(January 30, 2014 at 12:14 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(January 29, 2014 at 9:07 am)Drich Wrote: genesis claim of the age of planet Earth (and the rest of the Universe) ~6000 years.

Just curious.. Where exactly does Genesis make this claim?

Perhaps you should take that up with the young earthers who are making this claim, and not the people who disagree with them?

There is no claim of the age of the earth in Genesis. The age is calculated based on the genealogical records and other information in Scripture.

Asking me for evidence for Genesis is a cop-out as you are unable to supply proof of the claim made. No offence. [/quote]

I assumed you didn't drop out before middle school, but I shouldn't make assumptions.

Your turn!

Quote:Same with the issue of right and wrong. No grounds I must assume.

There are no objective grounds for morality.

Quote:If you can be clear on atrocities, I will be able to respond once you can please clarify why they are atrocities. I am not quite clear on what you mean by atrocities.

Stupidity or disingenuousness?

The Old Testament is rife with them. One example is 1 Samuel 15:3. The thing is, I've been down this path with other Christian psychopaths, so your response to this will be a special exception for your God. Save yourself the fingerwork.

Quote:Yes, the Bible gives us clear indication of right and wrong and that is the standard.

The Bible offers one viewpoint on what right and wrong is. It is no more substantial than anybody else's.

Quote:But if you wish to dispute anything being wrong, you must have a reason for saying so?

I would agree with the Bible's ideas, but I'm certifiably not a psychopath, so it doesn't resonate with me.

Quote:Some argue that it is in the best interest of society etc. Well, my friend, Hitler believed he acted in the best interest of society by creating a "super race"and eliminating the Jews. So does Hamas, Al-Qaeda think that they are "right". I do not know your personal leanings, but you may not agree with one or more of the "morals" of these groups/individuals. Why is your standard the correct one and theirs wrong ?

I never said mine is correct. Again, I can't tell you that genocide is wrong and make you agree, because you think that slaughtering children and raping captive women is good and moral.

So, where do we make the determination? Well, would you like to be raped by your captors? I can't speak for you on this, but your moral code doesn't give you any ground to object if it happened to you or someone you cared about--assuming you possess empathy.

Quote:I mentioned it elsewhere that we tend to think of "kind and gentle Jesus", but that is not the truth - only part of it, as He invites you to come to Him. But God's wrath will also be revealed against ungodliness. As Peter Kreeft mentions (I also read some of Catholic apologetic stuff, some of which are very good) "Whenever I speak of it, they are stunned and silent, as if they have suddenly entered another world. They have. They have gone past the warm fuzzies, the fur coats of psychology-disguised-as-religion, into a world where they meet Christ the King, not Christ the Kitten.
Welcome back from the moon, kids."

Oh, I definitely know better than to buy into the idea that Christ is gentle and loving. He's a spiritual blackmailer.

Quote:Really no offense meant, but you will not get a clear picture of Christ unless you personally and hopefully somewhat unbiased, read the Bible. Maybe start with John. Use the ESV or my personal "favourite" the King James, with commentaries by Barnes, or Matthew Henry.

It is logically impossible to get the truth from a source which is 100% biased in favor of the criminal you worship. [/quote]

(January 29, 2014 at 10:36 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(January 29, 2014 at 9:10 am)Carnavon Wrote: That is the exact point - the theory does not tie up with reality. Apart from that, a really substantial amount of information is necessary for a cell to function. This huge amount of information just appeared and exactly right to "create" this organism? This is not logical, not experimentally verified and statistically exceeding "no chance".

Did I ever say "cell"?
A cell is a very very advanced mechanism.... so you'd be right in your view that it'd take an extraordinary event for such a mechanism to just pop out of a few atoms..
But I didn't say "cell", now did I?

Nope, agreed you did not. But you will excuse my ignorance as I rely on theories of the first living organism Most evolutionary biologists theorize that the first living organisms were single-celled prokariotes similar to currently existing bacteria. So call it what you like but it seems to me that “cell” just about covers it.

(January 29, 2014 at 10:36 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(January 29, 2014 at 9:10 am)Carnavon Wrote: With them having solved all the issues, I would like to have a pair of wings - traffic congestion is killing me . You will know from objective analysis that all issues have not been resolved. Kindly consider the number of assumptions inherent in any of the theories.

I do... and the assumptions that go into the god hypothesis are also going into the pot...

It is not a hypothesis – it is a faith and one when the “source document” is subjected to scrutiny and whenever possible tested, is validated. On a number of occasions I have requested proof of error when a fact has been stated in the Bible. It should actually be really easy. There are thousands of facts stated in the Bible –

(January 29, 2014 at 10:36 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(January 29, 2014 at 9:10 am)Carnavon Wrote: Hi, the actual measured age of the earth is changing (adjusted from time to time as "new evidence" comes to light) but is again dependent upon certain assumptions - like uniformatism and a number of others.
It may interest you to read on the accelerating expansion of the universe, dumping a number of assumptions I believe and thus "scientists" have to review their theories.

Well, they may be revising the number to an ever increasing accuracy, but the consensus is in the order of 14by... give or take a few millions.

Consensus does not replace fact. It is fairly evident that assumptions that cannot be proven, invalidates the conclusions. Not by a few millions of years but totally inaccurate. Simple – if you have a 120 ml water left in a glass of 240 ml and presently drink at 20ml/minute, you can assume that you have been drinking for 6 minutes. Assumptions – the glass was initially full, you have been drinking at the same speed. Now change only one of your initial conditions- that the glass was full. Say it was 125ml? Imagine somebody keep refilling the glass every now and then? Your estimates will be totally wrong.
Kindly take note of the considerable number of fraudulent claims have been made in the name of evolution, as against none in the Bible. Now if these were two “persons”, I know which one I will rather believe. One may however choose to believe the one that has on several important occasions proved to be dishonest. Your choice.

(January 29, 2014 at 10:36 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(January 29, 2014 at 9:10 am)Carnavon Wrote: But on a more serious note - see if you can find "The sovereignty of God" by Arthur Pink. Maybe it is ridiculous of me to ask you to do this, as even "normal" Christians find this book a bit hard, but maybe it will give you an idea of who God is. Televangelists preach such a distorted gospel and I pity people who have to judge Christ by them. I trust you will consider it.
Have a fantastic day!

Does that book make the same mistake as all others I've been advised to read?
Oh, the mistake is to assume, right from the start, that god exists and is very well defined.
Well, if magic exists, anything is possible, and anything can be written about it... the imagination is the limit!

Enjoy your imagination!

Similar to books that you have been advised to read, it makes the same “mistake” of accepting God. All claim to represent Christianity, few do. Even foremost and acclaimed “church leaders” subscribe to heresies. Why is the book I suggest not just another heresy? Many would say so ( even in the “Christian” community ) – as it strongly affirms God’s sovereignty as against the disbelievingly popular “free will” or Arminianism. The reason for claiming “non-heretical” is its consistency with Scripture.

Imaginations? I would tend to agree and disagree with you. Agree – imaginations can run wild and especially if it is on a number of controversial subjects. In contrast to this, if it was just the imagination of people, it is really hard to believe that you will find the consistency throughout the Bible that you do. 66 Books written by 40 authors from different backgrounds (highly educated people, kings to lowly fisherman) over a period of 1500 years without collaboration and consistently saying the same thing ? Not even the James Bond movies are consistent despite collaboration and effort in respect of consistency during a period of a few decades? Come on, who is imagining things?

First off, there's something I have to get off my chest about your username.
As a World of Tanks player, it reminds me way too much of this tank:


The Caernarvon.
So... there you go, you now have an avatar to go with your username!

(January 30, 2014 at 5:19 am)Carnavon Wrote:

(January 29, 2014 at 10:36 am)pocaracas Wrote: Did I ever say "cell"?
A cell is a very very advanced mechanism.... so you'd be right in your view that it'd take an extraordinary event for such a mechanism to just pop out of a few atoms..
But I didn't say "cell", now did I?

Nope, agreed you did not. But you will excuse my ignorance as I rely on theories of the first living organism Most evolutionary biologists theorize that the first living organisms were single-celled prokariotes similar to currently existing bacteria. So call it what you like but it seems to me that “cell” just about covers it.

Let's not play word games, ok?
Organism, bacteria... those are very advanced structures.
A virus is alive and yet lacks a lot of the structures that a bacteria has.
I was talking about self-replicating amino-acid chains... something simple... something that can be built upon to develop all those organisms.

(January 30, 2014 at 5:19 am)Carnavon Wrote:

(January 29, 2014 at 10:36 am)pocaracas Wrote: I do... and the assumptions that go into the god hypothesis are also going into the pot...

It is not a hypothesis – it is a faith

No its not "a faith", whatever that means...
People have faith that that particular hypothesis is the correct one.
People have faith in other particular hypotheses....

If you ask me, it's not a very honest attitude towards reality, but hey... whatever keeps people happy, huh?

(January 30, 2014 at 5:19 am)Carnavon Wrote: and one when the “source document” is subjected to scrutiny and whenever possible tested, is validated. On a number of occasions I have requested proof of error when a fact has been stated in the Bible. It should actually be really easy. There are thousands of facts stated in the Bible –

Sure.... And tons of claims with no way to determine if they're truthful...
That Bible tends to have a very narrow testability... On the really important details, it's kinda impossible to test, unless you've deluded yourself into accepting that hypothesis as truthful, prior to actual evidence for it...

(January 30, 2014 at 5:19 am)Carnavon Wrote:

(January 29, 2014 at 10:36 am)pocaracas Wrote: Well, they may be revising the number to an ever increasing accuracy, but the consensus is in the order of 14by... give or take a few millions.

Consensus does not replace fact.

In science, it's the best we have.
If most (if not all) the experts agree that the models are pretty darn accurate and match with all the observations, then it is as good as fact.
Apples fall. Repeatedly, consistently, consensually at a very specific rate.

The current model for the initial expansion of the Universe fall in line with all the experiments carried out in nuclear accelerators. The model is then, the best we have to describe the early Universe.
Astrophysical observations fit with the same model.
Why should the model be wrong just because it does not require an assumption that people would prefer to be there?

(January 30, 2014 at 5:19 am)Carnavon Wrote: Kindly take note of the considerable number of fraudulent claims have been made in the name of evolution, as against none in the Bible. Now if these were two “persons”, I know which one I will rather believe. One may however choose to believe the one that has on several important occasions proved to be dishonest. Your choice.

what?... none in the bible?
How about the very first one that's not even written down? "there is a god and it is very well defined as [whatever you want it to be]".

(January 30, 2014 at 5:19 am)Carnavon Wrote:

(January 29, 2014 at 10:36 am)pocaracas Wrote: Does that book make the same mistake as all others I've been advised to read?
Oh, the mistake is to assume, right from the start, that god exists and is very well defined.
Well, if magic exists, anything is possible, and anything can be written about it... the imagination is the limit!

Enjoy your imagination!

Similar to books that you have been advised to read, it makes the same “mistake” of accepting God. All claim to represent Christianity, few do. Even foremost and acclaimed “church leaders” subscribe to heresies. Why is the book I suggest not just another heresy? Many would say so ( even in the “Christian” community ) – as it strongly affirms God’s sovereignty as against the disbelievingly popular “free will” or Arminianism. The reason for claiming “non-heretical” is its consistency with Scripture.

I sincerely do not care about what one believer says is more correct than another believer, when both refer to the same (or similar) deities.
They're all working on the same unsupported assumption, rendering them all dishonest.

(January 30, 2014 at 5:19 am)Carnavon Wrote: Imaginations? I would tend to agree and disagree with you. Agree – imaginations can run wild and especially if it is on a number of controversial subjects. In contrast to this, if it was just the imagination of people, it is really hard to believe that you will find the consistency throughout the Bible that you do. 66 Books written by 40 authors from different backgrounds (highly educated people, kings to lowly fisherman) over a period of 1500 years without collaboration and consistently saying the same thing ? [...] Come on, who is imagining things?

I once thought the bible was consistent.
Then I was shown wrong by Bart Ehrman....
But then the believers will always twist the words a bit so that some bits are metaphors, some bits need to be taken in light of the epoch, some bits are literal and some bits have tarnished memories included...
So, there's always an excuse... and that is why it's called apologetics, right? The art of making excuses to keep the story making some sense... "consistent" and all...

Now do tell me how a story generated at a given time and propagated through the populace, will be inconsistent with itself when someone else writes about that first story...
They may build upon it, add more elements... some bits may have been lost on the way and potential inconsistencies become consistent because the copies of the original aren't accurate...
I once read a book... it was a standard book. A story about an old king or prince, who never arrived at his intended destiny... it was the story of the 4th wise king... Fully consistent with the remainder of the bible... written some 2000 years after it... and could very well be included in the text for people from 5000 years in the future to puzzle over the accuracy of such account.
Does that consistency bit make it a truthful account?

Does magic exist?

And, as I always say, if I have to believe in the premise, then the whole building lacks credibility.

The truth of some of the facts of the bible have no effect on all the other 'facts' in the book. Spiderman lives in New York City. That is a real place, but does spiderman exist?

(January 30, 2014 at 10:59 am)Bad Wolf Wrote: The truth of some of the facts of the bible have no effect on all the other 'facts' in the book. Spiderman lives in New York City. That is a real place, but does spiderman exist?

Hi Bad Wolf. If you have historical records of reputable scholars that have no interest in Spiderman (actually wanted to kill the pesky man), reporting on him and in agreement with his "fans" you seem to be predisposed towards not believing despite the evidence.
Your sentiments about not believing anybody is strangely in accordance with Scripture Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

(January 30, 2014 at 10:59 am)Bad Wolf Wrote: The truth of some of the facts of the bible have no effect on all the other 'facts' in the book. Spiderman lives in New York City. That is a real place, but does spiderman exist?

New York is real?!?!

(January 30, 2014 at 11:29 am)Carnavon Wrote:

(January 30, 2014 at 10:59 am)Bad Wolf Wrote: The truth of some of the facts of the bible have no effect on all the other 'facts' in the book. Spiderman lives in New York City. That is a real place, but does spiderman exist?

Hi Bad Wolf. If you have historical records of reputable scholars that have no interest in Spiderman (actually wanted to kill the pesky man), reporting on him and in agreement with his "fans" you seem to be predisposed towards not believing despite the evidence.
Your sentiments about not believing anybody is strangely in accordance with Scripture Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Historical records that are not supernatural. .. WHAT is wrong with christians....

And in regards to scripture... what about... (2 Cor 11:12-14)

All it means is that the people who wrote the bible lived during a certain time and used the landscapes around them during their stories. That said, just because you have historians that share a view that you like does not make it true, you basically went from "question" to "conclusion" jumping over critical steps.

(January 11, 2014 at 3:00 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: I actually sat down and tried to work out if this is possible once, working on the basis that the kids would scatter and an estimate of the top speed of bears, the top speed of kids, and the time it takes for a bear to maul someone.

They probably used swipe.