RE: CHISTIANS PLEASE EXPLAIN
January 30, 2014 at 10:22 am
(This post was last modified: January 30, 2014 at 10:23 am by pocaracas.)
First off, there's something I have to get off my chest about your username.
As a World of Tanks player, it reminds me way too much of this tank:
![[Image: UK-GB11_Caernarvon.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=wiki.worldoftanks.com%2Fimages%2F6%2F61%2FUK-GB11_Caernarvon.png)
The Caernarvon.
So... there you go, you now have an avatar to go with your username!
Organism, bacteria... those are very advanced structures.
A virus is alive and yet lacks a lot of the structures that a bacteria has.
I was talking about self-replicating amino-acid chains... something simple... something that can be built upon to develop all those organisms.
No its not "a faith", whatever that means...
People have faith that that particular hypothesis is the correct one.
People have faith in other particular hypotheses....
If you ask me, it's not a very honest attitude towards reality, but hey... whatever keeps people happy, huh?
That Bible tends to have a very narrow testability... On the really important details, it's kinda impossible to test, unless you've deluded yourself into accepting that hypothesis as truthful, prior to actual evidence for it...
If most (if not all) the experts agree that the models are pretty darn accurate and match with all the observations, then it is as good as fact.
Apples fall. Repeatedly, consistently, consensually at a very specific rate.
The current model for the initial expansion of the Universe fall in line with all the experiments carried out in nuclear accelerators. The model is then, the best we have to describe the early Universe.
Astrophysical observations fit with the same model.
Why should the model be wrong just because it does not require an assumption that people would prefer to be there?
How about the very first one that's not even written down? "there is a god and it is very well defined as [whatever you want it to be]".
They're all working on the same unsupported assumption, rendering them all dishonest.
Then I was shown wrong by Bart Ehrman....
But then the believers will always twist the words a bit so that some bits are metaphors, some bits need to be taken in light of the epoch, some bits are literal and some bits have tarnished memories included...
So, there's always an excuse... and that is why it's called apologetics, right? The art of making excuses to keep the story making some sense... "consistent" and all...
Now do tell me how a story generated at a given time and propagated through the populace, will be inconsistent with itself when someone else writes about that first story...
They may build upon it, add more elements... some bits may have been lost on the way and potential inconsistencies become consistent because the copies of the original aren't accurate...
I once read a book... it was a standard book. A story about an old king or prince, who never arrived at his intended destiny... it was the story of the 4th wise king... Fully consistent with the remainder of the bible... written some 2000 years after it... and could very well be included in the text for people from 5000 years in the future to puzzle over the accuracy of such account.
Does that consistency bit make it a truthful account?
Does magic exist?
And, as I always say, if I have to believe in the premise, then the whole building lacks credibility.
As a World of Tanks player, it reminds me way too much of this tank:
The Caernarvon.
So... there you go, you now have an avatar to go with your username!
(January 30, 2014 at 5:19 am)Carnavon Wrote:Let's not play word games, ok?(January 29, 2014 at 10:36 am)pocaracas Wrote: Did I ever say "cell"?Nope, agreed you did not. But you will excuse my ignorance as I rely on theories of the first living organism Most evolutionary biologists theorize that the first living organisms were single-celled prokariotes similar to currently existing bacteria. So call it what you like but it seems to me that “cell” just about covers it.
A cell is a very very advanced mechanism.... so you'd be right in your view that it'd take an extraordinary event for such a mechanism to just pop out of a few atoms..
But I didn't say "cell", now did I?
Organism, bacteria... those are very advanced structures.
A virus is alive and yet lacks a lot of the structures that a bacteria has.
I was talking about self-replicating amino-acid chains... something simple... something that can be built upon to develop all those organisms.
(January 30, 2014 at 5:19 am)Carnavon Wrote:(January 29, 2014 at 10:36 am)pocaracas Wrote: I do... and the assumptions that go into the god hypothesis are also going into the pot...It is not a hypothesis – it is a faith
No its not "a faith", whatever that means...
People have faith that that particular hypothesis is the correct one.
People have faith in other particular hypotheses....
If you ask me, it's not a very honest attitude towards reality, but hey... whatever keeps people happy, huh?
(January 30, 2014 at 5:19 am)Carnavon Wrote: and one when the “source document” is subjected to scrutiny and whenever possible tested, is validated. On a number of occasions I have requested proof of error when a fact has been stated in the Bible. It should actually be really easy. There are thousands of facts stated in the Bible –Sure.... And tons of claims with no way to determine if they're truthful...
That Bible tends to have a very narrow testability... On the really important details, it's kinda impossible to test, unless you've deluded yourself into accepting that hypothesis as truthful, prior to actual evidence for it...
(January 30, 2014 at 5:19 am)Carnavon Wrote:In science, it's the best we have.(January 29, 2014 at 10:36 am)pocaracas Wrote: Well, they may be revising the number to an ever increasing accuracy, but the consensus is in the order of 14by... give or take a few millions.Consensus does not replace fact.
If most (if not all) the experts agree that the models are pretty darn accurate and match with all the observations, then it is as good as fact.
Apples fall. Repeatedly, consistently, consensually at a very specific rate.
The current model for the initial expansion of the Universe fall in line with all the experiments carried out in nuclear accelerators. The model is then, the best we have to describe the early Universe.
Astrophysical observations fit with the same model.
Why should the model be wrong just because it does not require an assumption that people would prefer to be there?
(January 30, 2014 at 5:19 am)Carnavon Wrote: Kindly take note of the considerable number of fraudulent claims have been made in the name of evolution, as against none in the Bible. Now if these were two “persons”, I know which one I will rather believe. One may however choose to believe the one that has on several important occasions proved to be dishonest. Your choice.what?... none in the bible?
How about the very first one that's not even written down? "there is a god and it is very well defined as [whatever you want it to be]".
(January 30, 2014 at 5:19 am)Carnavon Wrote:I sincerely do not care about what one believer says is more correct than another believer, when both refer to the same (or similar) deities.(January 29, 2014 at 10:36 am)pocaracas Wrote: Does that book make the same mistake as all others I've been advised to read?Similar to books that you have been advised to read, it makes the same “mistake” of accepting God. All claim to represent Christianity, few do. Even foremost and acclaimed “church leaders” subscribe to heresies. Why is the book I suggest not just another heresy? Many would say so ( even in the “Christian” community ) – as it strongly affirms God’s sovereignty as against the disbelievingly popular “free will” or Arminianism. The reason for claiming “non-heretical” is its consistency with Scripture.
Oh, the mistake is to assume, right from the start, that god exists and is very well defined.
Well, if magic exists, anything is possible, and anything can be written about it... the imagination is the limit!
Enjoy your imagination!
They're all working on the same unsupported assumption, rendering them all dishonest.
(January 30, 2014 at 5:19 am)Carnavon Wrote: Imaginations? I would tend to agree and disagree with you. Agree – imaginations can run wild and especially if it is on a number of controversial subjects. In contrast to this, if it was just the imagination of people, it is really hard to believe that you will find the consistency throughout the Bible that you do. 66 Books written by 40 authors from different backgrounds (highly educated people, kings to lowly fisherman) over a period of 1500 years without collaboration and consistently saying the same thing ? [...] Come on, who is imagining things?I once thought the bible was consistent.
Then I was shown wrong by Bart Ehrman....
But then the believers will always twist the words a bit so that some bits are metaphors, some bits need to be taken in light of the epoch, some bits are literal and some bits have tarnished memories included...
So, there's always an excuse... and that is why it's called apologetics, right? The art of making excuses to keep the story making some sense... "consistent" and all...
Now do tell me how a story generated at a given time and propagated through the populace, will be inconsistent with itself when someone else writes about that first story...
They may build upon it, add more elements... some bits may have been lost on the way and potential inconsistencies become consistent because the copies of the original aren't accurate...
I once read a book... it was a standard book. A story about an old king or prince, who never arrived at his intended destiny... it was the story of the 4th wise king... Fully consistent with the remainder of the bible... written some 2000 years after it... and could very well be included in the text for people from 5000 years in the future to puzzle over the accuracy of such account.
Does that consistency bit make it a truthful account?
Does magic exist?
And, as I always say, if I have to believe in the premise, then the whole building lacks credibility.
