One question for Christians

[Statler Waldorf]

No kidding, really? I really was not aware of that, Statler. /sarcasm

Your posts indicate that you’re still not aware of that.

The point that is eluding you is this - I am not the one that is proposing that light behaves differently traveling from point A to B than it does from point B to A (or under any other circumstance, for that matter).

I know, you’re proposing it behaves the same in relation to an observer’s position and there’s no proof of that. You are also proposing that it behaves differently when objects are moving at different velocities though. A person can just as easily say that it behaves the same at different velocities but behaves differently based on position, both are equally valid.

I'm proposing that it lacks the appearance that it does so, and that there is no known mechanism by which it could do so, and it seems humorous to me to suggest that it does do so.

Again, you clearly do not understand how this works, it does so because of how we synchronize the clocks, it has nothing to do with light itself; we do not know how the one way speed of light behaves. You’re preferring a velocity dependent system over a position dependent system and there’s no reason for it, they’re both stipulated by man. Neither is “right” or “wrong”.

[Jackalope]

---

No kidding, really? I really was not aware of that, Statler. /sarcasm

Your posts indicate that you’re still not aware of that.

The point that is eluding you is this - I am not the one that is proposing that light behaves differently traveling from point A to B than it does from point B to A (or under any other circumstance, for that matter).

I know, you’re proposing it behaves the same in relation to an observer’s position and there’s no proof of that. You are also proposing that it behaves differently when objects are moving at different velocities though. A person can just as easily say that it behaves the same at different velocities but behaves differently based on position, both are equally valid.

I'm proposing that it lacks the appearance that it does so, and that there is no known mechanism by which it could do so, and it seems humorous to me to suggest that it does do so.

Again, you clearly do not understand how this works, it does so because of how we synchronize the clocks, it has nothing to do with light itself; we do not know how the one way speed of light behaves. You’re preferring a velocity dependent system over a position dependent system and there’s no reason for it, they’re both stipulated by man. Neither is “right” or “wrong”.

---

Haven't forgotten about you Statler, just don't have time at present to give this my attention. I'll return to this when I can.

[Drich]

Therefore, light can not travel at the same speed when affected by a black hole meaning the equasion used to caculate one light year (The standard unit of measure when caculating distances between galaxies) will be wrong.

It seems to me that the only possible effect would be to slow the speed at which the light is travelling, so that ages are longer and not shorter. In other words, if Andromeda appears to be 2 million light years away but gravity is affecting the accuracy of the measurement, then the light from Andromeda may have been traveling for 2.5 million years?

Light only slows when moving away from a blk hole. It accelerates when moving towards one. So unless you can account for every gravational anomaly between here and the galaxy being examined the best one can do is make a wild guess and have faith that there are not any unforeseen variables in the hundreds of gallizillions of miles being accounted for.

...and you all believe you all are not men of faith

[Bad Writer]

---

So, in your mind, because science can fail sometimes, would that make faith healing better than decades of research into medical science? Can god cure amputees, or should we continue our research into bionic limbs? There are gaping holes in this argument, SW. Just because the Bible says its infallible, does not make this automatically true. Just because thousands of people claim to have been abducted by aliens and can recount their experiences in vivid details, corroborating the stories of everyone else abducted throughout the years, does this make their claims true?

---

Scripture doesn’t ever conflict with empirical science, in fact it establishes a foundation for its practice, scripture only conflicts with scientific theories of origins. That’s where I’d rather take the testimony of scripture over those who change their theories and explanations weekly it seems. When someone tells you, “I was wrong every other time in the past, but trust me I am right now!”, should you believe them? I’ll pass.

The thing about science is since it is changing all the time, it never claims to be absolutely correct. Though we know much about how gravity works, we won't even pretend to say that we know everything about it. Not only is that arrogant, but we will undoubtedly be proven wrong if we persist in that manner. The mistake that religion makes is that it claims to be right, no matter what. Even though the Holey Babble states that there was a flood that covered the earth, geologists have discovered that this never has been the case in the history of life being present on earth. Though geologists might learn new things all the time about the properties of the earth, knowing how floods affect certain areas of the world is mere childsplay to them.

---

You know what’s interesting? You seem stuck on the idea that science can fail sometimes. This is true, but to a certain point. For instance, since we’re talking about the age of large bodies such as galaxies, do you know how old scientists think our universe is? Before we had the means to truly measure it, the Biblical account was thought to be the correct age, for there was no other explanation beyond that book for a while. And then we found out that earth was older than previously thought, and we learned about how planets were created, how suns were created…all because we observe these things all the time through things called telescopes. We can see the different phases, calculate the time it takes for these things to happen…and in doing so, we could find out other things, like the age of stars, of galaxies, and even the universe itself. 6000 grew to 10000 grew to 100000 and eventually we reached into the millions of years, as new evidence became available. Eventually, we came to the number that we have today: approx. 14 BILLION years for the age of the universe. You see…the age never decreased or fluctuated in its calculations. In fact, as our science and instruments became better and more fine-tuned, so did our understanding of the cosmos. And, to be honest, if we’re STILL wrong about the age of the Universe, it only means that it’s older than 14 billion years, not younger.

---

Age is not an empirically measurable property of matter; it’s all based upon assumptions.

You don't get to decide what's empirical and what's not. I'm okay that you don't like my evidence, but that's all you have to say.

You just proved my point though, the age they thought it was a century ago, 50 years ago, 25 years ago, ten years ago, and now are all different. Why should I believe someone who changes their story hundreds of times? “I was wrong a century ago, I was wrong 50 years ago, I was wrong 25 years ago, I was wrong 10 years ago, but trust me…I am right now!”

They never tell the world to trust them, though I'm sure they appreciate people like you running around spouting off what you think they say. They (scientists) just think it's cool that they can go about calculating the age of the universe. I think you're just mad that the calculations have never been close to what the Bible has said about the earth's age. For me, it's just more lemon juice squeezed in the eye of the almighty invisible and grouchy Yahweh.

So…okay, it’s impossible to truly know, but to go and accept what you seem to believe as fact, that is, the Biblical account, then that would be very irresponsible of us.

Not at all, you’d be using an infallible source to correct the errors in our fallible source, that seems very rational to me. Non-believers are trying to use a fallible source to correct the infallible source, which is completely backwards.

Even though humankind can 100% trace their lineage back to Homo Erectus without any error, that's fallible? You need to work on that one, and I'll keep using my "fallible" resources and evidences in the meantime.

No, the light created on day 1, which proves you can have days without the Sun. I love the story of Moses getting mooned by God, it’s a great passage.

Unless God used a giant desklamp to light the sunless earth, then where is that light coming from? That's what I'm asking. You can have days without the sun, granted, but what about that light he created? Was he saving it in a plastic bag until he could channel its glow into the sun?

So if the Bible were wrong, we would fall off the earth? Is that the gist of what you’re saying?

Well there is a way to argue that yes, but what I was actually saying was that if the Bible were not infallible, it’d be impossible to know anything about reality at all.

You mean I can't learn about gravity without the Bible? I can't know that my wife is hot unless the Bible explicitly tells me so? What the fuck are you on about?

---

So I should believe there’s a Bigfoot just because someone showed me a photo of him and had on hand a plaster mold of his foot? I see TV ads about Messing with Bigfoot all the time…are they trying to tell us something new about ol’ Sasquatch?

---

Reason and logic can exist independently of Bigfoot, they cannot exist independently of God, so I am not sure where you were going with that example, I do like watching, “Finding Bigfoot” though, good show.

Oh please. I'm supposed to take your word on it that if there was no God, that I'd be completely helpless and unreasonable?

Why should I believe anyone when they tell me there’s an invisible, grumpy old man in the sky? Why do you?

I don’t believe there’s an invisible, grumpy, old man in the sky.

Well played.

Why do you hold your scripture to a higher standard than the holy books of other nations? That seems a little…odd. If the other two mentioned are at a lower standard, then why don’t you believe in them first before the Bible? Do you even understand what I was asking here?

Because they do not even pass my lower standards, so there’s no reason to apply the more rigorous standard to them; not what you were asking?

I'm supposed to take you seriously when you tell me the Bible is true when you don't even hold other scripture up to the same light of scrutiny? I'm afraid you're a little biased in your claims.

This falsely assumes that God is desperately trying to save as many people as He can, that’s not taught in the Bible. I really doubt there are 2.3 Billion Katy Perry fans in the World though.

But at the same time, Katy Perry doesn't commit genocide against people she doesn't like. We could do this all day.

Billions of people have been abducted by aliens? That seems a bit…high.

You think these numbers are supposed to mean something to me, as if having more believers collectively will create god out of thin air, kinda like believing in Fairies in Neverland will keep the little buggers alive.

My best friend during school is a Mormon; they’re tough to discuss things with. I was raised Christian, but became a Reformed Christian about 5 years ago.

Mormons are tough because they do this: for just about everything, and then proceed to talk at you, thinking you are always in need of teaching. Remnants of my past still come up to bite me in the ass from time to time.

So...you believe in Christ like you always used to...but differently? I'm not familiar with Reformed Christians, but from talking with you it seems a little fundamental yet still somewhat reasonable. Am I close?

---

I’m sure many people see claims that way, which is true about claims concerning god. I’m saying that just about these small time claims that require a lower standard of evidence. If Jimmy tells you he had chips on his lunch break, but then you find out later that he actually ate crackers because you found the empty wrapper on his desk, is it really that big of an issue? So Jimmy was false on his claim, but there was no need to call him out on it. The same cannot be said for bigger claims, such as someone who tells you that he/she can read minds.

---

Ok, I am following you so far, but how do you determine whether a claim requires a higher or lower standard? Surely it cannot be determined by people, since truth is independent of us.

And truth will sometimes always elude us. I'm okay with saying that we probably won't ever know everything for a fact. But, the truth is, we determine the validity of claims every day, and they are always judged on a personal level. A courtroom judge has higher stakes, but he/she must do the same, even if the entire truth is never completely uncovered. What a person determines as having a higher or lower standard of evidence is his or her own prerogative, as far as I know.

---

That actually doesn’t change the status of the claim one iota. Whether one person or two hundred or even one billion claims that a dragon is real, the facts always speak for themselves, not majority rule. There is no democracy when it comes to pure, undeniable fact, and the fact is that claiming the existence of dragons when there has been no proof of them in the past still makes the claim an outrageous one, if not a silly one.

---

Yes, I am aware that truth is not determined by majority, but are you really suggesting you do not believe in anything that you’ve never personally seen?

Absolutely. I've never been to Sydney, Australia, but there's no reason for me to disbelieve its existence. The proof that it exists is demonstrable: I've seen pictures, movies, met people from Sydney, and there's a robust, verifiable history associated with the place that is well-documented.

On the other hand, you'll be hard-pressed to find a person who has been to the Pearly Gates to shake hands with St. Peter, so we cannot verify with demonstrable evidence that the place is real. Same goes for Mt. Olympus and the River Styx.

Think back to what I said about Alien Abductees. Do you believe they were all abducted by aliens? Why or why not?

No, I think it’s a supernatural experience, but not one with aliens. However, if 2.3 billion people all claimed to have been abducted, I think you’d join me in thinking something remarkable was going on, no?

Yeah, the remarkable thing is that billions of people would be claiming something they have no evidence for...oh, wait, that already happens!

You didn’t make it up though; Genesis 1 clearly says there was light on day 1, prior to the creation of plants.

I made up that part about the greenhouse. So I lied...you're going to argue with me about a lie I deliberately made?

---

That’s putting on the assumption that Science deliberately lies. Therein lies your problem, no pun intended. (That little guy you named science in that story actually sounds more like the Catholic Church; the science community isn’t out to hide anything, and if you believe they do, then I know a few doctors who can help you overcome your delusions and paranoia.)

---

I never said he intentionally lies, and it doesn’t matter either way, if there’s a possibility he’s wrong (even by accident), and we know there is a very high possibility he is, then he cannot be used to prove my boy Scripture is capable of making mistakes too. Right?

Your made-up boy science may have a high possibility of being wrong...though I'm not so certain you're correct in regards to natural science or the observable world. Sometimes there isn't a possibility of being wrong...sometimes there's just a lack of evidence that hasn't been found yet to supplement what's already known.

[Statler Waldorf]

Haven't forgotten about you Statler, just don't have time at present to give this my attention. I'll return to this when I can.

Take all the time you need; you also never answered what progressive metal bands you listen to….

The thing about science is since it is changing all the time, it never claims to be absolutely correct. Though we know much about how gravity works, we won't even pretend to say that we know everything about it. Not only is that arrogant, but we will undoubtedly be proven wrong if we persist in that manner. The mistake that religion makes is that it claims to be right, no matter what. Even though the Holey Babble states that there was a flood that covered the earth, geologists have discovered that this never has been the case in the history of life being present on earth. Though geologists might learn new things all the time about the properties of the earth, knowing how floods affect certain areas of the world is mere childsplay to them.

You’re proving my point though; science can never be used to prove the Bible isn’t what it claims to be, because as you have conceded science isn’t inerrant. As for the flood, I do not see how sedimentary rock covering the entire globe isn’t consistent with the flood account.

You don't get to decide what's empirical and what's not. I'm okay that you don't like my evidence, but that's all you have to say.

I didn’t decide that, matter has certain empirically measurable properties such as mass and volume; age is not one of these properties. Age must be inferred based upon rates and amounts.

They never tell the world to trust them, though I'm sure they appreciate people like you running around spouting off what you think they say. They (scientists) just think it's cool that they can go about calculating the age of the universe. I think you're just mad that the calculations have never been close to what the Bible has said about the earth's age. For me, it's just more lemon juice squeezed in the eye of the almighty invisible and grouchy Yahweh.

That’s not the case at all, a person must make anti-Biblical assumptions to arrive at such long ages, of course assuming the Bible is wrong in order to argue that the Bible is wrong is begging the question. If the events in the Bible took place it’s easy to arrive at young ages for the Earth and the cosmos. Not all scientists believe in an old earth and cosmos, you seem to be forgetting that.

Even though humankind can 100% trace their lineage back to Homo Erectus without any error, that's fallible? You need to work on that one, and I'll keep using my "fallible" resources and evidences in the meantime.

Again, tracing your lineage in that manner assumes that common traits are due to common ancestry; that’s an assumption that cannot be proven and yet without it you cannot trace anything. One hundred percent? Didn’t you just say above that nothing in science is absolute?

Unless God used a giant desklamp to light the sunless earth, then where is that light coming from? That's what I'm asking. You can have days without the sun, granted, but what about that light he created? Was he saving it in a plastic bag until he could channel its glow into the sun?

An omnipotent God cannot create light without the Sun? We’re not told where it’s coming from, it could be coming from God Himself; all we know is that it was there on day 1 of creation week.

You mean I can't learn about gravity without the Bible? I can't know that my wife is hot unless the Bible explicitly tells me so? What the fuck are you on about?

No, you could not know these things if we did not live in a Universe created by the God of the Bible.

Oh please. I'm supposed to take your word on it that if there was no God, that I'd be completely helpless and unreasonable?

No, you do not have to take my word for anything, but you cannot make sense of logic and reasoning in a purely material and natural Universe. Christians have no problem making sense of such things.

I'm supposed to take you seriously when you tell me the Bible is true when you don't even hold other scripture up to the same light of scrutiny? I'm afraid you're a little biased in your claims.

I do not think you’re following what I am saying; why should I hold other books up to the same degree of scrutiny when they already failed when I held them to lesser degrees of scrutiny?

But at the same time, Katy Perry doesn't commit genocide against people she doesn't like. We could do this all day.

It’s not her prerogative to do so, God can destroy His creation if He pleases can He not?

But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory – - Romans 9:20-23 (ESV)

You think these numbers are supposed to mean something to me, as if having more believers collectively will create god out of thin air, kinda like believing in Fairies in Neverland will keep the little buggers alive.

That’s not what I am doing at all, I am pointing out that your analogies are faulty because they are trying to compare very unordinary and fringe beliefs (alien abductions) with a very ordinary and mainstream belief (God exists), the reason I do not believe someone when they claim to have been abducted by aliens is because it’s not something many people claim happens to them. You believe your Tom (or whatever his name was) ate a sandwich because people claim to eat sandwiches for lunch all the time.

Mormons are tough because they do this: for just about everything, and then proceed to talk at you, thinking you are always in need of teaching. Remnants of my past still come up to bite me in the ass from time to time.

They’re under a lot of pressure from family and friends because they lose such relationships if they become apostates (not to mention they become sons of perdition); so I can see why they refuse to hear opposing viewpoints.

So...you believe in Christ like you always used to...but differently? I'm not familiar with Reformed Christians, but from talking with you it seems a little fundamental yet still somewhat reasonable. Am I close?

Fundamentalist is a greatly overused word, nobody on this forum has ever actually met a true fundamentalist Christian; they merely mislabel any Christian who believes the Bible to be a fundamentalist. I grew up believing in the more contemporary form of Christianity we see today, God wants everyone to be saved and if you just accept Jesus into your heart he’ll take you in…and all of that. Well a few years ago I got destroyed in a debate by a Reformed Christian, and I realized that he was taking a more biblical viewpoint than I was, so I switched over and began studying up. A Reformed Christian is just someone who puts emphasis in the doctrines adhered to by the Christian Reformers (Luther and Calvin). I think it’s a far more consistent position because it rejects man’s authority and makes God look much more like God; rather than some American dad who wants to play catch with his children. Enough rambling though!

And truth will sometimes always elude us. I'm okay with saying that we probably won't ever know everything for a fact. But, the truth is, we determine the validity of claims every day, and they are always judged on a personal level. A courtroom judge has higher stakes, but he/she must do the same, even if the entire truth is never completely uncovered. What a person determines as having a higher or lower standard of evidence is his or her own prerogative, as far as I know.

Interesting, I agree with you that we’ll never know everything, but I certainly think we can know a great deal of things.

Absolutely. I've never been to Sydney, Australia, but there's no reason for me to disbelieve its existence. The proof that it exists is demonstrable: I've seen pictures, movies, met people from Sydney, and there's a robust, verifiable history associated with the place that is well-documented.

So is a Christian allowed to believe God exists because they have no reason to disbelieve in His existence? I am just trying to understand your position.

On the other hand, you'll be hard-pressed to find a person who has been to the Pearly Gates to shake hands with St. Peter, so we cannot verify with demonstrable evidence that the place is real. Same goes for Mt. Olympus and the River Styx.

I’ve never been to Pluto or any of Jupiter’s moons, nor have I met anyone who has.

Yeah, the remarkable thing is that billions of people would be claiming something they have no evidence for...oh, wait, that already happens!

Well I do not agree with you on there being no evidence for God’s existence, I think that’s an oversimplification, but if that were true why do you believe so many people would believe in such a thing?

I made up that part about the greenhouse. So I lied...you're going to argue with me about a lie I deliberately made?

Oh, nope, I misunderstood what you meant, my apologies.

Your made-up boy science may have a high possibility of being wrong...though I'm not so certain you're correct in regards to natural science or the observable world. Sometimes there isn't a possibility of being wrong...sometimes there's just a lack of evidence that hasn't been found yet to supplement what's already known.

Pick up a science text from the 19th Century, or even just the 1950s, the vast majority of it is plain wrong by today’s scientific understanding, why do you think it will be any different 50 years from now when people read early 21st Century scientific works?
I’ll give you another example (let me know if I am boring you); the Bible claims the Universe has a beginning, if I were a Christian living in the early 1920s, and I took the view that we ought to use science to disprove the Bible, I would have rejected this claim and concluded the Bible is not inerrant because it claims the Universe had a beginning and since steady state theory is the popular view of the time period we know the Universe had no finite beginning! So I would have abandoned my faith because of a scientific view that would be completely replaced less than 50 years later; now scientists believe the Universe in fact did have a finite beginning. Science cannot disprove the Bible, and Christians who lose their faith because of it are looking at the whole thing backwards. Science is a wondrous God-given tool, I love it, it’s what I have chosen to do for a living, but scientism is dangerous.

[Bad Writer]

[quote='BadWriterSparty' pid='479925' dateline='1374204018']

---

The thing about science is since it is changing all the time, it never claims to be absolutely correct. Though we know much about how gravity works, we won't even pretend to say that we know everything about it. Not only is that arrogant, but we will undoubtedly be proven wrong if we persist in that manner. The mistake that religion makes is that it claims to be right, no matter what. Even though the Holey Babble states that there was a flood that covered the earth, geologists have discovered that this never has been the case in the history of life being present on earth. Though geologists might learn new things all the time about the properties of the earth, knowing how floods affect certain areas of the world is mere childsplay to them.

---

You’re proving my point though; science can never be used to prove the Bible isn’t what it claims to be, because as you have conceded science isn’t inerrant. As for the flood, I do not see how sedimentary rock covering the entire globe isn’t consistent with the flood account.
[/quote]



Here's some light reading for you:

Talk Origins: Problems with the Flood

---

They never tell the world to trust them, though I'm sure they appreciate people like you running around spouting off what you think they say. They (scientists) just think it's cool that they can go about calculating the age of the universe. I think you're just mad that the calculations have never been close to what the Bible has said about the earth's age. For me, it's just more lemon juice squeezed in the eye of the almighty invisible and grouchy Yahweh.

---

That’s not the case at all, a person must make anti-Biblical assumptions to arrive at such long ages, of course assuming the Bible is wrong in order to argue that the Bible is wrong is begging the question. If the events in the Bible took place it’s easy to arrive at young ages for the Earth and the cosmos. Not all scientists believe in an old earth and cosmos, you seem to be forgetting that.

You mean you think they were out to prove the Bible was wrong when they were dating the earth? Do you know how many creationists out there won't even touch the Young Earth Theory with a 10 foot pole? It's simply ludicrous to think that the Earth is only 6000 years old. You're allowed to believe it, but I can't take you seriously if you haven't done the research on the facts.

Even though humankind can 100% trace their lineage back to Homo Erectus without any error, that's fallible? You need to work on that one, and I'll keep using my "fallible" resources and evidences in the meantime.

Again, tracing your lineage in that manner assumes that common traits are due to common ancestry; that’s an assumption that cannot be proven and yet without it you cannot trace anything. One hundred percent? Didn’t you just say above that nothing in science is absolute?

One hundred percent. And I never said nothing in science is absolute. Sitting at my computer desk, I know for a certainty that gravity will cause a pen to fall to the ground every time I release it from my grip. That's an absolute in science. That fact will never change. The only future changes in the physics of gravity we will ever get are going to be supplemental; they won't rewrite the entire science book.

---

Unless God used a giant desklamp to light the sunless earth, then where is that light coming from? That's what I'm asking. You can have days without the sun, granted, but what about that light he created? Was he saving it in a plastic bag until he could channel its glow into the sun?

---

An omnipotent God cannot create light without the Sun? We’re not told where it’s coming from, it could be coming from God Himself; all we know is that it was there on day 1 of creation week.

You can't justify what you don't know. For all we can tell god created a giant firefly in the sky to light the world for that day.

I'm supposed to take you seriously when you tell me the Bible is true when you don't even hold other scripture up to the same light of scrutiny? I'm afraid you're a little biased in your claims.

I do not think you’re following what I am saying; why should I hold other books up to the same degree of scrutiny when they already failed when I held them to lesser degrees of scrutiny?

According to what we know about standards of evidence, you are doing quite the opposite. Think of a standard like a threshold. Once that line has been crossed, then it's okay for that individual to believe in whatever claim was on the other side. You have not crossed the thresholds of Al-Quran, for instance, because you still do not believe in it. My standards of evidence are very high for outrageous claims; this is why I still do not believe in the Loch Ness monster.

I hope that clarifies what I was a talking about. (I'm saying it's not a bad thing that you have a high standard of evidence for the other holy books, but that you should have that same standard for the Bible. If you think you do, that's all well and good -- I simply don't agree that you do, is all.)

But at the same time, Katy Perry doesn't commit genocide against people she doesn't like. We could do this all day.

It’s not her prerogative to do so, God can destroy His creation if He pleases can He not?

But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory – - Romans 9:20-23 (ESV)

Um...first of all, that's a passage about predestination. More on that later if you feel the need to discuss it. However, what I really want to say is that it's scary how you're okay knowing that God is cool with murdering his creations.

You think these numbers are supposed to mean something to me, as if having more believers collectively will create god out of thin air, kinda like believing in Fairies in Neverland will keep the little buggers alive.

That’s not what I am doing at all, I am pointing out that your analogies are faulty because they are trying to compare very unordinary and fringe beliefs (alien abductions) with a very ordinary and mainstream belief (God exists), the reason I do not believe someone when they claim to have been abducted by aliens is because it’s not something many people claim happens to them. You believe your Tom (or whatever his name was) ate a sandwich because people claim to eat sandwiches for lunch all the time.[/claim]

Sandwiches are demonstrably real; that's the kicker here. That's why the analogy works. (And the man's name was Jimmy, thank you. At least I remembered your boys Science and...well, whoever that other guy was, I remember him .)

Also, I think you'd be surprised at how many normal people in mainstream society believe in aliens, ghosts, and other things that are unseen but talked about.

[quote='Statler Waldorf' pid='480296' dateline='1374269465']

Mormons are tough because they do this: for just about everything, and then proceed to talk at you, thinking you are always in need of teaching. Remnants of my past still come up to bite me in the ass from time to time.

They’re under a lot of pressure from family and friends because they lose such relationships if they become apostates (not to mention they become sons of perdition); so I can see why they refuse to hear opposing viewpoints.

Too true I was ostracized by my father for a time after I resigned...until he was found committing adultery and got ex-communicated from the Mormon Church! Oh the irony.

---

Absolutely. I've never been to Sydney, Australia, but there's no reason for me to disbelieve its existence. The proof that it exists is demonstrable: I've seen pictures, movies, met people from Sydney, and there's a robust, verifiable history associated with the place that is well-documented.

---

So is a Christian allowed to believe God exists because they have no reason to disbelieve in His existence? I am just trying to understand your position.

Yes. You're allowed to believe in whatever you want. But realize though that even if there's no reason disbelieve his existence (that is, the idea that having a belief, even if it's false, won't hurt anyone but yourself) there's also no good reason to believe it. I'm a little more extreme, being an Anti-Theist, in that I believe there is a very many good reasons to disbelieve god. I can't demonstrably prove that he's not real, but I have reason to believe that society could potentially be better off without religion. There are many working models as to how a society bereft of religion might look, but I don't subscribe to any one model at the moment as what truly might happen if there were fewer systems of belief (or none at all) in the world.

---

On the other hand, you'll be hard-pressed to find a person who has been to the Pearly Gates to shake hands with St. Peter, so we cannot verify with demonstrable evidence that the place is real. Same goes for Mt. Olympus and the River Styx.

---

I’ve never been to Pluto or any of Jupiter’s moons, nor have I met anyone who has.

Have you seen pictures? Do we have telescopes? The evidence for the existence of the above-named celestial bodies is still demonstrable.

Yeah, the remarkable thing is that billions of people would be claiming something they have no evidence for...oh, wait, that already happens!

Well I do not agree with you on there being no evidence for God’s existence, I think that’s an oversimplification, but if that were true why do you believe so many people would believe in such a thing?

Just as there's no one way to eat a Reeses (yuk yuk) there's no one reason for why people believe in God. People may claim to have evidence to support their beliefs, and some people may be able to accept that evidence, but just don't see it as demonstrable. Huge numbers is not demonstrable...it just means there are a lot of believers in something that's not seen. I just want to be more responsible with my beliefs before I jump off the lemmings' cliff (or sit on that rotten tree branch of yours).

---

Your made-up boy science may have a high possibility of being wrong...though I'm not so certain you're correct in regards to natural science or the observable world. Sometimes there isn't a possibility of being wrong...sometimes there's just a lack of evidence that hasn't been found yet to supplement what's already known.

---

Pick up a science text from the 19th Century, or even just the 1950s, the vast majority of it is plain wrong by today’s scientific understanding, why do you think it will be any different 50 years from now when people read early 21st Century scientific works?

I’ll give you another example (let me know if I am boring you); the Bible claims the Universe has a beginning, if I were a Christian living in the early 1920s, and I took the view that we ought to use science to disprove the Bible, I would have rejected this claim and concluded the Bible is not inerrant because it claims the Universe had a beginning and since steady state theory is the popular view of the time period we know the Universe had no finite beginning! So I would have abandoned my faith because of a scientific view that would be completely replaced less than 50 years later; now scientists believe the Universe in fact did have a finite beginning. Science cannot disprove the Bible, and Christians who lose their faith because of it are looking at the whole thing backwards. Science is a wondrous God-given tool, I love it, it’s what I have chosen to do for a living, but scientism is dangerous.

I can see that you have a lot of reason to mistrust science (and thank you for providing good, valid reasons). But the differences/changes you are talking about that will occur 50 years ago do not render all science invalid.

I think what's not being said here is that my atheism actually isn't based in science at all. My atheism is based in doubt. Scientific theories help me understand the world better, but my doubt remains. (Doubt is also what helps improve science, believe it or not.) I can give you scientific evidence that proves the Bible wrong all day long, but I don't need that in order to disbelieve the Bible. I simply don't see a reason to believe it, the same as I don't believe in the tale told by Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings.

[Statler Waldorf]

Here's some light reading for you:

Talk Origins: Problems with the Flood

You should look up the term “elephant hurling” in regards to debate. The handy thing is, whenever you hurl an elephant, I am perfectly justified in hurling one back at you, here’s a refutation (some light reading) of the article you referenced….

http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp

You mean you think they were out to prove the Bible was wrong when they were dating the earth? Do you know how many creationists out there won't even touch the Young Earth Theory with a 10 foot pole? It's simply ludicrous to think that the Earth is only 6000 years old. You're allowed to believe it, but I can't take you seriously if you haven't done the research on the facts.

Did you read what I posted? If you assume the Bible is wrong, you’ll arrive at old ages for the Earth, that is true, however that does nothing to prove the Bible is actually wrong or that the Earth is actually that old. If you assume the Bible is true it’s easy to arrive at young ages for the Earth. Both sides have to assume the very thing they are trying to prove.

One hundred percent. And I never said nothing in science is absolute.

Interesting…

“The thing about science is since it is changing all the time, it never claims to be absolutely correct.”- You in Post 334.

Sitting at my computer desk, I know for a certainty that gravity will cause a pen to fall to the ground every time I release it from my grip. That's an absolute in science. That fact will never change. The only future changes in the physics of gravity we will ever get are going to be supplemental; they won't rewrite the entire science book.

Now this is about to get really interesting…

How does gravity cause the pen to fall?

You seem to be assuming that future trials will yield results that are similar to the results of past trials under similar conditions, how do you know this is true?

You can't justify what you don't know. For all we can tell god created a giant firefly in the sky to light the world for that day.

Sure, but that would still give us days without the Sun, so what’s your point?

According to what we know about standards of evidence, you are doing quite the opposite. Think of a standard like a threshold. Once that line has been crossed, then it's okay for that individual to believe in whatever claim was on the other side. You have not crossed the thresholds of Al-Quran, for instance, because you still do not believe in it. My standards of evidence are very high for outrageous claims; this is why I still do not believe in the Loch Ness monster.

I am not talking about standards of evidence; I am talking about standards of scrutiny. I apply more scrutiny to the Bible than any other Holy Book, which means I hold it to a higher standard of evidence. It passes that standard easily.

I hope that clarifies what I was a talking about. (I'm saying it's not a bad thing that you have a high standard of evidence for the other holy books, but that you should have that same standard for the Bible. If you think you do, that's all well and good -- I simply don't agree that you do, is all.)

I have a lower standard of evidence for other books and yet they do not even meet it. That’s what I am saying.

Um...first of all, that's a passage about predestination. More on that later if you feel the need to discuss it. However, what I really want to say is that it's scary how you're okay knowing that God is cool with murdering his creations.

It’s not murder if He’s justified in doing it, and He is. I am fully aware of what Romans 9 is about, and Paul is saying God is justified in building Pharaoh up only to destroy Him. The potter has the right over the clay.

Sandwiches are demonstrably real; that's the kicker here. That's why the analogy works. (And the man's name was Jimmy, thank you. At least I remembered your boys Science and...well, whoever that other guy was, I remember him .)

Very funny, but for billions of people God is demonstrable as well.

Also, I think you'd be surprised at how many normal people in mainstream society believe in aliens, ghosts, and other things that are unseen but talked about.

Yes, interestingly enough most atheists believe in aliens even though there’s no proof they exist (a bit of special pleading). However, we were talking about people believing they had been abducted by aliens, and those people make up a meniscal amount of the total population.

Too true I was ostracized by my father for a time after I resigned...until he was found committing adultery and got ex-communicated from the Mormon Church! Oh the irony.

You sound like you’ve got an interesting story, I’d love to hear it someday.

I can't demonstrably prove that he's not real, but I have reason to believe that society could potentially be better off without religion. There are many working models as to how a society bereft of religion might look, but I don't subscribe to any one model at the moment as what truly might happen if there were fewer systems of belief (or none at all) in the world.

The soviets tried this, and it didn’t work out all too well.

Have you seen pictures? Do we have telescopes? The evidence for the existence of the above-named celestial bodies is still demonstrable.

I have also seen alleged pictures of Bigfoot and “Nessy”. It seems like your standards are a bit arbitrary for what you accept as evidence and what you reject as evidence.

Just as there's no one way to eat a Reeses (yuk yuk) there's no one reason for why people believe in God. People may claim to have evidence to support their beliefs, and some people may be able to accept that evidence, but just don't see it as demonstrable. Huge numbers is not demonstrable...it just means there are a lot of believers in something that's not seen. I just want to be more responsible with my beliefs before I jump off the lemmings' cliff (or sit on that rotten tree branch of yours).

You’re on the branch with me whether or not you like it, I am afraid my friend. I am just trying to pin you down on why you believe it’s ok to believe in some things that are unseen but not others. Do you believe in aliens?

I can see that you have a lot of reason to mistrust science (and thank you for providing good, valid reasons). But the differences/changes you are talking about that will occur 50 years ago do not render all science invalid.

I am aware of that, but the scientific understandings that seem to conflict with scripture are precisely the types of scientific theories that change the most and that we are the most unsure about, I do not think that’s a mere coincidence at all.

I think what's not being said here is that my atheism actually isn't based in science at all. My atheism is based in doubt. Scientific theories help me understand the world better, but my doubt remains. (Doubt is also what helps improve science, believe it or not.) I can give you scientific evidence that proves the Bible wrong all day long, but I don't need that in order to disbelieve the Bible. I simply don't see a reason to believe it, the same as I don't believe in the tale told by Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings.

So if this doubt is not based upon anything evidenced would you concede that your atheism is a faith based position?

[Bad Writer]

Here's some light reading for you:

Talk Origins: Problems with the Flood

You should look up the term “elephant hurling” in regards to debate. The handy thing is, whenever you hurl an elephant, I am perfectly justified in hurling one back at you, here’s a refutation (some light reading) of the article you referenced….

http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp

Any argument for a Global Flood is special pleading at its finest, sir. I mean, I didn't actually expect you to read my hurled elephant (you didn't, did you?), but it was meant as, "You believe in a Flood? I have many reasons why I don't, I care to unfurl them all in this moment, and arguing about it is a silly notion to me."

But you persist. And I'm going to insist.

Size of the Ark: Wood is structurally unsound at that size, especially with the number of animals on board.

Unbelievable amounts of Shit: Shit shit shit, everywhere there's shit. Those 8 family members would be shoveling animal dung all day long.

Food: Storage and amounts would also be an issue. Where do the carnivores get the meat if there is only two of everything...I mean...there was only two of everything, right? Oh, no, the Bible actually contradicts itself again by saying there might have been 7 pairs of each, that is, 14 of each kind of animal. Which brings up the next point:

How many animals on the ark? : You seriously can't tell me you think that Noah put all of the 1 1/2 million kinds of animal on such a small, wooden boat? Then there's that food issue again...

Even the mountains covered: Okay...I know this god of yours can do anything, but where did he get all that water, and where did it go afterwards? I guess it was magic. And if the polar ice caps melted, there's no evidence of that occurring in 2000 B.C., and if the entire earth was flooded, all marine life would have ended because of the water inconsistencies...but they didn't. All plant life would be dead...but it wasn't. This story is stupid, stupid, stupid, and you ARE a special kind of retard if you believe it. Even from a non-scientific standpoint, it is utterly bogus. You want to believe in something that's obviously a fairy tale.

(And I read your piece of shit article that you pasted back at me. Your fundie friends wanna get pissy because we hold the Bible with contempt? Tough. I hold any piece of shit that's held under my nose with contempt, the Bible included. So many plants could have survived? That doesn't account for the ones that may or may not have...or the ones that exist that definitely wouldn't have. Having one land mass before the flood is special pleading as well as heavy speculation. Also, leaving no point or question unanswered is not the same as answering them correctly. This is worse than Christian Apologetics: this is voluntary ignorance.)

If you assume the Bible is wrong, you’ll arrive at old ages for the Earth, that is true, however that does nothing to prove the Bible is actually wrong or that the Earth is actually that old. If you assume the Bible is true it’s easy to arrive at young ages for the Earth. Both sides have to assume the very thing they are trying to prove.

You're ill-informed if you believe that. This argument is true for the former, but it doesn't work that way for the latter. How do you know the hypothesis was that the earth was 6000 years old, but was proven wrong when it turned out to be much, much more? Science turns up wrong hypotheses all the time, which lead to amazing discoveries. You've just proven to me that you have no grounds to argue against science because you have no idea how it comes up with results. Please come down from bullshit mountain, SW.

One hundred percent. And I never said nothing in science is absolute.

Interesting…

“The thing about science is since it is changing all the time, it never claims to be absolutely correct.”- You in Post 334.

You caught me in a contradiction of words.

I should say that it's never so arrogant to assume that it has all the answers concerning everything, but there are definitely certain things we can count on to always be true.

Sitting at my computer desk, I know for a certainty that gravity will cause a pen to fall to the ground every time I release it from my grip. That's an absolute in science. That fact will never change. The only future changes in the physics of gravity we will ever get are going to be supplemental; they won't rewrite the entire science book.

Yeah, that about sums up my thoughts on that. I'm not really sure why you follow up with:

SW: "How does gravity cause the pen to fall? You seem to be assuming that future trials will yield results that are similar to the results of past trials under similar conditions, how do you know this is true?"

I know it's true because of the mass of the earth, which is measurable and directly related to the force of gravity, another measurable phenomenon. We could change the outcome by dropping it on a moving elevator, or dropping it whilst on the moon, or even letting go of the pen while in space. But gravity's relation to the mass of an object and its relative direction and velocity to it are all that matters in this equation. Oh, and we can add in little factors here and there like surface tension against a non-vacuum space and all that jazz.

You can't justify what you don't know. For all we can tell god created a giant firefly in the sky to light the world for that day.

Sure, but that would still give us days without the Sun, so what’s your point?

The bold was my point.

---

According to what we know about standards of evidence, you are doing quite the opposite. Think of a standard like a threshold. Once that line has been crossed, then it's okay for that individual to believe in whatever claim was on the other side. You have not crossed the thresholds of Al-Quran, for instance, because you still do not believe in it. My standards of evidence are very high for outrageous claims; this is why I still do not believe in the Loch Ness monster.

---

I am not talking about standards of evidence; I am talking about standards of scrutiny. I apply more scrutiny to the Bible than any other Holy Book, which means I hold it to a higher standard of evidence. It passes that standard easily.

...

I have a lower standard of evidence for other books and yet they do not even meet it. That’s what I am saying.

Well then you and I are talking about different things, and I can't seem to keep you on track with my point, or you're deliberately avoiding the obvious conclusion, so it's no use to even bother with it anymore

Um...first of all, that's a passage about predestination. More on that later if you feel the need to discuss it. However, what I really want to say is that it's scary how you're okay knowing that God is cool with murdering his creations.

It’s not murder if He’s justified in doing it, and He is. I am fully aware of what Romans 9 is about, and Paul is saying God is justified in building Pharaoh up only to destroy Him. The potter has the right over the clay.

You may think he's justified in doing it, but I abhor his actions, which is why, even if he's real, I will not worship him. He's a murderous twat, and he should be avoided at all costs. I mean, what if you hear a voice in your head that tells you to kill me? Would you kill me if you attributed that voice to God? (I would hope that you doubt that it's from God and instead trust your better judgment.)

---

Sandwiches are demonstrably real; that's the kicker here. That's why the analogy works. (And the man's name was Jimmy, thank you. At least I remembered your boys Science and...well, whoever that other guy was, I remember him .)

---

Very funny, but for billions of people God is demonstrable as well.

Their evidence is special since they can't demonstrate it to others.

Yes, interestingly enough most atheists believe in aliens even though there’s no proof they exist (a bit of special pleading). However, we were talking about people believing they had been abducted by aliens, and those people make up a meniscal amount of the total population.

So I can't, say, compare a belief in a Christian God Jehovah/Jesus to a belief in the Mormon God Elohim? The numbers of believers for each faith is very different from one another, Mormons having fewer, yet they both rely on one thing in order to believe: faith. I would hope that a rational man would use the same standard of evidence when scrutinizing either's religious claims. I hold the same true for stories of alien abductees, for if a person is to believe those stories, it would take a huge leap of faith without demonstrable evidence, even thought there are much fewer alien-probed people out there than there are in the Christian population.

---

I can't demonstrably prove that he's not real, but I have reason to believe that society could potentially be better off without religion. There are many working models as to how a society bereft of religion might look, but I don't subscribe to any one model at the moment as what truly might happen if there were fewer systems of belief (or none at all) in the world.

---

The soviets tried this, and it didn’t work out all too well.

Oh, you mean forcing Atheism on a nation? Man, I'm talking about natural Atheism caused by reason and understanding on a personal level.

Have you seen pictures? Do we have telescopes? The evidence for the existence of the above-named celestial bodies is still demonstrable.

I have also seen alleged pictures of Bigfoot and “Nessy”. It seems like your standards are a bit arbitrary for what you accept as evidence and what you reject as evidence.

You mean, have I seen any peer reviews or reproducible evidence? Please don't throw a strawman at me.

You’re on the branch with me whether or not you like it, I am afraid my friend. I am just trying to pin you down on why you believe it’s ok to believe in some things that are unseen but not others. Do you believe in aliens?

Fair enough, but let it be noted that I'm being held on the branch against my will (let it also be noted that that was just a jab at your god's supposed free will). I don't believe in aliens, but their possible existence intrigues me. Do you think I should believe in aliens, even though there's absolutely no demonstrable proof that they are out there?

I can see that you have a lot of reason to mistrust science (and thank you for providing good, valid reasons). But the differences/changes you are talking about that will occur 50 years ago do not render all science invalid.

I am aware of that, but the scientific understandings that seem to conflict with scripture are precisely the types of scientific theories that change the most and that we are the most unsure about, I do not think that’s a mere coincidence at all.

I'm sorry to hear it, but I think that one is out of my hands. I will say that I don't believe it's a coincidence because these scientific explanations conflict heavily with what fundamental Christians hold true, so there's going to be some unavoidable debate. Weak points and strong points are going to be brought out for both sides.

---

I think what's not being said here is that my atheism actually isn't based in science at all. My atheism is based in doubt. Scientific theories help me understand the world better, but my doubt remains. (Doubt is also what helps improve science, believe it or not.) I can give you scientific evidence that proves the Bible wrong all day long, but I don't need that in order to disbelieve the Bible. I simply don't see a reason to believe it, the same as I don't believe in the tale told by Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings.

---

So if this doubt is not based upon anything evidenced would you concede that your atheism is a faith based position?

I don't believe in the use of faith, so no. The disbelief in god(s) is, when restated, a negative belief, or the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is also the standard position that one should take before being convinced with evidence that meets one's standard.

By the way, if you wanted to hear more about my Mormon days, then you should PM, and we'll get more into it that way. We should leave elements of this discussion out of that though, for I would rather this debate stay public.

[Statler Waldorf]

Any argument for a Global Flood is special pleading at its finest, sir. I mean, I didn't actually expect you to read my hurled elephant (you didn't, did you?), but it was meant as, "You believe in a Flood? I have many reasons why I don't, I care to unfurl them all in this moment, and arguing about it is a silly notion to me."

I’ve read that article before; it’s a common “elephant” with atheists.

Size of the Ark: Wood is structurally unsound at that size, especially with the number of animals on board.

I thought you said you read the article I posted? Or did you just read the beginning of it? Sarfati already addressed this question.

“Answer: This argument is often parroted, but is just as bogus as the others. The Ark was built for stability, not movement. A flat-bottomed barge like the Ark wouldn’t have problems with sag. If the lower deck were made of logs, four layers deep, it would have been very sturdy. If they were teak logs, especially specially treated by being buried for a while, the ark would have been especially seaworthy. Woodmorappe points this out too, and much more, so Isaak is dishonest to ignore that. Korean naval architects have confirmed that a barge with the Ark’s dimensions would have optimal stability. They concluded that if the wood were only 30 cm thick, it could have navigated sea conditions with waves higher than 30 m (S.W. Hong et al., “Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a Seaway”, CEN Technical Journal 8(1):26–36, 1994. All the co-authors are on the staff of the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Ocean Engineering, Taijon.)” - http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp

Unbelievable amounts of Shit: Shit shit shit, everywhere there's shit. Those 8 family members would be shoveling animal dung all day long.

This isn’t really a problem, using channeling systems most ships make it so gravity will do the shoveling for them, it’s not like you have to keep it on board the entire trip.

Food: Storage and amounts would also be an issue. Where do the carnivores get the meat if there is only two of everything...I mean...there was only two of everything, right? Oh, no, the Bible actually contradicts itself again by saying there might have been 7 pairs of each, that is, 14 of each kind of animal. Which brings up the next point:

Carnivores (even snakes) can survive on a vegetarian diet, so that again is not a problem.

As for your point about pairs and sevens, Sarfati already addressed that point as well in the article you’ve claimed to have read.

“Isaak claims that the Flood account in Genesis is self-contradictory, apparently ignorant of the standard Ancient Near Eastern literary practice of making a general statement, then elaborating on specifics. The Bible first makes a general statement that a male and female of each kind of land vertebrate was to be loaded on board the Ark. Then it elaborates on this general rule by requiring seven of the very few clean animals. Gen. 7:9 says the animals went on to the Ark “by twos” (NASB), referring to the mode of entry, not the numbers.”

How many animals on the ark? : You seriously can't tell me you think that Noah put all of the 1 1/2 million kinds of animal on such a small, wooden boat? Then there's that food issue again...

Again, this point was already addressed in the article that I am beginning to suspect you only read the first couple paragraphs of.

“Creationists have long pointed out that the biblical “kind” was broader than today’s “species”. Sorting and loss of the already existing genetic information has resulted in all the “species” we have today (this is not evolution, which requires new genes and new information). The article Ligers and Wholphins: What Next? (Creation 22(3):28–33, June–August 2000 ) covers the extent of the biblical “kinds” in more detail. This article shows that many so-called different species and genera can actually interbreed and produce fertile offspring, showing that they are really a single polytypic biological species. And animals that can hybridise, at least up to fertilisation, are members of the same created kind. Thus Noah would have needed comparatively few “kinds” of land vertebrate. Woodmorappe assumes that each “kind”would be the ancestor of all “species” in a modern “genus”, so only about 16,000 animals would have been on board. And this assumption is generous to the evolutionists — the article Ligers and Wholphins shows that many “kinds” could even each be the ancestors of a whole “family” if so, then only 2000 animals would have been required on board.”

2,000 animals? That’s far fewer than most major zoos have.

Even the mountains covered: Okay...I know this god of yours can do anything, but where did he get all that water, and where did it go afterwards? I guess it was magic. And if the polar ice caps melted, there's no evidence of that occurring in 2000 B.C., and if the entire earth was flooded, all marine life would have ended because of the water inconsistencies...but they didn't. All plant life would be dead...but it wasn't. This story is stupid, stupid, stupid, and you ARE a special kind of retard if you believe it. Even from a non-scientific standpoint, it is utterly bogus. You want to believe in something that's obviously a fairy tale.

You seem to be getting a bit flustered; that happens. You should actually read the entire article because the question about the mountains is addressed in the article as well (even you believe the highest mountains were covered by water at some point in time, they have marine fossils.) If the oceanic floors raised, which is supported by the creation model, there’d be more than enough water to cover the entire globe. You obviously are just not very familiar with the material on this subject.

(And I read your piece of shit article that you pasted back at me.

Apparently not.

You're ill-informed if you believe that. This argument is true for the former, but it doesn't work that way for the latter. How do you know the hypothesis was that the earth was 6000 years old, but was proven wrong when it turned out to be much, much more? Science turns up wrong hypotheses all the time, which lead to amazing discoveries. You've just proven to me that you have no grounds to argue against science because you have no idea how it comes up with results. Please come down from bullshit mountain, SW.

Simmer down. Old ages for the Earth rely entirely upon uniformitarian assumptions (which were first postulated by Lisle, who did not believe the Earth was 6,000 years old, so your assertions about testing the biblical hypothesis were plain wrong), of course this assumes that no global flood ever occurred; so you’ve adopted anti-biblical assumptions in order to argue that the Bible is wrong, that’s begging the question and proves nothing.

I know it's true because of the mass of the earth, which is measurable and directly related to the force of gravity, another measurable phenomenon. We could change the outcome by dropping it on a moving elevator, or dropping it whilst on the moon, or even letting go of the pen while in space. But gravity's relation to the mass of an object and its relative direction and velocity to it are all that matters in this equation. Oh, and we can add in little factors here and there like surface tension against a non-vacuum space and all that jazz.

Sure, but that doesn’t answer either of my questions. Scientific laws are descriptive, so to say they “cause” anything is a category error. I want to know what actually causes the pen to fall to the ground. Simply asserting that “gravity” does isn’t going to cut it.

Secondly, there’s a greater principle at work here that you have yet to justify. You assume that future results will resemble past results under identical conditions. That’s an assumption, and I want to know what your justification for that assumption is. If I drop a pen on Monday, how do I know it will behave the same if I drop it on Thursday? A week from today? In Kansas? In Canada? I want to know how you justify this belief in a purely material and natural Universe. Without this principle, science is impossible, keep that in mind.

The bold was my point.

There’s no bold in what you typed, go back and check.

You may think he's justified in doing it, but I abhor his actions, which is why, even if he's real, I will not worship him. He's a murderous twat, and he should be avoided at all costs. I mean, what if you hear a voice in your head that tells you to kill me? Would you kill me if you attributed that voice to God? (I would hope that you doubt that it's from God and instead trust your better judgment.)

Whether or not you like what God does is irrelevant. Direct revelation is closed, so God is not telling anyone to kill anyone else. Why is it morally wrong for God to kill someone? I am not following your logic on that one at all.

Their evidence is special since they can't demonstrate it to others.

Sure they can, most people who come to the faith come to the faith because of reasons presented by other believers.

So I can't, say, compare a belief in a Christian God Jehovah/Jesus to a belief in the Mormon God Elohim? The numbers of believers for each faith is very different from one another, Mormons having fewer, yet they both rely on one thing in order to believe: faith. I would hope that a rational man would use the same standard of evidence when scrutinizing either's religious claims. I hold the same true for stories of alien abductees, for if a person is to believe those stories, it would take a huge leap of faith without demonstrable evidence, even thought there are much fewer alien-probed people out there than there are in the Christian population.

My reasons for rejecting Mormonism are not based upon evidence or a lack of evidence (I am still not sure what you‘d accept as evidence for God), it is far more fundamental than that. Mormonism is polytheistic in nature, and polytheism is not logically defensible. That’s why I reject Mormonism.

Oh, you mean forcing Atheism on a nation? Man, I'm talking about natural Atheism caused by reason and understanding on a personal level.

That’s not possible because Humans naturally prefer theism over atheism.

You mean, have I seen any peer reviews or reproducible evidence? Please don't throw a strawman at me.

You only believe in that which has been peer-reviewed? Really?

Fair enough, but let it be noted that I'm being held on the branch against my will (let it also be noted that that was just a jab at your god's supposed free will). I don't believe in aliens, but their possible existence intrigues me. Do you think I should believe in aliens, even though there's absolutely no demonstrable proof that they are out there?

God’s free will? Not sure what you mean there. No, I was just seeing how consistent you were, kudos. You’re far more consistent than most atheists who ridicule belief in God but then will argue until they are blue in the face that little green men exist.

I don't believe in the use of faith, so no. The disbelief in god(s) is, when restated, a negative belief, or the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is also the standard position that one should take before being convinced with evidence that meets one's standard.

Any position can be stated as the negative position, so that’s not going to work. You’ll have to first prove that neutral ground exists before you start asserting that atheists are standing on such ground when they examine the veracity of scripture.

By the way, if you wanted to hear more about my Mormon days, then you should PM, and we'll get more into it that way. We should leave elements of this discussion out of that though, for I would rather this debate stay public.

Sounds good to me.

[cratehorus]

---

Any argument for a Global Flood is special pleading at its finest, sir. I mean, I didn't actually expect you to read my hurled elephant (you didn't, did you?), but it was meant as, "You believe in a Flood? I have many reasons why I don't, I care to unfurl them all in this moment, and arguing about it is a silly notion to me."

I’ve read that article before; it’s a common “elephant” with atheists.

Size of the Ark: Wood is structurally unsound at that size, especially with the number of animals on board.

I thought you said you read the article I posted? Or did you just read the beginning of it? Sarfati already addressed this question.

“Answer: This argument is often parroted, but is just as bogus as the others. The Ark was built for stability, not movement. A flat-bottomed barge like the Ark wouldn’t have problems with sag. If the lower deck were made of logs, four layers deep, it would have been very sturdy. If they were teak logs, especially specially treated by being buried for a while, the ark would have been especially seaworthy. Woodmorappe points this out too, and much more, so Isaak is dishonest to ignore that. Korean naval architects have confirmed that a barge with the Ark’s dimensions would have optimal stability. They concluded that if the wood were only 30 cm thick, it could have navigated sea conditions with waves higher than 30 m (S.W. Hong et al., “Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a Seaway”, CEN Technical Journal 8(1):26–36, 1994. All the co-authors are on the staff of the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Ocean Engineering, Taijon.)” - http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp

Unbelievable amounts of Shit: Shit shit shit, everywhere there's shit. Those 8 family members would be shoveling animal dung all day long.

This isn’t really a problem, using channeling systems most ships make it so gravity will do the shoveling for them, it’s not like you have to keep it on board the entire trip.

Food: Storage and amounts would also be an issue. Where do the carnivores get the meat if there is only two of everything...I mean...there was only two of everything, right? Oh, no, the Bible actually contradicts itself again by saying there might have been 7 pairs of each, that is, 14 of each kind of animal. Which brings up the next point:

Carnivores (even snakes) can survive on a vegetarian diet, so that again is not a problem.

As for your point about pairs and sevens, Sarfati already addressed that point as well in the article you’ve claimed to have read.

“Isaak claims that the Flood account in Genesis is self-contradictory, apparently ignorant of the standard Ancient Near Eastern literary practice of making a general statement, then elaborating on specifics. The Bible first makes a general statement that a male and female of each kind of land vertebrate was to be loaded on board the Ark. Then it elaborates on this general rule by requiring seven of the very few clean animals. Gen. 7:9 says the animals went on to the Ark “by twos” (NASB), referring to the mode of entry, not the numbers.”

How many animals on the ark? : You seriously can't tell me you think that Noah put all of the 1 1/2 million kinds of animal on such a small, wooden boat? Then there's that food issue again...

Again, this point was already addressed in the article that I am beginning to suspect you only read the first couple paragraphs of.

“Creationists have long pointed out that the biblical “kind” was broader than today’s “species”. Sorting and loss of the already existing genetic information has resulted in all the “species” we have today (this is not evolution, which requires new genes and new information). The article Ligers and Wholphins: What Next? (Creation 22(3):28–33, June–August 2000 ) covers the extent of the biblical “kinds” in more detail. This article shows that many so-called different species and genera can actually interbreed and produce fertile offspring, showing that they are really a single polytypic biological species. And animals that can hybridise, at least up to fertilisation, are members of the same created kind. Thus Noah would have needed comparatively few “kinds” of land vertebrate. Woodmorappe assumes that each “kind”would be the ancestor of all “species” in a modern “genus”, so only about 16,000 animals would have been on board. And this assumption is generous to the evolutionists — the article Ligers and Wholphins shows that many “kinds” could even each be the ancestors of a whole “family” if so, then only 2000 animals would have been required on board.”

2,000 animals? That’s far fewer than most major zoos have.

Even the mountains covered: Okay...I know this god of yours can do anything, but where did he get all that water, and where did it go afterwards? I guess it was magic. And if the polar ice caps melted, there's no evidence of that occurring in 2000 B.C., and if the entire earth was flooded, all marine life would have ended because of the water inconsistencies...but they didn't. All plant life would be dead...but it wasn't. This story is stupid, stupid, stupid, and you ARE a special kind of retard if you believe it. Even from a non-scientific standpoint, it is utterly bogus. You want to believe in something that's obviously a fairy tale.

You seem to be getting a bit flustered; that happens. You should actually read the entire article because the question about the mountains is addressed in the article as well (even you believe the highest mountains were covered by water at some point in time, they have marine fossils.) If the oceanic floors raised, which is supported by the creation model, there’d be more than enough water to cover the entire globe. You obviously are just not very familiar with the material on this subject.

(And I read your piece of shit article that you pasted back at me.

Apparently not.

You're ill-informed if you believe that. This argument is true for the former, but it doesn't work that way for the latter. How do you know the hypothesis was that the earth was 6000 years old, but was proven wrong when it turned out to be much, much more? Science turns up wrong hypotheses all the time, which lead to amazing discoveries. You've just proven to me that you have no grounds to argue against science because you have no idea how it comes up with results. Please come down from bullshit mountain, SW.

Simmer down. Old ages for the Earth rely entirely upon uniformitarian assumptions (which were first postulated by Lisle, who did not believe the Earth was 6,000 years old, so your assertions about testing the biblical hypothesis were plain wrong), of course this assumes that no global flood ever occurred; so you’ve adopted anti-biblical assumptions in order to argue that the Bible is wrong, that’s begging the question and proves nothing.

I know it's true because of the mass of the earth, which is measurable and directly related to the force of gravity, another measurable phenomenon. We could change the outcome by dropping it on a moving elevator, or dropping it whilst on the moon, or even letting go of the pen while in space. But gravity's relation to the mass of an object and its relative direction and velocity to it are all that matters in this equation. Oh, and we can add in little factors here and there like surface tension against a non-vacuum space and all that jazz.

Sure, but that doesn’t answer either of my questions. Scientific laws are descriptive, so to say they “cause” anything is a category error. I want to know what actually causes the pen to fall to the ground. Simply asserting that “gravity” does isn’t going to cut it.

Secondly, there’s a greater principle at work here that you have yet to justify. You assume that future results will resemble past results under identical conditions. That’s an assumption, and I want to know what your justification for that assumption is. If I drop a pen on Monday, how do I know it will behave the same if I drop it on Thursday? A week from today? In Kansas? In Canada? I want to know how you justify this belief in a purely material and natural Universe. Without this principle, science is impossible, keep that in mind.

The bold was my point.

There’s no bold in what you typed, go back and check.

You may think he's justified in doing it, but I abhor his actions, which is why, even if he's real, I will not worship him. He's a murderous twat, and he should be avoided at all costs. I mean, what if you hear a voice in your head that tells you to kill me? Would you kill me if you attributed that voice to God? (I would hope that you doubt that it's from God and instead trust your better judgment.)

Whether or not you like what God does is irrelevant. Direct revelation is closed, so God is not telling anyone to kill anyone else. Why is it morally wrong for God to kill someone? I am not following your logic on that one at all.

Their evidence is special since they can't demonstrate it to others.

Sure they can, most people who come to the faith come to the faith because of reasons presented by other believers.

So I can't, say, compare a belief in a Christian God Jehovah/Jesus to a belief in the Mormon God Elohim? The numbers of believers for each faith is very different from one another, Mormons having fewer, yet they both rely on one thing in order to believe: faith. I would hope that a rational man would use the same standard of evidence when scrutinizing either's religious claims. I hold the same true for stories of alien abductees, for if a person is to believe those stories, it would take a huge leap of faith without demonstrable evidence, even thought there are much fewer alien-probed people out there than there are in the Christian population.

My reasons for rejecting Mormonism are not based upon evidence or a lack of evidence (I am still not sure what you‘d accept as evidence for God), it is far more fundamental than that. Mormonism is polytheistic in nature, and polytheism is not logically defensible. That’s why I reject Mormonism.

Oh, you mean forcing Atheism on a nation? Man, I'm talking about natural Atheism caused by reason and understanding on a personal level.

That’s not possible because Humans naturally prefer theism over atheism.

You mean, have I seen any peer reviews or reproducible evidence? Please don't throw a strawman at me.

You only believe in that which has been peer-reviewed? Really?

Fair enough, but let it be noted that I'm being held on the branch against my will (let it also be noted that that was just a jab at your god's supposed free will). I don't believe in aliens, but their possible existence intrigues me. Do you think I should believe in aliens, even though there's absolutely no demonstrable proof that they are out there?

God’s free will? Not sure what you mean there. No, I was just seeing how consistent you were, kudos. You’re far more consistent than most atheists who ridicule belief in God but then will argue until they are blue in the face that little green men exist.

I don't believe in the use of faith, so no. The disbelief in god(s) is, when restated, a negative belief, or the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is also the standard position that one should take before being convinced with evidence that meets one's standard.

Any position can be stated as the negative position, so that’s not going to work. You’ll have to first prove that neutral ground exists before you start asserting that atheists are standing on such ground when they examine the veracity of scripture.

By the way, if you wanted to hear more about my Mormon days, then you should PM, and we'll get more into it that way. We should leave elements of this discussion out of that though, for I would rather this debate stay public.

Sounds good to me.

---

...............................god is not real