100 Proof (Repost For Jonathan)

David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
100 Proof (Repost For Jonathan)

I don't know if I'm doing this proper, but upon request this is a repost from the Kill them with kindness forum.

 

What is that expression that concludes that "proof" is for alcohol and . . . something else. To me, the interesting thing about "proving" the supernatural would be the effects of that perhaps being that it would no longer be supernatural. The implication, of course, being that if we can't understand it we must deny it. At one time whales and squid were thought of as "supernatural," not that that means much. 

From a strictly atheistic point of view I don't see how it could matter because most atheists  I have talked with believe in the possibility of there being other intelligent life forms in the universe. Angels? Oh, no! That isn't possible because the Bible says so. On the other hand at Galatians 5:20 Paul uses the Greek word pharmakia, from which comes our English word Pharmacy. It is most often translated as "spiritism" because drugs were, and still are in primitive societies, used as a means to access the spirit world. Of course - the sort of "proof" of which you speak is, under the influence, difficult to to document and confirm. Then again, can you "prove" that we evolved or can you assume that based upon our obviously poor observation that we did because other than the Bible there is no explanation? Can you prove the air you breathe is real or how much do we know about black holes? 

 

Its all a great deal more wishy washy than we like to think. The best you can do is study the Bible with eyes open and go from there.  


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:The best

David Henson wrote:
The best you can do is study the Bible with eyes open and go from there.

 

If that's the best you can do, you are one sick puppy.

The Bible is by and large worthless as a source of information, although it tells some nice stories.

 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:  At one

David Henson wrote:

 At one time whales and squid were thought of as "supernatural," not that that means much. 

I'm not sure I understand this assertion.  People believing that whales or squid are magic? Whether or not that's actually true people believed that, we've obviously found this not to be the case as they've been studied.  A case where people once thought something was magic, but later was found out to be not magic... how does this help you?   This is basically the short story of EVERY former magical claim.  (like weather patterns, movement of the sun/moon, what stars are, etc.)

David Henson wrote:

most atheists  I have talked with believe in the possibility of there being other intelligent life forms in the universe. Angels? Oh, no! That isn't possible because the Bible says so. 

Two points here.  

1.  The possibility of life elsewhere isn't such a leap.  We have our planet to demonstrate to us that at least in this instance, sustainable life in the universe is possible.  Based on what we know of our own world, we can construct criteria to find more places that share similar conditions and infer it's possible there could be life somewhere else given the size of the universe.   In my opinion, this isn't the same as asserting that there definitely is life elsewhere.  We've seen ourselves on our world, and find that it might not be a stretch of the imagination that there are others where the conditions might be similar.   We cannot say the same thing for angels, using your example.  We have no basis other than stories to suggest that angels are real.   

Let's also consider that accepting an idea that life is possible somewhere else, doesn't start to prescribe other behaviors to us.   Thinking that life is possible doesn't tell me which days I should eat fish, who I should be sleeping with, how to properly beat slaves and so on. 

 

2. We're not discounting angels just because they're mentioned in the bible, but because there's no basis in reality that they're there.  The Bible can mention countries and cities and historical traditions, many we can confirm using archeology and history to find out (or not) if places referenced were real.  Think about reading about King Kong.  You can go discover that New York is a real place, but that doesn't exactly lead to belief that there really was a giant ape on the loose there at one point.    To assert as much we might want photos, maybe some giant ape bones, newspaper clips from the time talking about the incident.    

 

David Henson wrote:

On the other hand at Galatians 5:20 Paul uses the Greek word pharmakia, from which comes our English word Pharmacy. It is most often translated as "spiritism" because drugs were, and still are in primitive societies, used as a means to access the spirit world.

 

This is another bizarre concession on your part.  If you study neurology, you can find all sorts of effects from drugs and other disorders that can cause brains to function in all sorts of bizarre ways.  It'd probably be really easy for people tripping to think they see all sorts of hallucinations and claim they were gods or ghosts or something.  Yet something else you can go study and find out it's not magic or spiritual at all.

David Henson wrote:

Of course - the sort of "proof" of which you speak is, under the influence, difficult to to document and confirm. Then again, can you "prove" that we evolved or can you assume that based upon our obviously poor observation that we did because other than the Bible there is no explanation? 

 

 

Prove that we evolved?  Go walk into a natural history museum... they're called fossils.  Ask Lewis Black: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKA1UNAu-dc   

David Henson wrote:

Its all a great deal more wishy washy than we like to think. The best you can do is study the Bible with eyes open and go from there.  

Try your wishy washy open eyes on this one.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orEFUU4WFmk 

 


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:The best


David Henson wrote:
The best you can do is study the Bible with eyes open and go from there.

As it's in that romantic poem, mind has thousand eyes. Which one should I open? Those who really read Bible with open eyes, see there things like metallic flying aircrafts, and other advanced technology, like radio. My friend has a boss at her job, who's Christian and he openly acknowledges that these space crafts really are described in Bible.
So much for Old Testament - which is largely composed of much older Sumerian legends, like of the great flood. Bible isn't about Christianity influenced by paganism, Bible is paganism, influenced by Christianity. Even the idea of a Christ - born to a virgin, doing miracles, dead for 3 days, rising from the dead and ascending to Heaven, that is the most paganic idea of them all. Perhaps it's almost as old as civilization itself. Have you ever heard of Quetzalcoatl?

The illusion of Christianity's uniqueness was created by editing effort of Roman emperors who overtook the Church. 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:Then

David Henson wrote:

Then again, can you "prove" that we evolved or can you assume that based upon our obviously poor observation that we did because other than the Bible there is no explanation? Can you prove the air you breathe is real or how much do we know about black holes?

 

No offense David, but in your intro you admitted to little knowledge of the sciences.  Why, then, are you targeting certain scientific facts without actually understanding them?  To call observations of evolution 'poor' is pointless in the context that your understanding of it is poor.  I could put you in a vacuum, and then you would accept that air is real (except you'd be dead before you could even realize it).  Please do not attack scientific positions without understanding what they are.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist wrote:David

v4ultingbassist wrote:

David Henson wrote:

Then again, can you "prove" that we evolved or can you assume that based upon our obviously poor observation that we did because other than the Bible there is no explanation? Can you prove the air you breathe is real or how much do we know about black holes?

 

No offense David, but in your intro you admitted to little knowledge of the sciences.  Why, then, are you targeting certain scientific facts without actually understanding them?  To call observations of evolution 'poor' is pointless in the context that your understanding of it is poor.  I could put you in a vacuum, and then you would accept that air is real (except you'd be dead before you could even realize it).  Please do not attack scientific positions without understanding what they are.

Evolution is a scientific fact? What exactly does scientific fact mean? Speculation? Here is what I do know about evolution. I used to love to watch National Geographic nature documentaries. I would but vidio tapes back in the day, and a scientist would look down at a fish and assume that it had evolved because it had a boney knot on it. The pepper moth is taught to have evolved. Do you really think it did?

I was talking about the Bible and science, here is what I know about that. The clash between science and religion began in the sixth century B.C.E. with the Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras, who's geocentric view of the universe influenced ancient Greeks like Aristotle and Ptolemy. Aristotle's geocentric concept endured for 2,000 years, primarily as a philosophy, even as late as the 16th century when Jean Bodin isisted upon it.

It was adopted by the church due to the scientist Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) who had great respect for Aristotle. In the book Galileo's Mistake, Wade Rowland wrote: "the hybridized Aristotle in the theology of Aquinas had become bedrock dogma of the Church of Rome."

Galileo's heliocentric concept flew in the face of Aquinas' geocentric philosophy, and Galileo had the nerve to suggest that his heliocentric concept was in harmony with Scripture. Thus the Inquisition in 1633. It was Galileo's figurative, and might I add, accurate, interpretation of Scripture against Aquinas' and the Catholic Church's literal and inaccurate interpretation. For being right Galileo stood condemned until 1992 when the Catholic Church officially admited to their error in their judgement of Galileo.

So the static between religion and science was caused by science, philosophy and religion wrongly opposed to science and the Bible. When some science minded atheist says that the Bible says the earth is flat because the Bible uses terms like "four corners of the earth" or "the rising of the sun" I point out to them that Isaiah said it was spherical (Hebrew chug) 1,000 years before science did.
 

Now . . . mutations and the pepper moth . . . I start at Mutations because from my understanding, which is minimal, mutations are the basis of evolution, but at the same time, it seems to me, the least likely to have substance. Steven Stanley called mutations "the raw materials" for evolution. Geneticist Peo Koller said they "are necessary for evolutionary progress." Robert Jastrow stressed the importance of "a slow accumulation of favorable mutations." Carl Sagan said: "Mutations - sudden changes in heredity - breed true. They provide the raw material of evolution. The environment selects those few mutations that enhance survival, resulting in a series of slow transformations of one lifeform into another, the origin of new species."




The Punctuated Equilibrium






In Science Digest - and you have to realize that my understanding of Evolution is not only minimal but outdated as hell - John Gliedman stated: "Evolutionary revisionists believe mutations in key regulatory genes may be just the genetic jackhammers their quantum-leap theory requires." But British zoologist Colin Patterson observed: "Speculation is free. We know nothing about these regulatory master genes."

Outdated.

Mutations are thought to occur in the normal process of cell reproduction, if I am not mistaken, but experiments have shown that they also can be caused by external agents such as radiation and chemicals. And how often do they happen? The reproduction of genetic material in the cell is remarkably consistent. Relatively speaking, considering the number of cells that divide in a living thing, mutations do not occur very often. As the Encyclopedia Americana commented, the reproducing "of the DNA chains composing a gene is remarkably accurate. Misprints or miscopying are infrequent accidents."

From the perspective of my minimal outdated knowledge, it is generally ... well actually overwhelmingly thought that, as Sagan said: "Most of them are harmful or lethal and Koller: "The greatest proportion of mutations are deleterious to the individual who carries the mutated gene. It was found in experiments that, for every successful or useful mutation, there are many thousands which are harmful."

From my perspective this would be an indication that evolution could work itself into something better or something worse from the perspective of the human machine.

Contemplating it further I would have to admit that it could possibly be a filtering which would result in the right thing at the right time. Simply speaking.

I think it is possible that both of those statements could be true. One of the things that has always troubled me about such speculation is it's uncertainty.

With the Bible, for me and my studies, it has always been etched in stone, if you like. A problem in my understanding could be investigated, usually a simple excercise.

What I recall from my understanding is that most mutations are damaging to the organism which seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.

That is pretty much word for word from the Encyclopedia Americana. Though not scientific, it is where I am leaning at this point. As G. Ledyard Stebbins observed: "After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated."

This could indicate to me that mutations are useless - harmful. Or that they are as was what I learned in 'school,' the basis for evolution. In that they are eliminated.

The problem I have with that is that if they are eliminated why would they have evolved through mutations in the first place? I could think along the lines that they need to be eliminated. Survival of the fittest is even more minimal and outdated than my thinking, but these accidents would not have occurred in the first place under that premise.

Key word, accident.

An accident is marked, noted ... logged. Studied. It is what is going on. What we see. No conclusion needs be formulated before its time and nothing need be added.

In his book The Wellsprings of Life, science writer Isaac Asimov wrote: "Most mutations are for the worse . . . . In the long run, to be sure, mutations make the course of evolution move onward and upward."

From the Creationist perspective, which is from my own Biblical studies, sadly inaccurate, the conclusion could be drawn that 999 times out of 1,000 mutations are harmful.

If, however, I had to play a game 1,000 times before I got it right only once I would have gained something.

Geneticist Dobzhansky once said: "An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one's watch or one's radio set will seldom make it work better."

That seems to me a logical excursion, though not a very well thought out one. As a child I liked to take electronics apart to see how they worked. Often this would result in their premature demise. But when they were broken it would sometimes result in a temporary fix. A piece of bubble gum placed here resulted in a connection ... a toothpick placed there provided the simple means of contact for a worn out ...

If, sometimes, a swift kick to an old TV jarred the wires enough to set it straight, then even a monkey could have come to such a necessary conclusion. Just by beating hell out of it.

The trouble, in the end that I have with mutations is this. If evolution is change and mutations are the basis of it then why is it that mutations can not produce anything new?

The World Book Encyclopedia: "A plant in a dry area might have a mutant gene that causes it to grow larger and stronger roots. The plant would have a better chance of survival than others of its species because its roots could absorb more water."

But ... it couldn't produce anything new ... it changed but that was it's demise.

Here I see the flaw of the basis of evolution. It provides a brief window of speculation and study but beyond that it is a stagnant pool. Evolution could only wind itself out in a series of mishaps. Mishapen accidents leading nowhere.




Drosophila melanogaster






Dobzhansky: "The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity."

DNA has a remarkable ability to repair genetic damage to itself. The organism it is coded for thus is preserved. Scientific American relates how "the life of every organism and its continuity from generation to generation" are preserved "by enzymes that continually repair . . . . In particular, significant damage to DNA molecules can induce an emergency response in which increased quantities of the repair enzymes are synthesized."

Again ... mutations are increasingly science fiction ... of speculations which lead to nowhere.

In the Book Darwin Retried the author relates the following about the respected geneticist, the late Richard Goldschmidt: "After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [small] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species."




The Peppered Moth






The International Wildlife Encyclopedia: "This is the most striking evolutionary change ever to have been witnessed by man. After observing that Darwin was plagued by his inability to demonstrate the evolution of even one species, Jastrow, in his book Red Giants and White Dwarfs, added: "Had he known it, an example was at hand which would have provided him with the proof he needed. The case was an exceedingly rare one." The peppered moth.

There were two forms of the peppered moth. A light and a dark. The lighter type blended into the lighter colored trunks of the trees which it hung to. It thrived while the darker didn't. Then, when industrial pollution caused the trunks of those trees to darken the role of survival switched, naturally to the darker.

Consequently the darker variety of peppered moth, which is said to be a mutant, survived better because it was difficult for birds to see them against the soot-darkened trees. The darker variety rapidly became the dominant type. The question was, of course, was the peppered moth evolving into something new? No. The English medical journal On Call referred to using this example to try to prove evolution as "notorious . . . . This is an excellent demonstration of the function of camouflage, but, since it begins and ends with moths and no new species is formed, it is quite irrelevant as evidence for evolution."

The same could be said of some germs which have proved resistant to antibiotics. The hardier germs are still the same, not evolving at all into anything else. Even this is not likely evolution through mutations, but simply a case where some germs were immune to begin with. Some germs having been killed off by drugs and the immune ones multiplied and became dominant. Evolution From Space said: "We doubt, however, that anything more is involved in these cases than the selection of already existing genes."

Insects being immune to poisons - is a case of some poisons being effective and others not, that is being effective on some insects and other insects it is ineffective. The ones having been killed could not develop a resistance since they were dead. Those living were immune from the start, a genetic factor which is selective but not demonstrating change or evolution of the insect itself or in effect any evolution other than some insects were dead and others were not. It doesn't change anything on a minimal scale as evolution would suppose.

Molecules to Living Cells said: "The cells from a carrot or from the liver of a mouse consistently retain their respective tissue and organism identities after countless cycles of reproduction." Symbiosis in Cell Evolution said: "All life . . . reproduces with incredible fidelity." Scientific American said: "Living things are enormously diverse in form, but form is remarkably constant within any given line of descent: pigs remain pigs and oak trees remain oak trees generation after generation."

Rose bushes always blossom into roses, never into camellias. And goats give birth to kids, never to lambs, mutations cannot account for overall evolution - why there are fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals.




Interpretation






Darwin's observations of the finch on the Galapagos Islands operated upon the premise that they were the same type as those which had apparently migrated from South America, but there were curious differences in those which Darwin observed - the shape of their beaks, for example. This, he interpreted as evolution.

Here is where science and the Bible come, with very little notice in my opinion, to the same conclusion. That is to say, that the Genesis account speaks of kinds. And science of old says that there is an evolution.

The reason that I side with the Bible over evolution, then, as far as mutations go, is a matter of a flawed observation based upon speculation. The finch that Darwin observed is a finch. It will never be anything else. A black person, a red person, a yellow person, a white person, a brown person, a person with a big nose and a person with a small nose or any variation of person or finch never evolves beyond what a finch or a person is.

A moth becomes a butterfly, a child becomes an adult. This is, in effect an evolution ... a change ... but not a change which evolves beyond what the Bible speaks of in the Genesis account.




Questions For Atheists






My questions for you, having been formed upon my understanding ... and a sort of grappling with what I see from you are as follows.

1.) What examples of mutations would you cite as a matter of concern for the case of evolution and what examples against? In other words where has mutations produced helpful results.

2.) To what degree would you grant the possibility of these examples being based upon a growing speculation? In other words is this speculation fallible, and to what degree is this relevant?

3.) To what degree would you, with what I assume with little knowledge of your personal devotion to Biblical studies is substantial, would you have found a disagreement with the Bible and the theory of evolution? In other words, put simply, do you see a disagreement between the two and if so what is it. If not would you admit there is some disagreement which is unsubstantiated?
 

 


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:Evolution

David Henson wrote:

Evolution is a scientific fact? What exactly does scientific fact mean? Speculation? Here is what I do know about evolution. I used to love to watch National Geographic nature documentaries. I would but vidio tapes back in the day, and a scientist would look down at a fish and assume that it had evolved because it had a boney knot on it. The pepper moth is taught to have evolved. Do you really think it did?

I was talking about the Bible and science, here is what I know about that. The clash between science and religion began in the sixth century B.C.E. with the Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras, who's geocentric view of the universe influenced ancient Greeks like Aristotle and Ptolemy. Aristotle's geocentric concept endured for 2,000 years, primarily as a philosophy, even as late as the 16th century when Jean Bodin isisted upon it.

It was adopted by the church due to the scientist Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) who had great respect for Aristotle. In the book Galileo's Mistake, Wade Rowland wrote: "the hybridized Aristotle in the theology of Aquinas had become bedrock dogma of the Church of Rome."

Galileo's heliocentric concept flew in the face of Aquinas' geocentric philosophy, and Galileo had the nerve to suggest that his heliocentric concept was in harmony with Scripture. Thus the Inquisition in 1633. It was Galileo's figurative, and might I add, accurate, interpretation of Scripture against Aquinas' and the Catholic Church's literal and inaccurate interpretation. For being right Galileo stood condemned until 1992 when the Catholic Church officially admited to their error in their judgement of Galileo.

So the static between religion and science was caused by science, philosophy and religion wrongly opposed to science and the Bible. When some science minded atheist says that the Bible says the earth is flat because the Bible uses terms like "four corners of the earth" or "the rising of the sun" I point out to them that Isaiah said it was spherical (Hebrew chug) 1,000 years before science did.
 

 

Please review the differences between a scientific hypothesis, conjecture and theory. Evolution is a fact.

Are you talking about Isaiah 40:22?

 

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

 

This is easily observable when you stand outside especially at night. Have you seen pheasant under glass? The plate (the earth) is flat but in the shape of a flat circle. The dome above is actually what is round. Being this is the only text to defend the Bible reporting a round earth and it easily fits into the context of a flat earth with a sphere above it, it would be in agreement with all the 4 corner & sun rising and setting and the earth does not move text. Additionally, it was a consistent view of the Bronze Age..

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Your giant text wall

 

And the multiplicity of wild claims you dish up makes it hard for my hungover brain to know where to start, David. Mutants. Are you proposing a sort of Dawn of the Dead scenario with manky creatures with extra legs running about as being the key to evolution?

Evolution is a product of a creature's interaction with its environment over tens of millions of years through subtle advantageous genetic mutations in a genome that is always in a state of change. Success is driven by an accumulation of tiny changes over vast periods of time and the key to it all is survival and reproduction. It's a linear process too, though there are indications that evolution can go sideways in viruses. In the higher orders things evolve in lines. Chimps didn't evolve into us, but all primates evolved from the same concestor and are still evolving. Look at humans. There's changes to skin colour that suit the environment, people are getting taller, women are getting better looking (this is true).

All the creatures between humans and our concestor and all that came before that concestor are extinct. The same for chimps. We and our primate cousins are simply those islands of species that survived long enough for us to wonder at. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


kidvelvet
atheist
kidvelvet's picture
Posts: 162
Joined: 2010-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Hmmm...

Quote:
A moth becomes a butterfly, a child becomes an adult. This is, in effect an evolution ... a change ... but not a change which evolves beyond what the Bible speaks of in the Genesis account.

That is not evolution.  That is simply cell regeneration.  Evolution is a change over a loooong period of time (millions of years).  You cannot look at the evolution of a species in such a short amount of time. 

It is clear that you need to really read what evolution is before making comments on it.  It is clear from this phrase that you don't.

 

Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote: David Henson

Luminon wrote:

 

David Henson wrote:
The best you can do is study the Bible with eyes open and go from there.

As it's in that romantic poem, mind has thousand eyes. Which one should I open? Those who really read Bible with open eyes, see there things like metallic flying aircrafts, and other advanced technology, like radio. My friend has a boss at her job, who's Christian and he openly acknowledges that these space crafts really are described in Bible.
So much for Old Testament - which is largely composed of much older Sumerian legends, like of the great flood. Bible isn't about Christianity influenced by paganism, Bible is paganism, influenced by Christianity. Even the idea of a Christ - born to a virgin, doing miracles, dead for 3 days, rising from the dead and ascending to Heaven, that is the most paganic idea of them all. Perhaps it's almost as old as civilization itself. Have you ever heard of Quetzalcoatl?

The illusion of Christianity's uniqueness was created by editing effort of Roman emperors who overtook the Church. 

According to Bible chronology the flood took place in 2370 B.C.E. The Akkadian Epic of Gilgamesh, as we know it from the library of Ashurbanipal (who reigned from 668 - 627 B.C.E.) didn't begin to circulate, fragmentarily, until 1900 B.C.E. so how atheists came to the conclusion the former was inspired by the later is beyond my comprehension as well as, I would like to think, the comprehension of science.
 

The paganism of Christianity is really poor scholarship, Luminon, ask any scholar of paganism. Have I heard of Quetzalcoatl? Yes. Have you ever heard of Prometheus And Bob?


 

 

 

 


JonathanBC
Posts: 139
Joined: 2010-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I appreciate your

I appreciate your willingness to repost this here. I found so many objections, I wanted to take them all on in order. What I'm going to say could be taken as a personal attack, though I don't mean it as one. I'm only taking the time to make this post and subsequent replies because I think you may be willing to listen and think rationally.

Quote:

To me, the interesting thing about "proving" the supernatural would be the effects of that perhaps being that it would no longer be supernatural.

Correct so far.

Quote:

The implication, of course, being that if we can't understand it we must deny it.

Your understanding of science is shockingly lacking. No atheist, agnostic, scientist, or sane person in general has ever claimed such nonsense. Science thrives on not understanding things, to investigate, observe, and test them for the purpose of better understanding.

Quote:

At one time whales and squid were thought of as "supernatural," not that that means much.

It means nothing. Absolutely nothing. But it goes to show that you cluelessly use natural and supernatural where they don't belong. Supernatural means "that is above nature." A different realm. People who labeled whales and squid as supernatural were ignorant of science. Science has a very good understanding of what is natural, and what is not. The definition is clear.

Quote:

From a strictly atheistic point of view I don't see how it could matter because most atheists  I have talked with believe in the possibility of there being other intelligent life forms in the universe.

This quote begins incoherently and only goes down hill from there. First you make a variation of argumentum ad populum by saying atheists you know believe x therefore atheists believe x. It's non sequitur, and if I did the same thing about Christians or theists, you would cry foul. I'm crying foul. If you want me to respect your beliefs as your own, I expect the same courtesy for all atheists.

Next point. The possibility of life outside Earth is very high. Intelligent, or conscious life, is for another debate. Preferably with someone with a better grasp of biology and physics. I don't think you're capable of holding that conversation given your previous misunderstandings of science.

Quote:

Angels? Oh, no! That isn't possible because the Bible says so.

I truly hope this is satire done poorly, as that would be the least sinister possibility.

Quote:

On the other hand at Galatians 5:20 Paul uses the Greek word pharmakia, from which comes our English word Pharmacy. It is most often translated as "spiritism" because drugs were, and still are in primitive societies, used as a means to access the spirit world. Of course - the sort of "proof" of which you speak is, under the influence, difficult to to document and confirm.

How is etymology relevant to anything you're saying? You've admitted elsewhere you're not trained in ancient Greek, but okay, you can Google. Hey, me too! We should get together some time and Google.

In all seriousness, there is no spirit world. We understand very clearly how hallucinogenics work, their chemical structure, what receptors they attach to or inhibit in the brain. Everything happens in the brain. The brain is within the natural realm, we can apply the scientific method to it.

Quote:

Then again, can you "prove" that we evolved or can you assume that based upon our obviously poor observation that we did because other than the Bible there is no explanation?

Evolution is a fact. The only thing you've said correctly without quoting old science books, is that your understanding of evolution is minimal. I've read your other post in which you clearly don't understand the process of evolution, and I will get to it. But what I will not do, is let your recent nonsense cover up your previous nonsense. I will call you out on it and hold you responsible before moving on. The last theist said I was backpedaling. I just won't let you sweep things under the rug that have yet to be answered. I invite you to hold me to the same standard.

The Bible is hardly the only other creation story and it is absurd to suggest such. Evolution is the overwhelming most accepted explanation by biologists and related experts who are actually qualified to give an authoritative statement on the subject.

Quote:

The best you can do is study the Bible with eyes open and go from there. 

Considering the Bible condones rape, incest, and slavery, the Bible is a terrible first step. Go ahead and tell me that you don't support rape. It proves the Bible is irrelevant. If you pick and choose parts to follow, you could have reached the same conclusion without it.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
kidvelvet wrote:Quote:A moth

kidvelvet wrote:

Quote:
A moth becomes a butterfly, a child becomes an adult. This is, in effect an evolution ... a change ... but not a change which evolves beyond what the Bible speaks of in the Genesis account.

That is not evolution.  That is simply cell regeneration.  Evolution is a change over a loooong period of time (millions of years).  You cannot look at the evolution of a species in such a short amount of time. 

It is clear that you need to really read what evolution is before making comments on it.  It is clear from this phrase that you don't.

 

 

When something is said to evolve that doesn't necessarily imply the theory of evolution. That was the point I was making.  


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote:David

ex-minister wrote:

Please review the differences between a scientific hypothesis, conjecture and theory. Evolution is a fact.

Are you talking about Isaiah 40:22?

 

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

 

This is easily observable when you stand outside especially at night. Have you seen pheasant under glass? The plate (the earth) is flat but in the shape of a flat circle. The dome above is actually what is round. Being this is the only text to defend the Bible reporting a round earth and it easily fits into the context of a flat earth with a sphere above it, it would be in agreement with all the 4 corner & sun rising and setting and the earth does not move text. Additionally, it was a consistent view of the Bronze Age..

 

 

That is interesting, Ex-minister, I suppose that the primitive Bronze Aged goatherders like Isaiah did spend a great deal more time outside than the scientists of his time, but you would think they would have picked up on it at least 700 years later than he did. And tell me, when does a a scientific hypothesis, conjecture and theory become a fact? That seems to me to be the equivelant of me saying that the existance of gods are a fact, except for a god is anything mighty or venerated so anything fitting that description, whether it exists or not is a god. Which of the two of us are overstepping the boundries of reality?


kidvelvet
atheist
kidvelvet's picture
Posts: 162
Joined: 2010-01-15
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:kidvelvet

David Henson wrote:

kidvelvet wrote:

Quote:
A moth becomes a butterfly, a child becomes an adult. This is, in effect an evolution ... a change ... but not a change which evolves beyond what the Bible speaks of in the Genesis account.

That is not evolution.  That is simply cell regeneration.  Evolution is a change over a loooong period of time (millions of years).  You cannot look at the evolution of a species in such a short amount of time. 

It is clear that you need to really read what evolution is before making comments on it.  It is clear from this phrase that you don't.

 

 

When something is said to evolve that doesn't necessarily imply the theory of evolution. That was the point I was making.  

You are correct, but that doesn't support your point.

The problem here is that you are using the term "evolve" in two different contexts. 

I can claim that, as a human, I have evolved my thinking, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the Theory of Evolution. 

If you want to discuss the Theory of Evolution, then the terms must be consistent with the Theory.

Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
kidvelvet wrote:You are

kidvelvet wrote:

You are correct, but that doesn't support your point.

The problem here is that you are using the term "evolve" in two different contexts. 

I can claim that, as a human, I have evolved my thinking, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the Theory of Evolution. 

If you want to discuss the Theory of Evolution, then the terms must be consistent with the Theory.

 

But that was my point. I started out saying that I didn't know much about evolution and didn't really care to discuss it. Although I do see a disagreement with science and the Bible on the point of evolution, I don't think that is a big deal. Science doesn't even always agree with science which is a good and healthy thing. Why would anyone insist one must agree with the other without being dogmatic about it especially when the Bible offers an explanation on creation and science doesn't, when neither scientists or theologians can say for a fact that each of their opinions are "fact" in that they were observing these things happen rather than simply gathering evidence?

In making the point that to evolve means simply to change rather than exclusively to evolve in the scientific sense I was merely suggesting the possibility that what is gradually "evolving" into Evolution could quite possibly become what is supprted by, what I and some sensible creationists might consider as being in harmony with scripture.

 

Do you, unlike me, want to discuss evolution? Distinguish between the Bible's definition of kind and the scientific definition of species. Then we will talk about evolution.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
This is an interesting point Jon

JonathanBC wrote:

The Bible is a terrible first step. Go ahead and tell me that you don't support rape. It proves the Bible is irrelevant. If you pick and choose parts to follow, you could have reached the same conclusion without it.

 

I think the bible is the product of human morality from times past, not the source of it. Picking and choosing parts in support of your spiritual or moral position, is taking control of a text while insisting it controls you.

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
David,Your understanding of

David,

Your understanding of evolution is seriously flawed. I recommend education.


JonathanBC
Posts: 139
Joined: 2010-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

JonathanBC wrote:

The Bible is a terrible first step. Go ahead and tell me that you don't support rape. It proves the Bible is irrelevant. If you pick and choose parts to follow, you could have reached the same conclusion without it.

 

I think the bible is the product of human morality from times past, not the source of it. Picking and choosing parts in support of your spiritual or moral position, is taking control of a text while insisting it controls you.

Of course, I entirely agree. I only chose not to repeat the point you made earlier, as you put it at least as well as I could have. I only took a step farther by pointing out specific cases, namely rape slavery and incest. If there were to be ten commandments for modern times, I'm confident at least slavery and rape make the list. I'm extremely confident that in years to come, homosexual and abortion rights will be included, though there is hardly a consensus at the moment.

I sure hope it didn't come across that I think the Bible is an acceptable guide for ethics or morals. While it can be used as such, it would now create a danger to society. Luckily, even literalist Christians don't follow it literally. For example, procedures a menstruating woman must take, or who can attend church according to Leviticus.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
No Jon, not a bit of it.

JonathanBC wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

JonathanBC wrote:

The Bible is a terrible first step. Go ahead and tell me that you don't support rape. It proves the Bible is irrelevant. If you pick and choose parts to follow, you could have reached the same conclusion without it.

 

I think the bible is the product of human morality from times past, not the source of it. Picking and choosing parts in support of your spiritual or moral position, is taking control of a text while insisting it controls you.

Of course, I entirely agree. I only chose not to repeat the point you made earlier, as you put it at least as well as I could have. I only took a step farther by pointing out specific cases, namely rape slavery and incest. If there were to be ten commandments for modern times, I'm confident at least slavery and rape make the list. I'm extremely confident that in years to come, homosexual and abortion rights will be included, though there is hardly a consensus at the moment.

I sure hope it didn't come across that I think the Bible is an acceptable guide for ethics or morals. While it can be used as such, it would now create a danger to society. Luckily, even literalist Christians don't follow it literally. For example, procedures a menstruating woman must take, or who can attend church according to Leviticus.

 

I was simply agreeing with you while rocking my own hobby horse. Your point was quite clear.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Jonathan - I appreciate your

Jonathan - I appreciate your willingness to repost this here. I found so many objections, I wanted to take them all on in order. What I'm going to say could be taken as a personal attack, though I don't mean it as one. I'm only taking the time to make this post and subsequent replies because I think you may be willing to listen and think rationally.

David - Absolutely. That is mutual. Full speed ahead, stiff upper lip, give no quarter and pull no punches, by all means!


David - To me, the interesting thing about "proving" the supernatural would be the effects of that perhaps being that it would no longer be supernatural.

Jonathan - Correct so far.

David - I don't have to put up with that! Moderator!

Only joking. Carry on . . .


David - The implication, of course, being that if we can't understand it we must deny it.

Jonathan - Your understanding of science is shockingly lacking. No atheist, agnostic, scientist, or sane person in general has ever claimed such nonsense. Science thrives on not understanding things, to investigate, observe, and test them for the purpose of better understanding.

David - Well I haven't said anything about science! None of the people you mentioned would agree with that generalization on human nature? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. I was talking about "proving" the supernatural.


David - At one time whales and squid were thought of as "supernatural," not that that means much.

Jonathan - It means nothing. Absolutely nothing. But it goes to show that you cluelessly use natural and supernatural where they don't belong. Supernatural means "that is above nature." A different realm. People who labeled whales and squid as supernatural were ignorant of science. Science has a very good understanding of what is natural, and what is not. The definition is clear.

David - If you were looking for an intellectual discourse you really picked the wrong thread to do that. The people who thought that whales and squid were supernatural were not keenly aware of what you would call science and I would think that you would be hard pressed to find any scientific data from that period trying to set them straight on the subject. I mean, you could try; I could be wrong, but the absence of any evidence provided by you up to this point speaks volumes.


David - From a strictly atheistic point of view I don't see how it could matter because most atheists  I have talked with believe in the possibility of there being other intelligent life forms in the universe.

Jonathan - This quote begins incoherently and only goes down hill from there. First you make a variation of argumentum ad populum by saying atheists you know believe x therefore atheists believe x. It's non sequitur, and if I did the same thing about Christians or theists, you would cry foul.

David - You want to test me on that, 'cause, damn, I don't have a great deal of good to say about the vast majority of "Christians" and "theists" if you haven't noticed. You probably won't get much of an argument from me there.

Jonathan - I'm crying foul. If you want me to respect your beliefs as your own, I expect the same courtesy for all atheists.

David - Uh . . . okay?

Jonathan - Next point. The possibility of life outside Earth is very high. Intelligent, or conscious life, is for another debate. Preferably with someone with a better grasp of biology and physics. I don't think you're capable of holding that conversation given your previous misunderstandings of science.

David - You've done it again! I have said very little about science, and I can't think of any thing in the Bible that rules out life outside of Earth, can you, in fact my next quote says . . .


David - Angels? Oh, no! That isn't possible because the Bible says so.

Jonathan - I truly hope this is satire done poorly, as that would be the least sinister possibility.

David - Well, sorry, that's what I was doing, actually. Satire poorly. My observations lead me to believe there is some truth underneath it.


David -On the other hand at Galatians 5:20 Paul uses the Greek word pharmakia, from which comes our English word Pharmacy. It is most often translated as "spiritism" because drugs were, and still are in primitive societies, used as a means to access the spirit world. Of course - the sort of "proof" of which you speak is, under the influence, difficult to to document and confirm.

Jonathan - How is etymology relevant to anything you're saying? You've admitted elsewhere you're not trained in ancient Greek, but okay, you can Google. Hey, me too! We should get together some time and Google.

David - I wouldn't Google my ass from a hole in the ground. Please! Do you think there are scholars in ancient Greek and Hebrew going around chatting in Greek and Hebrew as a parlor trick? Do you think that I have to be trained in Greek by some scholar who believes in the Christian trinity with all of the data supporting the obvious absence of any such implication in the text? You and that guy can sit around and Google Platonic then get back to me and see if we can clear it up for you.  I've talked to scholars like that and I am not impressed, not that I am so stupid not to educate myself with some help from them, obviously. Why is it that science minded atheists, so called free thinkers subscribe to the school of thought that you have to pay for knowledge and you can't do it on your own for free?  

Jonathan - In all seriousness, there is no spirit world. We understand very clearly how hallucinogenics work, their chemical structure, what receptors they attach to or inhibit in the brain. Everything happens in the brain. The brain is within the natural realm, we can apply the scientific method to it.

David - There is no spirit world? If we are talking about the inability of science to test and observe the supernatural could you explain the logic underlieng that conclusion, please?


David - Then again, can you "prove" that we evolved or can you assume that based upon our obviously poor observation that we did because other than the Bible there is no explanation?

Jonathan - Evolution is a fact. The only thing you've said correctly without quoting old science books, is that your understanding of evolution is minimal. I've read your other post in which you clearly don't understand the process of evolution, and I will get to it. But what I will not do, is let your recent nonsense cover up your previous nonsense. I will call you out on it and hold you responsible before moving on. The last theist said I was backpedaling. I just won't let you sweep things under the rug that have yet to be answered. I invite you to hold me to the same standard.

David - [sigh] Great. Just what I've always wanted.

Jonathan - The Bible is hardly the only other creation story and it is absurd to suggest such. Evolution is the overwhelming most accepted explanation by biologists and related experts who are actually qualified to give an authoritative statement on the subject.

David - [Looks at watch] This is really starting to sound like dogma. You all keep defending evolution as if I deny all science as if that were blasphemy. Me thinks thee does protest too much. Especially since my limited application of old science books is more substantive than your vain protests thus far. If were were carving this in stone 2,000 years from now you would be perceived as a holy man of little consequence and those distant evolved orbs would have a great deal more to work with from my lame assed exploration so you better get busy but don't expect to indoctrinate me.


David - The best you can do is study the Bible with eyes open and go from there. 

Jonathan - Considering the Bible condones rape, incest, and slavery, the Bible is a terrible first step. Go ahead and tell me that you don't support rape. It proves the Bible is irrelevant. If you pick and choose parts to follow, you could have reached the same conclusion without it.

David - Prove it.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:With the

David Henson wrote:


With the Bible, for me and my studies, it has always been etched in stone, if you like.

 

Which is exactly where you go wrong and why you don't deserve to be taken seriously.

The Bible is, at best, just a collection of stories and allegories from which you may extract some truths about human nature.

Believeing it to be literal truth is insane.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


kidvelvet
atheist
kidvelvet's picture
Posts: 162
Joined: 2010-01-15
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:kidvelvet

David Henson wrote:

kidvelvet wrote:

You are correct, but that doesn't support your point.

The problem here is that you are using the term "evolve" in two different contexts. 

I can claim that, as a human, I have evolved my thinking, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the Theory of Evolution. 

If you want to discuss the Theory of Evolution, then the terms must be consistent with the Theory.

 

But that was my point. I started out saying that I didn't know much about evolution and didn't really care to discuss it. Although I do see a disagreement with science and the Bible on the point of evolution, I don't think that is a big deal. Science doesn't even always agree with science which is a good and healthy thing. Why would anyone insist one must agree with the other without being dogmatic about it especially when the Bible offers an explanation on creation and science doesn't, when neither scientists or theologians can say for a fact that each of their opinions are "fact" in that they were observing these things happen rather than simply gathering evidence?

In making the point that to evolve means simply to change rather than exclusively to evolve in the scientific sense I was merely suggesting the possibility that what is gradually "evolving" into Evolution could quite possibly become what is supprted by, what I and some sensible creationists might consider as being in harmony with scripture.

 

Do you, unlike me, want to discuss evolution? Distinguish between the Bible's definition of kind and the scientific definition of species. Then we will talk about evolution.

No, I don't wish to discuss Creationalism.  Creationalism is based on a book that I do not consider relevant, anymore than you would consider the creation theory of any Islamic faith.

Until we can even establish that god does indeed exist, the bible is not a book of authority on which we can both agree.

I hesitate to also argue in detail about the Theory of Evolution, as that is not my area of expertise.  Now, if you wanted to discuss how non-managed switches can be damaging to an extensive layer 2 network that uses per VLAN spanning tree, or if you want to discuss the merits of a hardware firewall as more than just a router, I can speak on that.  But the Theory of Evolution is something that I know enough about that I can take the repeatable, verifiable, falsifiable, peer-reviewed evidence and accept it as fact.  Creationalism offers no such thing.  In fact, Creationalism is the opposite of science.  In the scientific method, you come up with a hypothesis, develop controlled tests, and take the results of the test to come up with a conclusion.  As more independent tests are done that support the conclusion, the more "validity" there is to the claim; in other words, the more reasonable it is to believe.  If, however, evidence to the contrary is found and is repeatable (falsifiability), then the conclusion must be altered or considered false.  Creationalism starts with the conclusion (god did it) and then only accepts evidence that supports the conclusion and discards evidence to the contrary.  This is NOT science, and it holds no interest to me.

However, if you are going to compare/contrast Creationalism with the Theroy of Evolution, you should at least have a well-read understanding of the Theory of Evolution first.  As I pointed out, you are using a conflated version of "evolve" that shows you do not carry this understanding.  I am not trying to be mean or insulting; there are many subjects that I do not have a base understanding, and I am fine with that.  But I am not going to dismiss or make contrarian statements about a subject that I do not understand.

Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Evolution is a

Quote:

Evolution is a scientific fact? What exactly does scientific fact mean? Speculation?

 

If you continually admit little scientific knowledge, why should I even lend credence to your position on it?

 

Quote:

From the Creationist perspective, which is from my own Biblical studies, sadly inaccurate, the conclusion could be drawn that 999 times out of 1,000 mutations are harmful.

 

And from the scientific perspective, bad genes don't get passed on because they cause death in the life form or they prevent reproduction.  Those few good ones, however, get passed on and slowly build up because the organism doesn't die and can still reproduce.  That is natural selection.

 

Quote:

Here I see the flaw of the basis of evolution. It provides a brief window of speculation and study but beyond that it is a stagnant pool. Evolution could only wind itself out in a series of mishaps. Mishapen accidents leading nowhere.

 

Again, why should we even consider your views if even you admit you know little of evolution?  Why do you present specific arguments and examples regarding the truth value in something you don't understand?  What, exactly, is your point in doing so?  It sure isn't a very convincing way to argue.

 

Quote:

1.) What examples of mutations would you cite as a matter of concern for the case of evolution and what examples against? In other words where has mutations produced helpful results.

2.) To what degree would you grant the possibility of these examples being based upon a growing speculation? In other words is this speculation fallible, and to what degree is this relevant?

3.) To what degree would you, with what I assume with little knowledge of your personal devotion to Biblical studies is substantial, would you have found a disagreement with the Bible and the theory of evolution? In other words, put simply, do you see a disagreement between the two and if so what is it. If not would you admit there is some disagreement which is unsubstantiated?

 

1)  link  Also, my bit about natural selection addresses this.

 

2)  Science is not "growing speculation."  That position clearly arises from ignorance regarding the scientific method.  Please explain to me how, exactly, the scientific method is purely 'speculative.'

 

3)  It depends.  They are really easy to spot when it is read literally.  Once you open it up to interpretation, though, you need to question of the validity of the interpretations give the context of the time.  With the understanding of evolution, the story regarding eve being made from a bone from adam violates just about everything biological.  To tell me that early writers 'got it right' when they said that god pointed and everything was created and that this is clearly the Big Bang, are just like predictions like "there will be fire and death" fit nicely into damn near every tragic event.  As for light coming before the sun, I don't see how that could be interpreted to match cosmology.  Our source of light is almost entirely from stars (including the sun).  The other sources are biological (bio-luminescence) and artificial (flashlights).  Both of those were made possible via the light from our sun.  It doesn't make any sense that light, as we know it, could predate the sun.  (Again, context is important.  Did light exist before our sun?  Yes, we know this scientifically.  But it is idiotic to say they got it right when they didn't even believe there was anything other than the earth and the sun.)


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote:David,Your

KSMB wrote:

David,

Your understanding of evolution is seriously flawed. I recommend education.

You could have quoted me to that effect you know, the repitition of that is becoming like a mantra. Excellent refutation as well. Have you noticed that when I disagree with anyone on the Bible I give good reason for it? Try that.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:I

Atheistextremist wrote:

I think the bible is the product of human morality from times past, not the source of it. Picking and choosing parts in support of your spiritual or moral position, is taking control of a text while insisting it controls you.

 

There are two problems with that theory. 1. The people were not particularly moral and that only got worse as time passed, and 2. The Bible went way out of its way for morality when there are dietary restrictions and so much more. Up to only just about 100 years ago a physician would go directly from the morgue to the birthing room without washing their hands. If they would have paid attention to the Bible's regulations there would have been prevented a great deal of sickness and you think it was about the morality of a primitive, yet apparently underestimated people . . . who weren't very moral?


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:David Henson

Marquis wrote:

David Henson wrote:


 

With the Bible, for me and my studies, it has always been etched in stone, if you like.

 

Which is exactly where you go wrong and why you don't deserve to be taken seriously.

The Bible is, at best, just a collection of stories and allegories from which you may extract some truths about human nature.

Believeing it to be literal truth is insane.

Could you give me an example of that? It is time you transcend the stating of opinion.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Wow so far this thread has

Wow so far this thread has been one big FAIL, you have to really try to understand what scientists state about evolution, all the evidence of evolution, why it is both a theory (explanation of observed and tested results for evolution) and a fact. There is no speculation, at best speculation (and really its more of an educated guess regarding and observed phenomena) in science is called hypothesis..... if A happens then could it be a result of B....lets test it out and find if it's true, if not then lets find another explanation and test that explanation to see if it is true.

Where in the bible, this is not the case, there are many issues with the bible, starting off with genesis going throughout the rest of the bible on so call "scientific evidences/facts" that many followers of the bible state are in the bible. The earth does not sit on pillars, day and night did not come before the sun, etc, etc, etc, etc. But if the evidence goes against the bible, well sorry to say the bible is no longer infallible or true for that matter.

As for beneficial mutation here are some http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html , http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#Beneficial_mutations .

As for the rest if the theory of evolution is proven to be wrong, well then we still have to give it a better explanation to explain all the observed and tested events and phenomena we have seen and done in biology. The default isn't creationism it isn't god (god has still yet to been proven to exist, forget being an explanation for life)


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
kidvelvet wrote:David Henson

kidvelvet wrote:

David Henson wrote:

Do you, unlike me, want to discuss evolution? Distinguish between the Bible's definition of kind and the scientific definition of species. Then we will talk about evolution.

No, I don't wish to discuss Creationalism.  Creationalism is based on a book that I do not consider relevant, anymore than you would consider the creation theory of any Islamic faith.

Creationalism? I didn't say discuss Creationism I said discuss evolution. If you say the Bible isn't relevant then you must have some reason for that, if you can't define the difference between the Bible "kind" and the science "species" then how do you know that the evidence doesn't point to the Bible as being correct and evolution as being wrong, because that happens to be the case, but you don't know that because you don't know the Bible. The fossil record shows everything appearing in a relatively sudden event and not changing. You can line up a row of skulls of apes and of men and conclude, incorrectly, that one evolved from the other and call that science but I call it stupid. Don't tell me that isn't science or evolution because I have seen it, it the text books of school as well as from science minded atheists. You have apes and you have man skulls and any leap of faith connecting the two is blind and irresponsible.

kidvelvet wrote:
Until we can even establish that god does indeed exist, the bible is not a book of authority on which we can both agree.

The Hebrew El, God, means anything or anyone who is considered by anyone to be mighty or worthy of veneration. This means that anything I see as a god, whether it exists or not, is a god. If you are on an archaeological excavation and you discover the remains of a primitive people you are not going to stop the dig because you become aware of the fact that they believed in a god. I'm not suggesting that you consider Creationism as scientific I'm suggesting that you have a more scientific approach to your criticism of the Bible and that you avoid being dogmatic about your science.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist wrote:David

v4ultingbassist wrote:

David Henson wrote:

Evolution is a scientific fact? What exactly does scientific fact mean? Speculation?

If you continually admit little scientific knowledge, why should I even lend credece to your position on it?

I asked a question. You didn't answer. If I continually admit little scientific knowledge and I ask a question answer it. Or is your science religion beyond the asking of questions?

 

v4ultingbassist wrote:

David Henson wrote:

From the Creationist perspective, which is from my own Biblical studies, sadly inaccurate, the conclusion could be drawn that 999 times out of 1,000 mutations are harmful.

And from the scientific perspective, bad genes don't get passed on because they cause death in the life form or they prevent reproduction.  Those few good ones, however, get passed on and slowly build up because the organism doesn't die and can still reproduce.  That is natural selection.

Right, except that it doesn't produce anything new. It doesn't evolve into something else.

v4ultingbassist wrote:

David Henson wrote:

Here I see the flaw of the basis of evolution. It provides a brief window of speculation and study but beyond that it is a stagnant pool. Evolution could only wind itself out in a series of mishaps. Mishapen accidents leading nowhere.

Again, why should we even consider your views if even you admit you know little of evolution?  Why do you present specific arguments and examples regarding the truth value in something you don't understand?  What, exactly, is your point in doing so?  It sure isn't a very convincing way to argue.

You don't want an argument, you want absolute agreement with what little you know about your paradigm.

 


v4ultingbassist wrote:
Science is not "growing speculation."  That position clearly arises from ignorance regarding the scientific method.  Please explain to me how, exactly, the scientific method is purely 'speculative.'

Can you observe or test and repeat experiments concluding that we evolved from a lower lifeform or is it speculation based uon the gathering of evidence and interpretated. Fact isn't something that you have no choice but to assume, for now,  is fact.

v4ultingbassist wrote:
It depends.  They are really easy to spot when it is read literally.  Once you open it up to interpretation, though, you need to question of the validity of the interpretations give the context of the time.  With the understanding of evolution, the story regarding eve being made from a bone from adam violates just about everything biological.  To tell me that early writers 'got it right' when they said that god pointed and everything was created and that this is clearly the Big Bang, are just like predictions like "there will be fire and death" fit nicely into damn near every tragic event.  As for light coming before the sun, I don't see how that could be interpreted to match cosmology.  Our source of light is almost entirely from stars (including the sun).  The other sources are biological (bio-luminescence) and artificial (flashlights).  Both of those were made possible via the light from our sun.  It doesn't make any sense that light, as we know it, could predate the sun.  (Again, context is important.  Did light exist before our sun?  Yes, we know this scientifically.  But it is idiotic to say they got it right when they didn't even believe there was anything other than the earth and the sun.

What the hell are you talking about?


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:KSMB

David Henson wrote:
KSMB wrote:

David,

Your understanding of evolution is seriously flawed. I recommend education.

You could have quoted me to that effect you know, the repitition of that is becoming like a mantra. Excellent refutation as well. Have you noticed that when I disagree with anyone on the Bible I give good reason for it? Try that.

It's not a refutation, it's an observation and a recommendation. Refutations are only needed when some sort of relevant argument has been presented. Your vast ignorance of evolution prevents you from presenting such arguments. That's why I recommend education.


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:Evolution

David Henson wrote:

Evolution is a scientific fact? What exactly does scientific fact mean? Speculation? Here is what I do know about evolution. I used to love to watch National Geographic nature documentaries. I would but vidio tapes back in the day, and a scientist would look down at a fish and assume that it had evolved because it had a boney knot on it. The pepper moth is taught to have evolved. Do you really think it did?

 


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
The problem is you walked in

The problem is you walked in here and said, "I don't know anything about science or evolution, but I have lots of opinions that I admit are unfounded, and I refuse to learn on my own because I think science is boring."  Have a little respect for the opinions you hold and go do some reading on wikipedia or something instead of swallowing whatever religious drivel gets spoon fed to you.

This wouldn't be a problem, but you don't seem to have attracted the posters who have the patience to, yet again, go through a 101 course on science and evolution.  Honestly, I don't know how anyone has the patience to do the groundwork more than once or twice.

Or I could suck it up and start doing the 101 course myself.  Sad

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


kidvelvet
atheist
kidvelvet's picture
Posts: 162
Joined: 2010-01-15
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:kidvelvet

David Henson wrote:

kidvelvet wrote:

David Henson wrote:

Do you, unlike me, want to discuss evolution? Distinguish between the Bible's definition of kind and the scientific definition of species. Then we will talk about evolution.

No, I don't wish to discuss Creationalism.  Creationalism is based on a book that I do not consider relevant, anymore than you would consider the creation theory of any Islamic faith.

Creationalism? I didn't say discuss Creationism I said discuss evolution. If you say the Bible isn't relevant then you must have some reason for that, if you can't define the difference between the Bible "kind" and the science "species" then how do you know that the evidence doesn't point to the Bible as being correct and evolution as being wrong, because that happens to be the case, but you don't know that because you don't know the Bible. The fossil record shows everything appearing in a relatively sudden event and not changing. You can line up a row of skulls of apes and of men and conclude, incorrectly, that one evolved from the other and call that science but I call it stupid. Don't tell me that isn't science or evolution because I have seen it, it the text books of school as well as from science minded atheists. You have apes and you have man skulls and any leap of faith connecting the two is blind and irresponsible.

kidvelvet wrote:
Until we can even establish that god does indeed exist, the bible is not a book of authority on which we can both agree.

The Hebrew El, God, means anything or anyone who is considered by anyone to be mighty or worthy of veneration. This means that anything I see as a god, whether it exists or not, is a god. If you are on an archaeological excavation and you discover the remains of a primitive people you are not going to stop the dig because you become aware of the fact that they believed in a god. I'm not suggesting that you consider Creationism as scientific I'm suggesting that you have a more scientific approach to your criticism of the Bible and that you avoid being dogmatic about your science.

In your quote, you say "Do you, unlike me, want to discuss evolution?"  This is asking if I want to discuss evolution, while it is unlike you, which means you do not want to discuss evolution.  Your next quote talks about the Bible's definition of kind, which is one of the major arguments in Intelligent Design, which is really Creationalism.  So it followed that you wanted to discuss Creationalism and you didn't want to discuss evolution. 

Again, I need to reiterate: I am an atheist, which means I do not believe in god.  I do this from the fundamental standpoint that any claim that is posed must be considered false until there is reasonable evidence to show the claim is true.  This means that the evidence must be repeatable, verifiable, falsifiable, and peer reviewed.  Otherwise, the evidence cannot be considered sufficient.  Because there has yet to be evidence of this sort for the claim "god exists", it must follow that I must reject the claim.

Because I do not accept the claim that "god exists", we cannot use the bible as an authority for truth.  You may believe it to be true, but I do not. 

I do not need to take a scientific approach to the bible.  It claims that it is the word of god, but god has yet to be shown as true.  This is no different that someone using the book of Wazoo as an authority, but the book claims to be the word of pink invisible unicorns.  Until you can support the claim of pink invisible unicorns, the book of Wazoo cannot be considered an authority.  This isn't really science, this is simple, logical reasoning.  I do not need to use the scientific method to come to the conclusion that the bible cannot be used as a book of authority. 

And there is nothing dogmatic about it.  Science changes conclusions as the evidence supports/falsifies the conclusion.  Dogma stays constant, despite evidence to the contrary.  So it makes no sense to use the phrase "dogmatic about science". 

Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
kidvelvet wrote:And there is

kidvelvet wrote:

And there is nothing dogmatic about it.  Science changes conclusions as the evidence supports/falsifies the conclusion.  Dogma stays constant, despite evidence to the contrary.  So it makes no sense to use the phrase "dogmatic about science". 

That is a great point.  Usually when theists accuse atheists of being dogmatic about science, what they really mean is, "dogmatic about actually wanting evidence", which to a theist is often a capital offense.  It also shows a clear lack of understanding about what science is, of course.

Maybe part of it is because they often understand dogmatism, since they live it...but the concept of rational decision making is not terribly familiar.  They are proudly dogmatic about their dogmatism.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


marshalltenbears
marshalltenbears's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2009-02-19
User is offlineOffline
 Why is it so hard for

 Why is it so hard for someone like yourself to just admit you were wrong. You say you didn't want to discuss evolution, but then you give us you "facts". Really, we would have more respect for you if you simply said something like "I was wrong, I will educate myself further on the subject". But instead you keep digging yourself deeper and deeper. Just try being humble once in a while. It is easier than always trying to be right. 

"Take all the heads of the people
and hang them up before the Lord
against the sun.” -- Numbers 25:4


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote: Could

David Henson wrote:

Could you give me an example of that?

 

An example of... what, exactly?

Oh wait a minute... try this one:

 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I asked a question.

Quote:

I asked a question. You didn't answer. If I continually admit little scientific knowledge and I ask a question answer it. Or is your science religion beyond the asking of questions?

 

Yes, evolution is scientific fact.  It is not speculation, it is based on the scientific method; see below.

 

Quote:

Right, except that it doesn't produce anything new. It doesn't evolve into something else.

 

Wrong.  A mutation causes change.  Millions of mutations over millions of years causes LOTS of change.  I don't see how a mutation could occur but result in the exact same specimen (it's impossible).

 

Quote:

You don't want an argument, you want absolute agreement with what little you know about your paradigm.

 

I want to know on what basis you are criticizing my paradigm without knowing what it is.  I'm intrigued as to why you think discussing evolution will do you any good.

 

Quote:

Can you observe or test and repeat experiments concluding that we evolved from a lower lifeform or is it speculation based uon the gathering of evidence and interpretated. Fact isn't something that you have no choice but to assume, for now,  is fact.

 

Dog breeding is an example of speciation.  Microevolution is accepted by most, and examples include the growing height of human beings.  Both of these can be repeated in a lab.  So, yes, evolution can be tested, and reproduced, in a lab.  It only follows that man followed the same path, and there is evidence in the form of Lucy, Ardi, neanderthals, and apes.  All of these have a genetic make-up that is extremely close to ours.

 

Quote:

What the hell are you talking about?

 

I guess that got muddled.  1) depends on your interpretation of the creation stories, which I would question how any interpretation can be seen as correct or incorrect.  2)  In the story where eve is formed from the bone of adam, there is NO interpretation that will agree with evolution, so that is out.  3)  I was trying to explain that just because something seems right doesn't mean it is, i.e. "Let there be light" corresponding to the Big Bang.  To say that early writers knew what the BB was when writing that is outright idiotic.  Just like a prediction of "fire and death" can describe just about any castastrophe, but it doesn't mean that that prediction has any truth value to the event.  Bible stories are just that, stories.  I don't see any way that they could be mangled around to reflect evolution; it sounds more like stretching and wishful thinking.

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Do you really mean this, David?

David Henson wrote:

Or is your science religion beyond the asking of questions?

 

That science is religion? Science is stuff that can be proven by repeatable experiment. There's nothing more to it than that. Claiming science is religion is a projection that I can't help calling a cop-out on your part. I'm not convinced you were a considered atheist before your conversion. I mean this as no offence but clearly you did not understand why you did not believe in god, you simply didn't believe at the time.

Now, evolution is a tricky area but even if I was a theist I'd believe god used evolution to drive creation and that this evolution is an ongoing process. Quite simply, genomes are self organising microbial information systems, dynamic ecosystems that resemble the world of the archeobacteria from which they sprang. You believe the nature of all creatures is locked into placed but good science proves this to be utterly false and your refusal to accept it does you no credit here. When understanding the basics of the genome you need to understand that every bacteria can trade genes with every other bacteria it encounters. This is a fact. This genetic information trading system, a system which allows bacteria to alter themselves to suit new environments, is what underscores all genomic function.

It has been variously suggested that humans are a taxi to allow bacteria to move around safely, and a conference centre to allow bacteria to exchange information. We have bacteria, plasmids and viruses in our guts, blood streams, and mouths.  They cover our skin and we breath them through the air. The mitochondria that powers a living cell is made of stripped down bacteria RNA and our DNA is the DNA of bacteria. Our sperm cells have an ancient form shared by all protists covering 40 phyla including fungi, algae, plants and animals.

Just to put things into further perspective, the first nucleated cells were born when bacteria merged and this development is the largest differentiator between all living creatures. This is important. The biggest difference in all species living today is not a division of plants and animals, but a division between non-nucleated and nucleated cells.   

You may draw whatever conclusions from this you chose, David, but the profound implications of our current and future knowledge are out there waiting for you. We truly are an integral part of the earth but not in the way you suppose us to be.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3718
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:1.) What

David Henson wrote:
1.) What examples of mutations would you cite as a matter of concern for the case of evolution and what examples against? In other words where has mutations produced helpful results.

Every extended phenotype must, ultimately, derive its origin from some mutation, so we could say, technically, that everything about me that benefits me in the evolutionary sense is the result of a beneficial mutation. To any biologist or informed proponent of evolution, this is a no-brainer, but to the Creationist, I suppose it begs the question, so what you want are some specific documented examples.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

- Bacteria that eat nylon.

- Lactose tolerance.

- Resistance to AIDS.

- Resistance to heart disease.

- Mutations that strengthen bones.

Etc.

David Henson wrote:
2.) To what degree would you grant the possibility of these examples being based upon a growing speculation? In other words is this speculation fallible, and to what degree is this relevant?

I'm not sure what you mean. 

If it's carried out by humans, then, of course, it's "fallible." On the other hand, these examples certainty aren't "speculation." The mutation isn't merely inferred from the new trait; in many cases, geneticists have identified that exact location of mutation and what type of mutation it is. 

David Henson wrote:
3.) To what degree would you, with what I assume with little knowledge of your personal devotion to Biblical studies is substantial, would you have found a disagreement with the Bible and the theory of evolution? In other words, put simply, do you see a disagreement between the two and if so what is it. If not would you admit there is some disagreement which is unsubstantiated?

I don't know your particular interpretation of the Bible (the correct interpretation, of course), I will try to consider a couple of perspectives. I think Genesis states that God created all living things from day 2 to day 6. If you take this creation story literally, then I do not see how you could reconcile Genesis and evolution, as the theory of evolution states that organisms evolved over a period of hundreds of millions, even billions of years. Additionally, the Bible has the entire process in a simple-minded wrong order, e.g. God creates all the birds before creating any land animals, etc. 

If you don't take Genesis literally, then yes, I think you could reconcile Genesis and evolution. Of course, I also believe that interpreting a text can be subjective, since languages are imperfect, and whenever you are permitted to interpret a text as "metaphorical" or "symbolic," the process becomes exponentially more subjective. Eventually, it seems like Christians just consciously and unconsciously favor whatever interpretations they like and/or whatever interpretations were taught to them and/or whatever interpretation protects the Bible from falsification.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3718
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:Right,

David Henson wrote:
Right, except that it doesn't produce anything new. It doesn't evolve into something else.

I'm not sure what you mean by "produce anything new." A mutation (deletions, insertions, point mutations, etc.) produces a change in genes. Many genes correspond to phenotypes, so some mutations correspond to changes in phenotypes.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3718
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:If you

David Henson wrote:
If you say the Bible isn't relevant then you must have some reason for that, if you can't define the difference between the Bible "kind" and the science "species" then how do you know that the evidence doesn't point to the Bible as being correct and evolution as being wrong, because that happens to be the case,

Species and speciation are very precisely defined. Generally, a species is a group of organisms with an isolated gene pool; organisms within a species are capable of interbreeding while organisms in different species are not capable of breeding with each other. Speciation is the event in which one "parent" species that can interbreed branches into two "child" species that are not capable of breeding with each other. Of course, usually, it's not apparent exactly when this occurs. In fact, there most likely is no exact moment. Of course, there are special cases in which the term is less useful, such as with asexually reproducing organisms or when bacteria "share" genes. Nevertheless, the term still has a precise meaning.

The Bible "kind" is precisely defined in the sense that we know it's origin and what it's supposed to be. However, it's biologically vacuous and gives us absolutely no criterion on how to distinguish "kinds." If a "kind" is just a species and what Creationists call "macroevolution" is just speciation, then clearly, macroevolution has occurred. If "kind" is not synonymous with species, then I'm simply at a loss as to what it is.

In my experience, Creationists also often imply a rather ad hoc definition of evolution, setting up a moving goalpost. In this case, the only applicable definition of "kind" is that "kinds" cannot change into other "kinds." That way, whenever the proponent of evolution cites an example of speciation, the Creationist can simply assert that it's still the same "kind." Eventually, this gets rather absurd, as the Creationist is stuck with this argument no matter what evidence they are confronted with. I've personally seen Creationists respond with "It's still a bacteria" or "It's still a dog" (as in, member of the canidae family, when confronted with evidence that dogs were domesticated from wolves) or even "It's still a fish."

David Henson wrote:
but you don't know that because you don't know the Bible.

Obviously, you are not going to believe me, but I'm going to say it anyways. Many, if not most of the people on this, have read the Bible. Some of us have studied the Bible. Some people on this forum probably know more about the Bible than you do. 

David Henson wrote:
The fossil record shows everything appearing in a relatively sudden event and not changing.

That's just not true.

The fossil record shows a clear progression from less complex organisms to more complex organisms across time. The accuracy of various dating methods and fossils have allowed us to roughly trace out pretty specific evolutionary lines, such as the evolution of marine mammals. 

David Henson wrote:
You can line up a row of skulls of apes and of men and conclude, incorrectly, that one evolved from the other and call that science but I call it stupid. Don't tell me that isn't science or evolution because I have seen it, it the text books of school as well as from science minded atheists. You have apes and you have man skulls and any leap of faith connecting the two is blind and irresponsible.

The evolution of humans, like any other established evolutionary line, is based on morphological, genetic, geographic, etc. evidence.

If you want to make a strong argument against the evolution of humans based on the fossil record, then you need to explain how the thousands of different specimens of over a dozen species are either completely human or completely non-human. Just saying that we made a "leap of faith" to "[connect] the two" isn't very productive.  

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Heh, I knew someone with

Heh, I knew someone with patience would show up.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
It's going to take more than patience

mellestad wrote:

Heh, I knew someone with patience would show up.

 

The delusion is strong in this one...

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3718
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Heh, I knew

mellestad wrote:
Heh, I knew someone with patience would show up.

Lol, yeah, I had quite a bit of free time today. I still don't feel like it was thorough enough though. Sometimes, I regret not being a dick and just pasting huge arguments that I don't even understand from other websites (without citing the source, of course).

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
David Henson

David Henson wrote:

ex-minister wrote:

Please review the differences between a scientific hypothesis, conjecture and theory. Evolution is a fact.

Are you talking about Isaiah 40:22?

 

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

 

This is easily observable when you stand outside especially at night. Have you seen pheasant under glass? The plate (the earth) is flat but in the shape of a flat circle. The dome above is actually what is round. Being this is the only text to defend the Bible reporting a round earth and it easily fits into the context of a flat earth with a sphere above it, it would be in agreement with all the 4 corner & sun rising and setting and the earth does not move text. Additionally, it was a consistent view of the Bronze Age..

 

 

That is interesting, Ex-minister, I suppose that the primitive Bronze Aged goatherders like Isaiah did spend a great deal more time outside than the scientists of his time, but you would think they would have picked up on it at least 700 years later than he did. And tell me, when does a a scientific hypothesis, conjecture and theory become a fact? That seems to me to be the equivelant of me saying that the existance of gods are a fact, except for a god is anything mighty or venerated so anything fitting that description, whether it exists or not is a god. Which of the two of us are overstepping the boundries of reality?

Isaiah thought the world was flat, the earth did not move, the sun went around the earth. The text doesn't prove anything different. All ancient cultures were fixated on the sky. This is why the Joshua's story of stopping the sun for a day is ludicrous. Other cultures would have noticed. Also the physics involved in not stopping the sun, but actually stopping the earth's rotation would have killed all life with the sudden stop.  And as a total aside, what was the point of stopping the sun? It was for God's chosen to get some killing done. Sweet.

As before I suggest you study those words in the context of science, not in a general conversation. You didn't get the point. They are not just saying stuff.  The scientific defintion of theory is quite different than you think.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:The

David Henson wrote:

The fossil record shows everything appearing in a relatively sudden event and not changing. You can line up a row of skulls of apes and of men and conclude, incorrectly, that one evolved from the other and call that science but I call it stupid. Don't tell me that isn't science or evolution because I have seen it, it the text books of school as well as from science minded atheists. You have apes and you have man skulls and any leap of faith connecting the two is blind and irresponsible.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLLFSUaQsp4

(can a moderator make this appear on screen still havent got that one down)

How is it blind and irresponsible for one to believe apes and man have common ancestry?  An intelligent person needs only to watch this video whilst thinking to conlude these 2 animals are most likely closely related and have a common ancestry.  Not to mind our vertually identical DNA, bone structure, how we look and act, the fossils, other biological similarities etc. etc...   Are caracals and cougars related, coyotes and dingos, ofcourse they are, and so are bonobos and man.  Without all the actual evidence, I think it's pretty obvious just by sight and obsertvation alone we are closely related to apes. 


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

(can a moderator make this appear on screen still havent got that one down)

 

For future reference, youtube has code under the description of the movie that begins with < object >...  Highlight all of that and copy it.  If you click the button 'Source' in the top left of your response text field, you can then paste this code to put the movie into the post.  I'll just put yours here:

 

 Edit:  Thanks for the video it's awesome!


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Here is another interesting

Here is another interesting video on self-recognition in the great apes

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist

v4ultingbassist wrote:

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

(can a moderator make this appear on screen still havent got that one down)

 

For future reference, youtube has code under the description of the movie that begins with < object >...  Highlight all of that and copy it.  If you click the button 'Source' in the top left of your response text field, you can then paste this code to put the movie into the post.  I'll just put yours here:

 

 Edit:  Thanks for the video it's awesome!

 

Isn't it crazy, it's amazing how he seems to know when he's flahing and can eat the bad guys and when he should run.  Bonobos are almost creepy similar to us, and the only onther animals that mate in the missionary position.          


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Hot.

Hot.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Hot.Had to

mellestad wrote:

Hot.

Had to insert that random fact I heard on the nature of things.