Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
RE: Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)
February 8, 2011 at 12:07 pm
(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Hearsay! Luke never says he saw Jesus. All we have is hearsay from what others supposedly told him. If that is your standard, then you've set the bar pretty low.
Quote:Basic reading comprehension. You’ll notice I said that Luke says people saw Jesus.
And you'll notice this is the very definition of hearsay.
Quote:Many historians who never saw Nero still claim he existed and I will take their word for it. It is you who changes the height of the bar depending upon which historical figure we are talking about.
I'm hardly changing the height of the bar. Nero is mentioned in historical accounts of the period. He is mentioned in historical documents of the period. Is your godboy mentioned in ANYTHING written at the time he was supposedly alive? No? Didn't think so. My bar remains unchanged.
Quote:Not to mention your amazing inconsistency. Here you don’t believe in what Creationists claim apparently because they a in the minority and the great majority of scientists don’t believe in creation.
Uh... no. I don't dismiss the claims of creationist twerps because they're in the minority. I dismiss them because they have no credible evidence to support their claims.
Quote:However, then you turn around and give credence to an argument (Jesus was a myth) that the overwhelming majority of historians disagree with.
So what? There is no evidence that Jesus was a real person. Just like there is no evidence that Noah's flood actually occurred. I am highly skeptical of claims when there is no evidence to support those claims. My position is very consistent.
Quote:Even DickDawk, who would like nothing more than for Jesus to be a myth, admits in his book the God Delusion that Jesus “probably existed.”
Yes, he believes Jesus "probably existed". Again, so what? "Probably" leaves a lot of room for doubt. In fact, "probably" would not get a conviction in a court of law.
Quote:If you applied your same silly standards to other ancient historical figures you would have to say that none of them existed either.
I've answered this moronic argument several times already.
Quote:What? No names are ever given? The apostles all witnessed miracles and their names are given
Gee... that's impressive.
Quote:(James being mentioned by the historian Josephus).
Which means absolutely nothing.
Quote:Lazarus was raised from the dead and his name is given.
Okay... did ANYONE ELSE witness this miraculous event?
Quote: this proves nothing. People have died for their beliefs throughout history. That doesn't make their beliefs real.
Quote:I disagree, if the person truly knows the belief is a forgery (as the disciples would have if it were one) they are almost never willing to die for it.
And perhaps they genuinely believed. Just like the assholes who flew planes into buildings on 9/11 genuinely believed they would be rewarded with 72 virgins in paradise after they died committing their heinous deed. Doesn't mean either one of them are right.
Quote: Josephus was born AFTER Jesus supposedly died. Anything he writes (or supposedly wrote, the passages where he mentions Jesus are widely thought to be forgeries inserted at a later date) about Jesus is, at best, hearsay.
Quote:Actually the mentions of Jesus by Josephus are accepted as valid by the vast majority of historians such as Dr. James Hannam who is a professor of history at Cambridge University.
"The vast majority of historians"? <citation needed>
In any case, it doesn't matter! Josephus was not alive at the time Jesus supposedly walked the Earth. Therefore, he could not possibly have been an eyewitness. At best, anything from his hand is hearsay.
Quote:It’s just the cranks in the very small Jesus Myth crowd that do not accept these accounts.
Because they are (at best) hearsay! Show me something written by an historian who lived in or near Jerusalem at the time Jesus supposedly lived where the author talks about this man. There were plenty! Philo Judaeus, Seneca and Pliny the Elder all fill the bill. But not one of them mentions Jesus anywhere. Hmmmmm.... I wonder why....
Quote: Josephus was very much alive during the time that James, brother of Jesus, would have been starting portions of the early church.
And this does nothing as far as demonstrating that Jesus actually lived.
Quote:Your argument is pretty silly, by your same logic you’d have to say that no historian today could say that Henry VIII was ever real because that historian was born after Henry VIII was born.
Any historian writing about Henry VIII today would reference a primary source for his material. That would be a source who was an eyewitness to the period. I'll say it again.... ya got anything like that for your godboy?
Quote:Well as I pointed out, that manuscript is a copy of the original,
And as I pointed out, we don't have the original to compare it to. So how do we know how accurate of a copy it is?
Quote:so it is safe to say the original could have very well been written within the same decade as Jesus’ death.
It doesn't matter when the original was written if we don't know what the original said. And we also don't know who wrote the original!
Quote:Well just like today, it is very easy actually to tell if something is a copy or the original because the copier indicates this on the manuscript.
So this proves it's a copy. And your point is....?
Quote:As for any changes, they would have been easy to spot once this manuscript was cross checked with other manuscripts found in other regions.
And this proves.... what? Maybe the copy was used to produce other manuscripts. This would mean all subsequent copies could be cross-checked, but it doesn't mean the first copy has errors or embellishments.
Quote:It’s a good thing scripture was copied and spread around so quickly, so altering of it would have been impossible.
What are you talking about? The Bible is altered TODAY! How many different versions of the Bible are out there? And they don't all match each other!
Quote: I just love when Creationists play this game! "There's no evidence that Jesus was a real person? Well, you can't prove (fill in the name of an historical figure from antiquity) was a real person! NYAAH! NYAAH! NYAAH!"
Actually, it's rather easy to prove Nero was a real person. He is mentioned in historical accounts of the time and his name appears in historical records of the period. The Colossus of Nero was even made in his image during his lifetime. Ya got anything like that for your godboy?
Quote:No sources huh? Oh well these historians of the day, were they Roman? If they were then I am sorry, you cannot use those because I cannot use the letters from the apostles since these could be biased sources.
This is not an issue of "biased sources". It's an issue of knowing who the sources were. For the most part, no one knows who wrote the letters from the apostles. And the ones where authorship is known do not mention an Earthly Jesus. Plus, these writings were composed decades after Jesus supposedly lived. Can't say the same for Roman historians.
Quote:As for the artwork, how do you know they were depicting a real person with this artwork and not a legendary hero?
Google "Colossus of Nero" and find out for yourself. This argument is just stupid.
Quote:I am sorry, you are going to have to do better.
No, you're the one who has to do better.
Quote: Logically? My Logic 101 professor would have failed you for exhibiting this type of "logic".
Quote:My history professor would have failed you for belonging to the “Jesus Myth” crank club.
Nice rebuttal. Has nothing to do with what I said.
Quote: What an incredible steaming pile of crap! So the Mayans, Incas and Aztecs all knew about your deity prior to the arrival of Spanish Conquistadors? How can you spew idiocy like this and expect to be taken seriously?
Quote:Look up the word “Suppress”, and maybe it will clear this up for you a bit.
Nice deflection. You still haven't addressed the question of how people living in the Americas prior to 1492 could have possibly known about a deity worshiped by Europeans.
Quote: Ordering people to stone someone to death shows he's a "just god"? Was he also being "just" when he said you can own slaves?
Quote:Where did he say you can own slaves?
I guess you don't know your Bible very well.
"And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have - from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover, you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves." Leviticus 25:44-46
Quote:Using your atheistic worldview, why would slavery in Bible times be morally wrong since you seem to assume this point?
Because slavery causes immense harm. It is wrong today, it was wrong then. It's ALWAYS wrong. Do you believe slavery is not wrong? After all, your deity in the sky endorses it. And there's no commandment prohibiting it. But there is a commandment that prohibits saying "Goddammit!". Which is worse? Imagine all the suffering that could have been prevented if your deity had included a commandment saying "Thou shalt not enslave thy fellow man".
Quote:Except Jesus and the devil didn't have a radio.
What makes you think a fallen Angel and the Son of God would need one?
I see my point sailed over your head. Not surprised.
Quote: NOWHERE in the Bible does it say he was shown all the kingdoms "supernaturally"! It doesn't say they were conjured up before him, or that the kingdoms appeared on the clouds, or that the devil gave him a pair of amazing glasses that allowed Jesus to see all the kingdoms of the world. The way the passage is written leaves only one possible interpretation. He was taken to the top of a high mountain where he could see all the kingdoms of the world. AN IMPOSSIBILITY!
Quote:What are you talking about? It’s obviously a supernatural event because you can’t see all the kingdoms of the world from a single mountain top.
No, it is NOT "obviously a supernatural event". But, of course, you have to run with this crappola because you need some way to explain something that can't be explained. However, you are right that you can't see all the world's kingdoms from a mountaintop.
Quote:It never says that when Jesus healed the blind that it was a supernatural event, but I know it was because you can’t naturally rub mud on someone’s eyes and have them be healed.
By definition, healing someone with a touch of the hand is a miracle. There is no miracle involved in showing something to someone from the top of a mountain. This passage only makes sense if you believe the world is flat. Otherwise, why would you have to take someone to a mountaintop to show them the world's kingdoms? Why not do it in a valley? Or inside a house?
Quote: Hmmmm... I noticed you didn't try to refute my response to your "Mt. St. Helens proves the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood" bullshit. Maybe you've learned the difference between water quickly creating a canyon in volcanic ash and water very slowly creating a canyon in solid rock?
Quote:Oh no, I just thought that was a bit of a dead horse. The Little Grand Canyon did not actually cut through ash, but rather sediment that had been laid down a few days earlier (600 feet worth).
Yeah, sediment that was composed of ash.
Quote:This is exactly what we believed happened at the Grand Canyon, the receding waters cut through thousands of feet of sediment laid down by the flood.
Except the "sediment" at the Grand Canyon was solid rock! This is far different than cutting a channel through ash and mud.
Quote:To form a canyon you need either a lot of water in a very short period of time or a little water in a long period of time. Unfortunately for your side of the aisle we have never scientifically observed the latter to take place, though we have observed the former.
(Sigh) We don't have to directly observe a canyon being formed to know how it was formed. You just refuse to accept it because it contradicts your moronic holy book. Open your eyes and join the real world.
Science flies us to the moon and stars. Religion flies us into buildings.
God allowed 200,000 people to die in an earthquake. So what makes you think he cares about YOUR problems?
RE: Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)
February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Quote: You just made my day mate
Well at least someone on here gets my sense of humor :-P
Quote: Non answer.
Yes, a supernova occurs every 25 years on average, but you have failed to address the fact that it takes a star millions of years to arrive at the supernova stage.
Fail.
I thought it was quite obvious that not all the stars were created at the same level of maturity (can’t think of a reason as to why they would be actually). Guess that’s what I get for assuming huh? You still can’t explain why there are zero observable state three remnants, fail.
Quote: In the absence of a viable mechanism for how ASC works it is more than personal opinion.
Well the math works completely fine with ASC and isotropic propagation of light is by no means a necessity of nature, so I guess it really was just your opinion.
Quote: Citations please or I'm calling bullshit on this one.
Relativity: The special and general Theory By Albert Einstein
Quote: Since you have yet to prove that god even exists, saying that colliding galaxies are evidence of his glory can only be idle speculation on your part. All the available evidence actually indicates a random, uncaring universe so I have no requirement to demonstrate that they don't serve a purpose.
Since God’s existence was what we were talking about this of course is a circular argument, I suggest you either rephrase it or don’t use it.
A: God does not exist because colliding galaxies serve no purpose so why would he create them?
Question: How do you know they serve no purpose?
B: Well since God does not exist, they are obviously just random events.
Quote: Just made me LOL.
As to the observer holding the mirror, according to ASC the beam of light departs the emitter at half c, strikes the mirror and returns at infinite velocity. Yet, also according to ASC the observer should see that light beam coming towards them at infinite velocity then departing at half c , so the light beam is simultaneously travelling at two different velocities. And that is without considering the fact that it violates the law regarding conservation of energy and most known physics.
So even if Einstein did initially consider ASC, it is very easy to see why he would have rejected it
I figured someone would get a kick out of that. My humor is not completely wasted on here.
Again you are thinking too much in classic Newtonian physics and not in relativistic physics. Since it is impossible to synchronize the two clocks at observer A and B, according to observer B’s clock the light will arrive instantaneously at observer B and moves away from observer A at 0.5C according to observer A’s clock. The math works perfectly actually, and this is why Einstein was originally going to use an ASC.
Quote: i hat fukkers hoo cant evin spel.
Then you hate a lot of posters on here.
Quote: Reasonable debate involves two reasonable sides. Creationism does not constitute one such side.
Ill-informed personal opinion.
Quote: It seems that in the devonian epoch the earth had days of between 396 and 402 days. The earths rotation has slowed since because of the gravitational drag of the moon.
Evidence for this is in coral ring growth from the time.
But see here how the creationists get their sums wrong by not taking into account the difference in the effect of the moon due to the changes in the oceans and continents, they fail to see the big picture and concentrate on little tiny bits.
Only problem is, according to current lunar recession rates, the moon could not have even been around during the supposed Devonian era without violating the Roche limit.
Quote: Well, I have to say that your latest post has been the most amusing post yet.
There are so many baseless assumptions that you use to 'prove' your point of view that this entire discussion is quickly becoming pointless since it is absolutely clear that you either don't know what you're talking about (such as in the case of genetics or the evidence behind big bang/oort cloud/abiogenesis/evolution) or you include what appear to be outright fabrication.
Wait, are we talking about my posts or your posts here? I am confused :-P
Quote: This is why most people soundly reject literalist creationism - even if they don't buy evolution these days.
It’s a good thing truth is not based on consensus opinion huh? You should know this, but I am not surprised you don’t.
Quote: A few points:
First of all, every scientific organization in the world disagrees with you. Since the USNAS is a collective of those organizations and I've provided linked articles, books, and papers saying the exact opposite of what you said above, I'll take their clearly and thoroughly resesarched word over your 'armchair' "it disagrees with my worldview therefore it doesn't exist" "science" since that's clearly the only thing you have provided me with concerning the topics of evolution, big bang, oort cloud, and so forth.
Second of all, the National Academy of Sciences, being among the litany of links above more than once, is a government body that does everything from conduct research among its constituant member organizations to provide information for key US policy decisions concerning science, education, and technology. They, like so many other scientific bodies internationally and in the united states, ascribe to evolution, big bang, oort cloud, abiogenesis, and others precisely for the precise reasons I highlighted in the previous post. Until you can not only provide evidence that these things are wrong but can also provide me with a reason why creatist scientists are scientists other than your 'assurance', then your word means nothing. The USNAS isn't the final authority on what science is nor have they pretended to be but their representation of what science is and is not is not refuted by any scientific body anywhere. Further, you've wasted my time with this response by making a baseless assumption (evolution is unsupported by their own definition) without providing evidence of any kind that this is true other than your assumption, which doesn't support anything other than your own opinion, which is irrelevant to the discussion.
This is hilarious, if the National Academy of Science is a collection of “world” scientific groups then why is it called the National Academy of Science rather than the International Academy of Sciences? Your childish view of the infallibility of science is downright sad actually. The USNAS could come out with a statement saying blacks scientifically are not humans, and I am sorry but I would continue believing they were humans because the USNAS does not determine definitions for me despite what you may believe.
Quote: Third of all, I'm sure there are plenty of scientists who ascribe to your form of creationism or another, but they are deeply in the minority. Moreso than atheists among the general population, as scientists roundly reject creationism, as highlighted in a few of the links above and right here. Given that I have already provided evidence that creation scientists aren't scientists numourous times over this and other posts with little response from you other than "nope", then the only reasonable conclusion I can reach is that you're wrong. Utterly and definatively.
Forth, in addition to not providing evidence against creationism not being science and therefore creation scientists not being scientists (despite scientists roundly rejection creationism and the "scientists" that preach it), evolution and big bang having plenty of evidence for it and those being actual sciences according to virtually every governmental, organizational, and distinguished place of research I could find with plenty to spare. Not one of them is promoting creatoinism as a legitimate form of science or anything like science. It's pseudoscience. Pure and simple. You are, as always, invited to prove otherwise but if your last post is any indication, I'd only be setting myself up for disappointment.
So first you say creationists are not scientists, but then you say there are plenty of scientists who believe in creationism? Contradictions abound. I have done plenty to prove to you otherwise actually. I have listed dozens of great scientists who were creationists, I have demonstrated that the actual definition of science does include creationism and all you have done is say, “well my beloved National Academy of Science says they are not scientists so meh!” Rather disappointing actually.
So let’s look at the dictionary definition of science one last time…
Science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
Let’s see, do creationists study the physical and natural world? Yes! Do they gain knowledge about it and its origins? Yes! How do they gain this knowledge? Through observation and experimentation! Are creationists then by definition scientists? Yes!
That was too easy.
As to the USNAS’s own definition of science not applying to the Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution…
It said science must be directly observable and repeatable; you let me know the next time we directly observe and can repeat the big bang, abiogenesis, and common descent. Until then, I guess these thing are unscientific according to your beloved USNAS that is of course.
Quote: those being actual sciences according to virtually every governmental, organizational, and distinguished place of research I could find with plenty to spare. Not one of them is promoting creatoinism as a legitimate form of science or anything like science.
Fact is not based on majority opinion, you should know this but I am not surprised you don’t. The majority of the government agencies in Nazi Germany believed Jews were an inferior race, somehow I think you’d be right in line with them considering how much clout you put into government agencies.
Quote: Yes, creationists have a fundemental presupposition about reality that prevents them from conducting anything like science as the very definition of what 'creation scientists' are defies how science is conducted. As such the very term 'creation scientist' is an oxymoron.
You keep thinking that, I’ll keep thinking Isaac Newton and von Braun were both real scientists.
Quote: Back peddling from what? I guess if you have such a desire to see me wrong on something that you want to see me wrong on a claim I never made, sure, whatever, I don't care that I was wrong on a claim that I never made.
The reason I've made a game of having you prove certain things is for the very reason that I know you can - immediatley and definatively. The reason I find this interesting and ultimately the reason I had you bother at all is because given the fact that I know you can prove your point in some manner or another, it speaks volumes when all you can give me in regards to proving evolution isn't science is your statement that it isn't. Or when you do respond, it's given weak excuses - also with no evidence.
For example, your excuses as to why all of my flat-earth quotes wasn't evidence that the bible's interpretation fo the earth was the biblical flat earth model I linked at a later time and indicated in my posts. You've given me plenty of reasons and good reasons why those are metaphor, which interests me greatly considering that not only did my provided dictionary definitions and examples of metaphor disagree with you but the fact that you roundly rejected my literalist interpretation of those passages in the bible as someone who interprets the bible literally.
I never said evolutionists were not scientists, I just said they were not according to the USNAS’s silly definition for reasons I have already addressed above.
As to the literal interpretation, I already pointed out that you did not understand what biblical literalism is. I have no idea why you have continued to ignore that point.
Quote: So what did all flat-earth and 'getting you to prove things' that prove to me?
1) You can't prove jack. You've not given me any solid reason to reject the 'flat earth' quotes of the bible that I don't already use to reject every other passage in the bible. I already view the entire collected work as fictional but the point is that you do not. I would have been surprised if you had given me some solid bible-based evidence to the contrary, but all i got instead was a rather flimsy excuse, which only tells me that your reasons for believing in the six-day creation and noah's flood is also based on flimsy reasons that you solidly believe in and you've shrouded your delusions in piles and piles of flimsy pieces of what I loosely call 'evidence,' based entirely around baseless rejections of modern scientific discovery that, whether you choose to admit it or not, is based off of the same scientific processes as what you call 'observational science.'
Well I guess I could just pull a page from your playbook here. Nearly all biblical scholars and major biblical organizations and universities disagree with you on this point. Now I know why you always take this approach! It is easy to do and requires very little effort.
As I have already pointed out, your same logical reasoning when applied to other pieces of writing is not consistent, so therefore it is in error. We could go back and play that game again if you’d like?
Quote: Further evidence of that is your flimsy refutation of the Oort Cloud as being not based on observation. The truth is (that I've already evidenced from the links in my previous post that you've failed to address with anything other than your word that they're wrong) that they inferred its existance based entirely on observational evidence - because its existances is a postulation based on the observed behavior of comets.
Oh so they have not actually observed the Oort cloud? I didn’t think so. Can you prove to me that it is really an Oort cloud out there and not the Flying Spaghetti Monster or a Giant Teapot causing those comets to behave like that? I love it when atheists use the very same reasoning they bash on theists for using.
Quote: Your proof of Bacon being a creationist lacked any evidenced that he interpreted the bible literally as you do. Even christians that believe in evolution and don't take the bible literally word-for-word would say the same thing - that god created humans, the universe, and the earth, but that he created it in a way that complies with modern scientific understanding of our natural world.
As such, you have proven him to be a christian, but not necessarily a creationist, but that point is secondary.
Ahh, so you believe Bacon ascribed to a form of hermeneutics that post-dates him by about 200 years? Yeah good luck with that. Liberal Hermeneutics in the protestant church did not arise until the 19th century. Reformed Christians such as Bacon and Newton in the 17th and 18th centuries were biblical literalists.
Quote: I don't need the bible to prove Newton's laws of gravitation, kepler's laws of planetary motion, Von Braun's rocketry, and so on.
You are right, but you do need a biblical world. Its existence is irrelevant to your acceptance or denial of its truth. It is obvious that Newton, von Braun and Kepler also did not need to believe the earth was billions of years old or that the universe arose by the big bang because they did not believe these things and still conducted their science fine. So your point is rather silly.
Quote: Despite your stated importance of christianity to modern science, you have yet to make a direct connection between christianity and any modern science. At best, you've proven that many of the greatest contributors to modern science were themselves christian and I do not deny that at all. What I am telling you about their contributions is that their religion is entirely irrelevant to those contributions. These people could have just as easily arrived to their conclusions as atheists, muslims, or any other faith given the opportunity. As such, you don't really have the reason or the evidence to support any claim that science owes its existance to the christian faith.
3) I'm entertained that you think you've evidenced every arguement you've made, but a casual stroll though your posts prove otherwise.
I did quote several of the numerous historians who do believe that modern science owes everything to the Christian reformation. If you want to deny this historical fact, be my guest. I have also demonstrated that science is only possible in a biblical world, you can deny this, but it does not change the truth of the statement.
I do find it interesting that you lump atheism in with the “other faiths”, I hope nobody else saw you do that on here or we may have an atheistic brawl on our hands.
Quote: I thought I've been clear about my reasoning here, but let's get something out of the way.
The difference between creationism and evolution/old earth is that the latter two are neccessary for certain fields of scientific research. A geologist would have to know and understand the practices and concepts that lead to old earth because they are scientific concepts that are necessary in the field of geology - same for evolution and biology. Creationism isn't necessary for any scientific field and is entirely incompatible with several scientific concepts required for those scientific fields - like astronomy, biology, and geology.
Wrong. Creationism is necessary for the field of creation science just like evolution is necessary for the field of evolutionary biology. As for your claim that geology and astronomy require an old universe and earth… there are young earth creationists who are geologists and astronomers so I guess it really is not a necessity. After all Kepler and Galileo both believed in a young universe and they are two of the greatest astronomers in history.
[quote They certainly did find their way into the history books, but as I showed, they didn't find their way there because of any religious connotation. [/quote]
His worldview drove his science.
Quote: Bullshit. You have no evidence of either of those things.
Forgive me for demanding more from my operational sciences than you do. No comet has ever been observed to be capable of lasting over 10,000 years. We see comets today. This leads away from an old universe model, so invoke the ad hoc and viola we have an Oort cloud. Many astronomers are actually moving away from the Oort cloud hypothesis today, I assure you they will come up with some other ad hoc though; I just hope it is the FSM!
Quote: Scientists, by definition, must arrive to their conclusions objectively and their discoveries must be falsifiable, as I have shown in my previous post. As such, this 'statement' is entirely, utterly, and completely wrong.
This is actually the fallacy of pretended neutrality. There is no neutral ground in the creationism vs. non-creation debate so nobody is objective.
Quote: Oh statler, that won't be necessary. These people's opinions are irrelevant.
I've already linked in my previous post and this one a great deal about the history of science from a litany of sources about this sort of thing, which has proven that christianity (the religion) was not a contributing factor in general to science.
My sources and evidence trump your quote-mining of people's opinions on the matter from biased websites, as I managed to trace those quotes to strictly creationist websites. I couldn't find anythign anywhere else that agreed with those statements.
I love it! “Statler, your historians from such prestigious universities as Cambridge don’t matter to me, but my sources such as Wikipedia are infallible.” Well I will stick to the historians you can stick to wiki.
Quote: Why do you assume that the only way to test the reliability of my senses would absolutely require that I use something other than my senses? I can prove that a flashlight is unreliable by using it because it'll either produce a cone of light or it will not. I can prove my vision is unreliable by trying to discern whether or not I can see accurately see or not - my vision either works, it doesn't, or it produces a false result.
You cannot know the result is false without testing it some way, this test of course requires the use of your senses. I can’t believe even this simple point goes over your head.
Quote: If none of my senses are reliable, then I cannot function as a person.
How do you know that all of your senses are not unreliable for your entire life? You better not say, “Because I am functioning as a person” because that would be circular.
Quote: ... by producing positive results.
Which is something that unreliable senses cannot do, whether we honestly realize it or not.
This neither requires assumption nor presupposition.
How do you know unreliable senses can’t produce positive results? Sounds like a presupposition to me.
Quote: Without my memory, I wouldn't be a person. I would be a useless hump of flesh that couldn't possibly understand or comprehend anything.
Source? Personhood is not defined by functionality.
Quote: Just as with senses, my memory proves its reliability by working reliably.
Circular argument. How do you know it has worked reliably in the past? Oh yeah, you remember it doing so huh? Lol.
Quote: Constantly producing false memories is something that unreliable memories do.
How would you know they were false?
Quote: That is to say that if I'm constantly remembering things that happened or remembering things that didn't happen, then I can prove those things as such.
No you couldn’t, not without presuppositions.
Quote: And I just gave you - the very quote that your response immediately above is a response to - is exactly the reason why anyone and everyone knows and understands why the future will necessarily resemble the past. Your fictional novel is utterly irrelevant in this equation.
No I am sorry, I will not allow you to be so intellectually lazy. How do you know that the bed you fall asleep on tonight will still be a bed tomorrow?
Quote: That is so strawman, that you even fit it into a single sentence above!
I said that naturalism is supported by evidence and that supernaturalism isn't and I even showed you how this was and why.
Here. I just bolded the offending portion which I never said that makes the strawman.
So you actually believe that the only things that are real are those made up of energy and matter like naturalists do? I would advise you to be cautious in how you answer this.
Quote: I'm sure you think that god did it - no surprise there. I'm telling you that logic is a reflection of the way people think, which is to say that logic is a product of the human mind. Your attribution of logic as solely the property of your deity is needlessly extranious.
As to your odd request... do you even understand what you're saying anymore? Seriously - what the hell does your request have to do with anything?
What a disappointment. The laws of logic are not the way people think, but rather the way people ought to think. If they are just the way people thought then there would be no such thing as logical fallacies because many (I’d even argue a majority of) people think in a manner that is logically fallacious. So I am sorry, it is quite obvious that the laws of logic are not determined by the way people think, but rather they are an outside standard that people ought to adhere to which is more accurate with the biblical view on the matter.
As to your failure to deliver my request, disappointing but not surprising. I knew you could not do it.
Quote: My objection to creationism is that there is no evidence for it, not that it isn't falsifiable. The fact that creationism hasn't produced any falsifiable evidence is the reason why creationism isn't science. So... definately not having this thing both ways.
Well you should be aware that creationists say that DNA is strong evidence for a creator. Since you said that creationists don’t produce any falsifiable evidence then I’d advise you not to try and falsify this claim so you don’t look ridiculous by contradicting yourself. The only problem is, if you don’t try and refute this claim, the claim stands un-refuted, so I guess you have really put yourself in an awkward lose-lose situation.
Quote: However, your attempts to prove that he was only able to do his science because of his faith (which is to say that he couldn't have invented the theory of gravitation without his faith in christianity) was wrong and obviously so.
Not what I said, I said he could only do his science if the biblical world was accurate. A person who does not believe air exists needs air in order to live and make an argument against the existence of air, just as someone who does not believe in the biblical world needs a biblical world in order to conduct science and argue against the biblical world.
Quote: That's not what I asked for at all. What I'm asking from you is the same before as it is now.
You claimed that Von Braun was a christian/creationist scientist and you gave me nothing toward this end, as none of Braun's work, NASA, and the Apollo program itself, and everything in between was not christian. I wanted you to connect christianity to the science that Von Braun did - to affirm your positive claim that Christianity was an inevitable part of the science behind his work, which would be the reason he was the head of the Apollo program to confer with your overall points about christianity behind the basis of (among other things apparently) science.
Why would you want evidence that his historical science views somehow drove his operational science views? The two are apples and oranges. You really do baffle me sometimes.
Quote: What you have given me is a scientist who is incidently a creationist
Well I guess this refutes your claim that creationists can’t be scientists.
Quote: So let me get this straight - you think that the reason behind the delay of voyager's transmissions to earth is due to voyager's clock being out of sychronization with earth's, which is due to relativity? You honestly don't think that the scientists at NASA are capable of synchronizing voyager's clock properly so that the instsantaneous travel of radio waves is noticable?
For the whole reason of "Nope, cannot be done"?
Huh? Again, you obviously do not know what a synchrony convention is. It is a way of synchronizing clocks! So they can do it, but they have to use the ESC which assumes that light travels at the same speed in all directions. They could just as easily synchronize the two clocks using the ASC, which would then have light moving in different directions at different speeds relative to the observer. So we are just talking past each other.
Quote: If this weren't the case, communication between astronaughts on the moon during apollo's earliest days would have seen twice the delay to the moon and no delay in return.
If they had used the ASC to synchronize the clocks it certainly would have. They did not use it though; they used the ESC, so who knows what you are trying to prove here.
Quote: Instead, we get exactly as Einstein predicted - the speed of light is the same in all directions irrespective of the position or speed of the observer
Indeed it does, using clocks that have been synchronized using ESC. If you synchronize them using ASC, light moves instantaneously towards the observer and 0.5C away. I guess all this proves is one of two things…
A) You never actually read Dr. Lisle’s paper; you just read aricles written by people who did not understand it.
B) You yourself read the article but did not understand it.
I actually emailed the article to one of my physics professors I had in college who worked for NASA at one point and asked him if he saw any problems with the paper. Of course he said that there are no problems with it because synchrony conventions are exactly that, they are conventions. So if scripture is using an ASC, it would be inappropriate to suggest it is wrong by using an ESC.
[quote Not true. Commands would be sent to probes and astronaughts at half speed while they'd be returned isntantaneously - neither of which happen, given the evidence I've presented. [/quote]
Using clocks that had been synchronized using ASC this would have absolutely happened. I am getting so bored with this topic because it’s clear by now it is well over your head.
Quote: the perception of time changes when an observer approaches the speed of light. If observers are not travelling at relativistic speeds, then the entire point is moot.
When we are talking about relativity, we are almost always talking about velocities close to C since that is when it becomes relevant. I thought this would be clear.
Quote: I'm sure AIG said that, but they aren't scientific in any sense of the term, as I proved in my last post.
Actually according to the dictionary they are. It holds more weight than your personal opinion on the matter.
Quote: Really? He's performed experiments with testable results? That thing he explicitly stated couldn't be done?
Well it can be done using a synchonry convention which of course is what the whole paper you never read is about.
Quote: No - what you have done is that you've chosen a frame of reference of one specific thing to one specific person and stated that the earth doesn't move in relation to that person.
What I have told you is that the earth is moving. Period. People on the earth move with the earth regardless of your frame of reference and that bible passage flatly stated that the earth was stationary with no such qualifiers that you have to add to the bible passage in order to make your statement true..
Where in the verse does it say that the earth does not move in relation to the sun? I believe it just says the earth does not move in relation to itself, which it does not of course. No issues with the verse.
Quote: Arguement from Incredulity.
Lol, look this up, because it doesn’t mean what you obviously think it means. Just because I used the word incredible does not mean I committed this fallacy.
Quote: Don't worry, you are and it was blatantly obvious several posts ago - the reason being for all the reasons I've stated because you've decided to listen to people who think the bible contains facts about humanity, life, the universe, and the earth. - Evolutionary geneticists can and have in those links determined the average age of people from the past using genetics, among other fun examples.
Also the fact that telomeres aren't as indicitive of long life as you think they are, but that's okay, it just tells me that you glossed over them and quickly posted this without really reading, which also doesn't surprise me given your responses thus far.
Yeah I was just really hoping that when we were talking about telomeres that you would provide articles about telomeres and not chicken with teeth. Given your posts to date and tendency towards drifting way off topic though I guess I could not be very surprised.
The fact of the matter is that the biblical chronologies follows a very nice sigmoid curve, which I guess those pesky Jews when they wrote the scriptures, could have known this is very common in nature and done this on purpose. They could have, but then we are getting to explanations that seem far more implausible than just believing the Bible is the inspired word of God.
It is actually you who is arguing from incredibility, saying that the bible patriarchs living to be 900 is just too incredible to be true. There is actual growing research suggesting that humans do not have an upper age limit, and given the right conditions could live to be 1,000 (some believe people alive today will live to 1,000). So I don’t believe the stories in the bible are that incredible at all, after all, most cultures has stories of people living far greater life spans in the past including the Romans, Chinese, and Greeks.
Quote: The genome, like all life on this planet, exists because the earth isn't in a closed environment. Perhaps you've heard of the sun and everything else in the solar system, which keeps supplying the planet with all the things to sustain life - including a constant infusion of massve amounts of energy. Don't worry though - most creationists seem to forget the first law of thermodynamics.
And yes, I would not call J.C. Sanford a scientist for all the reasons why I've stated that creationism isn't science, which also applies to intelligent design.
Oh so you claim to know a thing or two about thermodynamics huh? Well then you should also know that even an open system tends towards entropy. Not only this but without mechanisms already in place to guide the energy, unharnessed raw energy only increases entropy.
Well he is a scientist according to the dictionary, forgive me for putting more stalk in the dictionary than your personal opinion.
“There are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
-John Ross, Harvard University
It’s too bad that you are one of those people “perpetuating this error” lol.
Quote: Like I said, I never tried to. I don't really care about the subject in the least enough to put in the effort.
You're the one that states that all people everywhere deserve death for a crime that god knowingly inflicted upon man and calling him right to do so but refraining from murdering us all as 'loving.'
I've heard better excuses from victims of domestsic abuse.
Nah, I just realize that scripture is on completely solid logical ground here. Given your illogical viewpoint, it would be unjust to bomb a country that attacked you and declared war on you because not everyone in the country signed the decree of war (only their representatives did). That’s just absurd. I am just glad that God is not only a just God but a gracious one.
Quote: Depends on the rule and why it's in place. Bed times are one thing, but telling your children that murder is a sin despite them watching you murder one of their siblings because he ate a fruit out of the fridge you put there knowing full well one of them would eat it is an entirely different matter.
Not if you explicitly state that murder is only a sin when the children commit it, as God has done in scripture. As I have already pointed out, humans deserve death, so God killing is justice not murder since murder is by definition the unjust killing of an innocent.
Quote: As to christ's death, doesn't negate the fact that he was still being punished for something that no one had control over and god, being omnicient, knew full well would happen even before genesis 1:1. Yes, I've heard those excuses before, but they's all they are.
Huh? Giving up one’s life for someone who did not deserve it is the greatest act of love and mercy I can think of. Read “The Death of Death” and maybe this will clear up for you, but probably not.
Quote: I didn't state that he blamed atheism only after he became a christian, I said he had always been a believer. He attended church even before his murders and blamed his murders on religious figures both before and after he mentioned atheism and evolution and it was the only mention during the entire movie.
So attending church and believing in Satan makes you a believing Christian? Wow, I think there are a lot of Christians on here professing to be atheists since I have seen many members on here talk of how they went to church as children. Given this same logic, many Satanists today would be Christians since they worship the devil and I am sure many of them went to church as children. I am sure they would disagree with your crazy assertion here.
Quote: There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that he was actually an atheist.
Despite Dahmer’s own profession that he was one while he was killing? If you want to ignore this evidence be my guest, but don’t go and say there is no evidence.
[quote Finally, you haven't even evidenced that Dahmer was an atheist, let alone that he was acting within an atheist worldview, which I've also stated is a construction of your view of atheism and not one of any atheist, including myself. [/quote]
I can’t think of any better evidence than the person’s own profession of atheism which I have given you. Maybe you are not really an atheist yourself since all you have done is professed to be one. I figured you could not tell me how Dahmer was acting inconsistent with an atheistic worldview because he was not. He was actually a very good little atheist.
Quote: Great. So where is your proof that anything you said above is anything other than your own bullshit?
I don't see any links. I don't see any bibliographies. I don't see you even bothering to point to quotes this time around. I don't see times, places, or occurances of when any of these things happened. I don't see online or whatever statements by myself, hitchens, or dawkins contradicting themselves in any manner befitting your statements. I don't see any morally-relevant statements by any of these people, including myself, to the point you have clearly attempted to make.
Oh I am sorry, I just assumed you had read the God Delusion since that is wehre Dawkins calls molestation an “embarrassing but otherwise harmless action”.
In chapter 9, on page 316 of "The God Delusion" Dawkins writes,
“Nevertheless, it is clearly unjust to visit upon all pedophiles a vengeance appropriate to the tiny minority who are also murderers. All three of the boarding schools I attended employed teachers whose affection for small boys overstepped the bounds of propriety. That was indeed reprehensible. Nevertheless if, fifty years on, they had been hounded by vigilantes or lawyers as no better than child murderers, I should have felt obliged to come to their defense, even as the victim of one of them (an embarrassing but otherwise harmless experience).
This is all fine and dandy if Dawkins wants to look at molestation in this sick fashion, but then to turn around and say the Pope should be arrested on “crimes against humanity” for allegedly covering up what he earlier stated to be an “embarrassing but otherwise harmless experience” is downright absurd. Absurdness is what I have learned to expect from DickDawk though.
Quote: Let's take me for example - I say I value human life. I said that and I certainly mean that. How is condemning people for being the idiots they are inconsistent with my view that human life is generally valuable? Does viewing life and generally valuable mean that I can't or shouldn't condemn others for being idiots? I value human life, but that doesn't even mean that I don't, for example, believe in the death penalty. The only thing you've evidenced here is your own warped view of the collective morality of myself, Hitchens, and Dawkins and not the ones we actually possess.
I don’t think you are following what I am saying. It’s the fact that you say you “chose” to value human life which applies it is an arbitrary choice that someone can either choose or not and there is not an absolute right choice. So if this is indeed the case then you cannot consistently criticize someone else (like a murder) for making a different choice than you. Does that make any more sense? I commend you for valuing human life though.
Quote: ...or there are simply fewer atheists committing crimes.
I said the Klan was Christian. The distinction between a creationist and a christian is your problem. I wouldn't at all be surprised if you 'no true scotsman' him to make a point, but he's one example among others I could bring up both historically and recently.
As to Hitler, he's a Catholic or some other kind of Christian.
That’s the study you were talking about this whole time!? Oh man, I thought it was going to be something where they actually looked at rates within prisons, but it is not even that strong. They just look at rates between countries, so it commits the old “correlation equals causation” fallacy. When ice cream sales go up, so do murder rates, this guy would believe that ice cream causes murders haha.
The truth of the matter is, that if everyone on earth lived a consistently Christian lifestyle (i.e. slept with one person in their life, loved their enemies, and treated others as they would want to be treated) there would be zero STDs, and zero murder. So the whole study is just absurd, and just demonstrates humans’ need for that sort of lifestyle.
I figured you could not prove the leader of the Klan was a YEC, so I guess your whole point was rather silly.
Quote: Nothing says 'atheism' like "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the almighty creator."
As to him and Stalin believing an evolution, you haven't even provided a basis for evolution being a set of moral guidelines, let alone to it being the moral guideline that resulted in several genocides and massacres.
Never said he was an atheist, just said he was not a consistent Christian if he even is one, which that still point still stands.
Of course evolution has moral implications! If humans are really just distant cousins with pond scum then there is no real intrinsic value to human life. Organisms’ only purpose is to survive in an evolutionary world, so Stalin was almost a super organism while he murdered millions of his own people to ensure his survival and king-like lifestyle. The evolutionist has no basis to say that what Stalin did was in any way “wrong”.
You never answered my question, in an atheistic world, why is white supremacy morally wrong?
Quote: I never argued about what people aught to do or not aught to do. I argued about what people do. Perhaps it would make more sense if you had responded to the arguement I actually made and not the one you made for me.
That’s what morality is! The way humans ought to live. When you tell someone that it was morally wrong for them to kill someone else you are telling them that they ought to have not done it. So I am sorry, you are going to have to start over. I guess.
Quote: As fun as it is watching you constantly change the subject to topics more tenable to your position (which appears to require frequent strawman arguements), given that you're apparently either forgotten or run out of arguements against God being a murder under US and common law and according to the dictionary definition of the term, I suppose we can move this discussion toward my opinions of morality.
Well I thought I had already proven you wrong, since I had found definitions for murder say it had to be the killing of another human. I can do it again though.
Let’s look at the definition of Homicide, which is even broader than murder.
Homicide: The killing of one human being by another human being. (The Legal Dictionary)
Since God is not a human being, and since Homicide is a broader definition that encompasses murder, we can logically say that God does not murder.
Quote: To answer your questions - irrelevant, arbitrary, yes, and because it provides an environment that would allow people to indiscriminantly murder the enormous number of people unprotected by the law. (Just to point out, I've used the term here according to the dictionary definition of the term, which allows the more generalized definition. But if for some reason you're opposed to that, I can just use the term 'kill' or some other synonym.)
But if my country says it’s ok to kill anyone who is not a white straight male, then why would it be morally wrong? I thought there was no such thing as absolute morality.
Quote: What a wonderfully inept, inaccurate, and incorrect portrayal of all the evidence I provided for you. It's certainly yet another act of willing ignorance on your part, but I see neither evidence nor reason why what I've provided is either inaccurate in terms of proving that radiometric dating is inaccurate. Once again, all you've proven is that you don't know science.
What are you talking about? None of the sources you cited gave any examples of where radiometric dating has successfully dated a rock of known age. So you have no control. The onus is on you to demonstrate that the method works. If you can’t prove it works by dating a rock of observed known age; then I am sorry, I have no scientific basis to believe the method works.
Quote: Thank you, but I cannot return the favor. Your arguements are weak, your evidence nonexistant, your entire arguement based on a clearly and overtly biased source when you do bother to provide sources, you ignore evidence, and you frequently misrepresent my arguements as being other that precisely what I've presented them as being in order to have any arguement whatsoever.
Wait, are we talking about me or you here? By the way, I said I appreciate the discussion, not that you are in any way an accomplished debater.
Quote: I have no respect for people who so willingly and completely delude themselves as you have. This isn't a riff against those of the religious persuasion in general because having faith to me isn't an inherantly negative quality in an of itself. No. My distaste is of those who wield their faith like knowledge, their ignorance like fact, and profess faith in ideas and novelty over the very evidence of reality itself. You don't merely have a different outlook on reality, but actually a view counter to what reality has proven itself to be to everyone but those, like you, who have chosen to pretend reality is a particular way that conforms to your opinions and interpretations of your novel over those discoveries hard fought and won, often despite those with similar outlook to yourself.
There is no honor in that and no respect to be found there.
I am sorry, all that came to mind when I read this silly paragraph was this…
Quote: And you'll notice this is the very definition of hearsay.
That’s irrelevant. This is history we are talking about here, not a court case. When a historian records the existence of a historical figure it is generally accept whether or not that historian physically saw the person or not, especially in those days. Most people believed Caesar existed despite they themselves never seeing him.
Quote: I'm hardly changing the height of the bar. Nero is mentioned in historical accounts of the period. He is mentioned in historical documents of the period. Is your godboy mentioned in ANYTHING written at the time he was supposedly alive? No? Didn't think so. My bar remains unchanged.
Actually the gospel of Luke is believed to have been written shortly after Christ’s death. So I guess you were just wrong on this one.
Quote: So what? There is no evidence that Jesus was a real person. Just like there is no evidence that Noah's flood actually occurred. I am highly skeptical of claims when there is no evidence to support those claims. My position is very consistent.
Name me three Ph.D. historians who believe that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. I bet you can’t even name one because it’s a crackpot position to hold.
Quote: Yes, he believes Jesus "probably existed". Again, so what? "Probably" leaves a lot of room for doubt. In fact, "probably" would not get a conviction in a court of law.
We are not talking about a court of law, we are talking about history dingle-berry.
Quote: Which means absolutely nothing.
Well to someone like you no; to the experts on the subject it means a lot.
Quote: Okay... did ANYONE ELSE witness this miraculous event?
Yup, Lazarus’ family and Jesus’ disciples were all there.
Quote: And perhaps they genuinely believed. Just like the assholes who flew planes into buildings on 9/11 genuinely believed they would be rewarded with 72 virgins in paradise after they died committing their heinous deed. Doesn't mean either one of them are right.
How could they genuinely believe it if they made it up? The Muslims on 9/11 did not make up Islam, they just fell for it. The disciples would have to actually be the ones who created the forgery, so of course they would not genuinely believe it.
Quote: And this does nothing as far as demonstrating that Jesus actually lived.
Oh yeah, so James was starting a church that followed the teachings of his imaginary brother Jesus, riiiiiigggghhht.
Quote: Any historian writing about Henry VIII today would reference a primary source for his material. That would be a source who was an eyewitness to the period. I'll say it again.... ya got anything like that for your godboy?
Yup, Mark, Matthew, and John.
Quote: And as I pointed out, we don't have the original to compare it to. So how do we know how accurate of a copy it is?
Because hundreds of copies separated by hundreds of years and thousands of miles all agree on what the original said Scooter.
[quote So this proves it's a copy. And your point is....? [/quote]
Well you asked how we know it is a copy, so I told you scooter, try and keep up.
Quote: And this proves.... what? Maybe the copy was used to produce other manuscripts. This would mean all subsequent copies could be cross-checked, but it doesn't mean the first copy has errors or embellishments.
Nah, because we have found other manuscripts that date to the same time as this copy, that are hundreds of miles away, they could not have been made from this copy. Sorry.
Quote: What are you talking about? The Bible is altered TODAY! How many different versions of the Bible are out there? And they don't all match each other!
Yet they all affirm the essentials truths of the Christian faith, funny how that works.
Quote: Nice deflection. You still haven't addressed the question of how people living in the Americas prior to 1492 could have possibly known about a deity worshiped by Europeans.
Did you not read the passage? It says that Creation professes His existence.
Quote: "And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have - from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover, you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves." Leviticus 25:44-46
I do read my Bible, just wanted you to do some work for once. Well you should be well aware that the slaves in ancient Israel were not equivalent to the slaves taken by the Europeans out of Africa. The slaves in bible days were more like servants and were often a means of getting out of poverty and having a safe place to live and food to eat. History matters, but you don’t even believe Jesus was a real person, so I am not surprised you were ignorant to this historical fact.
Quote: Because slavery causes immense harm. It is wrong today, it was wrong then. It's ALWAYS wrong. Do you believe slavery is not wrong? After all, your deity in the sky endorses it. And there's no commandment prohibiting it. But there is a commandment that prohibits saying "Goddammit!". Which is worse? Imagine all the suffering that could have been prevented if your deity had included a commandment saying "Thou shalt not enslave thy fellow man".
You didn’t really answer the question, why would causing harm to others be wrong?
Actually taking the Lord’s name in vein does not have anything to do with “Godd***it”, but you would not know that because you don’t’ even think Jesus existed.
Quote: No, it is NOT "obviously a supernatural event". But, of course, you have to run with this crappola because you need some way to explain something that can't be explained.
I forgot who I was dealing with here, yes you are right it might not be obvious to someone like you, but to most people it is.
[quote Otherwise, why would you have to take someone to a mountaintop to show them the world's kingdoms? Why not do it in a valley? Or inside a house? [/quote]
Where in the passage does it say he had to go up there? It just says he went up there. When I go in the other room to answer the phone it does not mean I had to go in the other room to do this, just means I did it.
Quote: Yeah, sediment that was composed of ash.
Wrong again, sedimentary soil, not ash.
Quote: Except the "sediment" at the Grand Canyon was solid rock! This is far different than cutting a channel through ash and mud.
Actually numerous lines of evidence such as the Kaibab upheaval suggest the Grand Canyon was carved before it solidified to rock.
Quote: Sigh) We don't have to directly observe a canyon being formed to know how it was formed. You just refuse to accept it because it contradicts your moronic holy book. Open your eyes and join the real world.
By all means, keep believing in unobserved events by blind faith. God’s word says it is my eyes which have been opened; it is you who are steal suppressing the truth in your heart. I’ll take his word over yours.
I’ll leave you with some quotes from actual historians on Jesus and just how silly the Jesus Myth crowd is.
Quote: “There is said to be a Russian encyclopaedia in current use which affirms in a brief entry that Jesus Christ was the mythological founder of Christianity, but it is virtually alone in doing so. The historian will not take its statement very seriously, since ... it offers no evidence for its assertion, and mere assertion cannot stand over against historical enquiry. But more than mere assertion is involved, for an attempt to show that Jesus never existed has been made in recent years by GA Wells, a Professor of German who has ventured into New Testament study and presents a case that the origins Christianity can be explained without assuming that Jesus really lived. Earlier presentations of similar views at the turn of the century failed to make any impression on scholarly opinion, and it is certain that this latest presentation of the case will not fare any better.”
- Howard Marshal, Professor of History
“This sceptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth. But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms.... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.”
- Michael Grant, Atheistic Historian
“The Christian evidence for Christ begins with the letters ascribed to Saint Paul. Some of these are of uncertain authorship; several, antedating A.D. 64, are almost universally accounted as substantially genuine. No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh. The accepted epistles frequently refer to the Last Supper and the Crucifixion.... The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ. In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies, for example Hammurabi, David, Socrates would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so loft an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature of the history of Western man.”
- Will Durrant, Humanist Historian.
“Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the Palestinian community.”
- Rudolf Bultmann, Atheistic Professor of Historian
“Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely.... The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question.”
- Robert Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament
“Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which as to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher”
- Graham Stanton, Professor of History, Cambridge University
[quote] Non answer.
Yes, a supernova occurs every 25 years on average, but you have failed to address the fact that it takes a star millions of years to arrive at the supernova stage.
Fail. [/quote]
[quote]
I thought it was quite obvious that not all the stars were created at the same level of maturity (can’t think of a reason as to why they would be actually). Guess that’s what I get for assuming huh?
[/quote]What a lame argument, because they're new, why else. Or is this another demonstration of god as a pathological liar?
[quote]
You still can’t explain why there are zero observable state three remnants, fail. [/quote]
Because they have dissipated below the minimum observable limit, just like a cloud of smoke will.(Gee, that was hard)
[quote] In the absence of a viable mechanism for how ASC works it is more than personal opinion. [/quote]
[quote]
Well the math works completely fine with ASC [/quote]
What maths? This answer does not give the mechanism BTW
[quote]
and isotropic propagation of light is by no means a necessity of nature, so I guess it really was just your opinion. [/quote]
Try calculating E=mc2 without lightspeed as a constant
[quote] Citations please or I'm calling bullshit on this one. [/quote]
[quote] Relativity: The special and general Theory By Albert Einstein[/quote]
Which bits specifically?
[quote] Since you have yet to prove that god even exists, saying that colliding galaxies are evidence of his glory can only be idle speculation on your part. All the available evidence actually indicates a random, uncaring universe so I have no requirement to demonstrate that they don't serve a purpose. [/quote]
[quote]
Since God’s existence was what we were talking about this of course is a circular argument, I suggest you either rephrase it or don’t use it.
A: God does not exist because colliding galaxies serve no purpose so why would he create them?
Question: How do you know they serve no purpose?
B: Well since God does not exist, they are obviously just random events.
[/quote]
Well that makes no sense at all.
[quote] Just made me LOL.
As to the observer holding the mirror, according to ASC the beam of light departs the emitter at half c, strikes the mirror and returns at infinite velocity. Yet, also according to ASC the observer should see that light beam coming towards them at infinite velocity then departing at half c , so the light beam is simultaneously travelling at two different velocities. And that is without considering the fact that it violates the law regarding conservation of energy and most known physics.
So even if Einstein did initially consider ASC, it is very easy to see why he would have rejected it [/quote]
[quote]
I figured someone would get a kick out of that. My humor is not completely wasted on here.
Again you are thinking too much in classic Newtonian physics and not in relativistic physics. Since it is impossible to synchronize the two clocks at observer A and B, according to observer B’s clock the light will arrive instantaneously at observer B and moves away from observer A at 0.5C according to observer A’s clock. The math works perfectly actually, and this is why Einstein was originally going to use an ASC.
[/quote]
Ohh look!! E=mc2...... Guess the math for ASC don't work all that good after all.
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
RE: Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)
February 15, 2011 at 6:39 pm
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: And you'll notice this is the very definition of hearsay.
Quote:That’s irrelevant.
Glad to see you think it's irrelevant whether or not something crucial to your case is hearsay.
Quote:This is history we are talking about here, not a court case.
Yes, and whether or not something is truly "history" depends on first hand accounts and/or tangible evidence, NOT hearsay.
Quote:When a historian records the existence of a historical figure it is generally accept whether or not that historian physically saw the person or not, especially in those days.
When the historian lived at the time of the historical figure.
Quote:Most people believed Caesar existed despite they themselves never seeing him.
Back to the silliness vis-a-vis the existence of known historical figures, I see.
Quote: I'm hardly changing the height of the bar. Nero is mentioned in historical accounts of the period. He is mentioned in historical documents of the period. Is your godboy mentioned in ANYTHING written at the time he was supposedly alive? No? Didn't think so. My bar remains unchanged.
Quote:Actually the gospel of Luke is believed to have been written shortly after Christ’s death. So I guess you were just wrong on this one.
And this proves....? Luke never claims to have met an Earthly Jesus. He was not an eyewitness.
Fail.
Quote: So what? There is no evidence that Jesus was a real person. Just like there is no evidence that Noah's flood actually occurred. I am highly skeptical of claims when there is no evidence to support those claims. My position is very consistent.
Quote:Name me three Ph.D. historians who believe that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. I bet you can’t even name one because it’s a crackpot position to hold.
You probably don't even see the trap you just fell into. I point out how your position of a 6,000 year old Earth has no support in the scientific community and you dismiss it as an appeal to consensus. Now, you call my notion of a mythological Jesus "a crackpot position" because the majority of Ph.D. historians believe Jesus to have been a real person. How is this not an appeal to consensus? As you so loudly pointed out, consensus does not make for facts!
Quote: Yes, he believes Jesus "probably existed". Again, so what? "Probably" leaves a lot of room for doubt. In fact, "probably" would not get a conviction in a court of law.
Quote:We are not talking about a court of law,
True. But I would say that the minimum standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" should apply when researching history as well as determining guilt in a courtroom. Saying "probably" is little more than an educated guess. In fact, saying "probably" only means it's more likely than not. Which is 51%. Would you bet your life savings on a probability of 51%?
Quote:we are talking about history dingle-berry.
Nice job of slipping in an insult.
Quote: Okay... did ANYONE ELSE witness this miraculous event?
Quote:Yup, Lazarus’ family and Jesus’ disciples were all there.
Great! So, did Lazarus's family write about this miraculous event anywhere? Or is it just claimed by the author of John that they were there? Because I could make an outrageous claim and say "so-and-so witnessed it, too!"
Quote:How could they genuinely believe it if they made it up? The Muslims on 9/11 did not make up Islam, they just fell for it.
Kind of like how you've fallen for Christianity?
Quote: And this does nothing as far as demonstrating that Jesus actually lived.
Quote:Oh yeah, so James was starting a church that followed the teachings of his imaginary brother Jesus, riiiiiigggghhht.
There was a man who walked on water, was born of a virgin, healed people with a touch of his hand and rose up from the dead. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggghhhhht.
Quote: Any historian writing about Henry VIII today would reference a primary source for his material. That would be a source who was an eyewitness to the period. I'll say it again.... ya got anything like that for your godboy?
Quote:Yup, Mark, Matthew, and John.
BZZZZTTTT!!
Sorry, incorrect. We don't know who wrote these accounts. The names "Mark", "Matthew" and "John" were attached to these writings by the early church. Also, the earliest of these writings dates to around 70 CE. About four decades after Jesus supposedly died. The gospels are not eyewitness accounts as none of the unknown authors claim to have met an Earthly Jesus.
Nice try, but we do have some lovely parting gifts!
Quote: And as I pointed out, we don't have the original to compare it to. So how do we know how accurate of a copy it is?
Quote:Because hundreds of copies separated by hundreds of years and thousands of miles all agree on what the original said Scooter.
How can you say "they all agree on what the original said" when WE DON'T HAVE THE ORIGINAL?
Quote: So this proves it's a copy. And your point is....?
Quote:Well you asked how we know it is a copy, so I told you scooter, try and keep up.
Yes, we know it's a copy. This does nothing to prove it's an accurate copy of the original. Looks like you need to keep up.
Quote: What are you talking about? The Bible is altered TODAY! How many different versions of the Bible are out there? And they don't all match each other!
Quote:Yet they all affirm the essentials truths of the Christian faith, funny how that works.
Again with the deflections.
Quote: Nice deflection. You still haven't addressed the question of how people living in the Americas prior to 1492 could have possibly known about a deity worshiped by Europeans.
Quote:Did you not read the passage? It says that Creation professes His existence.
So people living in the Americas prior to Columbus "knew" of your specific deity because of "creation"?
Yeah, makes sense to me.
Quote: "And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have - from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover, you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves." Leviticus 25:44-46
Quote:I do read my Bible, just wanted you to do some work for once. Well you should be well aware that the slaves in ancient Israel were not equivalent to the slaves taken by the Europeans out of Africa.
And here we go with the horseshit that it was a "kinder, gentler slavery". What kind of "loving" god would EVER say that it's okay to keep your fellow human beings in chains?
Quote:The slaves in bible days were more like servants and were often a means of getting out of poverty and having a safe place to live and food to eat.
And here's the bullshit claiming that slaves back then were actually indentured servants. Try reading the passage I quoted again. It always cracks me up when believers justify slavery to defend their holy book.
Quote:History matters, but you don’t even believe Jesus was a real person, so I am not surprised you were ignorant to this historical fact.
And this "historical fact" does not relate to the passage I quoted.
Quote:You didn’t really answer the question, why would causing harm to others be wrong?
I didn't say causing harm to others is wrong. I said we should act to minimize harm. Not the same thing.
Quote:Actually taking the Lord’s name in vein does not have anything to do with “Godd***it”, but you would not know that because you don’t’ even think Jesus existed.
Actually, if you lived in a religious community say around 1600 and said, "Goddammit!" you would have been found guilty of blasphemy for using god's name in vain. This is why people would say something like "Gotdang!" or "Goshdarn!". But I wouldn't expect you to know any of this.
Quote: No, it is NOT "obviously a supernatural event". But, of course, you have to run with this crappola because you need some way to explain something that can't be explained.
Quote:I forgot who I was dealing with here, yes you are right it might not be obvious to someone like you, but to most people it is.
Yes, keep running with the rationalization that "it's obviously a supernatural event!" Never mind what the passage ACTUALLY SAYS.
Quote:Otherwise, why would you have to take someone to a mountaintop to show them the world's kingdoms? Why not do it in a valley? Or inside a house?
Quote:Where in the passage does it say he had to go up there? It just says he went up there.
Yes. It says he went up there and was shown all the kingdoms of the world. Pretty straightforward if you ask me.
Quote:When I go in the other room to answer the phone it does not mean I had to go in the other room to do this, just means I did it.
Yeah, great analogy....
I love it when creationists want to take the Bible literally for all manner of nonsensical garbage. But when you show them something that is clearly impossible they say, "No, that's not what it really means!'
Quote: Yeah, sediment that was composed of ash.
Quote:Wrong again, sedimentary soil, not ash.
Soil, ash, it makes no difference.
Quote: Except the "sediment" at the Grand Canyon was solid rock! This is far different than cutting a channel through ash and mud.
Quote:Actually numerous lines of evidence such as the Kaibab upheaval suggest the Grand Canyon was carved before it solidified to rock.
<citation needed>
Quote: Sigh) We don't have to directly observe a canyon being formed to know how it was formed. You just refuse to accept it because it contradicts your moronic holy book. Open your eyes and join the real world.
Quote:By all means, keep believing in unobserved events by blind faith.
I'm guessing you don't even see the irony in this statement.
And knowing how a canyon formed has nothing to do with "blind faith". There is geologic evidence that indicates what formed the canyon. But I wouldn't expect you to understand this.
Quote:God’s word says it is my eyes which have been opened; it is you who are steal suppressing the truth in your heart. I’ll take his word over yours.
Keep following the "word" of ancient goatherders. I'm sure it will get you far.
Quote:I’ll leave you with some quotes from actual historians on Jesus and just how silly the Jesus Myth crowd is.
Appealing to consensus again? Tsk, tsk....
Science flies us to the moon and stars. Religion flies us into buildings.
God allowed 200,000 people to die in an earthquake. So what makes you think he cares about YOUR problems?
RE: Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)
February 17, 2011 at 6:33 am (This post was last modified: February 22, 2011 at 2:15 pm by TheDarkestOfAngels.)
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Your childish view of the infallibility of science is downright sad actually. The USNAS could come out with a statement saying blacks scientifically are not humans, and I am sorry but I would continue believing they were humans because the USNAS does not determine definitions for me despite what you may believe.
I don't believe that anything is infallible but I do follow work that can and has produced results. You see, the difference between work that the USNAS does and AIG does is that USNAS does research and the things they propose is based off of research that has proven itself to be viable. People don't follow the words of scientists because of their theories, they follow the results of what these theories can prove because good theories have predictive power that can produce results. In short, scientists make discoveries.
People like Dr. Lisle write papers that is counter to results-driven established theories that organizations like NASA depend on in order to be effective at what they do. Launching satillites to other places in the solar system require very complex mathmatics and precise telemetry even before launch, but NASA scientists need to give orders to their machines to make adjustments in their flight path for any number of reasons. If his paper represented an accurate view of reality and NASA depended their math on relativity (that light has the same speed in all directions to all observers) then light would get to the probes to insert new telemetry and new commands in twice the time, which would be noticable immediately since light would instantaneously return to earth. Few of these missions would have been successful for that reason and, more importantly, this glaringly obvious difference between what they expect and what happens would be more obvious than a mis-synchronized clock.
Not to mention that astronaughts on the moon landings would have noticed the time lag between earth and the moon and a lack of time lag in return, unless "relativity" also mis-synchronized the 'clocks' in astronaughts brains to force them to think there was a time lag in their response to earth.
Einstein and all scientists like him, like you erroneously depicted in your response, don't simply come out and say things and expect people to believe them. That's the perview of your faith.
Scientists do work that produce results and have empirical backing, which is why Evolution, big bang, and abiogenesis are sciences and six-day creation and noah's flood and all that are not, regardless of what definitions you use.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: So first you say creationists are not scientists
I'm going to stop you right here. I did not say this. I explained, in detail, about this very thing, among numerous other details, over the last few posts.
Go back to those posts, read them, and come back and then give a response because I'm as tired of calling you on strawmen arguements as much, I'm sure, as you are of hearing them and explaining the what and why of it for you to repeat your strawman mistake again immediately thereafter.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I have done plenty to prove to you otherwise actually. I have listed dozens of great scientists who were creationists, I have demonstrated that the actual definition of science does include creationism and all you have done is say, “well my beloved National Academy of Science says they are not scientists so meh!” Rather disappointing actually.
You've certainly demonstrated a number of things, but "actual definition of science" and your interpretation of my response isn't among them.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: It said science must be directly observable and repeatable; you let me know the next time we directly observe and can repeat the big bang, abiogenesis, and common descent. Until then, I guess these thing are unscientific according to your beloved USNAS that is of course.
Adorable. You posted the dictionary.com defition and you literally stated it just shortly thereafter as being something other than what it states it is.
Case and point:
Dictionary.com definition of science Wrote:systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
Statler Waldorf Wrote:science must be directly observable and repeatable
Just as with certain bible quotes, you only seem to be able to get them to mean certain things if you contextualize them in a manner to which is counter to the context of the passages you're quoting from.
That said, I've already linked plenty of sources over the posts I've made over the months in regard to evolution and big bang that I've linked here that cite falsifiable observation-based evidence for the big bang and evolution has been directly observed - all of which were included in my litany of links in the previous (and earlier) posts from numerous sources, which didn't require my own interpretation of said links and quotes.
The fact that you have apparently decided to ignore all of it nonwithstanding, it's there and cannot be ignored, regardless of whatever fantastic view of history and life you have.
In regard to your claim that creationists can do science, I never claimed that people can't be creationists who also do science. I claimed that there can't be creation scientists because creationism isn't science. Just as long as their work produces results and isn't based on their religious bias, then it can clearly work - as Newton and Von Braun have proven, given that their religious views on reality had zero impact on their scientific findings.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Fact is not based on majority opinion, you should know this but I am not surprised you don’t. The majority of the government agencies in Nazi Germany believed Jews were an inferior race, somehow I think you’d be right in line with them considering how much clout you put into government agencies.
Three things:
First, Godwin Fallacy.
Second, fact wasn't elected as fact by majority opinion. It was established as fact through study, research, and peer review of that research.
Third, like people who promote one worldview over the facts, the Nazi government had a particular bias and an agenda to promote that bias, so whenever they could, they tainted whatever "research" they did (if they did research at all) in order to "evidence" their worldview and use it as propoganda despite reality. As such, what they did cannot be considered science by any stretch of the imagination.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You keep thinking that, I’ll keep thinking Isaac Newton and von Braun were both real scientists.
That's fine. I won't argue with you about them being real scientists since I've clearly established that christianity (the religion, the church, and all of its views) was completely irrelevant to their scientific work.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: As to the literal interpretation, I already pointed out that you did not understand what biblical literalism is. I have no idea why you have continued to ignore that point.
I continue to ignore your point because your opinion is irrelevant.
Like I keep telling you, I care about what you can prove, not what you say.
Talk, as they say, is cheap. You can come here and say anything and you certainly have, but words are meaningless unless they have substance.
You've littered every post you've made on these topics with plenty of opinions and backhanded comments but you've proven very little of anything of substance.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well I guess I could just pull a page from your playbook here. Nearly all biblical scholars and major biblical organizations and universities disagree with you on this point. Now I know why you always take this approach! It is easy to do and requires very little effort.
Really? Exactly which parts of the bible are we talking about here?
And which churches? Which biblical scholars and universities?
The difference between when you and I make the claim of saying 'everyone believes...' - I back it up, just like I did in my preivous post in regard to the scientific establishment and understanding of evolution, abiogenesis, and the big bang over creationism.
But let's talk about churches, biblical universities, and biblical scholars and about what they believe in terms of the literal interpretation of the bible, which you consider to be ignoring the flat earth and promoting the six-day creation and nonexistance of evolution.
The above is a mere quote from a much longer paper, but I believe the above quote to be an accurate summation of the paper's overall stance on the topic at hand. They reject flat earth like you and I do, but unlike you and like me, they also reject the idea that the genesis account of creation for the same reason we both reject flat earth.
The paper is Prepared for Study in Congregations by The Committee on Science, Technology and Faith of The Executive Council of The Episcopal Church in the United States of America.
The Catholic Church has stated that evolution, big bang, and similar science is not incompatible with the Catholic faith, though they have not infallibly taken an official position on what their stance is on what actually happened.
Catholic.com: Adam and Eve and Evolution Wrote:The Catholic Position
What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.
Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).
The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).
Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.
Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.
While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.
So it goes to show that the Catholic faith has interpreted the bible in such a manner as to allow for the biological evolution of humanity, as described by our sciences - leaving the matters of the soul and its development to whom they believe to be our creator. The article the above quote originates from goes into similar effects to the age of the earth and refuting the literalist point that the earth was created in six literal days.
creation.com: Adam, Eve, and Evolution Wrote:Chronological Reading
According to the chronological reading, the six days of creation should be understood to have followed each other in strict chronological order. This view is often coupled with the claim that the six days were standard 24-hour days.
Some have denied that they were standard days on the basis that the Hebrew word used in this passage for day (yom) can sometimes mean a longer-than-24-hour period (as it does in Genesis 2:4). However, it seems clear that Genesis 1 presents the days to us as standard days. At the end of each one is a formula like, "And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (Gen. 1:5). Evening and morning are, of course, the transition points between day and night (this is the meaning of the Hebrew terms here), but periods of time longer than 24 hours are not composed of a day and a night. Genesis is presenting these days to us as 24-hour, solar days. If we are not meant to understand them as 24-hour days, it would most likely be because Genesis 1 is not meant to be understood as a literal chronological account.
That is a possibility. Pope Pius XII warned us, "What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East" (Divino Afflante Spiritu 35–36).
So using my first source, catholic.com, I have determined that the Catholic position on the literal interpretation of the bible is not the same as yours and they have publically opened themselves to evolution based on the overwhelming evidence presented by scientists on the matter, as well as other matters of science, such as the big bang.
Don't worry though, catholic.com isn't my only source.
Here, in a paper written by a man named Doug Linder in 2004 on the Vatican view of evolution, describes something along the lines of:
The Vatican's View of Evolution: The Story of Two Popes Wrote:Pope John Paul II revisited the question of evolution in a 1996 a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Unlike Pius XII, John Paul is broadly read, and embraces science and reason. He won the respect of many scientists in 1993, when in April 1993 he formally acquitted Galileo, 360 years after his indictment, of heretical support for Copernicus’s heliocentrism. The pontiff began his statement with the hope that “we will all be able to profit from the fruitfulness of a trustful dialogue between the Church and science.” Evolution, he said, is “an essential subject which deeply interests the Church.” He recognized that science and Scripture sometimes have “apparent contradictions,” but said that when this is the case, a “solution” must be found because “truth cannot contradict truth.” The Pope pointed to the Church’s coming to terms with Galileo’s discoveries concerning the nature of the solar system as an example of how science might inspire the Church to seek a new and “correct interpretation of the inspired word.”
The Catholic News Agency also states that evolutionary theory is not incompatible with evolution based according to the Vatican, represented by Archbishop Ravasi.
Catholic News Wrote:“Evolutionary theory is not incompatible a priori with the teaching of the Catholic Church, with the message of the Bible and theology, and in actual fact it was never condemned,” Archbishop Ravasi said.
So, the Catholic faith has stated numerous times on numerous occasions that the biblical teaching of genesis must be interpreted in light of scientific evidence and that evolution is not in conflict with the catholic faith, citing that god's domain in the creation of humanity in their present state involves the creation of our souls and not our bodies given the scientific evidence that shows that humans evolved from lesser creatures according to the scientific community - though there's some disagreement with a number of details in this regard, it doesn't detract from the fact that the Vatican's position on the origin of humanitiy allows for that interpretation because of the science behind evolution, big bang, and others.
The United Methodist Church has outright said little that I could find, but apparently, the Church is passing "evolution-friendly" petitions in regard to church documents. According to that article within that UMC website by a UMC contributor, the church's petitions mentioned in that article were apparently passed, highlighting the church's acceptance of the science of Evolution and regarding the conflicting portions of the bible (like genesis) as metaphor.
The United Methodist Church Portal Wrote:Historically Methodism has sidestepped honest dialogue about the interface between religion and science, especially about evolution (at least until very recently, in 2008). This appears to have been done out of fear that accepting the findings of science—for instance, that evolution is an established scientific cornerstone, especially in biological fields—might incur the wrath of creationists within Methodism.
The resulting effect had been an implication that The National Academies of Science and hundreds of scientists worldwide over the last century and a half are wrong.
The large voting percentage in passing the three evolution petitions is evidence that the leadership of the United Methodist Church recognizes the need to change this situation. So Methodism is joining many other denominations around the world that find no conflict between religion and science.
Keep in mind that they're talking about that 'origins science' you constantly refer to of human evolution. They also made reference to a 'clergy letter project' about 'evolution weekend' but that whole thing appears to be limited to Wisconsin congregations but I know very little about the project.
But their primary website makes few official claims on the matter but the actions of the church seem to indicate a principally science-leaning and evolution-tolerant methodology.
Although I'm not as certain of the church's official position, their actions and their passing of those petitions seem to indicate that the church has taken a similar position to evolution and other scientific concepts as the catholic church, which is to say that they are compatible and not in conflict with one another.
The main reason I bring them up, however, in addition to those petitions is also their continued battle against teaching creationism in public classrooms. Wherever I've searched online, I've been finding methodist-church led opposition to anti-evolution bills in various states around the US and many contributors and church officials stating that evolution is not in conflict with their faith in their official church websites.
Their petitions (80839-C1-R9999 and C1102-R9999-A) passed roughly 5 votes to every 3. This petition states that
The United Methodist Church Wrote:THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the General Conference of the United Methodist Church go on record as opposing the introduction of any faith-based theories such as Creationism or Intelligent Design into the science curriculum of our public schools.
Keep in mind that this is representative of the church's stance on issues and determines how the church acts accordingly.
Americans United for the Seporation of Church and State: Methodists Oppose Creationism In Public School Science Classes Wrote:More than 10,000 Christian leaders have signed the letter since 2004. Through the years, other religious leaders and established religious organizations have expressed their opposition to creationism.
So, I can conclude that the United Methodist Church also supports evolution and opposes the creationist views you hold.
Dogmatic Tradition of the Orthodox Church Wrote:3) Man's creation
Among the visible things that God created is the crown of His creation, man. In Genesis we read the story of God's creation. We cannot interpret this story to the letter; however, its message is loud and clear: God is the creator of everything that exists; there is order in God's creation, and a development (even "evolution") from lower forms to higher forms of life; God created everything good; man, created in God's image and likeness, has a very special place in God's creation, called to be God's proxy toward His creation.
Orthodox Church of America: Evolution & Orthodoxy Wrote:Orthodoxy firmly believes that God is the Creator of all things and that human beings, created in the image and likeness of God, are unique among all created beings. At the same time Orthodoxy is not literalist in its understanding of the accounts of creation in Genesis, and I have encountered writings by Orthodox Christians which attempt to balance the creation accounts with a certain ongoing -- evolutionary, if you will -- process which, on the one hand, affirms that while humans may have evolved physically under the direction and guidance and plan of the Creator, their souls could not have evolved any more than the powers of reasoning, speaking, or the ability to act creatively could have simply evolved. In such a scenario the Creator intervened by breathing His Spirit into man and giving him life, as stated in Genesis.
So this gem comes directly from their website on a Q&A on the topic to affirm the religion's position on this matter.
Still, like the others, it is evident that the Jewish understanding of their sacred texts don't appear to believe that it interferes with their religion.
Rabbinical Counsil of America: Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design Wrote:Dec 27, 2005 -- In light of the ongoing public controversy about Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design, the RCA notes that significant Jewish authorities have maintained that evolutionary theory, properly understood, is not incompatible with belief in a Divine Creator, nor with the first 2 chapters of Genesis.
The Church of Nazarene also produced a public statement about the matter. It was very brief, but very poignant.
The Church of the Nazarene Manual Wrote:The Church of the Nazarene believes in the biblical account of creation (“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth . . .”—Genesis 1:1).We oppose any godless interpretation of the origin of the universe and of humankind.
However, the church accepts as valid all scientifically verifiable discoveries in geology and other natural phenomena, for we firmly believe that God is the Creator. (Articles I. 1., V. 5.1, VII.) (2005)
So anyway, what, you may ask, does all this have to do with anything?
Well, it's definative proof that these churches and their subsidiary organizations (which include numerous congregations, prestigious univerisities and schools, and so on) have taken the position in favor of the scientific view of evolution. I only focused my search on evolution, but I have little doubt that these religions hold the same point for big bang and other scientific ideas.
So what this all comes down to is this:
You are absolutely wrong. This time about "Nearly all biblical scholars and major biblical organizations and universities disagree with you on this point." to the extent that I actually did research and of all the religions I've searched, my list also included the Mormon Church (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints), the Watchtower (Jehovah's Witness Faith), and Southern Baptists. Those three officially hold the creationist positions or at least argue against evolution being anything important.
Be that as it may, it still proves you wrong on the matters of many, many christians who have claims in regards to the 'exegesis' of the bible equal to or better than yours.
You've given me a great deal of grief about my 'bad exegesis' as being evidence that I had no idea what I was talking about in terms of my literalist interpretation of 'flat earth' of the bible. There are those christians who still even ascribe to this entirely because the bible states it, but what I have proven here is that many christian denominations with no small amount of influence either outright reject your literalist interpretation for the same reason you've rejected flat earth or, at the very least, have made no offical positions on the matter but often state officially or by prominant members that their faiths have no conflict with these scientific concepts for the very reason that these bible passages are not meant to be interpreted literally, or at least aren't necessary.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Oh so they have not actually observed the Oort cloud? I didn’t think so. Can you prove to me that it is really an Oort cloud out there and not the Flying Spaghetti Monster or a Giant Teapot causing those comets to behave like that? I love it when atheists use the very same reasoning they bash on theists for using.
That's cool. I love it when creationists think they addressed a point I made but completely avoid it with a red herring laced with ignorance-laded sarcasm in order to avoid addressing the fact that the Oort Cloud has evidence for its existance based on observational evidence on comets in the Solar System.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Ahh, so you believe Bacon ascribed to a form of hermeneutics that post-dates him by about 200 years? Yeah good luck with that. Liberal Hermeneutics in the protestant church did not arise until the 19th century. Reformed Christians such as Bacon and Newton in the 17th and 18th centuries were biblical literalists.
and yet you have no evidence of that and you continue to point this out despite the fact that you can't have haven't proven any such thing.
There's also that book I linked that pointed out that biblical literalism was only prominant beginning in the 17th century (or so) in opposition to Geological findings, so that's a great deal fewer 'creationists' in the literal biblical sense that you can legitimately claim as such.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You are right, but you do need a biblical world.
Hah! Based on what? "The bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it?"
Yeah right.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Its existence is irrelevant to your acceptance or denial of its truth. It is obvious that Newton, von Braun and Kepler also did not need to believe the earth was billions of years old or that the universe arose by the big bang because they did not believe these things and still conducted their science fine. So your point is rather silly.
Apparently not given that evidence for those things didn't exist during their time, so clearly the science behind the age of the earth or the universe is largely irrelevant to studying the planetary gravity and motions through the solar system from the Earth.
But my point in regard Kepler, Newton, and Von Braun's religion is that the entirety of the christian faith isn't necessary for science to be done at all and therefore their relationship to the church is secondary and not necessary for their discoveries.
Which is to say that I'm not the one claiming that christianity is the father of all science and that these individuals were christian scientists when in fact that none of these things are at all true.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I did quote several of the numerous historians who do believe that modern science owes everything to the Christian reformation. If you want to deny this historical fact, be my guest. I have also demonstrated that science is only possible in a biblical world, you can deny this, but it does not change the truth of the statement.
I do find it interesting that you lump atheism in with the “other faiths”, I hope nobody else saw you do that on here or we may have an atheistic brawl on our hands.
I do dispute these people's opinions as historical fact and I have already demonstrated why in previous links as to the historical relationship between science and religion.
My lumping of Atheism with "other faiths" is contextually similar to saying 'Any noun and the other nouns...' -like the First Austin Powers movie and the Who all go to the market. Just because I lumped atheism with the other religions doesn't imply that they are equivelent or alike in any sense of the term. I'm sorry I had to waste time to specify that.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Wrong. Creationism is necessary for the field of creation science just like evolution is necessary for the field of evolutionary biology. As for your claim that geology and astronomy require an old universe and earth… there are young earth creationists who are geologists and astronomers so I guess it really is not a necessity. After all Kepler and Galileo both believed in a young universe and they are two of the greatest astronomers in history.
I'm sure creationism is necessary for the field of creation science, but neither of those things are science or scientific fields for the reasons I've already highlighted.
I'm sure there are creationists with the degrees necessary for those fields, but you will find almost none of them actually working in any such scientific fields -given the obvious conflicts that those fields have with their religious faith. I've already linked several studies about religion among scientists and the number of creationists in fields conflicted with creationism (like astronomy and biology) is almost zero.
As far as Kepler and Galileo, unless you have some evidence that they were biblical literalists in the same sense as you are, then I call bullshit on that given a complete lack of evidence.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: His worldview drove his science.
Interesting baseless opinion.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Forgive me for demanding more from my operational sciences than you do. No comet has ever been observed to be capable of lasting over 10,000 years. We see comets today. This leads away from an old universe model, so invoke the ad hoc and viola we have an Oort cloud. Many astronomers are actually moving away from the Oort cloud hypothesis today, I assure you they will come up with some other ad hoc though; I just hope it is the FSM!
I'm entertained at how many baseless positive claims you have here in regard to scientists, comets, and their movements in the scientific field and their reasonings behind moving toward the Oort Cloud theory... with ZERO evidence and despite my evidence otherwise from my previous post...
I've had to say this so often that it's getting repetative. Clearly you've skimmed but haven't read my previous post and have given me what I assume are AIG/Creation Institute talking points on the matter with nothing to actually back up any claim you've made thus far.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: This is actually the fallacy of pretended neutrality. There is no neutral ground in the creationism vs. non-creation debate so nobody is objective.
Given that, in order for your arguement to be valid, this needs to be true, it's no surprise that you've stated it as such. It just shows that you have no real arguement here so you have to frame the arguement with the assumption that the two sides are, in any way, equal in this respect despite neither reason nor evidence to suggest that the scientific understanding has been achieved with anything but the greatest extent of human objectivity possible.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I love it! “Statler, your historians from such prestigious universities as Cambridge don’t matter to me, but my sources such as Wikipedia are infallible.” Well I will stick to the historians you can stick to wiki.
I love it too, given that this response, like so many others, apparently had to resort to a strawman of my statement. I don't believe you'll find me saying or doing anything like "my sources like wikipedia is infallible." Classic.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You cannot know the result is false without testing it some way, this test of course requires the use of your senses. I can’t believe even this simple point goes over your head.
... and I just argued that not only is such a thing possible, but a regular everyday occurance. Go ahead and ask an optometrist about how you could tell whether or not if your eyesight is going bad or reliable. I'm pretty sure it's his entire job to determine that. (Certain specialities of Psychiatry as well)
Someone deluded to reality - memory or senses or both, such as through hallucinations can percieve things that aren't there or they percieve things to be completely different as to what they are through one method or another.
Someone who imagines the carpet/hardwood change between two rooms as being a very steep cliff is obviously seeing something that isn't really there. This hypothetical person is deluded to reality and he or she may honestly believe what he or she is seeing.
If this person were to fall off that 'cliff' and drop to the floor, the result will still be something other than falling off a cliff whether that person realized it or not.
The ultimate result was still that that person did not achieve a positive result from what his brain interpreted from his senses (because, let's say, this person took a hallucinagen, so his brain is the problem and not his or her senses). This is to say that this person fell to the floor but not to the bottom of a hallucinated cliff. This also applies to things necessary to survival - like not falling off an actual cliff because you saw ground that wasn't there or finding food that you imagined that was actually a rock or something inedible.
Therefore *postive results*proves the reliability of senses and memory. If your eyesight and hearing accurately reflect your surroundings, you can make decisions based off that information to produce positive results - successfully finding edible food, surviving, and reporducing - all of which require that your senses work reliably.
As such, it is not a presupposition that these things work a certain way.
This arguement is exactly the same for memory, so I won't repeat myself in those passages.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: No I am sorry, I will not allow you to be so intellectually lazy. How do you know that the bed you fall asleep on tonight will still be a bed tomorrow?
Oh please. Don't lecture me on intellectual laziness considering that the creationist position on the answers to life, love, and liberty is "god did everything" based on zero evidence and zero reason for that conclusion. All on the reasoning and empirical evidence of "nuh uh". To answer your question: because my bed has been a bed ever since I bought it and it shows no signs of becoming anything else.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: So you actually believe that the only things that are real are those made up of energy and matter like naturalists do? I would advise you to be cautious in how you answer this.
Two things:
1) I didn't make any points about my beliefs.
2) Even if I did, what I believe is irrelevant.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: What a disappointment. The laws of logic are not the way people think, but rather the way people ought to think. If they are just the way people thought then there would be no such thing as logical fallacies because many (I’d even argue a majority of) people think in a manner that is logically fallacious. So I am sorry, it is quite obvious that the laws of logic are not determined by the way people think, but rather they are an outside standard that people ought to adhere to which is more accurate with the biblical view on the matter.
As to your failure to deliver my request, disappointing but not surprising. I knew you could not do it.
So your evidence that logic isn't inherantly a human trait is because some people are illogical?
Some people are also blind too, but I would argue that people generally have the ability to see and that sight is definatively a trait that humans possess - as is love, lust, greed, charity, hearing, and so on.
With all the logic of "people aren't always logical, therefore god must be the origin of all logic." I'm sure that's a logical fallacy listed somewhere.
I also can't turn water into wine, which is equally disappointing but not surprising, but equally pointless and extraneous to this discussion.
... actually I could turn water into wine, but that would require a wine vinyard, plenty of water, and a lot of time. I just couldn't do it through magic.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well you should be aware that creationists say that DNA is strong evidence for a creator. Since you said that creationists don’t produce any falsifiable evidence then I’d advise you not to try and falsify this claim so you don’t look ridiculous by contradicting yourself. The only problem is, if you don’t try and refute this claim, the claim stands un-refuted, so I guess you have really put yourself in an awkward lose-lose situation.
I'm sure they say that, but I find a litter box and tell you that it was evidence that my Cat is the one true creator of the universe and humanity, but just because I said it doesn't make it evidence of anything of the sort.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Not what I said, I said he could only do his science if the biblical world was accurate. A person who does not believe air exists needs air in order to live and make an argument against the existence of air, just as someone who does not believe in the biblical world needs a biblical world in order to conduct science and argue against the biblical world.
Fair enough, but regardless, it's a claim without basis in evidence isofar that reality is anything like your biblical intepretation of the bible given that it's wholly unnecessary and counter to any and every scientific field, so your claim has negative (less than zero) merit.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Why would you want evidence that his historical science views somehow drove his operational science views? The two are apples and oranges. You really do baffle me sometimes.
Becuase it would give merit to your claims of a working or necessary relationship of the literal interpretation of the bible as being somehow necessary as a part of science - which would be necessary for things like the statement above this one regarding this being a 'biblical world' or that christian beliefs fuel scientific resesarch.
You know - something or anything that would allow many of your arguements to have any merit whatsoever.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well I guess this refutes your claim that creationists can’t be scientists.
Totally not what I said. Like several times now.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Huh? Again, you obviously do not know what a synchrony convention is. It is a way of synchronizing clocks! So they can do it, but they have to use the ESC which assumes that light travels at the same speed in all directions. They could just as easily synchronize the two clocks using the ASC, which would then have light moving in different directions at different speeds relative to the observer. So we are just talking past each other.
Indeed, but I ignored it because there was no mechanism as to how this happens. It appeared to just be an assumption that allows this inane hypothosis to somehow allow transmissions from earth to space probes to make sense given the time lag just happens to conform to standard relativistic expectations despite the fact that the scientists at NASA assume that light moves at a certain speed and thus have to make commands to direct and control these robots using precise mathmatical telemetry and directions that require, among other things, precise timing, which falls apart considering ASC's idea of how light moves across space and time.
Also, this arguement tends to fall apart if someone ever sent out a command that required an immediate response (and not one, say, dependant upon a probe's internal clock), which has been necessary numerous times to, say, command a probe to take photos as its passing by something interesting and immediately begin sending out information on collected data from its instraments.
Also, this sort of thing would have been immediately noticable in the late '60s and '70s given the time lag between transmissions from the apollo rockets had a time lag consistent with the 300,000 kps speed of light in all directions.
So... yeah... if you want to go into that direction about sychronized clocks, I have a litany of sources to evidence otherwise because this line of reasoning is even sillier than the two-speeds of light, which can be easily disproven using the Foucault method, but adding an extraneous additional mirror at equal length of the other mirrors and dividing the result by three rather than two.
If ASC were true, the result with either be 1/2 light divided by three or 1/2 light twice divided by three. I haven't done the experiment yet (I dont have the mirrors necessary but I have a laser pointer.) Though anyone else is also welcome to attempt.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: If they had used the ASC to synchronize the clocks it certainly would have. They did not use it though; they used the ESC, so who knows what you are trying to prove here.
Simple. There were people on the moon and people on the earth and they communicated directly with one another with a delay of about 2.7 seconds each way.
Note that this is different than 5.4 second delay to astronaughts and zero response delay from the moon to the earth. There were no clocks involved at all to synchronize since anyone with a radio transciever could notice the delay regardless of the speed in which astronaughts actually responded.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: When we are talking about relativity, we are almost always talking about velocities close to C since that is when it becomes relevant. I thought this would be clear.
Indeed, but time dilation doesn't occur until you approach C, typically over .4c, not some miniscule fraction of C that all human-made devices travel. Dialation occurs, but nowhere near the necessary dilation with the consistency needed to make reality work to fool us into believing that relativity conforms to something other than special relativity.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Actually according to the dictionary they are. It holds more weight than your personal opinion on the matter.
Hah! Perhaps in the manner to which you've misrepresented all of the above, sure, but that doesn't give your arugement any weight.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well it can be done using a synchonry convention which of course is what the whole paper you never read is about.
Uh huh. Well, I suppose an experiment could be done, but usually scientific papers have already have tested and made or disproven predicted results based on hypothosis and tests. They usually get published to allow other scientists to repeat said tests to prove or disprove the science behidn it and the results it claims to have.
Given that this paper has none of that and holds predictions counter to well established sciences that predict different results (special relativity), then I would expect your answer to this papers lack of work in this regard to be a deflection with an insult rather than substantive evidence of any kind that this is even a legitimate paper.
I've already proposed a simple experiment as a modified foucault method, so if the speed of light is half when moving away from an observer and returns infinately fast, then adding another mirror at equal distance for light to make three trips instead of two would definatively prove this once and for all. I'll even add a set of clocks to the experiment - one at each mirror to see if 'relativity' changes them.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Where in the verse does it say that the earth does not move in relation to the sun? I believe it just says the earth does not move in relation to itself, which it does not of course. No issues with the verse.
It said:
Psa 93:1 Wrote:The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.
Right there.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Lol, look this up, because it doesn’t mean what you obviously think it means. Just because I used the word incredible does not mean I committed this fallacy.
Statler Waldorf Wrote:I would think that if scripture was a fraud the people making it up would not have put in something apparently so incredible in it.
Right there. Arguement from Incredulity.
Wikipedia: Argument from incredulity / Lack of imagination Wrote:Arguments from incredulity take the form:
1.P is too incredible (or I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
2.It is obvious that P (or I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false) therefore P must be true.
These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.
Your version appears to be specifically a variation of #2 or "I think that if it were a fraud, then they would not have written something so incredible in it (scripture).
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Yeah I was just really hoping that when we were talking about telomeres that you would provide articles about telomeres and not chicken with teeth. Given your posts to date and tendency towards drifting way off topic though I guess I could not be very surprised.
Indeed, I only proved that geneticists had the power to discern our ancestors life-span, behavior, and other traits, which you assure me is completely unrelated to the life-span in which people lived a few thousand years ago. Then again, their looks into human DNA only go back a few hundred thousand years before 'human' means cro-magnon or whatever came before us.
But hey, you certainly assure me that ancient human age is unrelated to ancient human age, so clearly I must be wrong. ... because Statler Waldorf told me so... again.
Actually I never made the arguement from incredulity because I specifically stated that it was wrong because geneticists proved that our life span has only increased from history due to modern medicine and understanding of human anatomy and biology among other sciences.
So strawman on your part for accusing me of saying something I've never proposed.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Oh so you claim to know a thing or two about thermodynamics huh? Well then you should also know that even an open system tends towards entropy. Not only this but without mechanisms already in place to guide the energy, unharnessed raw energy only increases entropy.
You indeed put stalk in decent sources when it suits you unless they use definitions you don't, like the USNAS.
Be that as it may, I wasn't ragging on your for your knowledge of thermodynamics. Those laws are easy enough to find on the internet. I was ragging on you for your complete lack of understanding of how genetics works.
And yes, I put stalk in geneticists over your 'entropy made people live shorter lives!' idiocy isofar as their views in their primary field of work given that my links say things about genetics that contradict your erroneous claims.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Nah, I just realize that scripture is on completely solid logical ground here. Given your illogical viewpoint, it would be unjust to bomb a country that attacked you and declared war on you because not everyone in the country signed the decree of war (only their representatives did). That’s just absurd. I am just glad that God is not only a just God but a gracious one.
Strawman, as I don't hold that viewpoint.
My complaint would be more akin to a country (god) giving nukes to another country and then slaughtering every last human because one of them acquired a nuke and calling god just because we don't deserve to be alive because we recieved a nuke.
How many times do I have to put this exact same example up before you can at least stop strawman my statements?
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Not if you explicitly state that murder is only a sin when the children commit it, as God has done in scripture. As I have already pointed out, humans deserve death, so God killing is justice not murder since murder is by definition the unjust killing of an innocent.
because nothing says "love your fellow man" like "everyone deserves to die and god loves us by murdering people".
Please. Holding yourself to a different standard than others is the very definition of a hypocrite.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Huh? Giving up one’s life for someone who did not deserve it is the greatest act of love and mercy I can think of. Read “The Death of Death” and maybe this will clear up for you, but probably not.
Yes. God punished him severely for something neither he himself nor humans in general had control over. God knew that humanity would 'fall' before he created existance and even though he expressly did not want humans to do this and knew before we existed that humans would violate his hypocritical rules before light even existed, he still set up reality in such a way for all of this to happen - knowing full well what the result would be - so who had free will during all of this? What did we do that deserved death according to your beliefs that wasn't a direct result of god's actions and foreknowledge (putting the tree of knowledge in the garden of eden and creating the talking snake that would tempt eve, for example.)
No matter how you justify this, there is no honor in Jesus's death. God punished him over something humans had zero control over for something he knew humanity would do but he instigated it anyway.
This doesn't make his actions against Jesus or humanity loving - it makes them satistic to an extreme beyond even the vilest image humans have of the devil.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: So attending church and believing in Satan makes you a believing Christian?
No. Believing in god and the devil makes him not an atheist, which the video expressly indicated that he did.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I can’t think of any better evidence than the person’s own profession of atheism which I have given you.
I didn't just profess to be an atheist. I don't attend church or believe in god or believe in any deity or other faith and I've been consistently doing so for about 17 years now.
Dahmer blamed his problems on, among other things, the devil for years and even during the trial both before and after he made his 'profession.'
As such, I have no real reason to believe that he was actually an atheist and not just doing what you do and blaming bad morality on (and therefore his actions) on atheism.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: This is all fine and dandy if Dawkins wants to look at molestation in this sick fashion, but then to turn around and say the Pope should be arrested on “crimes against humanity” for allegedly covering up what he earlier stated to be an “embarrassing but otherwise harmless experience” is downright absurd. Absurdness is what I have learned to expect from DickDawk though.
Aside from a few interesting interviews I've seen on television and youtube, I haven't looked into his work.
Assuming what you are saying is true in regard to what he has written in his book (which is a big assumption considering the fact that you've quoted things out of context before), you seem to have made the assumption that the Pope qualifies as, you say Dawkins wrote, "all pedophiles" in the sense that he states that it is unjust to visit upon all pedophiles with a degree of vengence appropriate to the minority who are also murderers. It seems to say that he's saying that you shouldn't visit upon all pedophiles with the same degree of anger and vitriol as not all cases of pedophilia is the same.
Which would make his response to the pope entirely consistent given that the catholic priest's actions are more reprehensible than others and he cites a particular action to take considering that.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: It’s the fact that you say you “chose” to value human life which applies it is an arbitrary choice that someone can either choose or not and there is not an absolute right choice. So if this is indeed the case then you cannot consistently criticize someone else (like a murder) for making a different choice than you. Does that make any more sense? I commend you for valuing human life though.
And why couldn't I? I believe that others should be better people than I view them as being, why shouldn't I be able to convince others to act differently to others than they do? I don't see how this desire of mine is relevant to where my morals came from - whether I would believe they came from a creator or whether or not I believe that it was simply the way I was raised combined with how I figured out my own views for myself.
Especially when others share my view for their own reasons (religiously inspired or not) and a more objective source of conduct (US, State, and local laws) in which to convey this desire.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: That’s the study you were talking about this whole time!?
So... the crime rates of religious nations versus the more secular nations along with the very few atheists in prison is all just coincidental, huh? ... if you say so.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I figured you could not prove the leader of the Klan was a YEC, so I guess your whole point was rather silly.
It's ... rather silly of you to assume that because he's not a YEC, it negates all of my points about him entirely considering he's apparently a pasteur of his own congregation and consistently professes his love of god and scripture at his website that I was unfortuante enough to visit.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You never answered my question, in an atheistic world, why is white supremacy morally wrong?
To answer your question, because it promotes gross inequality among humans and has led to immeasurable human suffering.
Your view of "If we're not god's children, then we must be worthless" is entirely irrelevant to Evolution. It doesn't tell you how to live your life or treat others. Evolutionary theory begins and ends with the speciation of life.
Evolution doesn't become a set of moral guidelines just because you feel that being related to all other life on the planet big and small has moral implications.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: That’s what morality is!
What determines my morality is how I treat people, not how I tell other people to treat people.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Since God is not a human being, and since Homicide is a broader definition that encompasses murder, we can logically say that God does not murder.
... and I found several defintiions - including ones from your own sources, that disputed you quite evidently and I showed them to you. (technically, since murder is more generally defined as the act of murdering a person, it is the more general definition).
Regardless, there are other general descriptions - killer, for example.
Regardless, God fits the definition of at least one of these but definately several that involve his/her/its sadistics and murderous killer tendancies.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: But if my country says it’s ok to kill anyone who is not a white straight male, then why would it be morally wrong? I thought there was no such thing as absolute morality.
It would be morally wrong because it would be the cause of enormous human suffering.
I never made the arguement for or against absolute morality. It would only be relevant if there were absolute enforcement of said absolute morality.
For example, I think Saddam Hussein's treatment of human beings was morally reprehensible and I view it was a good thing that he was apprehended by the US and brought to Justice and executed. I clearly have different standards of morality than Saddam Hussein which is ultimatey why I support his removal from power.
(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: What are you talking about? None of the sources you cited gave any examples of where radiometric dating has successfully dated a rock of known age. So you have no control. The onus is on you to demonstrate that the method works. If you can’t prove it works by dating a rock of observed known age; then I am sorry, I have no scientific basis to believe the method works.
Here:
The Age of the Earth Wrote:The oldest rocks on Earth, found in western Greenland, have been dated by four independent radiometric dating methods at 3.7-3.8 billion years. Rocks 3.4-3.6 billion years in age have been found in southern Africa, western Australia, and the Great Lakes region of North America. These oldest rocks are metamorphic rocks but they originated as lava flows and sedimentary rocks. The debris from which the sedimentary rocks formed must have come from even older crustal rocks. The oldest dated minerals (4.0-4.2 billion years) are tiny zircon crystals found in sedimentary rocks in western Australia.
GeoKansas Wrote:Scientists determined the Earth's age using a technique called radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is based upon the fact that some forms of chemical elements are radioactive, which was discovered in 1896 by Henri Becquerel and his assistants, Marie and Pierre Curie. The discovery gave scientists a tool for dating rocks that contain radioactive elements.
So there you have it. The first two links cite examples of rocks successfully and consistently dated and included in those quotes was the citation of who discovered the process.
If today you can take a thing like evolution and make it a crime to teach in the public schools, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools and next year you can make it a crime to teach it to the hustings or in the church. At the next session you may ban books and the newspapers...
Ignorance and fanaticism are ever busy and need feeding. Always feeding and gloating for more. Today it is the public school teachers; tomorrow the private. The next day the preachers and the lecturers, the magazines, the books, the newspapers. After a while, Your Honor, it is the setting of man against man and creed against creed until with flying banners and beating drums we are marching backward to the glorious ages of the sixteenth centry when bigots lighted fagots to burn the men who dared to bring any intelligence and enlightenment and culture to the human mind. ~Clarence Darrow, at the Scopes Monkey Trial, 1925
Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. ~Ronald Reagan
) ![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
