits of that evidence, and how well it supports the proposal. Get far enough to where your proposal is testable, and it's a hypothesis.

After 6000 thousand years what does 'proof' of the "intangable" (Your word) look like? What does it look like now?

Quote:You made a proposal. I understand it. Now you provide some scientific evidence to back it up. Again, if you don't want to have this conversation, all you have to do is say so. You don't have to keep up this hostility.

Again just tell me what you are looking for specifically and I will see what i can do.

---

(September 24, 2013 at 4:42 pm)max-greece Wrote: "I dont NOT believe evolution occoured. I just don't think it happened like we think it did.. And I am kinda still the enemy as my theory still provides a possiablity of God which is the reason evolution is use so definativly as a means to dismiss God/Christianity.

No one really cares about evolution unless they are trying to seperate themselves away from God, or bring people back to him. Evolution is just the battle ground."

Actually that is simply not true. Abiogenesis is the battleground for God or not. Evolution is, through the process of natural selection, the explanation for the variety of life on this planet. Its not a God thing (except that it contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis). Any believer who is prepared to take Genesis as a story for simpler times doesn't have any problem with evolution.

Catholics, in the main, for example, don't appear to have a problem with evolution.

Your version, incorporating Genesis into the story line is clever in terms of evolution but still leaves a host of problems. You still appear to be stuck with creation in 7 days - one of which was to create, amongst other things, all the stars in the heavens. That's 10^23 stars give or take in the known universe - a far more complex task than the creation of the earth which took several days on its own.

Again the literal 7 days of Genesis is from a garden perspective. From the Garden view the stars came into view on Day 4 after God commanded it to happen.

(September 24, 2013 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: I'm not a bible thumper. Most of the guys here initally thought I never read one. Know that I do carfully word what I have said to accuratly reflect what the bible says, and not a given denominational belief. That said know that I can pile on the verses any time you like.

I'm still asking if we can stick to science, and you can have the Bible conversation with others. If you don't like those parameters, then again, just say you don't want to have that conversation. They are the same parameters all scientists hold each other to.

Quote: Because I have been subject to all manor of tricks and double talk over the last few years from both sides.

Well, AVT conversations get heated. But I like honest conversation, and I've dealt with you honestly so far.

Quote:After 6000 thousand years what does 'proof' of the "intangable" (Your word) look like? What does it look like now?

I have no idea what evidence for a soul, for example, would look like. Since you are proposing it, it would be up to you to provide that evidence. If it's simply a matter of faith, then it can't be a part of a scientific discussion and it would be off the table.

Quote:Again just tell me what you are looking for specifically and I will see what i can do.

Any kind of observational/experimental evidence that would support your proposal. If you like, I can give you a few areas to consider beginning with.

(September 24, 2013 at 4:54 pm)Zazzy Wrote:

(September 24, 2013 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: I'm not a bible thumper. Most of the guys here initally thought I never read one. Know that I do carfully word what I have said to accuratly reflect what the bible says, and not a given denominational belief. That said know that I can pile on the verses any time you like.

I'm still asking if we can stick to science, and you can have the Bible conversation with others. If you don't like those parameters, then again, just say you don't want to have that conversation. They are the same parameters all scientists hold each other to.

Quote: Because I have been subject to all manor of tricks and double talk over the last few years from both sides.

Well, AVT conversations get heated. But I like honest conversation, and I've dealt with you honestly so far.

Quote:After 6000 thousand years what does 'proof' of the "intangable" (Your word) look like? What does it look like now?

I have no idea what evidence for a soul, for example, would look like. Since you are proposing it, it would be up to you to provide that evidence. If it's simply a matter of faith, then it can't be a part of a scientific discussion and it would be off the table.

Quote:Again just tell me what you are looking for specifically and I will see what i can do.

Any kind of observational/experimental evidence that would support your proposal. If you like, I can give you a few areas to consider beginning with.

The soul is consciencousness, what evidence of consciencous is there after one dies?

Just because there is no proof of consciencous after one dies does it mean one could not have possiably lived?

(September 24, 2013 at 5:13 pm)Drich Wrote: The soul is consciencousness, what evidence of consciencous is there after one dies?

Zero.

Quote:Just because there is no proof of consciencous after one dies does it mean one could not have possiably lived?

If you justify your beliefs on the basis that your beliefs cannot be disproven, how do you justify your lack of belief in other gods and religions when their claims are identically impossible to disprove?

(September 24, 2013 at 5:13 pm)Drich Wrote: The soul is consciencousness,

Do you mean consciousness, or conscientiousness? They are very different things. I think you mean consciousness. No doubt that humans have consciousness. Usually I hear theists say souls are more than mere consciousness, though.

Quote:what evidence of consciencous is there after one dies?

So far, absolutely none, since death is the definitional opposite of consciousness.

Quote:Just because there is no proof of consciencous after one dies does it mean one could not have possiably lived?

I don't understand this. Are you asking if because there is no evidence of consciousness after death, that means that it is impossible?

Having never died, I can't say. From from a biological viewpoint, it is very difficult to understand how this could happen (except by a magical, goddidit argument), since consciousness is a product of brain chemistry. Many people are alive but not conscious, adding to that difficulty. I can render you unconscious by tweaking your brain chemistry. Maybe a different word than "consciousness"is needed.

(September 24, 2013 at 5:20 pm)Ryantology Wrote: If you justify your beliefs on the basis that your beliefs cannot be disproven, how do you justify your lack of belief in other gods and religions when their claims are identically impossible to disprove?

Where/when did I say this?

Have we met?

I'm Drich. My ministry and basic belief in God is based on one fact. God has revealed Himself to me, via the Holy Spirit that indewells me. Not that I am a special case, but because He has promised a measure of the Holy Spirit to ANYONE who will simply A/S/K as outlined in luke 11.

Ring any bells yet?

Okay, Drich, I wanted to be done with this, but then something popped into my mind. A sort of "revelation", if you will.

I went over your statement so that I could be quite clear on this, that my ideas would be completely in line with what you said. Set aside my ad hoc stuff for now, as I know Zazzy would like, and answer me this:

How long ago do you believe Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden? The general Creationist consensus is 6,000 years, correct? Your theory says that cities were developed by soulless "monkey-men," which explains how Cain was able to breed with them to create new people that would have souls. Am I right?

Now, do you believe that soul-carrying men, created in God's image, spread across the entire Earth, creating new races of man (African, Asian, Caucasian, Native American, etc.) in less than 6,000 years? There are records of homo sapien man entering the western hemisphere from 14,300 years ago. Or were these all soulless "monkey-men?" The kind that Cain bred with? Are all the people of the world except those that are mentioned in the Bible soulless monkey-men? Are Native Americans "monkey-men" since they had almost no contact with the eastern world for 5500 years? Are they only now getting their souls?

Your theory explains evolution if all humans came from the middle east and were of one race. It does not account for the creation of race, or explain the records of Homo sapien (not monkey-man) existence dating back tens of thousands of years across the globe.

Please provide your theory on the existence of race, and if all the people of the world that are not racially similar to Adam are soulless descendents of monkey-men, or at best, half-breeds.